Contradiction in Nestle-Aland text?

From: Paul Watkins (
Date: Wed Oct 25 1995 - 10:22:20 EDT

In Matthew 10:10 we read:

"mh phran eis odon mhde duo chitwvas mhde upodhmata mhde rabdon"

does this or does this not say that they are NOT to take A STAFF?

and yet in Mark 6:8-9 we read:

"kai parhngeilen autois ina mhden airwsin eis odon ei mh rabdon monon, mh arton,
mh phran, mh eis thn zwnhn chalkon, alla upodedemenous sandalia, kai mh
endushsthe duo chitwnas."

and does this not say that they MUST take ONE STAFF?

These are indesputably the same events, yet in they directly contradict each
other in the Nestle-Aland text which I quoted above (from Novum Testamentum
Graece, 1993).

I realize that "duo" in the Matthew passage is distributive in can therefore
apply to the sandals as well as the tunics and so gets rid of that potential
contradiction, but it can't be distributed to the staff, a singular noun,
"rabdon"- you can't say "nor two a staff" so we are still left with a blatant
contradiction for the staff.

Is it possible to solve this problem with the Nestle-Aland reading?

If not, does this support the Majority Text reading (rabdous, instead of rabdon,
and therefore the "two" distributes to "staves" and destroys the contradiction)?
-- see Robinson/Pierpont _The New Testament in the Original Greek According to
the Majority/Byzantine Textform_, 1991.


Paul Watkins
Grace College and Seminary

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:31 EDT