Setting and Scope: Matthew 21 in 33 C.E. and the Documentary Method

Matthew 21 narrates the Triumphal Entry, the cleansing of the temple, and a sequence of controversies and parables delivered in Jerusalem during the final week of Jesus’ earthly ministry in 33 C.E. The textual history of this chapter is unusually instructive because several units preserve meaningful variation that exposes scribal habits such as harmonization to parallels, explanatory expansion, stylistic leveling, and transposition to secure a perceived theological point. The documentary method—prioritizing external evidence from early and reliable witnesses and only then weighing internal considerations—provides stable ground for evaluating these readings. The Alexandrian witnesses, especially the earliest papyri and the fourth-century majuscules, carry decisive weight, while Western and Byzantine witnesses are treated as important but secondary controls whose agreements or singularities must be explained in light of the earliest recoverable text. The papyrus 𝔓104 (Matthew 21) is especially crucial for this chapter, offering second-century evidence at several points and forcing a fresh look at one of the most contested verses.

Matthew 21:4–5: The Unnamed Prophet and the Composite Citation (Isaiah 62:11; Zechariah 9:9)

The majority reading leaves the prophet unnamed and introduces the fulfillment formula with the generic expression, “that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled.” The Greek construction uses the singular with the article, tou prophētou, which signals that Matthew deliberately employed his customary formula without naming the source. A minority of witnesses add “Zechariah,” while another small group adds “Isaiah.” Each addition is partially correct at the level of content because Matthew’s wording blends two prophecies: the introductory “Say to the daughter of Zion” belongs to Isaiah 62:11, while the substance—“your king comes to you gentle and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden”—derives from Zechariah 9:9. Externally, the earliest Greek witnesses support the unnamed prophet; the naming appears in later versions and select Greek hands. Internally, a scribe encountering a composite quotation reasonably sought to clarify the source, and since most of the wording reflects Zechariah, “Zechariah” was a natural gloss. The smaller “Isaiah” reading likely arose from the opening line and from the habit of attributing composite citations to a single well-known prophet. The documentary balance thus favors the unnamed prophet as original, with the names as secondary clarifications.

Matthew 21:5–7: “On a Donkey and on a Colt”—Parallelism, Preposition Repetition, and Scribal Smoothing

The best-attested text reads, “mounted on a donkey and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden,” with the preposition repeated: epibebēkōs epi onon kai epi pōlon huios hypozygiou. Externally, the reading with the double epi is upheld by the earliest and most reliable Greek witnesses. Internally, the repetition is the harder reading because it appears to depict Jesus riding two animals, which invites harmonization and smoothing. Some scribes removed the second epi to allow kai to be read epexegetically (“mounted on a donkey, even on a colt”), while others attempted to reduce the apparent duplication by deleting “foal.” A further wave of smoothing appears in verse 7, where several witnesses shift the plural pronoun “them” to a singular (“it”) to keep the garments and the seating focused on the colt alone. Yet the text as transmitted in the earliest witnesses does not require the image of Jesus straddling two animals; Matthew’s duplication reflects the Hebrew parallelism of Zechariah 9:9, which names the animal twice, seconding and specifying the first line. The phrase “He sat on them” naturally refers to the garments spread across the animal(s); it does not force a two-animal mount. The combination of stronger external support and the well-known Semitic poetic structure yields a secure decision for the text with both prepositions intact and the plural pronoun preserved in verse 7.

Matthew 21:9: Secondary Expansion from Lukan and Johannine Parallels

At the close of the acclamation, a few witnesses add a descriptive flourish along the lines of, “and many came out to meet Him, rejoicing and glorifying God for all the things they saw.” The external footprint of this addition is thin and late, and its diction echoes thematic lines from Luke 19:37 and John 12:13. This is a classic case of harmonization and narrative enrichment by an earnest scribe who wanted Matthew’s account to match the fuller narrative texture encountered in the other Gospels. The documentary case is straightforward: the short reading prevails, and the expansion is secondary.

Matthew 21:12: “The Temple” or “The Temple of God”?

The principal Alexandrian witnesses read “the temple,” while a wide array of later manuscripts read “the temple of God.” The longer form carries an unmistakable ring and highlights the theological contrast with profane trade in a sacred space. Nevertheless, the external evidence points to the shorter form as original. Internally, “of God” easily arises as a clarifying and theologically satisfying addition, especially in light of Malachi 3:1–4 and Matthew’s ensuing citation of Isaiah 56:7. Lectio brevior, when supported by the earliest witnesses and when the longer reading carries explanatory force, is favored by the documentary method. Moreover, the parallels in Mark 11:15 and Luke 19:45 omit “of God,” removing any motive for original Matthew to be fuller. The result is that “the temple” is judged original, with “the temple of God” representing a reverential expansion.

Matthew 21:13: Present, Aorist, or Perfect? Aspect and Harmonization Pressures

The final clause—“you are making it a den of robbers”—appears in three forms across the tradition. The best early witnesses read the present indicative poieite, depicting an ongoing profanation. Other manuscripts read the aorist epoiēsate, and a smaller group reflects the perfect pepoiēkate. The internal geography of the Synoptic parallels explains the shifts. Mark 11:17 uses the perfect, “you have made,” while Luke 19:46 reads the aorist, “you made.” Scribes who harmonized Matthew encountered both patterns and adjusted accordingly. The documentary weight favors the present in Matthew because it is earlier and harder; it resists both dominant harmonizations, and it fits Matthew’s rhetorical thrust in the temple scene. The present heightens the immediacy of Jesus’ rebuke in the second half of Nisan in 33 C.E., during the same week He would be delivered up.

Matthew 21:28–31: The Parable of the Two Sons—Three Competing Forms and the Earliest Recoverable Text

The parable of the two sons presents one of the densest textual cruxes in Matthew. Across the tradition, three forms circulate. In the first, the first son initially refuses but later repents and goes; the second says yes but does not go; and the interlocutors answer, “the first.” In the second, the order is reversed at the narrative level, and the interlocutors answer, “the second.” In the third, the narrative resembles the first form, but the interlocutors answer “the second,” producing a jarring denouement that many regard as a deliberate irony.

Externally, the first form possesses strong support across early and diverse witnesses, including Alexandrian representatives. The second form is supported by an important but narrower strand, with variants for “the latter,” “the last,” or “the second” in the response. The third form finds its principal Greek support in the Western tradition, with patristic testimony acknowledging its presence and explaining it as either a mistake or an intentional rhetorical twist. Internally, the genesis of the competing forms can be mapped. The second form is an intelligible transposition by scribes who wanted the story to mirror a missionary or salvation-historical reading in which the first son stands for those who profess obedience (the Jewish leaders) but fail to do it, while the second son stands for those who initially refuse but later repent (tax collectors and prostitutes, sometimes extended to Gentiles). This reading can be drawn from the parable’s application in verses 31–32, but that contextual inference does not warrant rewriting the parable’s narrative order. The third form, in which the answer is “the second” even though the first son eventually obeys, looks like a Western-style attempt to sharpen the controversy by portraying the leaders’ perverse answer. Yet it undercuts the parable’s didactic clarity and is out of step with Matthew’s usual mode of presenting Jesus’ public interactions.

From a documentary vantage, the first form best satisfies the combined demands of early attestation, geographical spread, conformity to Matthew’s diction, and resistance to harmonizing or polemical correction. It also sufficiently grounds the application that follows without requiring the narrative to be inverted. The moral point remains identical across the first and second forms: the son who repents and does the father’s will is the true doer; but only the first form secures this point without editorial manipulation.

Matthew 21:32: The Negated Rebuke—The Presence or Absence of ou/oudē

The earliest text reads, “but you, seeing [this], did not afterward repent to believe him,” with the negative particle present. The Western reading that omits the negation yields either, “you afterward repented to believe him,” which reverses the rhetorical force, or, with a forced construal, “you afterward changed your minds about believing him,” which is strained. The external evidence favors the presence of the negation, and the internal logic of Matthew’s argument demands it: the religious leaders saw the repentance of tax collectors and prostitutes under John’s ministry and still did not repent to believe. The omission most plausibly arose from a parable-level adjustment in the Western stream where the second son’s presentation had already been altered. In either case, the documentary evidence is decisive; the negation belongs, and the reading without it is secondary.

Matthew 21:42–44: The Stone Sayings and the Status of Verse 44 in Light of 𝔓104

Jesus cites Psalm 118:22–23 in verse 42 to explain His rejection and vindication. Verse 43 applies the metaphor by announcing the transfer of the kingdom to a people producing its fruit. Verse 44, “And the one falling on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will crush him,” is a composite allusion drawing on Isaiah 8:14–15 and Daniel 2:34–35, 44–45. The external tradition for including verse 44 is extensive and early, with broad Alexandrian, Caesarean, and Byzantine representation. Yet a striking counter-witness appears in 𝔓104, a papyrus of Matthew 21 commonly dated to the early second century. The extant text and reconstruction of 𝔓104 do not permit the presence of verse 44 in Matthew; the flow proceeds without it. The omission is echoed by a Western majuscule, select minuscules, versions, and early writers who comment on the Lukan presence of the verse rather than a Matthean one. This pattern suggests that verse 44 circulated as a saying attached securely to Luke 20:18 and was later imported into Matthew, probably by a scribe familiar with the Synoptic parallels who wished to align the stone complex across the accounts.

The documentary argument must face two realities. On the one hand, the inclusion has extensive support in later centuries, and the saying is authentically dominical in the Lukan context. On the other hand, the earliest recoverable Matthean text, represented by 𝔓104, lacks verse 44; and if original, its removal would be difficult to explain, since scribes rarely excise dominical sayings that heighten eschatological warning. The balance therefore tilts toward viewing verse 44 as a secondary assimilation from Luke into the Matthean stream. Translators who include it do well to bracket it or signal the uncertainty, while those who relegate it to the margin uphold the earliest documentary evidence without denying the saying’s authenticity in Luke.

Scribal Tendencies on Display in Matthew 21: Harmonization, Expansion, and Transposition

The variation units in this chapter function as a small compendium of scribal habits. The expansion in verse 9 echoes a known tendency to import vivid narrative detail from neighboring traditions. The addition “of God” in verse 12 exemplifies reverential clarification to heighten theological contrast. The tense shifts in verse 13 show harmonization to Mark and Luke. The two-sons parable illustrates transposition in pursuit of a perceived contextual or theological fit. The prophet-naming in verse 5 displays explanatory glossing when a composite citation might confuse a copyist or reader. The importation of verse 44 displays a harmonizing assimilation from a parallel Gospel. None of these tendencies undermines confidence in the text; rather, the very predictability of these habits allows the original to be restored with high confidence when early and diverse witnesses are weighed carefully.

Translation Implications: Preserving Matthew’s Voice and Structure

Where the documentary evidence points decisively, translation should reflect that decision and resist the smoothing operations performed by later scribes. Accordingly, translators should retain the unnamed “prophet” in verse 4 to respect Matthew’s formula and the composite nature of the citation. They should preserve the double preposition and the plural pronoun across verses 5–7 to retain the Hebraic parallelism and to avoid having Matthew “corrected” by well-meaning harmonizations. The acclamation in verse 9 should remain unembellished. In verse 12, “the temple” suffices; the ensuing citation already draws the theological contrast between “My house” and a “den of robbers.” In verse 13, the present “you are making it” communicates a vivid, ongoing affront and distinguishes Matthew from Mark and Luke without contradiction. In verses 28–31, the first-son-obeys form should be adopted to maintain the tight logic of the parable and its application. In verse 32, the negation must remain to preserve the rebuke’s integrity. Finally, verse 44 should be bracketed or footnoted with a frank explanation that the earliest Matthean witness omits it and that the saying is preserved unambiguously in Luke 20:18.

Historical Note: The Triumphal Entry and Temple Cleansing in Nisan, 33 C.E.

The textual decisions above sit within a concrete historical frame. The Entry occurred in the days immediately preceding Passover in 33 C.E., likely Nisan 9–10, with the cleansing of the temple following swiftly upon Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem. Recognizing this setting sheds light on why Matthew’s present tense in verse 13 is fitting; the profanation was not a bygone violation but an ongoing desecration He confronted directly in those climactic days. The prophetic allusions in the composite citation and in the stone sayings are not literary ornaments; they anchor the events of 33 C.E. in the line of fulfilled Scripture.

The Role of 𝔓104 for Matthew 21: Early Second-Century Control on the Text

𝔓104, containing lines from Matthew 21, is invaluable because it places a portion of this chapter’s text in the early second century. Its witness presses the discussion of verse 44 beyond conjecture and demonstrates that an abridged, unassimilated Matthean text existed generations before the major fourth-century uncials. It also indirectly confirms a basic pattern seen throughout this chapter: where later manuscripts show harmonization and expansion, the earliest witnesses tend to preserve the shorter, more challenging, and more distinctively Matthean form. This does not license a simplistic application of lectio brevior; it underscores that the earliest documentary controls, when carefully read, explain the direction of change and allow the editor to identify secondary growth with considerable confidence.

Synthesis Across the Chapter: A Stable, Early, and Coherent Matthean Text

When Matthew 21 is read unit by unit with the best external evidence prioritized, the chapter yields a cohesive profile. Matthew’s voice remains distinct, sensitive to Old Testament diction and structure, and resistant to the assimilations that later copyists sometimes pursued for clarity or harmony. The Triumphal Entry’s language preserves Hebraic parallelism without embarrassment. The temple scene retains its Matthean aspect, with the present-tense rebuke heightening immediacy. The parable of the two sons maintains its narrative logic, strengthening Jesus’ application to the leaders who refused to repent at John’s preaching. The chapter culminates with the cornerstone citation and the transfer saying, with the status of verse 44 honestly adjudicated in light of the earliest papyrus evidence. Far from destabilizing the text, these variants exhibit a transmission that is both traceable and correctable, resulting in a Matthean chapter whose original wording can be restored with high confidence.

Textual Decisions Summarized for Matthew 21

The prophet is left unnamed in 21:4–5, with the composite drawn from Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9. The double preposition in 21:5 and the plural in 21:7 stand, reflecting Hebraic parallelism and referring “He sat on them” to the garments. The expansion at the end of 21:9 is secondary. In 21:12, “the temple” is original; “of God” is a reverential addition. In 21:13, the present “you are making it” is original; aorist and perfect forms are harmonizations to Luke and Mark. In 21:28–31, the form where the first son repents and the interlocutors answer “the first” is the earliest recoverable text; the reversed form and the paradoxical “second” answer are secondary. In 21:32, the negation is original and essential to the rebuke. In 21:44, the earliest papyrus evidence omits the verse in Matthew; its presence in Luke is secure, and its Matthean inclusion should be bracketed or footnoted.

You May Also Enjoy

Codex Sinaiticus—Refuting the Forgery Claims and Conspiracy Theories

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS