Re: Matt 5:3, 4, 5 or 5:3,5,4 - which?
- --- In TC-Alternateemail@example.com, "psoljah" wrote:
> I am in my yearly study, and read the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. The textual notes discuss the placement of Matt 5:3-5. I can honestly see, especially in Greek, where having verse 5 before verse 4 has a certain fit to it, even in terms of alliteration as well as in terms of compare and contrast, as does having verse 4 followed by verse 6. What do you all think?
Well Lachmann, Tischendorf & Tregelles all inserted verse 5 between verses 3-4 on very slim evidence. But since then Westcott & Hort and the U.B.S. team have (sic?)rectified the situation (Holy irony Batman!).
The manuscript evidence for the reading attested by Lach., Tisch. & Treg. is very weak. Namely; Codex D, Cursive 33,-Both of which are infamous for having a plethora of bad readings and scribal errors!
These two corrupt codices are set against the whole surplus of New Testament Greek manuscripts -Aleph,B,C,E,K,W,Delta,Sigma,Theta,Pi,0196 and the vast majority of cursives (nearly all!). The other testimony that backs the insertion of vs.5 between verses 3 & 4 is also very suspect. For one it is nearly all "related" in some respect. For example; D, 33, Syr.C.,The Italic, The Vulg.,Origen, Jerome, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine all have "family" ties to some extant more or less. This clearly demonstrates that this reading was somewhat isolated.
Secondly, the evidence that is on the side of inserting vs. 5 before vs. 4 is undermined by related testimony. For example, the Italic which one of their strongest allies is somewhat split (Although how much I cannot tell for U.B.S. 3 & 4 are a mess here. They totally switch their Italic evidence from one variant reading to the other?), the Syriac Cur.(although it be old), has no voice here because it's sister the Lewis Codex (Syr. Sin.) is against it. As is the Syriac Peshitto, Philo., Hark. & Pal..
Thirdly, the heavy weight of the Latin Fathers is lightened when we remember that the Italic(part) & Vulgate versions are the main witnesses to this reading (as far as bulk & continuity go). Throw the older Tertullian in the mix as testimony for the Traditional reading and the Latin evidence becomes very weak.
Internally, the culprit is easy to identify.
vs. 3 "MAKAPIOI OI IIT..."
vs. 4 "MAKAPIOI OI IIE..."
vs. 5 "MAKAPIOI OI IIP..."
vs. 6 "MAKAPIOI OI IIE..."
vs. 7 "MAKAPIOI OI ..."
vs. 8 "MAKAPIOI OI ..."
vs. 9 "MAKAPIOI OI ..."
vs.10 "MAKAPIOI OI ..."
vs.11 "MAKAPIOI OI ..."
This is a simple case of Homoearcton-Homoeoteleuton and there is ample opportunity for it to have happened purely accidently and on more than one occasion (even in Latin). The scribe or scribes may have even noticed their mistake and tried to rectify it (best they could) by inserting vs. 4 immediatly after vs. 5 ?? But most likely this happened by pure accident and was not even noticed. -And yes, once it was over and done with who would protest the "added" cadence? As you (Psoljah & Dr.Metzger) have pointed out, "Heaven" contrasting nicely with "Earth" and "Poor" and "Meek" now being paired together.
-Matthew M. Rose
Los Angeles, CA