“`html
body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Book Antiqua’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 40px; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #2C3E50; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #BDC3C7; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; font-style: italic; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
An Exegetical Analysis of Textual Variants in Matthew 7:29
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Textual Variants in Matthew 7:29 is based on a b-greek discussion concerning the textual transmission of Matthew 7:29. The textual apparatus for Matthew 7:29 reveals significant variation concerning the presence and phrasing of words following γραμματεῖς. While a majority of witnesses conclude the chapter with merely γραμματεῖς, other manuscript traditions, including Latin and Syriac, incorporate additional phrases such as αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, or shorter additions like καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι or αὐτῶν.
The main exegetical issue under consideration is the determination of the most probable original reading of Matthew 7:29, specifically regarding the presence or absence of the possessive pronoun αὐτῶν and the conjoined phrase καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι after γραμματεῖς. This textual fluidity directly impacts the precise referent of Jesus’ teaching authority and its implied contrast, potentially shifting the emphasis from “the scribes” generally to “their scribes” or to a broader category encompassing “the scribes and Pharisees.” The existence of these variant readings necessitates a critical examination of potential scribal harmonizations, accidental deletions or additions, and the influence of parallel passages or external textual traditions like Tatian’s Diatessaron.
Greek text (Nestle 1904):
ἐξεπλήσσοντο γὰρ οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- No significant differences exist between the Nestle 1904 Greek text presented above and the SBLGNT (2010) for Matthew 7:29. Both editions present the shorter reading, ending with γραμματεῖς.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
The textual apparatus for Matthew 7:29 reveals a complex array of readings concerning the final phrase. The shortest reading, ending simply with γραμματεῖς, is attested by a significant number of Greek manuscripts including E, L, M, S, U, V, X, Γ, Π2, Ω, 047, the Byzantine textual tradition (Byz), and several minuscules (f35, 565, 1424, 2224), alongside the Gothic version. This reading aligns with the text presented in critical editions like Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010. Conversely, a longer reading, γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, is found in C2, W, 0211, 33, and the Latin and Syriac traditions, and was preferred by Lachmann. Intermediate readings include γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (C*) and γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν (ℵ B C3 K Δ Θ Π* Σ f1.13 892. 1500 co), the latter adopted by several earlier critical editions such as Bover, Greeven, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels.
Arguments for the shorter reading often cite the principle of lectio brevior praeferenda. Scholars like Alford (1:76) and Rinck (252) suggest that the longer reading could be an accidental or intentional deletion by harmonization to Mark 1:22, a passage with identical wording in its corresponding context. Alternatively, Matthew himself might have been faithfully dependent on Mark here, or both evangelists on a common source. The subsequent sixteen words in Matthew 7:28–29 are indeed identical to Mark 1:22: “ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς.”
Regarding the longer readings, various theories propose their origin through harmonization within Matthew or with other Synoptic Gospels. Mill (§736) suggests that the addition of οἱ Φαρισαῖοι could stem from Matthew 5:20, where Jesus explicitly refers to scribes and Pharisees together. Griesbach (1:83) notes that these additions “have sprung from similar passages,” citing Matthew 5:20, 12:38, 15:1, 23:2, 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29 as examples of the scribes and Pharisees being mentioned conjointly in Matthew. Bengel (111) posits that αὐτῶν might be a harmonization to Luke 5:30, though Bloomfield (7) finds internal evidence to be against this word, suggesting it was more likely an addition from Luke 5:30 than an omission in Matthew to conform to Mark 1:22. Kühnöl (226) ultimately dismisses both αὐτῶν and καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι as glosses.
Scribal activity related to αὐτῷ in Matthew 8:1 (the next line in most manuscripts) may also have contributed to the variant αὐτῶν in 7:29. For instance, manuscript Δ omits αὐτῷ in 8:1 but adds αὐτῶν in 7:29. The close proximity and similar appearance of αὐτῷ and αὐτῶν (with the final -ν sometimes appearing as a slender, easily missed supralinear stroke) could lead to assimilation, especially if αὐτῷ was a marginal or interlinear correction for 8:1. This is supported by examples like codex N/022 which wrongly writes αὐτῶν for αὐτῷ in 8:15.
Finally, the strong presence of the longer reading γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι in the Latin and Syriac traditions, juxtaposed with its slim attestation in the Greek manuscript tradition, suggests a possible early external influence. Tatian’s Diatessaron, an early harmony of the Gospels, is a plausible candidate for such influence, potentially disseminating a conflated or expanded reading into these traditions.
Lexical Notes:
- γραμματεῖς (grammateis):
- BDAG defines γραμματεύς as primarily “one whose occupation involves writing,” extending to “scribe,” “expert in the law,” and “teacher.” In the New Testament, particularly in the Gospels, they are typically presented as Jewish religious scholars and interpreters of the Torah, often associated with the Pharisees and priestly aristocracy. They held significant authority in Jewish religious and legal matters.
- KITTEL (TDNT) elaborates on the historical role of scribes, tracing their development from administrative functionaries to specialists in the Mosaic Law. By the New Testament period, they were the official interpreters of the Law (nomodidaskaloi), responsible for teaching, judicial rulings, and administering justice. They represented the traditional authority, often in contrast to Jesus’ direct, divine authority.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The textual variants discussed above lead to several distinct possibilities for translation, each carrying subtle grammatical and rhetorical implications:
- Reading 1: …καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς. (Nestle 1904, SBLGNT 2010, NA28)
Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis: This is the shortest and most widely accepted reading. Grammatically, οἱ γραμματεῖς functions as a simple nominative plural, the definite article indicating a known group. Rhetorically, it establishes a direct contrast between Jesus’ authoritative teaching and the established, traditional authority of the scribal class. The implication is that Jesus teaches with inherent power, unlike the scribes whose authority is derived from their interpretation and transmission of the Law.
- Reading 2: …καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν.
Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis: The addition of the possessive pronoun αὐτῶν (“their”) modifies γραμματεῖς. Grammatically, this specifies a particular group of scribes, perhaps those associated with the crowds Jesus was teaching, or scribes belonging to a specific Jewish faction. Rhetorically, this could intensify the contrast by localizing the scribal authority (“their scribes”) and implying that even the scribes *of the people* lack the authority Jesus possesses. However, it might also diminish the universal claim if it refers only to a subset of scribes.
- Reading 3: …καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι.
Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis: This reading introduces καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, conjoining them with the scribes. Grammatically, it expands the group being contrasted with Jesus. Rhetorically, this aligns with Matthew’s frequent pairing of “scribes and Pharisees” throughout his Gospel, often as antagonists to Jesus’ ministry (e.g., Matt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; 23:2). This variant broadens the scope of Jesus’ challenge to traditional Jewish leadership, criticizing not just the interpreters of the law (scribes) but also the religious party often associated with strict adherence to it (Pharisees).
- Reading 4: …καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι.
Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis: This conflated reading combines both additions. Grammatically, it creates the longest phrase. Rhetorically, it attempts to combine the specificity of “their scribes” with the broader opposition of “the Pharisees.” This could imply a comprehensive critique of both localized scribal authority and the general religious establishment. However, its complex nature and limited manuscript support suggest it is likely a secondary conflation.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the principles of textual criticism, including the preference for the shorter reading (lectio brevior) and the likelihood of scribal harmonization or error, the reading concluding simply with γραμματεῖς is the most probable original text. The longer readings are best explained as secondary expansions, driven either by internal Matthean harmonization to passages where scribes and Pharisees are paired, by harmonization to parallel Synoptic texts like Luke 5:30 (for αὐτῶν), or by scribal assimilation of similar-sounding words or influences from non-Greek textual traditions like the Diatessaron.
Therefore, the following translation suggestions reflect both the most probable original text and credible alternative readings:
- “for he was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”
This translation adheres to the shortest reading, which is most strongly supported by Greek manuscript evidence and critical editions. It emphasizes Jesus’ unique and inherent authority in stark contrast to the derived, interpretive authority of the traditional scribal class. - “for he was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.”
While supported by fewer manuscripts, this translation incorporates the possessive pronoun αὐτῶν. It suggests a more specific contrast with the scribes associated with the audience, potentially highlighting that even *their own* recognized religious authorities lacked Jesus’ direct power, though its textual basis is weaker. - “for he was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes and the Pharisees.”
This translation reflects the longer reading that includes both groups. Although likely a secondary harmonization, it aligns with a dominant thematic emphasis in Matthew where Jesus frequently confronts the combined authority of the scribes and Pharisees, thus broadening the scope of his authoritative teaching against institutional religious leadership.
“`