Source: http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2015/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:35:58+00:00

Document:
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, , 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.
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.
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.
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)."
Origen, De principiis 3.1.6: [7:24] ὁ ἀκούων μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιῶν αὐτοὺς ὁμοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ φρονίμῳ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν . . . [7:26] ὁ 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.
A few manuscripts (ℵ B* C L W Z f13 33 pc), followed by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels, have επροφητευσαμεν with the augment before the preposition of the compound verb rather than after it, while all the rest exhibit προεφητευσαμεν (B2 E G K M O S U V X Δ Π Σ Φ Ω 047. 0211 Byz f1.35 565. 1424. 1500. 2224). Although the general rule is that the augment of compound verbs be placed after the prefixed preposition, the preposed augment with προφητευω frequently appears in both early and later Greek authors. The divided manuscript evidence in other places (see below) indicates that both forms were used in the early period. Obviously the Egyptian orthographical preference was for the preposed augment, but most manuscripts elsewhere maintained the "regular" form. Interestingly, the editors of NA27/28 reject the preposed augment of p72 B* in Jude 14, but accept it in the other passages below.

References: §736
 v. 
 §889
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.