Matthew 22:23-33 - Revision of the Textus Receptus

The gospel according to Matthew

Chapter 22

---

23. εν εκεινη τη ημερα προσηλθον αυτω σαδδουκαιοι οι[1] λεγοντες μη ειναι αναστασιν και επηρωτησαν αυτον On that day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection. And they asked him,

24. λεγοντες διδασκαλε μωσης[2] ειπεν εαν τις αποθανη μη εχων τεκνα επιγαμβρευσει ο αδελφος αυτου την γυναικα αυτου και αναστησει σπερμα τω αδελφω αυτου saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.’

25. ησαν δε παρ ημιν επτα αδελφοι και ο πρωτος γαμησας[3] ετελευτησεν και μη εχων σπερμα αφηκεν την γυναικα αυτου τω αδελφω αυτου Now there were with us seven brothers. And the first married and died, and having no offspring, he left his wife to his brother.

26. ομοιως και ο δευτερος και ο τριτος εως των επτα In the same way, the second also, and the third, to the seventh.

27. υστερον δε παντων απεθανεν και η γυνη And last of all the woman also[4] died.

28. εν τη ουν αναστασει τινος των επτα εσται γυνη παντες γαρ εσχον αυτην In the resurrection therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”

29. αποκριθεις δε ο ιησους ειπεν αυτοις πλανασθε μη ειδοτες τας γραφας μηδε την δυναμιν του θεου And answering, Jesus said to them, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.

30. εν γαρ τη αναστασει ουτε γαμουσιν ουτε εκγαμιζονται αλλ ως αγγελοι του θεου εν ουρανω εισιν For in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God[5] in heaven.

31. περι δε της αναστασεως των νεκρων ουκ ανεγνωτε το ρηθεν υμιν υπο του θεου λεγοντος But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying,

32. εγω ειμι ο θεος αβρααμ και ο θεος ισαακ και ο θεος ιακωβ ουκ εστιν ο θεος θεος νεκρων αλλα ζωντων ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God[6] is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

33. και ακουσαντες οι οχλοι εξεπλησσοντο επι τη διδαχη αυτου And when the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

---

[1] NA-Text omits “οι”. The omission of the relative pronoun is supported by codices א*, B, D, M, S, U, W, Z, Δ^vid, Π*, Ω, 0102, 0233^vid, family of manuscripts ƒ¹, minuscules 13, 28, 33, 118, 157, 180, 205, 700, 788, 892, 1009, 1010, 1195, 1216, 1241, 1242*, 1243, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1424, 1505, 1546, 2148, three old Latin codices, the Peshitta, the Curetonian Syriac and the Sinaiticus Syriac, the middle Ӕgyptian, the Georgian¹ and the Slavic version, Methodius, Origen^lem and (Ephraem). The inclusion is supported by codices א², E, F, G, H, K, L, O, Θ, Π², Σ, 0107, family of manuscripts ƒ¹³, minuscules 22, 565, 579, 597, 1006, 1071, 1079, 1230, 1242^c, 1292, 1342, 1582, 1646, 2174, the Byzantine minuscules, 12 old Latin codices (it^a, it^aur, it^b, it^c, it^e, it^f, it^ff2, it^g1, it^h, it^l, it^q and it^r1), the Sahidic Coptic, the Harklean Syriac, the Palestinian Syriac, the Bohairic Coptic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Georgian² version and Hilary, Jerome and Theophylact. The omission may have been due to an early scribal misunderstanding of the relative pronoun, thinking that it should have been a definite article thus putting it before the noun as we have in several manuscripts, or the removal of it thinking that it was a copyist error or visual homoeoteleuton may be the cause of the omission (σαδδουκαιοι οι, thus missing “who”). There is a similar use of the relative pronoun in Matt. 23:16. Also, the parallel passages in Mark 12:18 and Luke 20:27 all have relative pronouns, but written differently, which rules out scribal harmonization here. Scribes noticed the error in minuscule 1242, codex Sinaiticus and codex Petropolitanus and corrected them.

[2] NA-Text reads “μωυσης”.

[3] NA-Text reads “γημας”, same verbal tense written differently. This spelling appears nowhere in the New Testament.

[4] NA-Text and Vg-St omit “also”. The omission is supported by codices א, B, L, W, Δ, family of manuscripts ƒ¹, minuscules 565, one old Latin codex and some manuscripts of the Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic and Jerome. The inclusion is supported by codices D, K, Γ, Θ, 0102, family of manuscripts ƒ¹³, minuscules 33, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, the Byzantine manuscripts, the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac, the Coptic versions, the Diatessaron, Chrysostom and Theophylact. Harmonization to the parallel passages in Mark 12:22 and Luke 20:32 is a real possibility here, because the last five words in all the 3 gospels are the exact the same, but it is hard to imagine that everybody had the same idea across all text-types and in different versions, including the three Coptic versions, to include only this word and to not import any other difference from Mark or Luke. Accidental omission in the early stages of the copying process cannot be ruled out, even though there is no pattern of scribal error to explain this omission. Scribes are not computers that are programmed to follow only certain patterns of errors. Besides, inattentiveness does not necessarily require a specific setting to miss a word. Besides, the inclusion is well supported. So, this word has been maintained in the text.

[5] NA-Text omits “of God”. The omission is possibly the result of a confusion by comparing Greek manuscripts with the Diatessaron that follows the order Luke 20:36 and then Matthew 22:30. In Luke there is no qualifier for the angels but just to sons. A scribe then may have thought that “of God” was wrongly connected to angels once in the harmony it was the qualifier of “sons”. The parallel passage in Mark 12:25 would have supposedly confirmed the scribal suspicion where angels again appeared unqualified.  

[6] Or “He is not the God of the dead” (NA-Text and VgSt). The NA-Text brackets the article before God as doubtful, thus rendering “He is not God of the dead”. The Latin cannot capture this nuance due to its anarthrous nature. The omission is supported by codices א, B, D, L, W, Γ, Δ, family of manuscripts ƒ¹, manuscripts 28, 33, 157*, 205, 372, 1009, 1242*, the old Latin codices, the Georgian2, the Slavic, the Curetonian Syriac, the Syriac Sinaiticus, the Peshitta, the Palestinian Syriac, the Sahidic Coptic, the middle Ӕgyprian Coptic, the Bohairic Coptic and the Ethiopic version, Jerome (Latin: “Non est Deus mortuorum, sed viventium”) and Chrysostom (Greek: “ουκ εστι θεος νεκρων αλλα ζωντων”, homily 70). The inclusion is supported by codices E, F, G, H, K, Y, Θ, Π, Σ, 0102, family of manuscripts ƒ¹³, minuscules 157^c, 180, 565, 579, 597, 700, 892, 1006, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242^c, 1243, 1253, 1292, 1342, 1344, 1365, 1424, 1505, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174, the Byzantine minuscules, the Harklean Syriac, the Armenian, the Georgian¹, the Diatessaron and Theophylact (Greek: “ουκ εστιν ο θεος, θεος νεκρων, αλλα ζωντων”). The external support for the NA-Text is more widespread, but there does not appear to exist a good reason for a scribe to add “God” a second time in the text here. On the other hand, there are signs of harmonization with Mark 12:27 in the Nestle Aland reading here once the parallel passage in Mark reads the exact same “He is not the God of the dead (Gr.: “ουκ εστιν ο θεος νεκρων”). In addition, the shorter reading may have been the result of parableptic error (ο ΘC ΘC, thus missing “God”) or a scribal misunderstanding of the two occurrences of God side by side, suggesting that a previous copyist had added accidentally “God” a second time, which, if removed, still makes perfect sense. Given that the Byzantine is the harder reading that accounts so eloquently for the Alexandrian reading, the Byzantine sentence has been maintained in the main text with the caveat that the Alexandrian reading is stronger on external grounds and may well be preserving the original here. 

----

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!