“`html
body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Book Antiqua’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; color: #333; }
h1, h2, h3 { font-family: Georgia, ‘Times New Roman’, Times, serif; color: #1a1a1a; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 20px; }
h3 { color: #2d2d2d; margin-top: 15px; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #eee; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; font-style: italic; color: #555; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
Textual Critical Analysis of Verbal Forms in Matthew 7:9 and 12:36
This exegetical study of Textual Critical Analysis of Verbal Forms in Matthew 7:9 and 12:36 is based on a b-greek discussion from February 2014. The discussion highlights significant textual variations concerning verb forms and the presence of conjunctions in key passages from Matthew’s Gospel.
Specifically, the focus is on variations in Matthew 7:9 regarding the form of the verb “to ask” (αἰτέω) and the presence of the conjunction εαν, as well as the omission of εστιν. A parallel issue is examined in Matthew 12:36 concerning the verb “to speak” (λαλέω) and the conjunction εαν. These variations present critical challenges to establishing the earliest and most accurate form of the New Testament text, influencing the grammatical structure and rhetorical force of the passages.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
Matthew 7:9-10:
ἢ τίς εστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃν αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον, μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; (9)
ἢ καὶ ἰχθὺν αἰτήσει, μὴ ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; (10)Matthew 12:36:
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀργὸν ὃ ἐὰν λαλήσωσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ἀποδώσουσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγον ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως. (36)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- For Matthew 7:9, while the Nestle 1904 text presents αἰτήσει (future indicative) without εαν/αν, a significant number of witnesses (including E G K M N O S U V W X Π Σ Φ Ω 0281 [Byz ca. 1500 mss] f1.13.35 33. 565. 892. 2224) have εαν (or αν) with the aorist subjunctive αιτηση. SBLGNT (2010) aligns with Nestle 1904, reading αιτήσει without εαν/αν, reflecting the reading of witnesses such as ℵ* B C Θ 1500.
- In Matthew 7:9, the Nestle 1904 text includes εστιν. Some witnesses (B* L 565. 1424 al) omit εστιν, a variant possibly attributed to harmonization with Luke 11:11. SBLGNT (2010) retains εστιν, consistent with the Nestle 1904 reading.
- For Matthew 12:36, the Nestle 1904 text reads ἐὰν λαλήσωσιν (εαν + aorist subjunctive). While this reading is supported by most manuscripts (including E G K [L] M N S U V W X Y Γ Δ Π Ω 0250 [Byz 1540 mss] f1.13.35 565. 892. 1424; [Or]), other witnesses (ℵ B D [Byz 3 mss]) omit εαν and change the verb to the future indicative λαλησουσιν (ℵ B C Θ [Byz 32 mss] 33). SBLGNT (2010) concurs with the Nestle 1904 reading, presenting ἐὰν λαλήσωσιν.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
The textual apparatus of NA28 largely reflects the critical choices seen in SBLGNT, often prioritizing readings supported by earlier and more reliable manuscripts like א, B, and C. The variants observed in Matthew 7:9 and 12:36 underscore a common scribal tendency: the harmonization of parallel passages (e.g., Matthew 7:9 with Luke 11:11 regarding the omission of εστιν) and the simplification or clarification of grammatical constructions. The shift between εαν + subjunctive and the future indicative (αιτηση vs. αιτησει; λαλησωσιν vs. λαλησουσιν) is a significant point of divergence. Some textual critics suggest that the omission of εαν and the use of the future indicative might represent an earlier, more direct phrasing, while the introduction of εαν + subjunctive could be an attempt to formalize the conditional nature of the question. Conversely, others argue that the `εαν` + subjunctive better fits the rhetorical questions, implying a hypothetical scenario.
- αἰτέω (aitéō): This verb means “to ask for, ask to have, demand” (BDAG, 34). In the New Testament, it frequently denotes a petition or request, often from a subordinate to a superior, or from a human to God, implying a need or dependency (KITTEL, TDNT, Vol. I, pp. 191-193). The choice between subjunctive and future indicative affects whether the request is presented as a general possibility or a more direct, perhaps inevitable, action.
- ἐπιδίδωμι (epidídōmi): Meaning “to give, hand over, impart” (BDAG, 365), this verb emphasizes the act of bestowing something, often in response to a request. In this context, it highlights the expected (or unexpectedly perverse) response to a child’s petition (KITTEL, TDNT, Vol. II, pp. 166-172).
- λαλέω (laléō): Generally meaning “to make a sound, to speak, say” (BDAG, 583), λαλέω is a broad term for uttering words. In Matthew 12:36, it refers to the act of speaking idle or careless words, the implication being that every utterance will be accounted for (KITTEL, TDNT, Vol. IV, pp. 69-76). The variant affects whether these words are spoken hypothetically (conditional) or as a future certainty.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The core exegetical issue in Matthew 7:9 (and implicitly 7:10) revolves around the grammatical construction of the rhetorical question: “Or what person is there among you whom his son will ask for bread, will he give him a stone?” The presence or absence of εαν (if) and the tense/mood of the verb αἰτέω significantly alter the grammatical structure and rhetorical nuance. The Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT text, with αἰτήσει (future indicative) and no εαν, presents a direct, almost certain, question about a future event. This gives the rhetorical question a stark, factual character.
Conversely, the variant reading εαν + αιτηση (aorist subjunctive) would introduce a protasis (conditional clause) and apdosis structure, “If his son asks for bread, will he give him a stone?” This construction emphasizes the hypothetical nature of the request, making the father’s potential perverse response even more unthinkable. Both constructions are rhetorically powerful, but the former (direct future) might imply a more immediate or inherent moral principle, while the latter (conditional) sets up a clear if-then scenario. The direct future indicative found in critical editions (like Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT) creates a vivid, almost certain scenario that powerfully underscores the absurdity of a human father acting cruelly, thereby highlighting God’s even greater benevolence.
Similarly, in Matthew 12:36, the presence of εαν with the aorist subjunctive λαλήσωσιν (as in Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT) introduces a conditional element: “whatever idle word if people speak…” This construction frames the judgment as contingent upon the speaking of such words, highlighting the responsibility that comes with every utterance. The alternative reading, omitting εαν and using the future indicative λαλησουσιν, would render it “whatever idle word people will speak,” making the judgment a direct consequence of a future, certain action, possibly losing some of the conditional force that emphasizes human agency in speaking.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The textual evidence suggests that scribes grappled with the precise grammatical and rhetorical force of these questions. Critical editions, by generally preferring the direct future indicative in Matthew 7:9 and the conditional εαν + subjunctive in Matthew 12:36, aim to present a text that reflects the most likely original readings, favoring manuscript traditions that emphasize directness in rhetorical questions concerning God’s nature and careful conditional framing for human accountability.
- “Or which one of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?”
This translation adopts the conditional `εαν` + aorist subjunctive, emphasizing the hypothetical nature of the request, highlighting the father’s moral decision. - “Or what person is there among you whom his son will ask for bread, and he will give him a stone?”
This translation follows the Nestle 1904/SBLGNT reading for Matthew 7:9, using the direct future indicative, presenting the scenario as a direct rhetorical challenge about a future action. - “I tell you, on the day of judgment, people will give an account for every careless word they speak.”
This translation for Matthew 12:36 (reflecting the Nestle 1904/SBLGNT reading) maintains the conditional nature of the statement (“they speak” implying “if they speak”), underscoring human responsibility for every utterance.
“`