Gavin Basil McGrath
Matt. 23:13,14 “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye
shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither
go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to
go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make
long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater
damnation.” (TR & AV)
Matt. 23:13,14: Component 1 (Matt. 23:13a,14a) {A}; &
Component 2 (verse order) {B}.
Preliminary Remarks.
In New South Wales Primary Schools I attended as a boy in the 1960s and early
1970s, I was familiar with a fivefold system of stamps used by school teachers which
ranged downwards from the top as, “Excellent,” “Very Good,” “Good,” “Fair,” and
“Poor.” Were we using such a marking system for the NT texts we have looked at to
date on Matt. 1-23, e.g., among those of the Neo-Byzantine School, Erasmus and Beza
would be “Excellent,” and Stephanus would be “Very Good;” whereas the texts of all
those of the Neo-Alexandrian School would be “Poor” (although the textual apparatuses
they have produced are most useful and valuable).
I may be indifferent to some differences between the texts of Erasmus and
Stephanus (see Matt. 21:25, Appendix 3, Volume 3, Textual Commentary). And I do not
necessarily consider that later changes by Erasmus in his various editions were always an
improvement (see Matt. 20:5b, Appendix 1, Volume 2, Textual Commentary); although
they sometimes certainly were (see Matt. 8:13, Appendix 3, Volume 1, Textual
Commentary).
The reader will note that on some other occasions I have preferred the text of
Erasmus over that over that of Stephanus (see Matt. 12:32a, Appendix 1, Vol. 1, Textual
Commentary; Matt. 13:30, where I agree with Erasmus against both Stephanus and Beza,
Appendix 1, Volume 1, Textual Commentary; and Matt. 21:7c, Vol. 3, Textual
Commentary). Here at Matt. 23:13,14 we find another such example, since the stylistic
feature of Matt. 23 I isolate, infra, was evidently recognized by Erasmus (1516 & 1522),
Beza (1598), and Elzevir (1633); although lost on Stephanus (1550).
Though in such instances my mind is closer to that of Erasmus than that of
Stephanus, the reader would be wrong to thereby conclude that I think poorly of
Stephanus. Though in such instances I do not consider his skills of textual analysis were
as good as that great past master of the Neo-Byzantine School, Erasmus of Rotterdam,
they were nevertheless still very good overall. While I thank God for the labours of
Erasmus, I also thank him for those of Stephanus who gave us our NT verse numbers;
and of course, I also thank God for the other great neo-Byzantines of the 16th and 17th
centuries.
Preliminary Textual Discussion.
The First Matter. There are four variants that will be considered. The two in
Component 1 shall be called, Variants 1 & 2; and the two in Component 2 shall be called,
Variants 3 & 4. For the purposes of much of the textual analysis of Matt. 23:13,14, my
twin concerns are the verse order (Component 2, Variant 3) and presence of verse 14
(omitted in Component 2, Variant 4). Therefore I shall generally here refer to these
verses in a corporate way, omitting reference to secondary internal differences that occur
in these verses’ readings e.g., the Matt. 23:14 W 032 revowelling of the epsilons (“e”) to
alpha-iotas (“ai”) in “katesthiete (ye devour)” as “kataisthietai;” or in Lectionary 1968 at
Matt. 23:13b “ouranon (heaven)” is abbreviated to “ounon” with a bar over the “un”, and
“anthropon (men)” is abbreviated to “anon” with a bar over the “no.” But I shall still
discuss a third concern, namely, the Component 1 primary issue of the first two or three
words of both verses 13 and 14 (Matt. 23:13a,14a), preceding Matt. 23:13b,14b in the
Received Text, but preceding Matt. 23:14b,13b, in the majority Byzantine text
(Component 1, Variant 2).
The Second Matter. The Component 2, Variant 3 reading, is the majority
Byzantine text reading; and Green’s Textual Apparatus (1986) says 95-100% of all
manuscripts support it. In fact, this minimally overstates the known figures. Von Soden
(1913) says the verse order of Matt. 23:14b followed by Matt. 23:13b has the support of
his K group of about 1,000 manuscripts. More precisely, this subdivides into c. 860 K
group Gospel manuscripts; but either way, more than c. 90% of the K group manuscripts
are Byzantine text. Allowing for a 10% error bar (which Pierpont failed to factor in to
his calculations in Green’s Textual Apparatus), means the Component 2, Variant 3
reading has the support of more than c. 90% but less than 100% of all Byzantine
manuscripts. If a more precise manuscript count be undertaken, it might turn out that
e.g., the Component 2, Variant 3 reading has the support of more than 99% of the Greek
Byzantine manuscripts. However, on the available data from von Soden we cannot with
safety go beyond very broad-brush figures.
But for all that, we should be grateful to God for Baron von Soden’s uniquely
comprehensive manuscript collation of virtually all Greek Codices and Minuscules;
although he omitted work on all but about a dozen of the c. 2,300 Greek Lectionaries.
Von Soden’s research assistants numbered about 40 and laboured for about 15 years; and
the sample von Soden collated is clearly large enough to safely make generalist
projections from it, notwithstanding the absence of his Greek Lectionary work. Indeed,
given the added difficulties of working through Lectionaries relative to Codices and
Minuscules, it would have taken von Soden with about 40 research assistants at least
about another 20 years to collate the Greek Lectionary data (and work in some areas
233
would probably not have been possible during World War I, so therefore at least another
25 years would have to be allowed), and given that von Soden died in 1914, had he
sought to do this, the whole project may therefore have been lost to us. And so as a fruit
of the labours of von Soden and his research assistants (1913), we can certainly say with
regard to Component 2, Variant 3 reading, that the reverse verse order of Matt. 23:14b
followed by Matt. 23:13b has the support of more than c. 90% of the Greek manuscripts,
and the TR’s reading less than c. 10% of the Greek manuscripts.
The Third Matter. Given that the Component 1, Variant 2 reading, infra, is
isolated as a primary matter, and in his edition of the Book of Armagh, Gwynn adds
Latin, “autem (but)” in italics as added by himself, I show this as being omitted by this
manuscript at Matt. 23:13a, infra.
The Fourth Matter. Von Soden’s (1913) extremely poor and highly inaccurate
NT text is matched by a truly excellent textual apparatus, the amazing like of which we
have not seen in any textual apparatus before or since. One needs von Soden’s bad main
text to make sense of his good textual apparatus, and so the good and the bad are here
indissolubly joined together. Yet here at Matt. 23:13,14 he takes the view that old Latin
q supports Component 2, Variant 4, in omitting Matt. 23:14. However, Adolf Julicher’s
and Kurt Aland’s Italia, Das Neue Testament (1938-63) (i.e., “Julicher”), which contains
the old Latin readings of the Gospels, shows that old Latin q omits Matt. 23:13-28.
Therefore I do not agree with von Soden that one can show old Latin q as following
Component 2, Variant 4, in omitting Matt. 23:14, since this omission involves wider
issues of the manuscript’s defectiveness at this point. Hence no reference is made to old
Latin q, infra.
The Fifth Matter. The UBS (3rd, 3rd Corrected, & 4th Revised) textual
apparatuses here shows three, not four variants, because they combine as one the TR’s
complete reading i.e., of both Components 1 & 2, with that of Component 1, Variant 1,
infra. But Julicher shows the readings of e.g., old Latin b, ff2, & h, 1, & c do not contain
“But (Latin, autem),” at the beginning of Matt. 23:14a, and so the UBS textual
apparatuses are wrong to combine these readings.
These UBS textual apparatuses are my source for saying that outside the closed
class of sources, Component 1, Variant 1, and the TR’s Component 2 (verse order), are
also found in some manuscripts of the Egyptian Coptic Bohairic Version. It is to be
hoped that they are more accurate here with the Egyptian translation than they are with
the Latin translation. But what if they are not? It does not ultimately matter, for we
neo-Byzantines do not use any manuscripts outside the closed class of sources for the
purposes of composing the Received Text. Our interest in such manuscripts is purely
passing, and they are included in this textual commentary primarily in order for the
reader to better understand where our main contemporary opponents since the 19th
century, the neo-Alexandrians, are coming from. (Although before the Vatican II
Council they were one of two main opponents with the old Latin Papists, since the
Vatican II Council they are now our main contemporary opponent. For at least to date,
they have been far more influential than our other contemporary opponent, the Majority
234
Text Burgonites, such as Hodges & Farstad or the NKJV’s NT textual apparatus.) But if
another neo-Byzantine wanted to entirely ignore all manuscripts outside the closed class
of sources, then that would be perfectly proper, and would in no way affect the result of
the Textus Receptus.
The Sixth Matter (Diatessaron formatting). The Sangallensis Latin Diatessaron
here contains the words, “hypochritae (hypocrites)” and “Vae (Woe) vobis (unto you),
Pharisei (Pharisees) hypochritae (hypocrites)” (Diatessaron chapter 141), which Edward
Sievers (1892) takes to be drawn from Matt. 23:14. However, it is also possible that due
to Diatessaron formatting, the scribes of this Vulgate Codex drew them from Matt. 23:13
or elsewhere. Therefore no reference is made to the Sangallensis Latin Diatessaron,
infra21.
Principal Textual Discussion.
There are four variants. The two in Component 1 are called, Variants 1 & 2; and
the two in Component 2 are called, Variants 3 & 4.
The Component 1 reading (Matt. 23:13a,14a). At Component 1 of Matt.
23:13,14, the first three opening words of Matt. 23:13 are Greek, “Ouai (Woe) de (But)
umin (unto you)” (Matt. 23:13a), and the corresponding first two opening words of Matt.
23:14 are Greek, “Ouai (Woe) umin (unto you)” (Matt. 23:14a). This is the majority
Byzantine reading, e.g., Codices W 032 (5th century, which is Byzantine in Matt. 1-28;
Luke 8:13-24:53) and Sigma 042 (late 5th / 6th century), and Lectionary 1968 (1544
A.D.). It is further found as Latin, “Vae (woe) autem (But) vobis (unto you),” in
Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (5th century), and old Latin Versions a (4th century), e (4th / 5th
century), b (5th century), d (5th century), ff2 (5th century), aur (7th century), 1 (7th / 8th
century), g1 (8th / 9th century), ff1 (10th / 11th century), and c (12th / 13th century).
From the Latin support for this reading, it is manifested in the Clementine Vulgate
(1592). It is further supported by the ancient church Greek writer, Chrysostom (d. 407);
and ancient church Latin writers, Cyprian (d. 258)22 and Hilary (d. 367). It is also
manifested in the Greek Novum Testamentum (New Testament) editions of Erasmus
(1516 & 1522), Stephanus (1550), Beza (1598), and Elzevir (1633).
The TR’s reading is also partly supported by the manuscripts and church writers
21 The internet edition I use of the Sangallensis Latin Diatessaron (Eduard
Sievers’ Tatien, Lateinisch und altdeutsch, Druck & Verlag, Paderborn, 1892; printed
copy available at King’s College, London University, UK, shelf mark: Sion Lib. BS 2500
T2 G3 SIE), has changed its address to
http://users.belgacom.net/chardic/htm/tatien.html .
If it changes again, the interested reader will hopefully be able to locate it by typing in on
Google or Yahoo, “Le Diatessaron de Tatien.”
22 Hans Freiherr von Soden’s Das Lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur zeit
Cyprians, in Harnack, A, & Schmidt, C., op. cit., pp. 366-588, at p. 414 (Latin same as
Vulgate).
235
of Component 2, Variant 4, infra, which while omitting verse 14, nevertheless include in
verse 13 the opening words of the TR’s Matt. 23:13a. It is also partly supported at this
same point of Matt. 23:13a by Component 1, Variant 1, infra.
A variant reads “Ouai (Woe) de (But) umin (unto you)” at both Matt. 23:13a and
Matt. 23:14a (Component 1, Variant 1). This is a minority Byzantine reading found in
Lectionaries 673 (12th century) and 547 (13th century).
Another variant, (Component 1, Variant 2) at Matt. 23:13a omits the “But (Greek,
de; Latin, autem). This is found in the Latin which reads simply, “Vae (woe) vobis (unto
you),” in old Latin Versions h (5th century) and f (6th century), as well as the Book of
Armagh (812 A.D.) (Component 1, Variant 2); with the initial words of Matt. 23:14a then
reading “Vae (woe) autem (But) vobis (unto you),” in old Latin Version f (6th century)
(Component 1, Variant 2). And connected to this is the issue of Matt. 23:14b then
coming before Matt. 23:13b in old Latin Version f (6th century) (Component 2, Variant
3, infra).
The Component 2 reading (verse order). At Component 2 of Matt. 23:13,14,
other than the initial words of Component 1 (Matt. 23:13a,14a), the TR’s verse order
which places Matt. 23:13b before Matt. 23:14b is a minority Byzantine reading found in
Lectionaries 673 (12th century, Athos, Greece) and 547 (13th century, Rome, Vatican
City State). It is further found as a minority Latin Vulgate Codices reading in Codices F
(Fuldensis, 6th century, Fulda, Germany), Q (Kenanensis, 7th / 8th century, Dublin,
southern Ireland), T (Toletanus, 8th century, Madrid, Spain), and Th (Theodulfianus, 9th
century, Paris, France); and in the margins of Codices S (Sangellensis, 6th century, St.
Gallen, Switzerland) and H (Hubertianus, 9th / 10th century, London, UK). It is also
found in old Latin Versions b (5th century), ff2 (5th century), h (5th century), 1 (7th / 8th
century), s (7th / 8th century), and c (12th / 13th century). From the Latin support for
this reading, it is manifested in the Clementine Vulgate (1592). It is further found in the
ancient church Latin writer, Hilary (d. 367). It is also manifested in the Greek Novum
Testamentum (New Testament) editions of Erasmus (16th century), Beza (16th century),
and Elzevir (17th century).
Component 2, Variant 3, has the verse order as verse 14 first (Matt. 23:14b),
followed by verse 13 (Matt. 23:13b). This is the reading of the majority Byzantine text,
e.g., W 032 (5th century, which is Byzantine in Matt. 1-28; Luke 8:13-24:53) and Sigma
042 (late 5th / 6th century); and Lectionary 1968 (1544 A.D.). It is further found in old
Latin Version f (6th century). It is also found in the ancient church Greek writer,
Chrysostom (d. 407). It is also manifested in the Greek Novum Testamentum (New
Testament) edition of Stephanus (1550).
Component 2, Variant 4, has Matt. 23:13 (Matt. 23:13a + Matt. 23:13b), but omits
Matt. 23:14. This is a minority Byzantine reading found in Minuscules 21 (12th century)
and 924 (12th century). Variant 4 is further found in the majority of Latin Vulgate
Codices of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (5th century); as well as in old Latin Versions a (4th
century), e (4th / 5th century), d (5th century), aur (7th century), g1 (8th / 9th century),
236
ff1 (10th / 11th century); and the Book of Armagh (812 A.D.). It is also found in the
ancient church Greek writer, Origen (d. 254), in both the Greek and also a Latin
translation; the ancient church Greek writers of the Eusebian Canons (4th century) and
Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444); and the ancient church Latin writers Cyprian (d. 258)23 and
Jerome (d. 420).
With respect to Component 2, Variant 4, there is no good textual argument
against the existence of Matt. 23:14 as found in the representative Byzantine text, so that
the existence of verse 14 (as opposed to its location relative to verse 13,) is correct.
Component 1, Variant 1 & 2, will be discussed after first considering Component
2, Variant 3.
Let us now consider Component 2, Variant 3, i.e., the fact that the verse order is
Matt. 23:14b followed by Matt. 23:13b in the majority Byzantine text.
Looking in overview at the style of address used by Jesus in Matt. 23:2-39, we
find that he repeatedly uses a technique of first stating a principle, and then elucidating on
it with one or more examples.
MORE WITH CHART
