An Exegetical Study of Matthew 26:60 and the Variant Reading τὸ ἑξῆς
This exegetical study of Matthew 26:60 and the Variant Reading τὸ ἑξῆς is based on a b-greek discussion from Thu Sep 25 05:00:16 EDT 2003. The initial inquiry presented the standard text of Matthew 26:60, which describes the failure of false witnesses to provide sufficient testimony against Jesus. It then introduced a distinct variant reading attributed to manuscript δ, which inserts the phrase τὸ ἑξῆς twice within the verse, fundamentally altering its grammatical structure and potential meaning. The primary question posed concerned the precise interpretation of τὸ ἑξῆς in this particular context.
The main exegetical issue centers on the meaning and textual validity of the phrase τὸ ἑξῆς within Matthew 26:60. In the standard text, the lack of finding is attributed to the many false witnesses failing to establish a case. However, the δ variant suggests that “they found τὸ ἑξῆς” (or “did not find τὸ ἑξῆς,” depending on the negation placement) in relation to the witnesses. This raises critical questions about whether τὸ ἑξῆς should be understood temporally (“the next thing”), logically (“the logical connection”), or as an outcome (“the sequence/result”). The interpretation profoundly affects the portrayal of the legal proceedings against Jesus, particularly the coherence (or lack thereof) of the accusations made by his accusers.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
Καὶ οὐχ εὗρον, πολλῶν προσελθόντων ψευδομαρτύρων.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The SBLGNT (2010) text for Matthew 26:60 is identical to the Nestle 1904 text: Καὶ οὐχ εὗρον, πολλῶν προσελθόντων ψευδομαρτύρων.
- The primary difference examined in this study arises from the variant reading, specifically attributed to manuscript δ (likely an Old Latin witness), which presents a significantly altered Greek text including the phrase τὸ ἑξῆς: “… καὶ οὐχ εὗρον τὸ ἑξῆς. πολλῶν καὶ προσελθόντων ψευδομαρτύρων οὐχ εὗρον τὸ ἑξῆς.” This variant introduces a substantive phrase that is absent from the major Greek textual traditions (including Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010).
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
The critical apparatus of the Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) does not list the specific Greek variant featuring τὸ ἑξῆς for Matthew 26:60. The variant discussed, originating from a manuscript designated as δ, is typically associated with Old Latin textual traditions (e.g., Codex Vercellensis). The Greek form of the variant provided in the b-greek discussion, “… καὶ οὐχ εὗρον τὸ ἑξῆς. πολλῶν καὶ προσελθόντων ψευδομαρτύρων οὐχ εὗρον τὸ ἑξῆς,” appears to be a Greek rendering or reconstruction of a reading found in such Old Latin witnesses.
Lexical analysis of ἑξῆς (often found in the neuter singular substantive form τὸ ἑξῆς or plural τὰ ἑξῆς) provides crucial insight:
- BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Lexicon): Primarily defines ἑξῆς as an adverb meaning “next, in the next place, following,” often with a temporal sense (e.g., τῇ ἑξῆς ἡμέρᾳ, “on the next day”). It also notes instances like ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς (χρόνῳ), “in the time following.” While a direct parallel for “logical connection” is not prominent in BDAG for this specific grammatical construction, the flexibility of such adverbial/substantive uses often allows for broader contextual interpretation.
- Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ): Offers a more comprehensive historical range of meanings for ἑξῆς. Crucially, it lists a specific grammatical usage: “3. Gramm., τὸ ἑξῆς … grammatical sequence, opp. ἡ ὑπερβατόν … and καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, Lat. et cetera…” This specific entry in LSJ provides strong support for interpreting τὸ ἑξῆς in the variant as referring to a “logical sequence” or “grammatical coherence.” The reference to τὰ ἑξῆς meaning “etcetera” further underscores its function in referring to what follows or constitutes a sequence.
- KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament): While Kittel extensively discusses verbs like ἔχω (from which ἑξῆς derives), it does not have a dedicated entry for the adverbial/substantive phrase τὸ ἑξῆς that directly addresses this specific context or grammatical nuance in the New Testament. Its primary focus is theological concepts rather than intricate grammatical particles or adverbial usages unless they carry significant theological weight.
The discussion highlights the possibility that οὐχ εὗρον τὸ ἑξῆς might mean “they couldn’t find the logical connection” or “they were unable to put it all together,” drawing on the LSJ entry and the context of legal testimony where coherence is vital. The connection between ἔχω and δύναμαι (“be able”) also supports a reading of inability.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The phrase τὸ ἑξῆς functions as a neuter singular substantive noun phrase, meaning “that which follows” or “the sequence/consequence.” In the context of the trial, where false witnesses are attempting to fabricate charges against Jesus, the inability to “find” τὸ ἑξῆς can be analyzed in several ways:
- Grammatical and Logical Coherence: Drawing from LSJ’s “grammatical sequence,” τὸ ἑξῆς would refer to the logical coherence or consistency of their testimonies. The false witnesses presented multiple, contradictory accounts (as implied by the standard text’s “many false witnesses” who failed to find agreement), and thus “they could not find the logical connection” or “the consistent sequence” in their own statements to make a credible case. This interpretation strongly aligns with the narrative’s portrayal of a flawed legal process intended to unjustly condemn Jesus.
- Narrative Progression or Outcome: If understood as “that which follows” in a broader sense, τὸ ἑξῆς could refer to the next step in the legal process – a conclusive charge or a unified statement leading to condemnation. In this sense, “they could not find the outcome” or “the means to proceed successfully.” This is supported by Old Latin translations like “exitum rei” (the outcome of the matter) or “rei sequentia” (the sequence of the matter), which suggest a failure to achieve a decisive result from their testimonies.
- Ability to Construct a Case: The suggestion linking ἔχω (from which ἑξῆς derives) to δύναμαι (“to be able”) further strengthens an interpretation of inability. The false witnesses were “unable to get hold of” or “unable to construct” a coherent narrative. The repetition of οὐχ εὗρον τὸ ἑξῆς reinforces this failure, emphasizing the persistent lack of a unified or compelling case. Rhetorically, this highlights the profound injustice and the emptiness of the accusations against Jesus, despite the concerted efforts of his enemies.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The variant reading in Matthew 26:60, while not found in primary Greek manuscripts, offers an intriguing interpretive possibility, particularly when supported by Old Latin textual evidence and the broader semantic range of τὸ ἑξῆς. The Old Latin readings such as “rei sequentia” and “exitum rei” strongly suggest an understanding related to logical consistency or the successful culmination of a legal argument. Grammatically, τὸ ἑξῆς functions as a substantive, referring to “that which follows” or “the sequence,” which in the context of false testimony points to the inability of the witnesses to provide a coherent and convincing account. This reading underscores the fundamental failure of the legal proceedings against Jesus due to the contradictory nature of the accusations.
Based on this analysis, the following translation suggestions for the variant οὐχ εὗρον τὸ ἑξῆς are proposed:
- “they could not find the logical connection.” This emphasizes the inherent incoherence and lack of agreement among the false testimonies, making a credible case impossible.
- “they were unable to construct a consistent case.” This focuses on the practical inability of the witnesses to piece together their various accounts into a unified and damning accusation.
- “they found no consistent outcome (from their testimonies).” This highlights the failure to achieve a clear and decisive result, underscoring the legal impasse created by the contradictory evidence.