ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ· ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν, πόῤῥω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ.
This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Matt 15:8 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]54
Ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν, καὶ τοῖς χείλεσί με τιμᾷ· ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν, πόῤῥω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ.
MSS: K, M (f53vc1-2), Y, 7, 8, 22, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438 (f68v-69r), 500, 556 (f28r)
Matt 15:8 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]75q1rc4
Ο λαος ουτος τοις χιλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεχει απ εμου
Matt 15:8 [Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 (B03) (4th century)]13ac1
ο λαος ουτος τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεχει απ εμου
Matt 15:8 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C04) (5th century)]
εγγιζει μοι ο λαος ουτος τω στοματι αυτων και τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα· η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεχει απ εμου·
Matt 15:8 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis (D05) (5th century)]49v
ο· λαος ουτος τοις χειλεσιν με τειμα· η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω εστιν απ εμου·
Matt 15:8 [Codex Seidelianus I (Harley MS5684) (G011) (9th century)]23rc2-vc1
ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαος οὗτος τῶ στόματι αὐτῶν καὶ τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾶ· ἡ δὲ καρδια αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ εμοῦ·
Matt 15:8 [Codex Washingtonianus (W032) (5th century)]55
εγγιζει μοι ο λαος ουτος τω στοματι αυτων και τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεχει απ εμου
Matt 15:8 [Codex Sangallensis 48 (Δ037) (9th century)]65
Εγγιζει μοι ο λαος τω στοματι αυτων· και τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα. Η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεχει απε μου.
Matt 15:8 [Codex Athous Dionysiou (Ω045) (9th century)]84c2
ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαος οὗτος. τὸ στόματι αὐτῶν· ἡ δὲ καρδια αὐτῶν. πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ εμοῦ·
Matt 15:8 [Minuscule 700 (Egerton MS 2610) (11th century)]49v
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσί με τιμᾷ· ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ·
Matt 15:8 [Peshitta]
ܥܰܡܳܐ ܗܳܢܳܐ ܒ݁ܣܶܦ݂ܘܳܬ݂ܶܗ ܗ݈ܘ ܡܝܰܩܰܪ ܠܺܝ ܠܶܒ݁ܗܽܘܢ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܣܰܓ݁ܺܝ ܪܰܚܺܝܩ ܡܶܢܝ܂
Matt 15:8 [Vulgate]
populus hic labiis me honorat cor autem eorum longe est a me
Critical Apparatus :
(1) εγγιζει μοι ο λαος ουτος : C, E, G, K, M, S, W, Y, Σ, Ω, 4, 7, 8, 22, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 490, 500, 556, ℓ339, Majority
(2) εγγιζει μοι ο λαος ουτως : 13
(3) ο λαος ουτος εγγιζει μοι : 1, 1582
(4) OMIT εγγιζει μοι : א, B, D, L, 33, 700, 892, Peshitta, Vulgate
(5) OMIT ουτος : Δ
(6) τω στοματι αυτων : C, E, G, K, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Σ, 7, 8, 13, 22, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 500, 556, Majority
(7) το στοματι αυτων : Ω, 4, ℓ339
(8) εν τω στοματι αυτων : 490
(9) OMIT τω στοματι αυτων : א, B, D, L, 1, 33, 700, 892, 1582
(10) και τοις χειλεσι : K, M, Y, 4, 7, 8, 13, 22, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 490, 500, 556, ℓ339
(11) και τοις χειλεσιν : C, E, G, S, W, Δ
(12) και τοις χιλεσιν : Σ
(13) τοις χειλεσι : 1, 700, 892, 1582
(14) τοις χειλεσιν : B, D, L, 33,
(15) τοις χιλεσιν : א
(16) OMIT και τοις χειλεσι με τιμα : Ω
(17) τιμα : א, B, C, E, G, K, M, S, W, Y, Δ, 1, 4, 7, 8, 13, 22, 33, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 490, 500, 556, 700, 892, 1582, ℓ339, Majority
(18) τειμα : D
(19) τημα : L
(20) απεχει : א, B, C, E, G, K, L, M, Smg, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 4, 7, 8, 13, 22, 33, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 490, 500, 556, 700, 892, 1582, ℓ339, Majority
(21) απεχι : Σ
(22) εστιν : D
(23) OMIT απεχει : S
(i) Σ : εγγιζει ] correctio obscura in fine; videtur ει ex ο factum.
A Textual Commentary On Matthew 15:8
(a) Ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν – On Mt 15:8, Origen says that the Evangelist gave the citation from Isaiah, not in the very words, οὐκ αὐταις λέξεσιν, and he cites it from St. Matthew without ἐγγίζει μοι and ἐν τῶ στόματι αὐτῶν, and in this form the passage stands in the most ancient MSS and versions.
(S. P. Tregelles, An Introduction to the Critical Study & Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, vol. 4, p. 42)
(b) The common text reads Ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν, καὶ τοῖς χείλεσί με τιμᾷ. Other copies have ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσί με τιμᾷ without the other words.
The common text is found in none of the more ancient versions, but it is that of the mass of MSS. : the other reading is that of all the more ancient versions which we have (the Thebaic being here defective), of Origen and other fathers, and is in the MSS. B D L, 33, 124. So that this one passage might be relied on as an important proof that it is the few MSS. and not the multitude which accord with ancient testimony. On this passage, Mr. Scrivener remarks in opposition to the view just stated : —
Matt. xv. ver. 8. “Griesbach, Vater, and Lachmann, remove from the text as spurious the words ἐγγίζει μοι, ‘draweth nigh unto me,’ and τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν, καὶ, ‘with their mouth, and.’ They are wanting in Syr., Vulg., the Italic, Æthiopia, and Armenian versions ; in Origen, Chrysostom, and several other fathers. This would form a strong reason for questioning their authenticity, were they not found in all existing manuscripts except five (B D L, 33, 124), all of which are decidedly Alexandrian. Fully admitting the weight of the versions on a point of this kind, and the possibility that the disputed words were inserted from the LXX. of Isaiah xxix. 13 ; I still think it unreasonable to reject the reading contained in so immense a majority of the manuscripts of every age, and of both families. Indeed, we cannot do so without unsettling the first principles of Scriptural criticism.”
Then, if so, those “first principles,” must be, that numbers, and numbers only, shall prove a point ; for here we have versions and fathers rejecting certain words, and this testimony confirmed by a few good MS. witnesses ; but because ninety MSS. to one can be produced on the other side, the united ancient testimony must (we are told) be rejected, although it is admitted that this host of witnesses may possibly testify to what they got from Isaiah, and not from St. Matthew ; I should say, that on every true principle of textual criticism, the words must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the prophet. This naturally explains their introduction ; and when once they had gained a footing in the text, it is certain that they would be multiplied by copyists who almost always preferred to make passages as full and complete as possible. To the evidence for the reading to which Mr. Scrivener objects, as stated above, some items must be added ; for the Memphitic version, as well as the Curetonian Syriac, agree with the other ancient translations ; so that (as the Thebaic is here defective) the whole of the more ancient versions give one according testimony ; which Mr. S. rejects, thinking that if he were not to do this, he would unsettle the first principles of Biblical criticism. I should not wish to adopt principles which led to such conclusions. It is right to add, the Latin Codex Brixianus does contain the words ; which is just what we should expect from the character of the MS., as giving a remodelled version.* We come again to just the same conclusion as before, that the MSS. which are entitled to a primary rank as witnesses, are the few and not the many ; the few whose character is well attested and confirmed.
* On the other side should be added that Codex 1 in part agrees with the reading of B D L; it transposes ἐγγίζει μοι, and rejects the other words mentioned above.
(S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp.139-140)
(c) This reading is a good specimen of the manner in which amplifications were introduced from the Old Testament The longer reading is defended pro more by those who rest on numbers and on numbers only. It is instructive to see that the reading of the few Greek MSS., which have been classified as of the most importance, is so strongly supported. The longer reading is found in no version prior to the later Syriac. To those who are not committed to the defence at all risks of the theory that mere numbers should prevail, it must be a cause for surprise that the express testimony of Origen should be deemed worthy of no weight In fact, in such a place to maintain the longer reading as genuine is almost the same as to uphold mere conjecture as to what is or is not the text of Holy (Scripture. The citation of the passage by Clement of Rome is marked as doubtful : he does not quote from Isaiah, because he gives the shorter reading. From the order of words, however, it looks more as if he were using the citation as found in the parallel passage in St Mark’s Gospel.
(S P. Tregelles, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 353-354)