1 Matt. 15:2 “their” (TR & AV) {A} The Greek of the Textus Receptus (TR), “ tas (-) cheiras (hands) auton (‘of them,’ or ‘their’),” in the words, “for they wash not their ( auton) hands ( tas cheiras ),” is supported by the majority Byzantine text e.g., Codices W 032 ( Codex Freerianus , 5th century, which is Byzantine in Matthew 1-28; Luke 8:13-24:53), the purple parchment Sigma 042 ( Codex Rossanensis , late 5th / 6th century), and the purple parchment N 022 ( Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus , 6th century). It is further supported as Latin, “ manus (hands) suas (their),” by Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (5th century for earliest Vulgate Codices in the Gospels), and old Latin Versions a (4th century), e (4th / 5th century), b (5th century), d (5th century), ff2 (5th century), q (6th / 7th century), aur (7th century), 1 (7th / 8th century), ff1 (10th / 11th century), and c (12th / 13th century); as well as the Sangallensis Latin Diatessaron (9th century). From the Latin support for this reading, it is manifested in the Clementine Vulgate (1592). However, a variant omits “their (Greek, auton; Latin, suas ),” thus making this read, “for they wash not the (Greek, tas ) hands (Greek, cheiras ; Latin, manus ).” This reading is found in old Latin versions f (6th century) and g1 (8th / 9th century). It is also found in the ancient church Greek writers, Origen (d. 254), Chrysostom (d. 407), and Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444). There is no good textual argument against the representative Byzantine reading which is therefore correct. The origins of the variant are speculative. Was its loss accidental? Certainly Manuscript Washington (W 032) shows that such short words could sometimes be accidentally omitted, since e.g., at Matt. 7:17, the Byzantine scribe first omitted “ agathon (good),” (in “good tree”,) and then realizing his mistake, wrote it in the side-margin with a marker showing where the word should go (perhaps initially losing agathon from ellipsis with the last two letters of the previous word, dendron / “tree”). So too here at Matt. 15:2, a scribe, probably Origen, may have likewise omitted “ auton (their),” (perhaps losing auton from ellipsis with the last letter of the following word, otan / “when,” a confusion possibly helped by the presence of the letter “t” / tau, two letters before the “n” / nu). Alternatively, was its loss deliberate? If so, it may have been regarded as “redundant.” In the first place, it should be observed that there is a very specific contextual grammatical focus on “the hands.” In the Greek, the accusative is used as the grammatical case of limitation or extent , and so acts to limit a verb’s action 1. Thus here, the action of the verb, “they wash ( niptonai ),” is limited by the accusative to “the ( tas ) hands ( cheiras , feminine plural accusative noun, from cheir ).” I.e., this is not talking about a ceremonial washing of e.g., the whole body, but is limited to “the hands.” Moreover, referring to Christ’s “disciples ( mathetai , nominative masculine plural noun, from mathetes),” the Greek reads, “ ou (not) gar (for) niptonai (‘they wash,’ indicative middle present, 3rd person plural verb, from nipto), “ tas (the) cheiras (hands) auton (‘of them,’ masculine [cf. mathetai , supra ] genitive, 3rd person plural personal pronoun, from 1 Wallace’s Greek Grammar , p. 178. 2 autos ), otan (when) arton (bread) esthiosin (‘they eat,’ subjunctive active present, 3rd person plural verb, from esthio).” Since both “niptonai (they wash)” and “ esthiosin (they eat)” are in the 3rd person plural form (they), grammatical context requires that “ tas (the) cheiras (hands)” in question are those of Christ’s “ mathetai (disciples).” Therefore it is possible to argue that the Greek can be made to work double-time, with these 3rd person plural forms contextually supplying the same meaning as more expressly found in the TR’s “auton (of them).” If so, the rendering that I give for the variant, supra , would be disputed. It would be said that the rendering of the variant should be exactly the same as the rendering from the TR which overtly has “their ( auton),” i.e., it would be said that the rendering of both should be “their hands,” and that (if one was using an English translation that employed italics,) “their” would not have to be put in italics as added, since it is in the Greek of the variant in a covert form. What are we to make of this proposition, that a scribe should try to impose his domination quickstep onto the Greek? Should a scribe, probably Origen, who is like unto a Lieutenant who is a platoon commander (a platoon is c. 30 men), make the Greek of the Textus Receptus which is like unto a Field Marshall (a Field Marshall is the highest ranking General, known in the USA army as a “Five Star General”), work double-time against its will? Should a scribe say to the Received Text, “ Quick!, quick!, quick!, says the scribe, and step up the work; break into double-time, listen to my beat!; I’ve got the power in my hands of murk; and I’ve also got the load off my feet”? “Gross insubordination,” I hear you say. And you are absolutely correct! Evidently St. Matthew, in his verbally inspired Gospel, and therefore ultimately, the Holy Spirit of God (II Tim. 3:16), did not agree with any such scribe either. For we read in Matt. 3:6 “they confessing ( exomologoumenoi , masculine plural nominative, middle present participle, from exomologeomai ) their ( auton) sins.” On this perverse logic, could not we here also remove the “their ( auton),” for contextually they would scarce be confessing someone else’s sins? Or in Matt. 6:2, we read, “They have received ( apechousi , indicative active present, 3rd person plural verb, from apecho) their ( auton) reward.” Now they would hardly have received another’s reward, and so on this curious approach, could one not also omit “their ( auton)” from here? The scribes did not do so in these instances, and perhaps this was because they thought it was “even clearer” in Matt. 15:2 “than usual.” Whatever their conjectured logic, if this was a deliberate change we cannot accept its logic. Of course, if the Holy Ghost wanted to make the Greek work double-time in a given passage, it would be entirely his business to do so, and we would certainly accept it as valid. But for a scribe to make this kind of “stylistic improvement” is quite another thing. If a deliberate “stylistic improvement,” it was also possibly done as a semi-assimilation (with or without the optional “n” / nu,) to the “ chersi / chersin (hands)” of Mark 7:2,5. Was this change deliberate or accidental? We simply do not know. We only know for sure that the Received Text was here changed, since there is no good textual argument against the representative Byzantine Greek reading. The TR’s reading has solid support in the Greek and Latin, and the variant appears to have originated with Origen, whose standard is known to have been very uneven, fluctuating between very good, very bad, and everything in between. On the system of rating textual readings A to E, I would give the TR’s reading at Matt. 15:2 an “A” i.e., the text of the TR is the correct reading and has a high level of certainty. 3 Textual History Outside the Closed Class of Three Witnesses. Outside the closed class of sources the correct reading at Matt. 15:2, is found in the leading representative of the Western text, Codex D 05 (5th century); (the mixed text type) Codex C 04 (5th century), (the mixed text type) Codex L 019 (8th century), and (the mixed text type) Codex Theta 038 (9th century). It is also found in that which the neo- Alexandrians call, “the queen of Minuscules,” Minuscule 33 (9th century, mixed text type); as well as Minuscules 565 (9th century, independent) and 157 (independent, 12th century); together with the Family 13 Manuscripts , which contain Minuscules 788 (11th century, independent text), 346 (12th century, independent), 543 (12th century, independent), 826 (12th century, independent), 828 (12th century, independent), 983 (12th century, independent), 13 (13th century, independent), et al . It is further found in all extant Syriac Versions. However, the incorrect reading which omits, “their,” is found in the two leading Alexandrian texts, Rome Vaticanus (4th century) and London Sinaiticus (4th century). It is also found in (the mixed text type) Codex 073 (6th century, Matt. 14:28-31; from the same manuscript as 084, 6th century, Matt. 14:19-15:8), (the independent) Codex Delta 037 (9th century), Codex 892 (9th century, mixed text type). It is further found in Minuscules 892 (9th century, mixed text type), 700 (11th century, independent), and 579 (mixed text, 13th century); together with the Family 1 Manuscripts , which contain Minuscules 1 (12th century, independent text in the Gospels, Byzantine elsewhere), 1582 (12th century, independent Matt.-Jude), 209 (14th century, independent in the Gospels and Revelation, Byzantine elsewhere), et al . This omission is also found in the Armenian Version (5th century). The erroneous reading is found in Tischendorf’s 8th edition (1869-72), Westcott-Hort (1881), and Nestle’s 21st edition (1952) (with both Tischendorf and Nestle having a footnote showing the TR’s reading). However the contemporary NU Text of Nestle-Aland’s 27th edition (1993) and UBS’s 4th revised edition (1993), places the “ auton (their)” in square brackets, thus making its inclusion or exclusion entirely optional. As discussed, supra , it is possible to render Matt. 15:2 as “their hands” from the Greek of the variant, on the basis that one makes the Greek do double-time with one or both of the 3rd person plural forms surrounding “hands ( tas cheiras ).” Thus the American Standard Version, following Westcott & Hort, still reads without any italics for “their” at Matt.