Introduction to the Textual Landscape of Matthew 15

Matthew chapter 15 contains several significant textual variants, many of which offer important insights into scribal habits, early transmission history, and the interplay between documentary evidence and scribal harmonization. This chapter presents a microcosm of broader trends seen throughout the New Testament textual tradition. While some variants appear to arise from theological motivations or liturgical influences, others reflect grammatical smoothing, harmonization to parallel texts, or even accidental errors like haplography.

The textual base for this commentary is rooted in the documentary method, emphasizing manuscript evidence over speculative internal reasoning. The Alexandrian witnesses—especially Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (א), and early papyri—are weighed heavily due to their early date and textual reliability. Nevertheless, all textual traditions are considered, including the Byzantine, Western, and Caesarean, without privileging any doctrinal bias.

---

Matthew 15:4 – “God Said” vs. “God Commanded Saying”

The textual divergence here concerns whether Jesus quotes the commandment with “θεὸς εἶπεν” (“God said”) or “θεὸς ἐνετείλατο λέγων” (“God commanded saying”). The WH NU text follows the shorter form, supported by א¹, B, D, 073, f¹, and the Peshitta. This is a geographically diverse and early set of witnesses.

The longer variant, found in א*, C, L, W, and the Majority Text, appears to be a scribal harmonization to verse 3, which uses ἐντολήν (“commandment”). This textual behavior—modifying quotations for internal coherence—is well documented. The strength of the WH NU reading lies in its early attestation and coherence with known scribal tendencies to expand, rather than contract, quotations.

---

Matthew 15:5 – Scribal Clarification Through Addition

The difficult syntax in this verse left room for scribal additions for clarity. The original likely ends with the phrase “ὃ ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς” (“whatever you might have benefited from me”), which is elliptical and abrupt. א* supplements this with οὐδέν ἐστιν (“it is nothing”), making the statement more explicit.

This addition is characteristic of explanatory expansions. It clarifies the implication of the korban tradition (cf. Mark 7:11), that a vow to dedicate resources to God exempted one from familial obligations. Most modern translations reflect the sense of this addition, even if they do not adopt the words themselves.

---

Matthew 15:6a – Honor to Father and Mother

The WH NU reading omits any reference to “mother” in this verse: “οὐ μὴ τιμήσει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ” (“he shall not honor his father”). This shorter reading is supported by early and diverse witnesses (א, B, D, it, syrc, copsa).

Three expansion variants introduce the mother:

1. η τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ (“or his mother”) – found in C, L, W, Θ, 0106, f¹, and the Majority.

2. η τὴν μητέρα – in 073, f¹³, and 33.

3. καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ – in Φ, 565, and copbo.

Each variant reflects a scribal inclination to restore the symmetry of Exodus 20:12, which mentions both parents. The external evidence and the principle of lectio brevior (the shorter reading is to be preferred when not the result of parablepsis or nonsense) favor the omission as original. The additions are expansions motivated by theological or exegetical expectations.

---

Matthew 15:6b – “Word of God” vs. “Law” or “Commandment”

Here, we observe three contenders:

1. τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ (“the word of God”) – supported by א¹, B, D, Θ, it, syr, cop.

2. τὸν νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ (“the law of God”) – found in א*, C, 073, f¹³, and cited by Ptolemy (~180 C.E.).

3. τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ (“the commandment of God”) – supported by L, W, 0106, f¹, 33, and the Majority.

The third reading is an expected harmonization with earlier verses that mention ἐντολήν (commandment), and its documentary support is weaker. The first and second variants both have excellent support, but the presence of “word of God” in early Alexandrian manuscripts and its likely harmonization with Mark 7:13 has raised questions.

However, the second variant, “law of God,” fits the broader contrast Jesus is making between the Torah and oral tradition. The fact that it appears in Ptolemaic citations further strengthens its case. Given that ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ νόμος τοῦ θεοῦ could both be conceptually correct, the documentary weight leans slightly toward the second reading.

---

Matthew 15:8 – Conformity to the LXX of Isaiah 29:13

The WH NU reading offers a shorter version: “ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν με τιμᾷ” (“This people honors me with [their] lips”), supported by א, B, D, L, Θ, 073, f, 33, syrc, and cop.

The longer variant, as found in the Byzantine tradition, expands the quotation: “ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν καὶ τοῖς χείλεσιν με τιμᾷ” (“This people draws near to me with their mouth and honors me with their lips”).

This is a clear instance of harmonization to the LXX of Isaiah 29:13. Such harmonization became increasingly frequent when NT and OT books were bound together in single codices from the fourth century onward. The shorter reading is clearly original based on external evidence and scribal behavior.

---

Matthew 15:14 – “Blind Guides of the Blind”

The WH NU reading includes the phrase τυφλοὶ εἰσὶν ὁδηγοὶ τυφλῶν (“they are blind guides of the blind”), while a shorter reading omits τυφλῶν (“of the blind”), leaving only “they are blind guides.”

The omission is supported by early and valuable witnesses (א*,², B, D, 0237). The fuller reading, despite broader attestation, appears to be a harmonization with the next clause in the verse: “and if the blind lead the blind.”

Given the weight of early Alexandrian witnesses and the principle of lectio difficilior (the more difficult reading is preferred), the shorter form likely reflects the original.

---

Matthew 15:16 – Addition of “Jesus” as Subject

Several later manuscripts (C, L, W, Majority) insert the subject ὁ Ἰησοῦς (“Jesus”) to begin the verse. This is typical of scribal practice to clarify new narrative sections or paragraph breaks.

This addition is not original. It lacks early documentary support and reflects a tendency to make implicit references explicit.

---

Matthew 15:18–19 – Omission Due to Haplography

A portion of these verses, beginning with ἐξέρχεται κακείνα κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον (“[things] come out, and these defile the man”), is omitted in א*, W, and 33. The probable cause is haplography—eye-skip due to the repetition of the word καρδίας (“heart”).

The longer reading has widespread attestation and is theologically and contextually appropriate. The omission is accidental and thus not original.

---

Matthew 15:31 – “Mutes Speaking” vs. “Mutes Hearing”

Three readings exist:

1. “βλέποντας κωφοὺς λαλούντας” (“seeing the mute speaking”) – NU reading, supported by C, L, W, Δ, 0233.

2. “βλέποντας κωφοὺς ἀκούοντας” (“seeing the mute hearing”) – supported by B, Θ.

3. “βλέποντας κωφοὺς ἀκούοντας καὶ λαλούντας” (“seeing the mute hearing and speaking”) – conflated, found in Ν, Ο, Σ.

The second reading is more difficult. “Hearing” is not a visible phenomenon, whereas “speaking” is. Scribes were more likely to change “hearing” to “speaking” to reflect a visible miracle. B, the earliest manuscript with this reading, adds to its authenticity. The third reading is clearly a conflation. Therefore, the second reading is most likely original.

---

Matthew 15:38 – Reversal of “Women and Children”

The usual phrase “γυναικῶν καὶ παιδίων” (“women and children”) is reversed in א, D, Θ, f, and Coptic. This variant likely reflects a stylistic change or influence from parallel accounts. It is not significant enough to suggest originality, given the broad attestation of the standard word order.

---

Matthew 15:39 – “Magadan” or “Magdala”?

This toponymic variant features several spellings:

1. Μαγαδάν (“Magadan”) – WH NU reading; found in א*, B, D.

2. Μαγεδάν (“Magedan”) – variant in א², cited by Eusebius.

3. Μαγδαλά (“Magdala”) – L, Θ, f¹, and Majority Text.

4. Μαγδαλάν (“Magdalan”) – C, N, W, 33.

The WH NU reading is the most difficult and the least well-known geographical name. Scribes would more likely change an obscure “Magadan” to the known “Magdala” (cf. Mark 8:10). Furthermore, Magadan has early Alexandrian support, and nu (ν) in Μαγαδάν cannot be mistaken for other letters in uncial script. This reading best fulfills the criteria of documentary support and lectio difficilior.

You May Also Enjoy

The Case for the Variant of Matthew 14:30

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS