Matthew 19:24

Πάλιν δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστι κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος διελθεῖν, ἢ πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰσελθεῖν.

And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Matt 19:24 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]70
Πάλιν δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστι κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος διελθεῖν, ἢ πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰσελθεῖν.

MSS: S (f55rc1-2), Y, 7, 10 (f51r), 12 (p132), 22 (f38v), 43, 44, 201, 438 (f86r-v), 501 (f36r)

Matt 19:24 [Peshitta]
ܬ݁ܽܘܒ݂ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܐܳܡܰܪܢܳܐ ܠܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܕ݁ܰܕ݂ܠܺܝܠ ܗ݈ܽܘ ܠܓ݂ܰܡܠܳܐ ܠܡܶܥܰܠ ܒ݁ܰܚܪܽܘܪܳܐ ܕ݁ܰܡܚܰܛܳܐ ܐܰܘ ܥܰܬ݁ܺܝܪܳܐ ܕ݁ܢܶܥܽܘܠ ܠܡܰܠܟ݁ܽܘܬ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ܂

Matt 19:24 [Vulgate]
et iterum dico vobis facilius est camelum per foramen acus transire quam divitem intrare in regnum caelorum

Critical Apparatus :

(1) δε : א, B, D, E, G, K, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 33, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 490, 500, 501, 502, 556, 771, 892, 901, 1701, ℓ339, ℓ1086,
(2) OMIT δε : F, L, 1, 700, 1582

(3) υμιν : א, B, E, F, G, K, L, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 33, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 490, 500, 501, 502, 556, 700, 771, 901, 1582, 1701, ℓ339, ℓ1086,
(4) υμειν : D
(5) ADD οτι : M, 892

(6) ευκοπωτερον : א, B, D, E, F, G, K, L, M, S, W, Y, Δ¹, 1, 4c, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 22, 33, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 490, 500, 501, 502, 556, 700, 771, 892, 901, 1582, 1701, ℓ1086,
(7) ευκοποτερον : Δ*, Ω, 8, 13, ℓ339,
(8) εκοπωτερον : 4*

(9) εστι : K, M, S, Y, Ω, 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 33, 43, 157, 201, 438, 490, 500, 501, 502, 556, 700, 892, 901, 1582, 1701, ℓ339,
(10) εστιν : א, B, D, E, F, G, L, W, Δ, 771, ℓ1086,

(11) καμηλον : א, B, D, E, F, G, K, L, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 33, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 490, 500, 501, 502, 556, 700, 771, 892, 901, 1582, 1701, ℓ339
(12) καμιλον : ℓ1086

(13) δια τρυπηματος ραφιδος διελθειν : D, G, S, Y, Ω, 7, 10, 12, 22, 43, 44, 201, 438, 501, 771, ℓ339,
(14) δια τρυπηματος ραφιδος εισελθειν : E, F, L, Δ, 1, 8, 11, 13, 33, 490, 500, 502, 556, 892, 901, 1582, 1701
(15) δια τρυπηματος ραφιδος εισελθιν : ¹א
(16) δια τρηματος ραφιδος εισελθιν : א*
(17) δια τρηματος ραφιδος διελθειν : B
(18) δια τρυμαλιας ραφιδος διελθειν : 700
(19) δια τρυμαλιας ραφιδος εισελθειν : C, K, M, 4, 9, 157, ℓ1086
(20) εισελθειν δια τρυπηματος ραφιδος : W

(21) εις την βασιλειαν του θεου εισελθειν : C, E, F, G, K, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 43, 44, 201, 438, 490, 500, 501, 502, 556, 771, 901, 1701, ℓ339, ℓ1086
(22) εισελθειν εις την βασιλειαν του θεου : B, D, 700
(23) εις την βασιλειαν του θεου : 892
(24) εις την βασιλιαν του θεου : א, L
(25) εις την βασιλειαν των ουρανων : 1, 33, 157, 1582

A Textual Commentary On Matthew 19:24

(a) The volume contains no ancient leaves of St. Matthew, besides those edited by Dr. Barrett. The fragments of Isaiah and of Gregory Nazianzen, in the same volume, differ from those of St. Matthew, and from one another, as to vellum, handwriting, and age. I cannot speak of important discoveries through my work on this MS. ; but still it was worth the trouble, if it only were that readings in it are rescued from mere uncertainty and conjecture, and questions are set at rest. For instance, in Matt. xix. 24, Tischendorf cites this MS. for the reading καμιλον, and as it is of older date than the time when ι and η were confused by copyists, it might seem like authority for that word, instead of the common κάμηλον. Now, the presence of the Iota was simply a conjecture, from the blank space in Dr. Barrett’s page ; and Lachmann cautiously cites, “καμ:λον Z“. But I brought the whole word ΚΑΜΗΛΟΝ distinctly to light : the H is at the end of one line, the three other letters at the beginning of the next. As the authorities of Trinity College, Dublin, still possess the copper plates on which Dr. Barrett’s (so called) facsimile is engraved, it is to be hoped that they will republish the text of this MS. with the addition of all that can now be given. This object would be furthered by Dr. Todd, the librarian, for whom I have inserted, in a copy of Dr. Barrett’s work, all that could be read on the MS. as restored. In such a republication, the text in common Greek types may well be omitted : in fact, its insertion was an injury to Dr. Barrett’s book ; for, while what he had read in 1787 was expressed correctly by the engraver whom he employed, his accuracy of eye was so thoroughly gone in 1801, that he made great and strange mistakes in expressing the same text in common Greek letters.*

* And yet it has been an accusation against Lachmann, that he remarked on Dr. Barrett’s unskilfulness. Mr. Scrivener says (Supplement to Authorised Version, Introd., p. 24, note), “It might almost be said, that Lachmann speaks well of no one. But the most amusing case of all is Dr. Barrett’s, who was guilty of editing the facsimile of the Dublin palimpsest of St. Matthew (Z of Scholz). After duly thanking the engraver for his workmanlike skill, Lachmann kindly adds, ‘Johannem Barrettum, qui Dublini edidit anno 1801, non laudo ; hominem huius artis, ultra quam credi potest, imperitum.’” This censure much amused Lachmann when I drew his attention to it ; for he supposed that he had gently hinted Dr. Barrett’s unskilfulness ; little dreaming that this would be turned into a charge of speaking ill of others. He thought that, when the engraver had expressed the text correctly on one page, and Dr. Barrett had given it in a different manner on the opposite (reading letters wrongly, and marking others as omitted, which the engraved plate exhibits as there), that it was well to hint the fact, lest the wrong page should be taken as the authority for the text of this MS. Dr. Davidson quite agrees with Lachmann : “The editor gives on the opposite page to the facsimile the words in the usual Greek type, with lines corresponding. Here his accuracy cannot be commended. In fact, he has made many blunders” (Biblical Criticism, ij. 311). Lachmann did not know that the engraved plates were what Dr. Barrett read rightly in 1787, and the printed pages were what he read wrongly in 1801. His judgment, however, as to the incorrectness of the latter, was quite a true one. No one would more fully see that the censure on Lachmann was undeserved, than Mr. Scrivener himself, if examining Dr. Barrett’s publication. It is evident that he had not done this (even if he had seen it), when he thus blamed Lachmann. I learn this from his note, page 261. “In verse 7 [of Matt. xxi. ], Scholz asserts that the Codex Z reads ἐπεκάθισεν. Buttmann informs us, that nothing remains of that word in Codex Z but the first two letters.” Now, if Mr. Scrivener had access to Dr. Barrett’s publication, he might have spoken on this point from the facsimile, without having to quote from another as to this published book. Lachmann thought that this was a good example of the mode in which reviewers in his own country had treated him — passing a judgment first, and learning the facts (if at all) afterwards. I am surprised that Mr. Scrivener should have charged Lachmann with hardly speaking well of any one, with the Preface before him, in which he so commends Bentley and Bengel.

(S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 168-169)