Matt 5:42 δανεισασθαι

The insignificant spelling variation δανισασθαι occurs in a some witnesses (including ℵ B D W Δ Σ 33 892 1241 al), and the same spelling occurs in a few largely related witnesses in Luke 6:34, 35 (ℵ B W Ξ 047 157 579 892). Interestingly, the scribe of Vaticanus (B/02) originally wrote -ει- before correcting himself, perhaps indicating the presence of δανεισασθαι in his exemplar. The philologist Lachmann preferred the majority spelling both here and in Luke.

Matt 5:42 διδου

A few early witnesses (ℵ B D W f13 892 pc; Cl) have the aorist imperative δος instead of the present imperative διδου of most witnesses (including E G K L M S U V Δ Θ Π Σ f1 33 1006 1342 1506). While some, as Meyer (111), argue that most manuscripts were corrupted from the parallel of Luke 6:30, which has διδου, such a judgment unjustly discounts other internal considerations, such as: (1) the manuscripts that have δος are largely related, lessening the impact of their testimony; (2) Matthew uses διδωμι with an imperfective kind of action elsewhere (7:11; 13:8; 24:45); (3) the aorist δος may reflect assimilation to the tense of the nearby aorist imperatives στρεψον (5:39) and αφες (5:40); (4) in the NT δος (15 times) is used far more than διδου (2 times), making the latter more likely to be altered into the former than vice versa; and (5) the presence of δος in the famous nearby passage of the Lord's model prayer (6:11) may have influenced some to use it here. For these reasons it would seem imprudent to reject the reading διδου that appears in most witnesses.

Matt 5:39 την δεξιαν σιαγονα

The Greek manuscript tradition is significantly divided between two readings:

(1) την δεξιαν σιαγονα (ℵ W Σ f1 33 892 1241 pm a f [h])
(2) την δεξιαν σου σιαγονα (E G K L M S U V Δ Π Θ f13 565 579 700 1424 pm c g1)

Reading one (1) is printed in the text of Robinson-Pierpont (2005) and Wilbur Pickering; reading two (2) is printed in Hodges-Farstad (1985), the bracketed text of Robinson-Pierpont (1991), and the margin of Robinson-Pierpont (2005). A third reading (3), την δεξιαν σιαγονα σου, preferred by the editors of NA27/UBS4, is only minimally supported (B; Eus), and may reflect a scribal attempt to place the possessive pronoun in its default position. A fourth reading (4), την σιαγονα σου (without δεξιαν), no doubt reflects versional and patristic influence (D k sy-s.c). Transcriptional considerations between readings one (1) and (2) are divided. On the one hand, as Rinck (250) notes, "It appears that σου arose from the following syllable σιαγ. being read twice and therefore it should be rejected. For it is absent from eastern witnesses (and 1. 33), and in western witnesses traces survive where it was either written above the line or in the margin. For a reason later emerged that δεξιαν should be omitted in some Latin documents and that the σου should be transposed to follow σιαγονα.” Maurice Robinson (in private correspondence) also notes that σου could have arisen due to its presence in Matt 5:30, yet likeness of construction could also indicate likeness of authorship, i.e., Matthew for both (cf. η δεξια σου χειρ in 5:30 with την δεξιαν σου σιαγονα in 5:39). Arguing for reading two (2), Bengel (Apparatus, 99) states that σου "easily disappeared before σιαγονα, since it was left out by Luke [6:29]," or "because it could be left out due to the preceding σε" (so Wettstein, 1:309), or, as Griesbach (1:55–6) adds, "especially because the sense remains unharmed without it." Assuming, then, the priority of reading two (2) over readings three (3) and four (4), Griesbach continues, "But those who transposed σου to follow σιαγονα either wished to avoid cacophony or [simply] did it carelessly.” As scribes tended to omit words, especially short ones,  Robinson fairly admits the possibility of the σου dropping out by homoeoarchton error (a scribe skipping from the first letter of σου to the first letter of σιαγονα). Matthäi (76–7), perhaps rightly, argues that the omission of δεξιαν in reading four (4) is related to a perceived difficulty in the phrase and quotes Origen's observation of the improbability of the right cheek being struck first, since most people, being right-handed and thus swinging with their right hand, would not strike the right cheek first but rather the left. And so the omission of δεξιαν removed the apparent difficulty. In the end, either reading one (1), την δεξιαν σιαγονα, or reading two (2), την δεξιαν σου σιαγονα, is to be preferred.

Matt 5:39 ραπισει επι

Some witnesses (ℵ* B W Σ pc) have the more vivid present tense with a different preposition (ραπιζει εις) instead of the future ραπισει with επι as in most witnesses (including D L Θ f1.13 892 1006 1506 mae1 bo). The variations ραπισει/ραπιζει and επι/εις could have arisen through attempted repair of a common transcriptional error, namely, the scribe skipping the six letters after "ραπι" due to the identical letters that make up the end of επι. Meyer's suggestion (110) that the future ραπισει is a conformation to 5:41 is unlikely, since it is at least equally possible that a scribe merely wanted to enliven the expression, conform the tense to previous usage (5:29, 30, 32, 36), or both. Furthermore, the preposition εις would have garnered sympathy over επι due to the following accusative case, when the genitive case following ραπιζω + επι was rather to be expected as in classical usage (cf. Bloomfield, GNT, 1:37). Not unsurprisingly, a few manuscripts (ℵ* D W Θ 700 892 2542 pc) also read εις instead of επι in the parallel passage of Luke 6:29. There is altogether little reason to abandon the reading of most witnesses which likely reflects intentional authorial conformity within the paragraph, namely, οστις σε ραπισει . . . οστις σε αγγαρευσει . . . . Cf. also the notes on Matt 4:5 ιστησιν and Matt 4:9 λεγει.

Matt 5:36 μιαν τριχα λευκην η μελαιναν ποιησαι

The word order found in most manuscripts (including E K M S U V Δ Π Σ 1006 1506 sy-p.h) contributed to the many existing variations of this phrase, either through (1) scribal desire to bring the complementary infinitive closer to the verb, (2) editorial attempt to polish the expression, (3) imperfect correction of an initial homoeoteleuton error from δυνασαι to ποιησαι, which resulted in a text without μιαν τριχα λευκην η μελαιναν ποιησαι, (4) attempted repair of a conjecture, or (5) a combination of these factors. As this pericope is unique to Matthew, there was no standard to which scribes could turn for help, and consequently the following variations appear:

(1) μιαν τριχα λευκην ποιησαι η μελαιναν (ℵ B W Θ 33 892 1342 pc lat) [ℵ*: τριχαν]
(2) μιαν τριχα λευκην ποιησαι μελαιναν (L pc; Chr) [L: τριχαν]
(3) μιαν τριχα ποιησαι λευκην η μελαιναν (0250 f13 700 h)
(4) ποιησαι τριχα μιαν λευκην η μελαιναν (D f1 205 k; Cl Cyp GrN Aug) [D*: ποιειν; f1 205: μιαν τριχαν]

Fritzsche (240–41) thinks reading #2 arose from someone trying to remove a perceived absurdity, namely, that no one would ever even want to make or produce a white hair, which is a sign of age, and so the expression "you cannot make a white hair black" arose. Incidentally, Kühnöl (159) mentions an expositor (Wakefield) who actually conjectures this reading, but with a different word order (μιαν τριχα λευκην μελαιναν ποιησαι). Still the reading (or conjecture) is old as confirmed by Codex L/019 and Chrysostom, but, not surprisingly, it also created another difficulty, namely, that people can make a white hair black through dye. Thus Bloomfield (GNT, 1:36) considers reading #1 "a vain alteration proceeding from the polishing school of Critics . . . for the sake of removing a difficulty," and indeed the reading is a more classical construction, making it, all things being equal, less likely to be original.

Matt 5:32 μοιχασθαι

Due to the widespread understanding that the verb μοιχαομαι was to be used for a man and μοιχευομαι (passive voice) for a woman, it is not surprising that some scribes, influenced by patristic comments or a desire for Atticistic purity, altered μοιχασθαι into μοιχευθηναι (as reflected in ℵ B D W Θ f1.13 22. 33. 157. 660. 892; Cl Or Chr Theoph). The original μοιχασθαι is nevertheless preserved in most manuscripts (including E K L M S U V Δ Π Σ Ω [Byz ca. 1450 mss] 565. 579. 700. 1006. 1241. 1342. 1424. 1506; Bas). Wettstein (1:303) explains the alteration first by pointing to Theodoret and other passages where the passive verb is used for an adulteress and then by citing Thomas Magister, who cites the critical canon that "the man μοιχαται, but the woman μοιχευεται" (μοιχαται ο ανηρ, μοιχευεται δε η γυνη). "But," reasons Tischendorf (8th ed., 1:21), "this is not such a distinction that we think the evangelist neglected more than copyists, to whom μοιχασθαι, which without doubt was used in the same sense, could have seemed more suitable to be put down in conformation with μοιχαται (both here and in 19:9)." Yet, as Bloomfield (GNT, 1:36–7) states, if Mark could have neglected the distinction (cf. Mark 10:12), why not Matthew? Griesbach (1:54) provides a good summary: "μοιχασθαι is to be preferred over μοιχευθηναι. The latter was substituted in place of the former to satisfy the precepts of the grammarians, who wish to use μοιχευειν and μοιχασθαι with regard to husbands, but μοιχευεσθαι with regard to wives, and to clarify that the verb in this place should be taken in the passive sense. Hence also in 19:9 some [i.e. B C* N f1 ff1 bo] wrote ποιει αυτην μοιχευθηναι instead of μοιχαται, and already Clement of Alexandria in that very place by reason of explanation added the following to the words μοιχαται αυτην: τουτ εστιν, αναγκαζει μοιχευθηναι ["that is, he causes her to commit adultery"]. Therefore it is not at all remarkable that Origen also exhibits μοιχευθηναι in our passage.” Similarly, Meyer (303) calls μοιχευθηναι a "gloss (to be seduced to adultery) to distinguish it from μοιχαται, which follows." Hence the consensus reading should be retained.

Matt 5:32 ος αν απολυση

Influenced by the beginning of the identical formulation of words in 5:22, 28 (i.e., εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο . . .), the expression ος αν απολυση not surprisingly was altered into the more emphatic πας ο απολυων as reflected in many manuscripts (ℵ B K L M W Θ Δ Π Σ f1.13 33 157 565 700 892 1241 al c f ff1 g2 l m vg sy-p; Or-pt). The original ος αν απολυση is found in most Greek witnesses (including D E G S U V [0250] 346 579 1006 [0250: οστις αν απολυση]), the oldest and more significant Old Latins (a/3, 4th cent.; b/4, 5th cent.; h/12, 5th cent.; k/1, 400), the Old Syriac (sy-s, 400; sy-c, 5th cent.), the Bohairic, and is corroborated by a citation of Origen in the third century. The harmonization of most witnesses here to Matt 19:9, as Michael Holmes suggests ("The Text of the Matthean Divorce Passages: A Comment on the Appeal to Harmonization in Textual Decisions," Journal of Biblical Literature 109:4 [1990]: 651–64 [specifically, 659]), seems less likely than the reasons adduced below on the ground of its further distance from the present passage and that the many other discrepancies between the two passages appear completely untouched (i.e., accidental harmonization of just these words to a more remote passage than those adduced below seems less likely, while intentional harmonization of just these words is hard to imagine).
     On the origin of the minority reading, Wettstein (1:303), Kühnöl (153), and Bloomfield (GNT, 1:36) call it a harmonization from Luke 16:18, while Griesbach (1:53–4), Fritzsche (236), and Meyer (110) mention (in addition) assimilation to 5:22, 28 as the cause. No doubt the latter of these explanations is most likely. Griesbach rightly notes that the majority reading is "not free from the appearance" that it "was repeated from the preceding sentence," but it nevertheless should be preferred, since it seems that "Matthew deliberately used the same words that he had used in the preceding verse. Πας ο απολυων, which could have been more pleasing to some as it is more emphatic, was imported to this place from 5:22 and 5:28 or from Luke 16:18.” Fritzsche simply says that πας ο απολυων "smells like a gloss, for which verses 22 and 28 gave opportunity." Therefore, although the result of internal considerations is somewhat conflicting, it seems best in this case to follow those many manuscripts that have preserved the better text on a more habitual basis, and thus ος αν απολυση is preferable.