Matthew 16 presents one of the most theologically charged chapters in the Gospel, marking a major turning point in the narrative of Jesus’ ministry. It records the Pharisees and Sadducees demanding a sign, Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, and Jesus’ prediction of His impending suffering in Jerusalem. Unsurprisingly, this chapter also contains several significant textual variants that provide valuable insight into the transmission of the New Testament text. In this commentary, we will examine the variants in Matthew 16:2–3, 16:4, 16:8, 16:13, 16:20, and 16:21, weighing the manuscript evidence through the documentary method, giving preference to external evidence, while also considering internal transcriptional and contextual factors.

---

Matthew 16:2b–3a – The “Red Sky” Saying

The most disputed passage in Matthew 16 concerns the longer reading found in the Textus Receptus and critical editions:

ὀψίας γενομένης λέγετε· εὐδία, πυρράζει γὰρ ὁ οὐρανός· καὶ πρωΐ· σήμερον χειμών, πυρράζει γὰρ στυγνάζων ὁ οὐρανός. τὸ μὲν πρόσωπον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ γινώσκετε διακρίνειν, τὰ δὲ σημεῖα τῶν καιρῶν οὐ δύνασθε;

“When it is evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather because the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today because the sky is red and overcast.’ You can read the signs of the weather, but you can’t read the signs of the time?”

This longer reading is supported by C, D, L, W, Θ, family 33, the Byzantine tradition, Syriac Peshitta, and Eusebius, with some manuscripts adding ὑποκριταί (“hypocrites”) after οὐρανός. It is included in most modern English translations but often bracketed or footnoted.

On the other hand, א (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), X, Γ, family 13, Syriac Curetonian, Coptic, and Origen omit the passage. Jerome, writing around 380 C.E., observed that the majority of Greek manuscripts known to him did not contain the words, though he included them in the Vulgate.

From an external perspective, the omission in א and B carries significant weight, particularly since these manuscripts represent an early Alexandrian text with proven accuracy. The omission is unlikely accidental; the length and content of the passage make haplography or homoioteleuton improbable. Internally, the vocabulary further undermines authenticity: εὐδία, πυρράζει, and στυγνάζω occur nowhere else in Matthew, and two are hapax legomena for the entire New Testament. This suggests secondary composition. Moreover, the addition appears to harmonize Matthew with Luke 12:54–56, where Jesus criticizes the crowds for discerning the weather but not “the present time.”

The most reasonable conclusion is that the longer reading was a scribal gloss, added to fill what some perceived as a contextual gap. Since the Pharisees asked for a “sign from heaven” (16:1), the inserted saying about reading the “sky” (οὐρανός) seemed to provide a fitting parallel. Yet the original text most likely contained the shorter reading (omission), in line with the documentary evidence of א B and Origen.

---

Matthew 16:4 – “The Sign of Jonah”

Here, the difference lies in whether Matthew wrote simply:

τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ (“the sign of Jonah”)

or whether scribes expanded it to:

τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ τοῦ προφήτου (“the sign of Jonah the prophet”).

The shorter reading is supported by א, B, D, L, 700 and aligns with the practice of Matthew, who assumes readers would know Jonah was a prophet. The longer variant, supported by C, W, Θ, family 13, family 33, and the Byzantine tradition, is clearly an explanatory addition. Scribes often added clarifying titles when referencing biblical figures, especially in contexts where ambiguity might arise.

The external evidence of the Alexandrian witnesses and the transcriptional likelihood both confirm that the shorter reading is original.

---

Matthew 16:8 – “You Have No Bread” vs. “You Brought No Bread”

The textual variation concerns whether Jesus said:

ἄρτους οὐκ ἔχετε (“you have no bread”)

or

ἄρτους οὐκ ἐλάβετε (“you brought no bread”).

The first is supported by א, B, D, Θ, family 13, and 700, while the latter is read by C, L, W, family 33, and the Byzantine tradition.

The external Alexandrian evidence favors “you have no bread.” Internally, the variant “you brought no bread” reflects scribal assimilation to the immediate context, where the verb λαμβάνω (“to take, to bring”) appears repeatedly in 16:7, 9, and 10. This suggests harmonization rather than originality. The weight of evidence confirms that “you have no bread” is authentic.

---

Matthew 16:13 – “Who Do People Say the Son of Man Is?”

The question Jesus asked at Caesarea Philippi is worded differently in two traditions. The earliest Alexandrian witnesses read:

τίνα λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; (“Who do people say the Son of Man is?”)

whereas other manuscripts expand with με:

τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; (“Who do people say that I, the Son of Man, am?”)

The external evidence favors the shorter Alexandrian form (א, B, Origen), while the addition of με is found in D, L, Θ, family 13, family 33, and the Byzantine tradition.

This addition clearly aids oral reading by clarifying that Jesus is referring to Himself. As such, it is a scribal expansion. The earliest, more difficult reading (lacking με) is the original.

---

Matthew 16:20 – “The Christ” vs. “Jesus the Christ”

Following Peter’s confession, the text either reads simply:

ὁ χριστός (“the Christ”)

or

Ἰησοῦς ὁ χριστός (“Jesus the Christ”).

The shorter form is supported by א, B, L, Δ, Θ, family 1, and Origen*, while the expanded form is found in א2, C, D, W, and the Byzantine manuscripts.

Scribes often expanded titles of Jesus for clarity and reverence, particularly in liturgical contexts. Since ὁ χριστός is the lectio brevior and is supported by the earliest Alexandrian witnesses, it is the authentic reading.

---

Matthew 16:21 – “Jesus,” “Jesus Christ,” or Omission

This verse contains one of the more complex textual issues in the chapter. The majority reading is:

ὁ Ἰησοῦς (“Jesus”).

This is supported by א2, C, L, W, Θ, family 1, and the Byzantine tradition.

A minority of manuscripts (including א1 and Irenaeus) omit the name entirely.

More significantly, א, B, and the Sahidic Coptic** read:

Ἰησοῦς χριστός (“Jesus Christ”).

Codex Sinaiticus itself reflects all three readings in different stages of correction, showing how fluid this verse was in early transmission.

Internal considerations explain the variation. The addition of “Christ” may have arisen from the immediate context: in 16:16 Peter confesses, “You are the Christ,” and in 16:20 Jesus tells the disciples not to reveal He is the Christ. It would be natural for scribes to carry over the title into 16:21, which introduces a new section of the narrative where Jesus begins to predict His suffering. On the other hand, Matthew uses “Jesus Christ” only at crucial junctures (1:1, 1:18), suggesting he may have intentionally written it here.

Externally, however, “Jesus” alone has much broader support across textual traditions. The reading “Jesus Christ,” though backed by strong Alexandrian witnesses, may reflect early scribal harmonization. The omission of the name altogether is secondary and has minimal support.

From the standpoint of the documentary method, the external evidence favors “Jesus.” Yet given Matthew’s literary patterns, one cannot dismiss the possibility that he wrote “Jesus Christ.” The early existence of all three readings illustrates the fluidity of this textual location, but the safest conclusion is that “Jesus” represents the original form.

---

Matthew 16:20 (Secondary Variant) – “His Disciples”

Some manuscripts, such as L, W, Θ, family 13, family 33, and the Byzantine tradition, read μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ (“His disciples”) rather than simply μαθηταῖς. This is a routine scribal clarification to distinguish Jesus’ disciples from others. The shorter reading is authentic.

---

Final Observations

The textual tradition of Matthew 16 demonstrates several well-attested scribal tendencies: explanatory expansions (16:4, 16:13, 16:20), contextual harmonization (16:8, 16:21), and liturgical clarifications (16:20, “his disciples”). The most substantial variant—the “red sky” saying in 16:2b–3a—almost certainly represents a secondary interpolation influenced by Luke 12:54–56, absent from the earliest Alexandrian witnesses and unsupported by Matthew’s vocabulary.

In every case, the Alexandrian manuscripts א and B provide the strongest testimony for the original text, consistently reflecting the lectio brevior and lectio difficilior. The Byzantine tradition, while valuable, often shows the smoothing and expansion tendencies typical of later transmission. When viewed through the documentary method, the textual evidence of Matthew 16 supports confidence in the stability of the New Testament text, while also illustrating how scribes occasionally added clarifying details, harmonizations, or expansions that can be identified and corrected through rigorous textual criticism.

You May Also Enjoy

Textual Variants in Matthew 15: A Detailed Analysis of the Manuscript Evidence

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS