Matthew 25:16

Πορευθεὶς δέ ὁ τὰ πέντε τάλαντα λαβὼν, εἰργάσατο ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἐποίησεν ἄλλα πέντε τάλαντα.

Matt 25:16 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]94-95
Πορευθεὶς δέ ὁ τὰ πέντε τάλαντα λαβὼν, εἰργάσατο ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἐποίησεν ἄλλα πέντε τάλαντα.

MSS: G, Y, Ω (p135c1-2), 8, 22, 43, 44, 201 (f63vc2-64rc1), 438

Matt 25:16 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q75f7rc4
πορευθεις δε ο τα πεντε ταλαντα λαβων ηειργασατο εν αυτοις και ε·π·ο·ι·η·σ·ε·ν· εκερδησεν αλλα πεντε ταλαντα

Matt 25:16 [Codex Alexandrinus (A02) (5th century)]2rc1
πορευθεις δε ο τα πεντε ταλαντα λαβων ειργασατο εν αυτοις και εκερδησεν αλλα πεντε ταλαντα

MSS: A, 771

Matt 25:16 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]20bc1
Πορευθεις ο τα πεντε ταλαντα λαβων ηειργασατο εν αυτοις και εκερδησεν αλλα πεντε

Matt 25:16 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C04) (5th century)]44
Πορευθεις δε ο τα πεντε ταλαντα λαβων ειργασατο εν αυτοις και εκερδησεν αλλα πεντε ταλαντα·

Matt 25:16 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis (D05) (5th century)]85v
πορευθεις δε ο τα πεντε ταλαντα λαβων ηργασατο εν αυτοις· και εκερδησεν αλλα· Ε· ταλαντα

Matt 25:16 [Codex Seidelianus I (Harley MS5684) (G011) (9th century)]51rc1
πορευθεὶς δέ ὁ τα πέντε τάλαντα λαβων· εἰργάσατο ἐν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἐποίησεν ἄλλα πέντε τάλαντα·

Matt 25:16 [Codex Cyprius (Grec 63) (K017) (9th century)]70r
πορευθεὶς δέ ὁ τὰ πέντε τά λαβὼν· εἰργάσατο ἐν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἐποίησεν ἄλλα πέντε τάλαντα·

Matt 25:16 [Codex Regius (Grec 62) (L019) (8th century)]58rc1

Matt 25:16 [Codex Washingtonianus (W032) (5th century)]94
Πορευθεις δε ο τα πεντε ταλαντα λαβω- ηργασατο εν αυτοις· και εποιησεν αλλα πεντε ταλαντα

Matt 25:16 [Codex Sangallensis 48 (Δ037) (9th century)]105
Πορευθεις δε ο τα πεντε ταλαντα λαβων ειγρασατο εν αυτους· Και εποιησεν αλλα πεντε ταλαντα.

Matt 25:16 [Peshitta]
ܐܶܙܰܠ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܗܰܘ ܕ݁ܰܢܣܰܒ݂ ܚܰܡܶܫ ܟ݁ܰܟ݁ܪܺܝܢ ܐܶܬ݁ܬ݁ܰܓ݁ܰܪ ܒ݁ܗܶܝܢ ܘܺܝܬ݂ܰܪ ܚܰܡܶܫ ܐ݈ܚܪܳܢܝܳܢ܂

Matt 25:16 [Vulgate]
abiit autem qui quinque talenta acceperat et operatus est in eis et lucratus est alia quinque

Critical Apparatus :

(1) πορευθεις δε : א1, A, C, D, G, L, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 8, 13, 22, 43, 44, 201, 438, 771, Peshitta
(2) δε πορευθεις : 700
(3) OMIT δε : א*, B

(4) ταλαντα : א1, A, B, C, G, L, Y, Δ, Ω, 8, 13, 22, 43, 44, 201, 438, 700, 771
(5) αλαντα : א*
(6) τα : K

(7) ειργασατο : א1, A, B1, C, G, K, Y, Ω, 8, 22, 43, 44, 201, 438, 700, 771, Scholz
(8) ηργασατο : א*, B*, D, L, W, 13
(9) ειγρασατο : Δ

(10) εποιησεν : א*, G, K, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 8, 22, 43, 44, 201, 438, 700
(11) εποιησε : 13
(12) εκερδησεν : א1, A, B, C, D, L, 771

(13) ταλαντα : א, A, C, D, G, K, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 8, 13, 22, 43, 44, 201, 438, 700, 771, Scholz
(14) OMIT ταλαντα : B, L, Peshitta, Vulgate

 

 

A Textual Commentary On Matthew 25:16

(a) εποιησεν or εκερδησεν?

Tregelles: In cases in which particular MSS. appear to be partial to particular tenses of verbs, or modes of expression, Tischendorf would use his first rule, as excluding such readings from being received, simply on the authority of such MSS. He would exclude any reading which may seem to have arisen from a recension (that is, critical revision) by a learned man. He specifies Matt. xxv. 16, as an instance ; where he rejects the reading εκερδησεν, though supported by A** B C D L, and other MSS., the Vulgate, copies of the old Latin, Syriac, later Syriac in the margin, Memphitic, Æthiopic, and Armenian versions. To these the Arabic and Persic might be added, if they possessed (which they do not) any critical value as authorities. In spite of all this evidence, he considers that it must be regarded as a critical emendation for the common reading εποιησεν. But as to this, must we not follow evidence ? If εκερδησεν be a critical correction, is it not strange that it should be supported so strongly by the best and most ancient MSS. in a body, and that this should be confirmed by the versions? Tischendorf, indeed, admits that this critical correction (if such it be), is as old as the second or third century : if so, how can we prove this reading not to be genuine? or how can we show the manner in which the reading εποιησεν (if genuine) had been transmitted through the early period of the history of the text? In this passage, Tischendorf has not stated the authorities for the reading which he has adopted. It may be further asked, whether a copyist might not have changed the more appropriate term εκερδησεν into the more familiar εποιησεν?

(An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, p 122)

This entry was posted in 01. Κατὰ Ματθαῖον. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.