Matt 6:32 επιζητει

Largely the same few witnesses that alter the verbal number from singular to plural in 6:28 also do so here, from επιζητει (E G K L M N S U V W Δ Π Σ Φ 0211 0233 [Byz ca. 1500 mss] 565. 892. 1424; Chr), which Vogels adopts, to επιζητουσιν (ℵ B Θ f1.13 33 pc), likely indicating the same origin for both alterations, which seem to have been made in conformation with 6:26 or any of the early versions, which as a rule require subject-verb agreement in regard to number (unlike Greek in the case of neuter plural subjects). Cf. the fuller explanation on Matt 6:28 αυξανει ... κοπια ... νηθει. Cf. also the parallel in Luke 12:30, where basically the same class of witnesses again produces επιζητουσιν (P75 ℵ B L X 070 f13 33 pc) in place of επιζητει (P45 A [D: ζητει] E H K M N Q S U W Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ Ω [Byz ca. 1600 mss] f1 565. 892. 1424).

Matt 6:28 αυξανει ... κοπια ... νηθει

Although the three verbs in most witnesses (E G K L M N S U V W Γ Δ Π Σ Φ Ω 0211 0233 0281 [Byz ca. 1500 mss] f13 565. 892. 1424; Bas), followed by Vogels, are in the singular number and in harmony with the parallel in Luke 12:27 and in general Koine style, a few witnesses (ℵ1 B f1 33; Ath) alter the grammatical number of the verbs from singular to plural (i.e., αυξανουσιν ... κοπιωσιν ... νηθουσιν) either by assimilation to 6:26 (where also a neuter plural subject is used) or by conformation to the influential Latin version, where plural subjects always take plural verbs.
     In Matt 6:26, 28, and 32 the subjects are neuter plural, which usually but not always take third person singular verbs. In most witnesses we find:

1. 6:26 τα πετεινα ... σπειρουσιν ... θεριζουσιν ... συναγουσιν
2. 6:28 τα κρινα ... αυξανει ... κοπια ... νηθει
3. 6:32 τα εθνη ... επιζητει

However, in basically the same few related witnesses it seems that the grammatical number of the verbs in the second and third examples are assimilated toward those in the first:

1. 6:26 τα πετεινα ... σπειρουσιν ... θεριζουσιν ... συναγουσιν
2. 6:28 τα κρινα ... αυξανουσιν ... κοπιωσιν ... νηθουσιν (ℵ1 B [Θ] f1 33; Ath)
3. 6:32 τα εθνη ... επιζητουσιν (ℵ B Θ f1.13 33)

     While conformation to 6:26 is the likeliest explanation behind the readings in the minority of witnesses, cross-contamination from the early and influential Latin version (especially a bilingual Greek-Latin manuscript from the 2d century) might also explain the alterations. Such is almost certainly the cause of alteration in the following places involving Codex Bezae (D/05) in Matthew:

• 10:29 - πωλειται VS. πωλουνται (D)
• 13:4 - ηλθεν VS. ηλθον (D L Z al)
• 13:8 - εδιδου VS. εδιδουν (D)
• 13:40 - συλλεγεται  ... (κατα)καιεται VS. συνλεγονται ... κατακαιονται (D)
• 15:27 - εσθιει VS. εσθιουσιν (D)

There are also a few places in Matthew where it seems certain that some witnesses alter the singular verb (with a neuter plural subject) to the plural, including:

• 10:2 - εστιν VS. εισιν (L al)
• 13:7 - επεσεν VS. επεσαν (33)
• 13:8 - επεσεν VS. επεσαν (33; 247: επεσον)
• 15:18 - εξερχεται VS. εξερχονται (F M al)

Further, below are some of the disputed places in Matthew where most witnesses have the singular verb (with a neuter plural subject) but a minority have the plural:

• 13:16 - ακουει (E F G K L S U V W Y Γ Δ Π Φ Ω [Byz] 565)
  
       VS. ακουουσιν (ℵ B C D M N O X Θ Σ f1.[13] 33 1424 al)


• 19:13 - προσηνεχθη (E F G H Ivid K M S U V W Y Γ Δ Θ Π Φ Ω 078vid f1.13 [Byz] 565) 
       VS. προσηνεχθησαν (ℵ B C D L Nvid Σ 33. 1424 al)


• 25:32 - συναχθησεται (A E F H M S V W Y Γ Δ Φ Ω f1 [Byz] 892. 1424)
       VS. συναχθησονται (ℵ B D G K L U Θ Π Σ f13 al)


• 26:31 - διασκορπισθησεται (p37vid D E F G H2 K S U V W Y Γ Δ Π Φ Ω f1 [Byz] 565. 1424)
       VS. διασκορπισθησονται (p53vid ℵ A B C G H* I L M Σ f13 33 al)


• 27:52 - ηγερθη (A C E F H K M S U W Y Γ Δ Π Σ Φ Ω [Byz] 565. 1424)
       VS. ηγερθησαν (ℵ B D G L Θ f1.13 33 al)

     The same phenomenon of scribal conformation to a nearby usage may be observed in Matt 27:52, where some witnesses conform the number of the first verb with a neuter plural subject to that of the second and where some conform that of the second to that of the first, but where, again, the majority of all witnesses is seen to allow the two non-conformed verbal forms to remain side by side:

• 27:52 ανεωχθησαν ... ηγερθη ([C3] E F H K M S U Γ Δ Σ Φ Ω [Byz] 565. 1424)
• 27:52 ανεωχθησαν ... ηγερθησαν (ℵ[2] B D G [L] Θ f[1].13 [33] pc)
• 27:52 ανεωχθη ... ηγερθη (A C* W Y Π pc)

The situation in Matt 27:52 seems to confirm the observation regarding the majority of manuscripts in 6:26, 28, and 32 above, namely, that they have refrained from conforming the verbal number used by the author. In addition, cross-contamination from the plural forms used in an early Greek-Latin bilingual archetype may also be involved in the alterations seen in Matt 10:29; 13:4, 8, 16, 40; 15:27; 19:13; 25:32; 27:52. For these reasons the less-conformed type of text attested in most documents in Matt 6:28 and 32 should not be rejected.

Matt 6:25 και τι πιητε

While some witnesses followed by Tischendorf (ℵ f1 892 pc a b ff-1 k l vg sy-c sa-mss) omit και τι πιητε either due to homoeoteleuton (ητε...ητε) or harmonization to Luke 12:22, others (B W Φ f13 33 al it sa-mss mae bo) have η τι πιητε either for stylistic reasons or from assimilation to 6:31. Most witnesses, however, retain the somewhat less proper and non-harmonized (and thus more likely authentic) και τι πιητε (E G K L M N S U V Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Ω 0233 [Byz ca. 1450 mss] 565. 1424 sy-p.h go), which von Soden and Vogels adopt. As Origen's wording in Contra Celsum 7.24 is too close to Luke's, the earliest attestation of the minority reading with η may be found in Acta Thomae 36 (Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, [2 vols. in 4 parts; Lipsiae: Hermannum Mendelssohn, 1891–1903] 2.2:153).
     Erasmus (2:35) in arguing against the words ironically offers a motive for why some could have omitted them: "Although 'what you should drink' is found added in some manuscripts, it is superfluous since 'drink' is contained in the word 'food,' and a drink of water may not be accessible to everyone. It is certainly not present in Chrysostom, neither in Hilary. Jerome indicates that it had been added in some manuscripts but neglects to elaborate. We have allowed it to be added lest the Latin not correspond with the Greek. At any rate, it is not written in the most ancient exemplars, although in a few of inferior [quality] mention of drink may indeed be found."
     Wettstein (1:333), who virtually echoes Whitby (144), remarks, "But since Erasmus, Mill, and Bengel have retained the reading in verse 31, there seems to be no reason why they should have disturbed the present one, even less so since the words are read in Exod 15:24."
     Matthäi (94) draws attention to two places of harmonization of this passage in Chrysostom and Photius, and warns, "Frequently did variant readings arise from parallelisms of this kind, as I have just shown. For it altogether appears that the greatest portion of their observations were patched together from some Harmony in their own time, but one not very accurate."
     Griesbach's note (Commentarius, 1:74–75) deserves attention: "We think the question whether the words και τι πιητε, which are read in the common text, are genuine or have been imported here from another place is so uncertain that a rationale should be offered to the reader. Those words easily disappeared either by homoeoteleuton or on account of the similar passage in Luke 12:22 from which they are missing. Moreover, although only two manuscripts, 1 and 22, survive for us that omit them; those manuscripts nevertheless are exceptional (cf. what is said at 5:44): for that the words formerly went missing from many Greek manuscripts we gather from the versions and fathers which cite the text without και τι πιητε. And also surely the words were able to creep back in easily from verse 31 or from Luke 12:29; this circumstance, because of the true appearance that some old manuscripts exhibent η τι πιητε instead of και τι πιητε in the present passage, likewise makes it appear that it was taken from those very passages from which some harbor suspicion that the present passage was interpolated. Certainly Chrysostom's commentary does not supply the occasion for the omission of the words, for they are already missing from the beautifully woven citations of Basil and Hilary."
     Bloomfield (GNT, 48–9) comments, "There is no tolerable authority for the latter [i.e., omission of και τι πιητε], and still less for the former change [i.e., alteration of και into η], espec[ially] as internal evidence is against it, and it was evidently an alteration of some critic who thought the disjunctive particle [was required rather] than the conjunctive. . . . However, this use of και where one would rather expect, and strict propriety would require, η, is occasionally found in even the purest Greek Class[ical] writers, espec[ially] Thucyd[ides] . . . . I need scarcely say that this idiom being somewhat rare, internal evidence is always in favour of the και and opposed to the η, espec[ially] in writers like those of the N. Test. and of such Class. writers, even Thucyd. and Aristotle, as did not aim at the greatest exactness in the minutiae of critical accuracy in the use of particles." Bloomfield also suggests some passages where "the same class of MSS. [that alter και into η here] elsewhere introduce και instead of η," such as, e.g., Mark 3:33; 14:17; Acts 10:14; Eph 5:4, which, if "internal evidence is always in favour of the και," would require some other explanation from Bloomfield.
     Soden (1:1009), under his subtitle "Instances where it cannot safely be decided whether the Egyptian archetype or whether only the Jerusalem archetype provided the reading occuring in several Egyptian mss" notes that the η reading and the omission of και τι πιητε "may well be the effect of the Jerusalem text," that is, he thinks that the Egyptian archetype had και τι πιητε but some of its descendents later contracted the variations from cross-contamination with the Jerusalem text.
     Finally, as mentioned above, the omission of και τι πιητε could have occurred due to homoeoteleuton error (ητε...ητε) or harmonization to Luke 12:22, and a repair based on 6:31 could have caused the introduction of η. In addition, other witnesses without the omission could have introduced η purely for stylistic reasons or by assimilation either to 6:31 or the reading of many manuscripts in Luke 12:29.

Matt 6:22 ο οφθαλμος σου απλους η

Some witnesses (ℵ B W Φ pc lat; Bas) transpose the verb η to the first position in the clause, while most witnesses have it, as in the following apodosis and both clauses of 6:23, in the final position (including E G K L M S U V Γ Δ Θ Σ Π Ω [Byz ca. 1500 mss] f1.13 33. 565. 892. 1424 it; GregThaum? [Fragmentum in evangelium Matthaei 6.22–23 {PG 10:1189}] Chr Aug). Some lectionaries (l 844. l 2211) naturally omit the verb altogether as it is unnecessary.
     While it is more likely, all things being equal, that an editor would have wished to place the verb last in order to harmonize it with the same position of the verbs in the following clauses (the preposing of the same verb in 6:23 in ℵ* W is a case in point!), it is at least possible that the harmonization is by Matthew's own design (cf., e.g., 5:46–47; 10:13; 16:19; 18:18; 20:26–27; 23:18). In this case, however, two transcriptional considerations may account for the divergence of those few witnesses that place the verb first.

1. The accidental dittography of the final letter of ΟΥΝ (i.e. ΟΥΝΝ) could have caused the introduction of the verb (Η) in that position, as the confusion of the letters Η and Ν was one of the most common in the uncial period, especially in old, damaged, or hard-to-read exemplars.
2. Similarly, the confusion of the final letter of the particle ΟΥΝ for the verb Η would have resulted in the ungrammatical and nonsensical εαν ου η, which also might account for the omission of ουν in ℵ (the others in that textual tradition repairing the "ου" by adding a ν where it apparently had been lost), although the omission of the 3-letter ουν in ℵ also may be accounted for by its similarity with the preceding 3-letter word (εαν) or by harmonization toward an early version (cf. lat sy-c mae bo-ms).

     As internal evidence is rather inconclusive, one may preliminarily accept the order of words found in the vast consensus of manuscripts on the ground of their predominant accuracy in such trivial matters throughout the long sequence of variations investigated up to this point.

Matt 6:21 υμων . . . υμων

A few related witnesses and others (ℵ B 1. 372. 1582 lat co; Bas) twice have the singular personal pronoun σου instead of the plural υμων, as in the general consensus (including E G K L M S U V W Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ω 0233 [Byz 1500+ mss] f1.13 33. 565. 1424 f sy bo-pt goth). Griesbach (Commentarius, 74) advocates the minority reading since "υμων could have crept in from the parallel passage of Luke 12:34 and also could have been pleasing to scribes because Jesus in vv. 19 and 20, to which this verse is attached, had addressed the listeners in the plural number. However, in Matthew the singular often displaces the plural, and vice versa."
     But Bengel (Apparatus, 110) judges that the singular entered from the following verse, and further explains (Gnomon, 195–6): "The objects which are mentioned in ver. 22, 23 (consequentia) are in the singular, those which are mentioned in ver. 19, 20 (antecedentia), with which this verse is connected, are in the plural number. The plural therefore must stand in this verse. The singular, 'thesaurus tuus,' 'thy treasure,' easily crept into the Latin Vulgate, and was convenient to the Greeks for ascetic discourses." Wettstein (1:330) rejects the minority reading because in his judgment the witnesses for it are "not very reliable." Bloomfield (GNT, 48) says that σου "was doubtless an alteration to adapt the word better to the singular σου at the next verse; the purblind Critics failing to see that the plural υμων is as suitable to a general injunction as the singular σου is to a particular illustration, which is made such for effect's sake. Thus at v. 24 the plural form is resumed, when the language of injunction is resumed."
     The saying assumes a wide variety of forms in the church fathers:

θησαυρος . . . νους του ανθρωπου (Justin)

νους τινος . . . θησαυρος αυτου (Clement of Alexandria)

νους του ανθρωπου . . . θησαυρος αυτου (Clement of Alexandria)

θησαυρος . . . καρδια (Origen [2x]; Gregory of Nyssa; Catena in Acts; Pseudo-Macarius [2x])

θησαυρος εκαστου . . . καρδια (Origen)

θησαυρος του ανθρωπου . . . καρδια αυτου (John Chrysostom [7x]; Catena in Matthew)

θησαυρος σου . . . καρδια σου (Eusebius; Ephrem; Basil of Caesarea; Evagrius Ponticus; Catena in Luke; Pseudo-Macarius [2x])

θησαυρος σου . . . καρδια (Basil of Caesarea [2x])

θησαυρος . . . καρδια σου (Didymus; John Chrysostom; Pseudo-Macarius)

θησαυρος υμων . . . καρδια υμων (Ephrem, John of Damascus)

θησαυρος . . . καρδια υμων (Photius)

Hans Dieter Betz (The Sermon on the Mount [ed. Adela Y. Collins; Hermeneia 54; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995], 437) notes the possibility that an older proverb has been purposefully deplatonized in Matt 6:21, which Justin and Clement have replatonized. Text-critically, an original plural υμων with the singular θησαυρος and καρδια could have provoked natural alterations, such as (1) a change to the third person singular (Justin, Clement, Origen, John Chrysostom), (2) the elimination of the plural pronoun (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa), (3) a change to conform the number of the pronoun to the number of the noun (Eusebius, Ephrem, Basil of Caesarea, Evagrius Ponticus). If Betz' hunch is correct and the saying in the tradition upon which Matt 6:21 hangs had singular genitival nouns/pronouns, this also might explain the wide diversity away from the plural. Additionally, one might argue a common Caesarean origin behind those few witnesses that read soυ (ℵ B 1. 372. 1582) and certain fathers who do so (Eusebius, Basil, Evagrius), although alteration to the second person pronoun for homiletical reasons could also have been in effect.

Matt 6:18 κρυπτω . . . κρυπτω

Very few witnesses (ℵ B [D] f1 pc) twice have κρυφαιω instead of κρυπτω, as in most (including E G K L M S U V W Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ω 0233 0250 [Byz 1500+ mss] f13 33. 565. 892. 1424). Griesbach's explanation (Commentarius, 1:73–4) is classic: "Κρυφαιω should not at all be spurned. For this form of the word is not used in the New Testament, but it occurs several times among the Greek translators of the Old Testament. The Westerns, less meticulous in these things, preserved the rarer form; the Alexandrians along with the Byzantines substituted the more familiar [form], which in this very chapter had preceeded four times in vss. 4 and 6 and, having implanted itself in the memory of scribes, began to adhere to this place." Von Soden (1:1014) similarly explains, "As the difference from 6:4, 6 was hard to understand for a scribe, who was much more inclined toward assimilation, so the agreement of ℵ-B with documents completely unrelated to this archetype necessitates the admission of κρυφαιω into a respected class, thus in H [=Egyptian] or I [Jerusalem]."
     The reason for hesitation in accepting the rarer κρυφαιω is primarily methodological but also based on the corresponding internal consideration that the κρυπτ- form is demonstrably Matthean (5:14; 6:4 [twice], 6 [twice]; 10:26; 11:25; 13:33, 35, 44 [twice]; 25:18, 25; Mark's sole instance is in 4:22), whereas the κρυφ- form is otherwise unattested in Matthew (but does occur in Mark, also in 4:22). To quote Hort (2:34–5 [§43]):

[T]he difference between isolated judgements and combined judgements is vital. In the one case any misapprehension of the immediate evidence . . . tells in full force upon the solitary process by which one reading is selected from the rest for adoption, and there is no room for rectification. In the other case the selection is suggested by the result of a large generalisation about the documents . . . [and] rests on too broad a foundation of provisional judgements, at once confirming and correcting each other, to be materially weakened by the chance or probability that some few of them are individually unsound."

     Robinson and Pierpont state the same principle in the preface to their edition (viii): "Byzantine-priority theory does not operate on an eclectic variant-by-variant basis. Rather, it continually investigates the position of all variant units within the history of transmission" (emphasis mine). It is this principle that prevents scholars, e.g., from receiving the rarer φαγεσθε in 1 Cor 10:27, even though it is the earliest attested reading (cf. p46) and appears in distinction to the otherwised harmonized εσθιετε, which appears in 10:25 and 28.
     Consequently, the reason for κρυφαιω's rise in a few witnesses of Matthew, just as for p46's φαγεσθε in 1 Cor 10:27, is necessarily speculative. Matthäi (91) remarks, "Perhaps κρυφαιω was obtained from Origen, whose commentary unfortunately is not extant at this place." Fritzsche (274), on the other hand, greatly wonders whether κρυπτω might not have been "rashly refined into κρυφαιω by those who had referred to God as 'the hidden God' [occulto Deo] from a wrong interpretation of κρυπτω." And in fact Eusebius (Demonstratio evangelica 5.4.4–15 [GCS 9/3:224–6]) abandons the LXX rendering of מסתתר in Is 45:15 as και ουκ ηδειμεν ("and we did not know [him]") in favor of the translations of Aquila (αποκρυπτομενος), Theodotion (κρυφαιος), and Symmachus (κρυφαιος), saying that "very wonderfully does [Isaiah] call Christ the 'Hidden God,'" and using this text to argue for the eternal existence and godhead of Jesus. But neither do Eusebius' interpretation nor Western theology's important Deus Absconditus concept (which is more about absence than blessing) fit very well internally at this place in Matthew.
     On the other hand, the introduction of the synonym κρυφαιω may have been simply an early editorial preference to escape the repition of κρυπτω (4 times in the previous few verses), or for some other unknown reason. In this regard it is not insignificant that the Alexandrian Cyril (Commentarii in Lucam 22.40 [PG 72:921A]), when citing the model prayer in Matthew 6:6, says "προσευξαι τω Πατρι σου τω εν τω κρυφαιω· και ο Πατηρ σου ο βλεπων εν τω κρυφαιω αποδωσει σοι εν τω φανερω," even though no known manuscripts have κρυφαιω in Matt 6:6 (all have κρυπτω there).
     Finally, we cannot agree that the mere alignment of D and f1 with the archetype of ℵ-B constitutes an outstanding class of evidence. A casual glance at the many coincidences of those witnesses in the first six chapters of Matthew proves that they are not so "completely unrelated" as von Soden claims. Further, it is the combined judgment of the continual sequence of the readings of manuscripts in the manuscript tradition, and not individual and arbitrary judgments without regard to such, that causes the consensus text's κρυπτω to be preferred; that term is also demonstrably more Matthean, while the other is not.

Matt 6:16 οτι

As in Matt 6:5, after αμην λεγω υμιν the word οτι is omitted in some witnesses (ℵ B D 0233 0250 f1.13 565 700 al it) but retained in most (including E G K L M S U V W Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ω [Byz] 33 c g1 lat). See note on Matt 6:5 οτι, where also cases of both omission and addition of that word in a minority of witnesses throughout Matthew are noted. Reasons in favor of οτι here include: (1) the paucity and similarity of the witnesses that also omit the word in Matt 6:5; (2) the greater likelihood that an editor would harmonize all three occurrences of the saying that first appears in Matt 6:2 (αμην λεγω υμιν απεχουσιν τον μισθον αυτων) than disharmonize the second and third occurrences of the saying in Matt 6:5, 16 in most witnesses: αμην λεγω υμιν οτι απεχουσιν τον μισθον αυτων (cf. notes on Matt 6:4 αυτος, Matt 6:4 εν τω φανερω, Matt 6:5 αν); (3) the superfluousness of the word (it can be left out without harming the sense), coupled with the observation that scribes habitually omitted words, especially shorter ones, far more often than they added them (cf. note on Matt 1:22 tου and the literature cited there). Thus the reading contained in the consensus of most witnesses is to be preferred. On the omission of οτι in largely related witnesses and for similar reasons, see Matt 5:31 οτι.