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

$5.00

Matthew 14:29 presents a fascinating case in New Testament textual criticism. The verse describes the moment when Peter, at Jesus’ invitation, steps out of the boat and walks on water. However, there are two significant textual variants that have led to considerable debate among scholars as to what the original wording of the passage might have been. The two primary readings are:

WH NU: “Peter walked upon the waters and came to(ward) Jesus” (Πέτρος περιεπάτησεν ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα καὶ ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν) supported by significant Alexandrian witnesses, including Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א), though Sinaiticus shows some variation here.
Variant 1 (Textus Receptus): “Peter walked upon the waters to come to(ward) Jesus” (Πετρος περιπατειν επι τα υδατα ελθειν προς τον Ιησουν) found in later Byzantine manuscripts and witnessed in Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Ephraemi (C), and others.

The differences between these readings are subtle but important for understanding the precise nature of the event as recorded in the original manuscript of Matthew’s Gospel. In this article, we will analyze both the external manuscript evidence and the internal considerations to determine the most likely original reading.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

The Manuscript Tradition of Matthew 14:29

External Evidence: Alexandrian vs. Byzantine

When evaluating textual variants, the documentary method gives primary weight to the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. In the case of Matthew 14:29, the Alexandrian text type is represented by Codex Vaticanus (B) and the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus (א). Both of these codices date to the 4th century C.E. and are generally considered to reflect a more reliable and accurate transmission of the New Testament text. Codex Vaticanus, in particular, is highly valued due to its consistency and lack of extensive corrections.

On the other hand, the Byzantine text type, which is behind the Textus Receptus reading, tends to reflect a later tradition of the New Testament text. Codices such as Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Ephraemi (C), which support the Byzantine reading of Matthew 14:29, date to the 5th century C.E. and later. The Byzantine text is often characterized by expansions and clarifications, possibly due to scribes attempting to make the text more readable or theologically clearer for their contemporary audience. The variant in question, where “to come” (ἐλθεῖν) is inserted before “came” (ἦλθεν), is likely an interpretative gloss that was added to clarify Peter’s intention in the narrative.

The Alexandrian witnesses, particularly Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, do not include this additional clause. This suggests that the shorter reading, “Peter walked on the waters and came to Jesus,” was the original, and the longer Byzantine reading represents a later interpretative expansion.

The Testimony of Early Papyri

The early papyri are invaluable for assessing the original text of the New Testament, as they predate the major codices. However, no extant papyri contain Matthew 14:29. Nevertheless, the tendency of early papyri (e.g., P66, P75) to align with the Alexandrian text in other parts of the New Testament suggests that the Alexandrian reading may have been the one circulating in the earliest Christian communities. For instance, P66 and P75, which date from 100-150 C.E. and 175-225 C.E., respectively, frequently align with Codex Vaticanus, offering indirect support for the Alexandrian reading in Matthew 14:29.

Internal Evidence: The Context of Matthew 14:29

Peter’s Walk on the Water

In Matthew 14:29, Peter’s miraculous walk on water is described. The two readings we are considering offer slightly different nuances about the extent of Peter’s walk. The Alexandrian reading (“and came to Jesus”) implies that Peter successfully walked on the water and made it near to Jesus before beginning to sink. The Byzantine reading (“to come to Jesus”) suggests that Peter intended to reach Jesus but did not necessarily succeed in doing so.

The internal evidence supports the Alexandrian reading, as the surrounding context makes it clear that Peter came close enough to Jesus for Him to reach out and catch him when he started to sink (Matthew 14:31). This proximity implies that Peter walked far enough to be within arm’s reach of Jesus. Therefore, the shorter reading “came to Jesus” makes the most sense within the narrative flow.

Theological and Literary Considerations

The addition of the phrase “to come” (ἐλθεῖν) in the Byzantine text appears to be a scribal attempt to smooth out the narrative. Since Peter began to sink before reaching Jesus, a scribe might have felt it necessary to clarify that Peter only intended to reach Jesus but did not actually accomplish this. However, this addition may reflect more of a theological concern than an attempt to faithfully reproduce the original text. Scribes in the Byzantine tradition often sought to harmonize apparent discrepancies or clarify difficult passages, which could explain this variant.

On the other hand, the Alexandrian reading, while more ambiguous, is more consistent with the stylistic tendencies of the earliest manuscripts. The ambiguity inherent in the phrase “came to Jesus” (ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν) leaves room for the interpretation that Peter came near to Jesus without explicitly stating that he reached Him. This preserves the theological point that Peter’s faith faltered, but Jesus was still close enough to save him.

Conclusion on the Original Reading of Matthew 14:29

While the internal evidence alone could lead to different interpretations of Matthew 14:29, the external evidence strongly favors the Alexandrian reading. Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א) represent the earliest and most reliable witnesses to the New Testament text, and their agreement on this passage suggests that the original reading was “Peter walked on the waters and came to Jesus.”

The Byzantine addition of “to come” reflects a later scribal attempt to clarify the narrative, but it likely does not represent the original text. Therefore, we conclude that the Alexandrian reading is the best attested and most likely to be the original.

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).