Monday, June 29, 2015

Matt 8:1 καταβαντι δε αυτω

Some witnesses (ℵ2 B C Nvid W [Z] Θ f1.[13] 33. 892) and editors (Bover, Greeven, [Lachmann], Merk, Soden, Vogels) prefer the more standard genitive absolute construction καταβάντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, but most Greek manuscripts and Tischendorf (7th, 8th) retain the less common and perhaps to some less polished καταβάντι δὲ αὐτῷ in the dative case (ℵ* E K L M S U [V] X Γ [Δ] Π Σ Ω 047 0211 Byz f35 461. 565. 1424. 1500. 2224).
     Wettstein (1:346) thinks the change to the genitive occurred "so that αὐτῷ might not appear twice in the same phrase," a sentiment Griesbach (1:83–4) affirms, adding that V/031 omitted the first αὐτῷ for the same reason, and concludes, "That the text was intentionally altered is clear from this, that in verse 5, for the same recurring reason, the same variety of reading is also discovered in nearly the same manuscripts." Kühnöl (226) calls the pronoun αὐτῷ after the verb ἠκολούθησαν redundant but in accordance with the style of the Hebrews and not unknown to pure Greek writers, and agrees that the genitive alteration arose "in order to avoid repetition of the pronoun αὐτῷ."
     Fritzsche (304–5) calls the genitive "a wrong correction by one who faltered at the double occurrence of the dative, and about this there can be very little doubt for this very reason, that also elsewhere (see comments below on Matt 8:5, 28, Mark 5:2, and above on Matt 4:16) such places were wrongly handled in order to remove this stumbling block." For evidence of the same corrective phenomenon, Bloomfield (Annotations, 7) adds Matt 9:27, "where some copies substitute the genitive; others, as B D, remove the second αὐτῷ." Meyer (174) rejects καταβάντος δὲ αὐτοῦ as "a mere correction, like the similarly attested εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ" in 8:5.
     The scribal agitation at the grammatical construction generally seems to have been remedied by (1) altering the dative construction to a genitive absolute, (2) omitting the following "superfluous" dative pronoun, or (3) altering the dative construction to a finite verbal form.

(1) Altering the dative construction to a genitive absolute:
Matt 8:5 εἰσελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ
     VS. εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ... προσηλθεν αὐτῷ (ℵ B C* Z f1.13 33)
Matt 8:28 ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ ... ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ ([ℵ] B C Θ f1.13 33vid)
Matt 9:28 ἐλθόντι δὲ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐλθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ (700)
Matt 21:23 ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ (ℵ B C D L Θ f1.13 33)
Mark 5:2 ἐξελθόντι αὐτῷ ... ἀπήντησεν αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ... ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ (ℵ B C L Δ Θ f1.13 565)
(2) Omitting or altering the following "superfluous" dative pronoun
Matt 8:23 ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ ... ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ ... ἠκολούθησαν (ΟΜ. αὐτῷ) (565)
Matt 9:27 παράγοντι ... τῷ Ἰησοῦ ... ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ
     VS. παράγοντι ... τῷ Ἰησοῦ ... ἠκολούθησαν (ΟΜ. αὐτῷ) (B D 892)
Luke 8:27 ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησεν (ΟΜ. αὐτῷ) (p75 ℵ B E W Ψ Ξ f1 33)
(3) Altering the dative construction to a finite verbal form
Matt 9:28 ἐλθόντι δὲ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ
     VS. καὶ ἔρχεται ... καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ (D)
Luke 8:27 ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ
     VS. καὶ ἐξῆλθον ... καὶ ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ  (D)
     That all of the questionable cases either occur in Matthew or conceivably derive from Matthean material (Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 parallel Matt 8:28) suggests a Matthean stylistic option that scribes frowned upon and variously sought to change to a more standard construction. Otherwise, a great number of scribes not only altered the more common form to a less common one, but also were remarkably selective in doing so. Hence no internal rule of textual criticism can admit the priority of the genitive construction to the dative one, and furthermore the internal rule only suggests the external excellence of those manuscripts that retain the less common (i.e. harder) readings both in Matt 8:1 and in the other examples cited above.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Matt 7:29 γραμματεις

While most witnesses end chapter 7 with just γραμματεῖς (E L M S U V X Γ Π2 Ω 047 Byz f35 565. 1424. 2224 goth), some along with the Latin and Syriac traditions have γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (C2 W 0211 33 lat sy), which Lachmann prefers and which may have been pruned either to γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (C*) or γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν (ℵ B C3 K Δ Θ Π* Σ f1.13 892. 1500 co), the latter adopted by Bover, Greeven, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels.
     Some claim that the shorter reading preserved in most manuscripts reflects accidental or intentional deletion by harmonization to Mark 1:22 (e.g. Alford, 1:76; Rinck, 252). On the other hand, Matthew himself could have been faithfully depending on Mark here (or Mark on Matthew or on a source common to both). Indeed, the following 16 words from Matt 7:28–29 are identical with Mark 1:22: . . . ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς.
     Mill (Prolegomena, §736) suggests that the addition of the Pharisees in some manuscripts in Matt 7:29 originated from 5:20, since the Lord had specifically referred to them there alongside the scribes. Regarding the additions of αὐτῶν, of καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, and of both together, Griesbach (1:83) remarks: "All these have sprung from similar passages. Additions of the same kind are also found in Mark 1:22." In addition to Matt 5:20, other similar passages in Matthew that mention the Pharisees together with the scribes include 12:38; 15:1; 23:2, 13, [14], 15, 23, 25, 27, 29. 
     Bengel (Apparatus, 111) suggests that the addition of αὐτῶν owes to harmonization to Luke 5:30, while Bloomfield (Annotations, 7) judges that "internal evidence is rather against than for the word, which, from the state of the internal evidence, was more likely to be brought in, from Lk. v. 30, than to have been put out because not in Mk. i. 22." To what extent or even whether Luke 5:30 is involved in the origin of αὐτῶν cannot be demonstrated; it is not even parallel to Matt 7:29. Perhaps for this reason Kühnöl (226) merely remarks, "Moreover, the words αὐτῶν and καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, which having been added are read in some manuscripts, are glosses."
     Moreover, scribal activity surrounding the αὐτῷ that appears on the next line of text (i.e. Matt 8:1) in most manuscripts could have contributed to the addition of αὐτῶν at the end of 7:29 in some witnesses. For at least one manuscript (Δ) that omits αὐτῷ in 8:1 adds αὐτῶν in 7:29, while others (e.g. ℵ*) that originally had αὐτῷ in 8:1 have it altered to αὐτοῦ later on, but leave the αὐτῷ intact nearby. In this context of correction, an αὐτῷ in the margin of 8:1 or above the line could easily have been assimilated into the text of 7:29 above, especially as the final -ν is often written as a slender and sometimes imperceptible line above the word, and also as αὐτῷ is sometimes wrongly written as αὐτῶν (cf. codex N/022 in 8:15).
     Finally, the dominance of the longer reading γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι in the Latin and Syriac traditions in conjunction with such slim attestation in the Greek tradition suggests that an early and outside influence may have been at work, namely, Tatian's Diatessaron.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Matt 7:28 συνετελεσεν

The simple ἐτέλεσεν (ℵ B C W Zvid Γ Σ f1.13 33. 565. 892. 1424. 1500) is received by Bover, Lachmann, Merk, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels, but most Greek witnesses have the compound συνετέλεσεν (E K L M S U V X Δ Θ Π Ω 047 0211 f35 Byz 2224), which Greeven and Soden prefer, probably rightly, for two reasons:
     1. Assimilation. While it is true that συντελέω occurs nowhere else in Matthew, Griesbach (1:83) submits to a basic canon of textual criticism: "In some manuscripts and Fathers ἐτέλεσεν crept into the place of συνετέλεσεν from similar passages. For wherever else this phrase occurs, ἐτέλεσεν is had consistently. Cf. Matt 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1. We do therefore retain the terminology less used."
     2. Transcriptional error. Another but less likely explanation is found in Meyer (161): "But how easily might the syllable συν drop out between ΟΤΕ ΕΤΕ!"
     Origen's quotation of Matt 7:28 as ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους in his comment on Matt 19:1 (Comm. Matt. 14.14) demonstrates how naturally the other instances of the phrase were known and compared, increasing the scribal temptation to assimilate the one deviating term (i.e. συνετέλεσεν) to the one used everywhere else (i.e. ἐτέλεσεν).
     Finally, if συνετέλεσεν is original, it may reflect another of Matthew's intentional references to the wording of Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut 31:1, 24; 32:45), similar to Jesus' going up the mountain (Matt 5:1; cf. Exod 19:3; 34:4) and coming down the mountain (Matt 8:1; cf. Exod 19:14; 34:29).

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Matt 7:26 την οικιαν αυτου

Influenced by the word order of the preceding μου τοὺς λόγους in 7:24, 26, the common ancestor of certain manuscripts (ℵ B W Z Θ Σ f1 892 pc) both here and in 7:24 reflects αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν, but most scribes resisted the transposition and retain the more common order of τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ (including C E K L M S U V X Γ Δ Π Ω 047 0211 f13.35 Byz 565. 1424. 1500. 2224). Yet the minority reading is followed by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels. Cf. the note on Matt 7:24 την οικιαν αυτου for further explanation on this variant, and also Matt 5:20 η δικαιοσυνη υμων for discussion on a similar transpositional variant.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Matt 7:25 προσεπεσον

In this insignificant spelling variation some manuscripts of every text type support the spelling προσέπεσαν (ℵ B C E X Z Δ 047 f1.13 892. 1500. 2224), followed by Bover, Greeven, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), Vogels (Lachmann has προσέπαισαν), but most manuscripts contain the regular spelling προσέπεσον (including K L M S U V Π Φ Ω Byz f35. 565). Codex W has προσέκρουσαν, Θ Σ προσέρρηξαν, and 1424 προσέκοψαν.
     By rule προσπίπτω is a second aorist verb due to the stem change from -πιπτ- to -πεσ-, and thus should take the second aorist suffixes (i.e., -ον, -ες, -ε, etc.). But due to the second aorist stem of this word ending in sigma, some scribes apparently assimilated the suffix forms to those of the first aorist (i.e., -σα, -σας, -σε, etc.). Additionally, the idiosyncrasies of certain areas caused the first aorist forms to intrude elsewhere in second aorist verbs, just as, e.g., codex B has ἦλθαν instead of ἦλθον earlier in this verse. Perhaps also the -σαν ending in some witnesses came in consequence of the ending of ἔπνευσαν preceding. On the other hand, if Matthew originally wrote the minority reading προσέπεσαν, the temptation to "correct" it with the regular spelling could have influenced some scribes. Nevertheless, due to the conflicting results of internal criteria, the retention of the reading that appears in that grouping of manuscripts that has proven itself more habitually correct elsewhere does not seem altogether unsatisfactory, and thus προσέπεσον may be retained.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Matt 7:24 την οικιαν αυτου

A small but diverse contingent of manuscripts (ℵ B C W Z Θ Σ f1 33. 892 al), along with Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels, supports the word order αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν instead of the more common τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ, as appears in most manuscripts (including E G K L M S U V X Δ Π Φ Ω 047. 0211 f13.35 Byz 565. 1424. 1500. 2224).
     Alford (1:75) plausibly reasons that the majority reading reflects "a transposition to more usual order," while Bloomfield (Annotations, 7), after conceding the possibility of Alford's explanation, counters, "but so may the other have been a transposition to a more classical order, such as may be found in very many other passages, . . . and in all of them, with the present, the transp[ositio]n was more likely to attach to a few than to many copies."
     Admittedly, the present textual variation involves merely a word order trifle that does no harm to the sense. Nevertheless, it is notable that no reasoned eclectic editor (to my knowledge) supports or even indicates the critical observation that the order with the preposed personal pronoun (i.e. αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν) in both 7:24 and 7:26 might reflect assimilation to the identically less common and unasailable word order of the expression μου τοὺς λόγους that occurs earlier in both verses.
     A brief investigation indicates that of the roughly 420 times where the genitive of ἐγώ (70x), σύ (120x), or αὐτός (230x) modifies a noun or noun phrase in Matthew, only 20 times (5%) does the pronoun precede the modified word(s) without much doubt:
2:2 αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀστέρα
5:39 σου σιαγόνα
6:4 σου ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη
6:17 σου τὴν κεφαλήν
7:24 μου τοὺς λόγους
7:26 μου τοὺς λόγους
8:3 αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα
8:8 μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην
9:5 σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι
9:6 σου τὴν κλίνην
9:30 αὐτῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί
13:25 αὐτοῦ ὁ ἐχθρός
15:28 σου ἡ πίστις
16:18 μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
17:15 μου τὸν υἱόν
22:13 αὐτοῦ πόδας καὶ χεῖρας
23:8 ὑμῶν ὁ καθηγητής/διδάσκαλος
26:43 αὐτῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί
26:51 αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον
28:9 αὐτοῦ τοὺς πόδας
Only very rarely is the order in the above passages altered to the "more usual order" in any significant witnesses:
5:39 σιαγόνα σου - B D
6:4 ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη σου - D
9.30 οι οφθαλμοι αυτων - D it vg
13.25 ο εχθρος αυτου - pc it vg etc.
16:18 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μου - D it vg
28.9 τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ - D it vg
Moreover, not including the present case of 7:24, 26, and also 9:2 (which involves a possible omission and assimilation to 9:5), only 6 passages are in dispute. Four involve a change in one direction:
12:13 σου τὴν χεῖρα - ℵ* B L f1 33 pc
23:9 ὑμῶν ὁ πατήρ - ℵ B 0102 33. 892 pc
23.30 αὐτῶν κοινωνοί - B D f1.13 700 pc
27:49 αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν - ℵ B C L Γ pc (but Origen: τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῦ)
But two involve a change in the opposite direction:
20:33 οἱ ὀφθαλμοί ἡμῶν - ℵ B D L Z 0281vid 33. 892 pc; Or
26:52 τὴν μάχαιράν σου - ℵ B D L 0281vid f1.13 892 1424 pc
In the two places just mentioned, Alford inconsistently rejects the less common word order predominating in the textual tradition (i.e. ἡμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί in 20:33 and σου τὴν μάχαιραν in 26:52), demonstrating the lack of or at least inconsistent value that may be attached to his explanation for rejecting the consensus reading in 7:24, 26.
     Furthermore, in other places in Matthew the pronoun is found to be preposed in certain witnesses, especially Alexandrian ones, in opposition to the very rule that forms the foundation of internal evidence for rejecting the less common word order in 7:24, 26. In fact, from the following alterations a case might be made that scribes were just as likely to alter the word order in one direction as they were the other:
4.24 αὐτοῦ ἡ ἀκοή - D
18.31 αὐτοῦ οἱ σύνδουλοι - B
20.13 αὐτῶν ἑνί - B
20.34 αὐτῶν τῶν ὀμμάτων - B
22.6 αὐτοῦ τοὺς δούλους - Origen
24.47 αὐτοῦ τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν - K Π
27.29 αὐτοῦ τῇ κεφαλῇ - 33
     For all of the above observations the likeliest explanation for the preposed personal pronoun in a minority of witnesses in both 7:24 and 7:26 remains assimilation to the same word order that occurs just words before both occurrences, i.e. μου τοὺς λόγους. If so, the consensus reading in both passages actually reflects the one less harmonized to the immediate context and therefore the most likely to be original. For why would so many witnesses reflect conscious alteration of the "uncommon" word order of the second expression in both places while leaving the same "uncommon" word order just words before in both places completely untouched? For a similar transpositional variant, see Matt 5:20 η δικαιοσυνη υμων.

Sunday, January 4, 2015

Matt 7:24 ομοιωσω αυτον

The reading ὁμοιωθήσεται is contained in some witnesses (ℵ B Z Θ Φ 0281 f1.13 33. 892 al ff1 l vg sy-p sa mae; Or Did) and preferred by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (8th), and Vogels, but ὁμοιώσω αὐτόν is well represented (C E G K L M S U V W X Δ Π Σ Ω 047. 0211 Byz f35 565. 1424. 1500. 2224 h k q sy-c.h bo goth; Cyp), was preferred by Tischendorf (7th), and has internal criteria strongly in its favor.
     Metzger (TCGNT [2d ed.], 17) reasons that "the passive verb . . . is more likely to have been altered to the active form . . . than vice versa, especially if the copyist recalled the Lukan form of the saying," but this internal argument is unconvincing for several reasons:
     First, the expression in Luke 6:47 (ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τίνι ἐστὶν ὅμοιος· ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ . . .) is entirely different from the simple ὁμοιώσω αὐτον ἀνδρί seen here, both in the verb, the syntax, and the additional words used.
     Second, ὁμοιωθήσεται harmonizes precisely with the wording two verses later in 7:26, and for this reason was rejected by Mill (Prolegomena, §889), Bengel (Apparatus, 111), Wettstein (1:345), Alford (1:74), etc.
     Third, the nominative absolute construction of πᾶς οὖν ὅστις . . . , if the consensus reading is original, is less common and would have been more perturbing to a scribe than the same nominative clause acting as the subject of the passive verb, were the minority reading original, just as occurs without any disturbance in the Greek and Latin manuscripts in 7:26. Thus Fritzsche (299) comments, "The reading ὁμοιωθήσεται, as is written in v. 26, was without doubt advanced by those who either did not understand [linguistically] or had too little tolerance for the joining together of πᾶς ὅστις ἀκούει [with ὁμοιώσω αὐτόν]." Kühnöl (223) offers a similar comment: "πᾶς οὖν ὅστις, whoever therefore, in Hebrew אֲשֶׁר, in Greek ὃς ἄν, was placed in the absolute case [or construction] after the manner of the Hebrews, and accordingly ὁμοιωθήσεται should not, along with some, be repeated from v. 26 in place of ὁμοιώσω." Cf. also Meyer, 161.
     Fourth, Bloomfield (GNT, 1:55) mentions that Matthew's usage of ὁμοιώσω is confirmed in 11:16, that ὁμοιωθήσεται seems to be a conformation to 7:26 by a critic or else the gloss of a scholiast, and that, paraphrasing the note of bishop John Jebb, "the distinction here between ὁμοιώσω and ὁμοιωθήσ[εται] was studiously designed; for when the fruitful hearer is to be characterized, our Lord himself institutes the comparison: when the foolish and unprofitable hearer, it is otherwise managed; the comparison is then matter of common fame—he shall be likened to, as though he were unworthy of Christ's own personal attention."
     Fifth, Zahn (321) calls ὁμοιώσω αὐτόν "the more widespread reading and earlier verifiable [reading] among the Latins as well as the Syriac" and comments: "Whereas ὁμοιώσω in v. 26 is completely unattested in Greek and Latin biblical manuscripts, and in the same place is judged to be assimilation to v. 24 in the Coptic and a few Latin citations (Cyprian, Test. 3.96; Lucifer, De Athanasio 5: similem aestimabo), ὁμοιωθήσεται in v. 24  seems to be assimilation to v. 26 (ℵ B Z Φ f13 and a few minuscules, Sahidic, Armenian, Syraic-Palestinian & margin of -Harclean, the younger Latins a b c Vulgate), and ὁμοιώσω on the other hand original (C E G Δ Π Σ, Syriac-Curetonian, -Peshitta, & -Harclean, the oldest Latin k, Cyprian, Lucifer, Hilary, Coptic, Gothic)."
     Lastly, Cyprian's support for the consensus reading counters Origen, whose citation of 7:24 in De principiis 3.1.6 is itself guilty of harmonization to 7:26 in another respect:
Origen, De principiis 3.1.6: [7:24] ὁ ἀκούων μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιῶν αὐτοὺς ὁμοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ φρονίμῳ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν . . . [7:26] δὲ ἀκούων καὶ μὴ ποιῶν ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνδρὶ μωρῷ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν . . . .
Here Origen himself harmonizes Matthew's wording of 7:24 (ὅστις ἀκούει . . . ποιεῖ) to that of 7:26 (ὁ ἀκούων . . . ποιῶν), and thus there is little reason to doubt that by the same method Origin, or the manuscripts on which he depended and other manuscripts since, could have come to read ὁμοιωθήσεται in Matt 7:24.