MATTHEW 15:4 ei=pen {B} The presence of th.n evntolh.n tou/ qeou/ in ver. Matthew 15:3 probably prompted copyists to change the statement, “For God said …” to “For God commanded, saying …,” whereas, if the reading evnetei,lato le,gwn had been original, it is difficult to account for the substituti... [ Continue Reading ]
MATTHEW 15:6 to.n pate,ra auvtou/ {C} On the one hand, it can be argued that the addition of the phrase “or his mother” doubtless seemed necessary to scribes who observed the references to both father and mother in the preceding verses. On the other hand, the absence of h' [or kai.] th.n mhte,ra a... [ Continue Reading ]
MATTHEW 15:14 tufloi, eivsin o`dhgoi. @tuflw/n# {C} Although from the standpoint of external evidence the reading tufloi, eivsin o`dhgoi,, supported by B and D, may seem to be preferable, the readings that most adequately account for the emergence of the others (as emendations of the arrangement,... [ Continue Reading ]
MATTHEW 15:15 th.n parabolh.n @tau,thn# {C} A majority of the Committee preferred to adopt the reading attested by a wide variety of witnesses and to explain the absence of tau,thn in other witnesses as the result of deliberate excision by scribes who thought it inappropriate (the “parable” does n... [ Continue Reading ]
MATTHEW 15:31 lalou/ntaj( kullou.j u`giei/j {C} The manuscripts of this verse reflect a variety of changes, some accidental and some deliberate. Although it can be argued that the words kullou.j u`giei/j were added in order to make a series of four items corresponding to the number (though not to t... [ Continue Reading ]
MATTHEW 15:39 Magada,n {C} The best external evidence supports Magada,n, yet not only the site, but even the existence of such a place-name is uncertain. The parallel passage in Mark 8:10 has “the districts of Dalmanutha” (ta. me,rh Dalmanouqa,), an equally unknown site and name. The well-known Se... [ Continue Reading ]