MATTHEW 28:6 e;keito Providing a subject for e;keito was a quite natural addition for copyists to make; if present originally, there is no reason why it should have been deleted. In Matthew the word ku,rioj is never applied to Jesus except in his reported sayings.... [ Continue Reading ]
MATTHEW 28:7 avpo. tw/n nekrw/n While recognizing the difficulty of accounting for the absence of the words avpo. tw/n nekrw/n from D 565 and several early versions, a majority of the Committee judged that the preponderance of external evidence favors their inclusion. Their omission may have been... [ Continue Reading ]
MATTHEW 28:8 avpelqou/sai {B} The reading avpelqou/sai, which is strongly supported by a wide range of witnesses, was assimilated by copyists to the parallel in Mark 16:8, where evxelqou/sai is firm.... [ Continue Reading ]
MATTHEW 28:9 kai. ivdou, {A} Although it is possible that the words w`j de. evporeu,onto avpaggei/lai toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ kai. ivdou, fell out of the text due to homoeoteleuton, their absence from the earliest and best representatives of both early types of text (the Alexandrian and the Wester... [ Continue Reading ]
MATTHEW 28:11 avph,ggeilan {B} In view of the weight of evidence, the Committee preferred avph,ggeilan to avnh,ggeilan, a verb that occurs nowhere else in Matthew.... [ Continue Reading ]
MATTHEW 28:15 @h`me,raj# {C} On the one hand, there is strong and diversified external evidence in support of the presence of h`me,raj. On the other hand, in similar expressions elsewhere ( Matthew 11:23; Matthew 27:8) Matthew does not add h`me,raj to sh,meron. The Committee therefore decided to r... [ Continue Reading ]
MATTHEW 28:20 aivw/noj. {A} After aivw/noj most manuscripts, followed by the Textus Receptus, terminate the Gospel with avmh,n, reflecting the liturgical usage of the text. If the word had been present originally, no good reason can be found to account for its absence from the better representativ... [ Continue Reading ]