The gospel according to Matthew
Chapter 8
[1] NA-Text omits “ημας” and renders “save” instead
of “save us”. [2] M-Text and WPF35 omit “his” and render “the disciples”. NA-Text
and Vg-St omit “his disciples” and render “they”. Jerome supports “they” and so
does 6 old Latin codices (ita, itaur, itc, itff1,itk
and itl), even though some manuscripts of the vulgate read “the
disciples”, which is reflected in the Clementine vulgate which reads “his
disciples”, with the support of 3 old Latin codices (itb, itg1
and itq). The Bohairic and Sahidic Coptic versions, codices א, B and miniscule 33 support the NA-Text. As to the M-Text, the majuscules
are slightly in its favor, with the majority of the minuscules supporting it,
including 22, 157, 565, 700 and family of manuscripts ƒ13. On the
other hand, the versional evidence is decidedly on the side of the TR,
including the Peshitta and the Syriac versions, the Gothic, the Ethiopic, the
Georgian, the Slavic and the middle Ӕgyptian version. The Diatessaron also supports
the TR. The Byzantine compilations and witnesses do not unanimously support the
majority text. The Patriarchal text and Theophylact agree with the TR, whereas
Wilbur Pickering-family 35 is on the side of the Majority text || Matthew uses
“his disciples” in the same pericope more than once (e.g. Matt. 9:10-11) or
just once and then refer to the same group of disciples as “the disciples”
(e.g. Matt 24:1,3) or simply “they” (Matt. 14:15,17). The Alexandrian and the
Vulgate reading are potentially the product of a scribal harmonization to the
parallel passages in Mk 4:38 and Lk 8:24 that read “they”. There is no strong
internal element to be the arbiter between the TR and the M-Text. That being
the case, because of the weight of witnesses with the most widespread
attestation, still maintaining good support among the majuscules and antenicene
witnesses “his disciples” has been maintained in the text. [3] NA-Text reads “ελθοντος αυτου”
(genitive instead of dative) [4] NA-Text reads Gadarenes instead of Gergesenes. Origen refers to this
passage in his commentary on John 6:24 saying that the geographical evidence
suggests that the correct place where this event took place is Gergesa, which
is the reading in the TR and the M-Text. Here are his words: “Concerning
Palestinian place names the Greek copies are often incorrect, and one might be
misled by them. The displacement of the swine, who were driven down a steep
place by the demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the
country of the Gerasenes (Luk 8:26 and Mk 5:1, NA-Text). Now, Gerasa is a town
of Arabia, and has no sea or lake near it. The Evangelists would not have made
a statement so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed
themselves carefully of all matters connected with Judea. But in a few copies
we have found, “into the country of the Gadarenes.” On this reading, Gadara is
described as a town of Judea. In its neighborhood are the well-known hot
springs. There is no lake there with overhanging banks, nor any sea. But
Gergesa, from which the name Gergesenes is taken, is an old town in the
neighborhood of the lake now called Tiberias. On the edge of it there is a
steep place bordering on the lake, from which the pigs could have been driven
down by the demons. Now, the meaning of Gergesa is the “dwelling of the one who
drives out,” and may contain a prophetic reference to the response of the
citizens toward the Savior”. The Vulgate reads “Gerasenes” and the learned
Jerome commenting on this passage, simply assumes the vulgate reading that
Origen had rejected 2 centuries before without further comment. The Diatessaron
reads “Gadarenes” and Ephraem the Syrian commenting on the Diatessaron, assumes
that the name of the city is Gadara and so does Chrysostom in passing on his 29th
homily on the gospel of Matthew. Theophylact’s manuscript of the gospel of
Matthew read “Gergesenes” and commenting on Mark 5:1, he says that “the more
precise of the manuscripts read: “into the country of Gergesenes”, declining
from any comment on his commentary on gospel of Luke. Augustine who was so keen
on reconciling apparent discrepancies in the gospels, overlooked this passage
in his “harmony of the gospels”. Epiphanius had “Gergestha” [a possible
misspelling of Gergesa] in Luke, “the coast of Gergesenes” in Mark and “of the
Gadarenes” in Matthew or, as he went on to say: “of the Gergesenes as some
copies [of Matthew] have it” (Panarion, 66:35:6). It is possible that one of
those 3 cities might be a sort of a province, possibly Gadara with Gergesa
being one of its districts where this event took place, which reconciles the
readings in both the TR and the majority text, but leaves the NA-Text text with
a copyist error by reading “Gerasa” in Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26 and the vulgate
with a copyist error in all three parallel texts by reading “Gerasa” in all of
them. According to Origen, Gerasa was a town of Arabia, having no sea or lake
near it so that this event could never have taken place in Gerasa. As a side
note, the Greek text in the Complutensian Polyglot, which is Byzantine, read
“Gergesenes” while the Latin text in the parallel column read “Gerasenes”,
following the vulgate. [5] NA-Text and Vg-St omit “Jesus”. The old Latin codices and different
editions of the vulgate are divided as to the inclusion or exclusion of the proper
noun “Jesus”. Jerome himself had it in his manuscript (Commentary on Matthew,
8:30-31, Latin: “quid nobis et tibi, Jesu Fili Dei”), but not Augustine (Homily
10 on the first epistle of John). The Coptic and the Syriac versions plus families
of manuscripts ƒ1 and ƒ13 are equally divided.
The Diatessaron, codex Θ and Byzantine witnesses such as codex W, the Peshitta,
Chrysostom and Theophylact include the proper noun. Internal evidence could
suggest scribal harmonization to the parallel passages in Mark 5:7 and Luke
8:28 which include Jesus in the question of the demon-possessed man, but the
lack of “most high” before “God” makes it less probable. Therefore, because of
the widespread use of “Jesus” across all text types in different locations,
including the Sahidic Coptic version that normally is a witness to Alexandrian
readings, it seems more appropriate to keep the proper noun “Jesus” in the
text. [6] Or: “send us away” (αποστειλον ημας)
according to the NA-Text, which is close to the Vg-St “mitte nos” (send us).
Jerome and John Cassian (Conference 7) had “send us”, but the old Latin codices
itf, ith and itq read “permit us to go away”.
On the other hand, the Byzantine witnesses Chrysostom, Theophylact, the
Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac version, codex W and family of manuscripts ƒ13
that normally supports Byzantine readings support “permit us to go away”.
In Egypt, codices א, B,
minuscule 33 and Cyril of Alexandria support the NA-Text. The parallel texts of
Mark and Luke do not seem to have offered material for scribal harmonization
for any text. The Alexandrian majuscules C and L are on the side of the
Byzantine text, but the Caesarean text with codex Θ and family of manuscripts ƒ1
is not. Both forms are compatible with Matthew’s style of writing and
there does not seem to exist any strong element in the surrounding context
pointing in one direction or another. Therefore, this footnote is showing that
the textual variant found in the NA-Text and the Vg-St is as viable as the TR
and the M-Text reading. [7] NA-Text and Vg-St omit “herd of” and render “went into the pigs”. The
collective witness of the majuscules C, K, M, N, W, Δ, Θ and Π is decidedly in
favor of the TR and the M-Text and so are the old Latin codices itf
and ith. Jerome supports the Vg-St and the NA-Text whereas
Theophylact and Chrysostom support the TR and the majority text. The Peshitta
and the Coptic versions support the exclusion of “herd of”. The Byzantine
reading could be the product of scribal harmonization to the previous verse
that read “herd of pigs” or the Alexandrian reading could be a harmonization to
the parallel passages in Mark and Luke that omit “herd of” in this verse. This
is not a safe correction to the text. [8] NA-Text and Vg-St omit “of pigs” and render “the whole herd”: א B C* M N
W Δ Θ ƒ1 ƒ13 33 157 892 1424 syr copsa | TR: C K L Π 22 565
579 700 Byz copbo copmae || The support for the shorter
reading is stronger in this case. The noun may have been added to harmonize the
reading to verses 31 and 32. Therefore, “των χοιρων” has been removed from the text. [9] NA-Text reads “υπαντησιν”,
which is not a translatable difference. |
----
Notes:
1. Text in red letters are places where the original reading in the Textus Receptus has been revised and corrected;
2. The English translation used as a reference is the WEB brought to conformity as literal as possible to the Textus Receptus. The end product though is not the WEB or a revised WEB and it should not be called WEB. The content of this post is freely available to everyone and it is not supposed to be copyrighted;
3. TR: Textus Receptus. This text is not copyrighted;
4. NA-Text: Nestle-Aland text commonly known as critical text;
5. M-Text: Majority Text;
6. VgSt: Vulgate of Stuttgart;
7. WPF35: Wilbur Pickering-family 35;
8. PT: Patriarchal Text, also known as Patriarchal Greek New Testament, published by the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
9. The creator of the variant apparatus available in the VarApp kindly gave me permission to freely use the information contained in the material he put together.
---
To God all the glory for the preservation of the scriptures! He reigns!
No comments:
Post a Comment