“`html
An Exegetical Analysis of the Particle δέ in Matthew 7:15: A Text-Critical Inquiry
This exegetical study, based on an online scholarly discussion, investigates the textual variant concerning the presence or absence of the particle δέ after προσεχετε in Matthew 7:15. The initial observation highlights that a limited number of early manuscripts omit δέ, while the vast majority of pre-10th-century witnesses retain it, suggesting a robust textual tradition for its inclusion.
The main exegetical issue revolves around the text-critical decision regarding the originality of δέ and its subsequent impact on the semantic and rhetorical flow of Matthew 7:15. The presence of this particle, typically functioning as a connective (“but,” “and,” “now”), establishes a nuanced relationship between the command to “beware” and the broader discourse of the Sermon on the Mount. Its absence, conversely, would render the command more abrupt, potentially altering its contextual connection and rhetorical force. This analysis will delve into the manuscript evidence, scholarly commentary, and grammatical implications to inform a reasoned judgment on the text and its translation.
Προσεχετε δε απο των ψευδοπροφητων, οιτινες ερχονται προς υμας εν ενδυμασι προβατων, εσωθεν δε εισιν λυκοι αρπαγες. (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The SBLGNT (2010) text of Matthew 7:15, “Προσεχετε δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες ἔρχονται πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ἐνδύμασιν προβάτων, ἔσωθεν δὲ εἰσιν λύκοι ἅρπαγες,” retains δέ after προσεχετε, aligning with the Nestle 1904 edition on this specific textual point.
- Minor orthographical differences, such as the use of breathing marks and accents, are present but do not affect the semantic content.
Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
The textual apparatus of NA28 (Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed.) for Matthew 7:15 indicates the variant of δέ omission. A very small number of significant witnesses—notably ℵ (Codex Sinaiticus), B (Codex Vaticanus), Ω, 565, 1424, and a few others (pc)—omit δέ after προσεχετε. This reading has been adopted by some critical editions, including those of Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, and Tischendorf (8th edition). Conversely, a substantial majority of manuscripts predating the 10th century, including C E G K L M O S U V W X Δ Θ Π Σ Φ 047 0211 0281, the Koine/Byzantine textual tradition (Byz), and family 1 and 13 manuscripts (f1.13.35), retain δέ. This inclusion is supported by editors such as Soden, Tischendorf (7th edition), and Vogels.
Several explanations have been proposed for the omission of δέ. The phenomenon of scribal error is a frequent cause, particularly the accidental omission of small particles. The phonological similarity between the preceding -ΤΕ of προσεχετε and ΔΕ could have led to haplography. Scholars like Weiss have observed that “omission of δέ through scribal error is of course very frequent . . . especially after προσεχετε,” citing parallel examples in Luke 21:34 (ℵ D), Matthew 10:17 (D), Matthew 16:11 (D), Matthew 6:1 (B D Δ Byz), and Matthew 7:15 itself (ℵ B). Bloomfield suggests that the conjunction might have been “lost by the carelessness of scribes” or “more probably removed by critics unable to follow up the thread of the connexion . . . , and who, observing its absence from the lectionaries, where from a lectio commencing with this verse the particle could not be used, accordingly expunged it.” Lectionary influence, where particles might be omitted at the start of a reading, is a plausible scenario. Furthermore, an early versional diglot that omitted the word, or assimilation to other passages like Matthew 6:1 (where δέ is also sometimes omitted after προσεχετε), could have contributed to the variant. The general principle in textual criticism favors omission over addition for smaller words and particles in the early period, but the overwhelming manuscript support for inclusion here makes omission the more likely secondary development.
Lexically, the particle δέ (BDAG, s.v. “δέ”) functions as a connective, indicating a transition, continuation, or sometimes a mild contrast. It can be translated as “but,” “and,” “now,” “moreover,” or “on the other hand.” In discourse, δέ serves to advance the narrative or argument, linking a new statement to what precedes it, often marking a development in thought. KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “δέ”) provides an extensive discussion, highlighting δέ‘s versatility in structuring discourse, marking logical sequence, or introducing a new, yet related, point. Its presence in Matthew 7:15, therefore, signals a continuation of Jesus’ teaching, connecting the warning about false prophets to the preceding section of the Sermon on the Mount, particularly the theme of discernment and righteous living.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The choice between including or omitting δέ significantly impacts the grammatical and rhetorical texture of Matthew 7:15.
1. Inclusion of δέ: When δέ is present, the verse typically begins with a connective particle. Grammatically, it links the command “Beware of false prophets” to the preceding discourse. Rhetorically, this creates a smooth transition, implying a logical progression from the general warnings about the narrow gate and the fruit of good and bad trees (7:13-14) to the specific warning against false teachers. The particle δέ can signal a slight shift in focus, introducing a new, yet related, point within the broader sermon. It provides a sense of continuity, ensuring the reader understands this warning as an integral part of Jesus’ ethical instruction, rather than an isolated admonition. It maintains the flow of argument, moving from general principles to a concrete application.
2. Omission of δέ: If δέ were absent, the verse would commence directly with the imperative Προσεχετε (“Beware!”). Grammatically, this creates a more abrupt and direct command, severing the explicit conjunctive link to the preceding verses. Rhetorically, while still conveying the warning, the absence of δέ might make the injunction feel more isolated or standalone. It could lend a sense of urgency through its sheer directness, but it might also subtly weaken the cohesive fabric of the Sermon on the Mount, as the explicit indicator of logical flow is removed. This would leave the connection to the reader’s inference rather than making it explicit in the text. Given the context, the warning would still be understood as part of the broader teaching, but the nuance of connection would be lost.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the overwhelming manuscript evidence and the various plausible explanations for its omission as a scribal or critical error, the inclusion of δέ in Matthew 7:15 is strongly supported as the original reading. The particle functions to maintain the cohesive flow of Jesus’ discourse within the Sermon on the Mount, connecting the specific warning about false prophets to the broader context of spiritual discernment and the call to righteous living. Its presence ensures a smooth transition and logical progression in the text.
- “But beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
This translation emphasizes the transitional nature of δέ, suggesting a slight shift or continuation of thought from the previous warnings. - “And beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
Here, δέ is rendered as a simple conjunction, highlighting the additive nature of the warning within the larger discourse. - “Now, beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
This option uses δέ to mark a new point or development in the teaching, while still maintaining the connection to what has come before.
“`