The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Explore the fascinating textual variant in Matthew 1:22, examining why some ancient manuscripts mention “Isaiah” while others do not. This analysis bridges the gap between different manuscript traditions, offering a deeper understanding of the New Testament’s original text and the nuances of early scriptural transmission.

Introduction: In the realm of New Testament textual criticism, analyzing variants in scripture is crucial for understanding the original text as the authors intended. Matthew 1:22 offers a compelling case study in this regard. The verse, central to the infancy narrative, has variations that warrant close examination. The focus of this analysis is the inclusion or exclusion of the prophet Isaiah’s name before “the prophet” in various manuscript traditions.

Manuscript Evidence: The primary variation in Matthew 1:22 concerns the presence of the name “Isaiah” (Ἠσαΐου) before “the prophet” (τοῦ προφήτου). This addition is found in Codex Bezae (D) and several ancient translations, including Old Latin, Syriac Sinaiticus, and Coptic Sahidic versions. However, a significant majority of Greek manuscripts, including the most reliable Alexandrian texts, do not include “Isaiah.”

Scribal Explanations and Motivations: The inclusion of “Isaiah” in some manuscripts could be a scribal clarification. The original text, “the prophet,” assumes a Jewish audience familiar with Hebrew scriptures, who would readily identify the reference to Isaiah’s prophecy. Early Christian scribes, working in a more diverse and often less scripturally informed environment, might have felt the need to clarify which prophet Matthew referenced. This motivation aligns with the tendency of scribes to expand texts for clarity, especially when copying for a gentile or non-Jewish audience.

Internal Evidence and Contextual Analysis: Contextually, Matthew 1:22-23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, making the identification of Isaiah as “the prophet” contextually logical. However, Matthew, a Gospel writer deeply rooted in Jewish tradition and scripture, often quotes the Hebrew Bible without directly naming the prophet. This practice aligns with Jewish scholarly traditions of his time, where scriptural knowledge was assumed. Therefore, the absence of “Isaiah” in the original text aligns with Matthew’s consistent stylistic approach.

Textual Criticism and Documentary Method: Applying the documentary method, which gives slightly more weight to the documentary evidence over internal evidence, the absence of “Isaiah” in the earlier, more reliable Alexandrian manuscripts is significant. These texts are closer to the original writings in time and are less likely to have undergone scribal modifications common in later texts or translations.

Conclusion: Considering both the external manuscript evidence and the internal textual and contextual analysis, it is more likely that the original text of Matthew 1:22 did not include the name “Isaiah.” The inclusion in later manuscripts and translations appears to be a scribal addition for clarification purposes. This conclusion upholds the integrity of the Matthean text, affirming that Matthew, in his original composition, assumed a level of scriptural literacy in his audience, allowing for the identification of the prophet through the context of the quotation itself.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).