Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

In our quest to unveil the original wording of Matthew 13:35a, we confront a textual conundrum that has intrigued scholars for centuries. This passage, pivotal for its prophetic citation, presents variations that beckon a meticulous analysis through a documentary approach, prioritizing manuscript evidence while integrating internal textual considerations.

Matthew 13:35a offers several readings:

TR WH NU The majority reading, “διὰ τοῦ προφήτου” (“through the prophet”), is supported by a wide array of manuscripts, including א1, B, C, D, L, W, and others, reflecting a generic reference to a prophet without specifying a name.
Variant 1, “δια Ησαιου του προφητου” (“through Isaiah the prophet”), found in the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus (א*), suggests a specific prophetic attribution to Isaiah.
Variant 2, “δια Ασαφ του προφητου” (“through Asaph the prophet”), while advocated by Jerome based on earlier manuscripts, lacks direct manuscript evidence in extant sources.
The inclusion of “Isaiah” in some third-century manuscripts, as noted by early church fathers like Eusebius and Jerome, alongside the critique by Porphyry, indicates that this variant was present and contested early in textual transmission.

The core of this textual issue revolves around Matthew’s intended reference. The assertion by Eusebius that accurate copies lacked the name “Isaiah” lends credence to the argument for a generic “through the prophet.” Jerome’s conjecture regarding “Asaph” introduces a fascinating dimension, though the absence of any extant manuscript with “Asaph” necessitates caution. It seems plausible that early copyists, aware of the prophetic quote’s source being from the Psalms (traditionally attributed to Asaph, a figure associated with Davidic worship), might have faced confusion over the appropriate attribution.

This analysis leans on several critical principles of textual criticism. The principle of lectio difficilior potior (the more difficult reading is preferable) and the observation that scribes were more likely to specify than generalize, particularly in the context of prophetic references, inform our judgment. The generic “διὰ τοῦ προφήτου” aligns with a cautious approach by Matthew, possibly to avoid the precise attribution debates that later emerged.

Moreover, the widespread early support for the shorter reading, alongside the documentary weight of significant Alexandrian witnesses like Codex Vaticanus (B) and the corrected form of Codex Sinaiticus (א1), suggests a tendency towards originality. The insertion of “Isaiah” in some manuscripts likely reflects a well-intentioned, though misguided, effort by scribes to clarify the prophetic source, akin to similar insertions elsewhere in Matthew.

Considering the manuscript evidence, the historical context provided by early church fathers, and the internal logic of Matthew’s use of prophetic citations, the original reading of Matthew 13:35a most probably was “διὰ τοῦ προφήτου” (“through the prophet”). This reading not only preserves the ambiguity inherent in Matthew’s citation but also respects the text’s integrity across the earliest and most reliable documentary witnesses.

In conclusion, this investigation reaffirms the importance of a conservative, documentary-focused approach to textual criticism, one that respects the nuances of early Christian scribal culture and the complexities of the New Testament’s textual tradition. By carefully weighing the evidence, we draw closer to understanding the original wording of the biblical text, enhancing our appreciation for the depth and richness of the scriptural canon.

About the Author

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