Text Criticism

Matthew 14.22-33

NOTE: You will definitely want to check out the comments in Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT!

Verse 24 – Where exactly was the boat?

NA27τὸδὲπλοῖονἤδη✕σταδίουςπολλοὺςἀπὸτῆςγῆςἀπεῖχεν✖ …

NET Meanwhile the boat, already far from land,23 … [23Grk "The boat was already many stades from the land."]

NRS but by this time the boat … was far from the land,1 … [1Other ancient authorities read was out on the sea]

KJV But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, ….

1
2
3
4 /
  1. Note that the NET and NRSV are reading the same Greek text but providing a dynamic equivalency rather than a literal translation. (The NET provides the literal reading in its footnote.) Which Greek text (123or4) are they reading?
  2. Which Greek text are the NRSV footnote and the KJV reading? (123or4)
  3. Which text has the best external evidence?
  4. On what grounds will you argue for the best reading?

Verse 27 – (Be sure to check the notes in your NET Bible for this verse!)

NA27εὐθὺςδὲἐλάλησεν✕[ὀἸησοῦς] αὐτοῖς✖λέγων…

NRS But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, …

1
2
3 /
  1. Why is ὀἸησοῦς in brackets in the text?
  2. What does the “Majority Text” read?
  3. What does the original version of Codex Sinaiticus read?
  4. What does the corrected version of Codex Sinaiticus read?
  5. According to Metzger and to the NET Bible note, the second reading could be explained as the result of “homoioteleuton.” What does that mean?
  6. Why is reading 3 to be preferred?

Verse 29

NA27Πέτροςπεριεπάτησενἐπὶτὰὕδατα✕καὶἦλθεν✖πρὸςτὸνἸησοῦν.

NRS So Peter… started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus.

KJVAnd Peter … walked on the water, to go to Jesus.

1
2
3 /
  1. Translate into English what the Majority Text reads.
  2. Translate into English what the original text of Codex Sinaiticus reads.
  3. From these three examples in verses 24, 27, 29, which manuscript appears to be the best in each case?

Metzger Commentary

14.24stadi,ouj pollou.j avpo. th/j gh/j avpei/cen {C}

The question is whether Matthew was here assimilated by copyists to John (stadi,ouj ei;kosi pe,nte h' tria,konta, Jn 6.19) or to Mark (h=n to. ploi/on evn me,sw| th/j qala,sshj, Mk 6.47). Since the process of harmonization more often took place among the Synoptic Gospels than between the Fourth Gospel and one of the Synoptics, and since the Johannine parallel is very slight (involving among Greek witnesses only the word stadi,ouj),22 it appears that the reading of B ¦13al best accounts for the rise of the others.

14.29kai. h=lqen {B}

The reading kai. h=lqen (“Peter walked upon the water and came to Jesus”) seemed to say too much, and therefore was altered to evlqei/n (“Peter walked upon the water to come to Jesus”). Although the reading of a* has the appearance of being a conflation, it may be merely an exegetical expansion introduced by the scribe. The reading of ethro is a translational error.

14.30a;nemon @ivscuro,n# {C}

From the standpoint of external evidence, although the combination of a B* 073 33 copsa, bo, fay is impressive attestation, a majority of the Committee considered it too exclusively Egyptian to be followed here, where the shorter text may have arisen by accidental omission in the ancestor of one text-type. From the standpoint of internal considerations, although it can be argued that ivscuro,n was added by scribes in order to heighten the dramatic effect (as sfo,dra was added in W), a majority was inclined to regard its presence as intrinsically required in order to explain Peter’s increasing fear. In order to represent these conflicting considerations the Committee decided to retain ivscuro,n in the text, but to enclose it within square brackets.