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

$5.00

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

The passage of Matthew 13:35a has long intrigued scholars and believers alike, presenting a textual variant that touches upon the identity of the prophet referenced by Matthew. This investigation delves into the ancient manuscripts to discern the original reading, guided by a documentary method that emphasizes the weight of manuscript evidence alongside internal considerations.

Main Reading (TR WH NU):

Text: διὰ τοῦ προφήτου (“through the prophet”)
Support: Codices א1, B, C, D, L, W, along with manuscripts 0233, 0242, Maj, and translations it, syr, cop, and early church father Eusebius.

Variant 1:

Text: δια Ησαιου του προφητου (“through Isaiah the prophet”)
Support: Codex Sinaiticus original scribe (א*), Codex Θ, manuscripts f,13, 33, and noted by Porphyry, Jerome, and Eusebius regarding certain manuscripts.

Variant 2:

Text: δια Ασαφ του προφητου (“through Asaph the prophet”)
Support: Referenced by Jerome, based on earlier manuscripts not currently extant.

The textual variant at hand is pivotal, as it bears implications for understanding the source of the prophecy Matthew cites. Eusebius’s third-century observation highlights a discrepancy: the absence of a specific prophet’s name in what he deemed “accurate copies” of the Gospel. Jerome’s later speculation introduces “Asaph” as the original reference, a claim intriguing yet unsupported by surviving manuscripts.

The reference to Isaiah in some manuscripts, particularly the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus (א*), presents a case of a possible scribal addition aimed at clarifying the text. This addition might stem from a tendency within Matthean tradition to specify Isaiah in prophetic citations, an inclination that could have led scribes to insert the name where it originally was absent.

The argument for the generic “διὰ τοῦ προφήτου” without specifying Isaiah gains strength from its presence in a broad spectrum of manuscript evidence, including both א1 and B, two of the most significant witnesses to the New Testament text. This reading preserves an ambiguity regarding the prophet’s identity, consistent with Matthew’s use of Old Testament quotations and allusions without always naming the source explicitly.

Considering the manuscript evidence, the internal dynamics of Matthean citation practices, and the historical context provided by early church fathers, the most plausible original reading of Matthew 13:35a appears to be the nonspecific “διὰ τοῦ προφήτου.” This conclusion aligns with the earliest and most reliable manuscript evidence and respects the nuanced approach Matthew employs in engaging the Hebrew Scriptures.

In summary, the examination of Matthew 13:35a, grounded in a careful consideration of documentary and internal evidence, leads to the conclusion that Matthew originally referred to “the prophet” in a general sense, without specifying Isaiah or Asaph. This finding not only clarifies the text’s meaning but also highlights the methodological rigor required in the field of New Testament textual criticism. Through such scholarly endeavors, we gain a deeper appreciation for the complexity and richness of the biblical text, enhancing our understanding of Scripture’s foundational role in the Christian faith.

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).