Framing Matthew 23: The Woes, Their Transmission, and a Documentary Method

Matthew 23 stands at the climax of Jesus’ public ministry in Jerusalem (33 C.E.), delivering a sequence of denunciations against the scribes and Pharisees. Because these sayings circulated widely in early Christian proclamation and share parallels with Mark 12 and Luke 11, the chapter supplies an ideal window into how the text of the Gospels was transmitted, harmonized, and occasionally expanded. This commentary assesses the principal variation units in Matthew 23 by weighing the manuscript evidence first and foremost, with careful attention to the earliest Alexandrian witnesses—especially the papyri and B (Codex Vaticanus, 300–330 C.E.)—while noting how Western, Byzantine, and so-called Caesarean witnesses function as secondary controls. Internal considerations are taken into account as transcriptional probabilities after the external evidence has defined the field.

Matthew 23:4 — φορτία βαρέα [καὶ δυσβάστακτα]

The mainline text reads “φορτία βαρέα [καὶ δυσβάστακτα]”—“heavy burdens [and hard to bear],” supported by B, D (with D* reading ἀδυσβάστακτα), W, Θ, 0102, 0107, family witnesses, 33, and the Majority. Variant 1 omits καὶ δυσβάστακτα, yielding “φορτία βαρέα,” and is read by L, certain family witnesses, and versions. Variant 2 preserves only “φορτία δυσβάστακτα,” found in a few later witnesses, and Variant 3 reads “μεγάλα βαρέα,” singularly attested by א (Codex Sinaiticus, 330–360 C.E.).

The documentary evidence favors inclusion of καὶ δυσβάστακτα. Its early and geographically diverse support outweighs the shorter reading in L and versions and the singular reading of א. Transcriptionally, omission is readily explained as parablepsis, the eye moving from καὶ … to καὶ, or as a perceived stylistic tightening. Conversely, the charge that καὶ δυσβάστακτα is a harmonization from Luke 11:46 is less persuasive given the broad attestation in strong Alexandrian representatives. The form with both adjectives captures the intensification Jesus intended: the Pharisaic halakhic load is not only weighty but unshoulderable. The main text should therefore read “φορτία βαρέα καὶ δυσβάστακτα.”

Matthew 23:5 — μεγαλύνουσιν τὰ κράσπεδα / “τὰ κράσπεδα τῶν ἱματίων αὐτῶν”

The earliest readable form is “μεγαλύνουσιν τὰ κράσπεδα”—“they enlarge the tassels,” backed by א, B, D, Θ, and a strong array of early Alexandrian witnesses. The longer reading, “τὰ κράσπεδα τῶν ἱματίων αὐτῶν,” adds a clarifying genitive, found in L, W, 0102, 0107, family witnesses, 33, and the Majority.

The expansion is classic explanatory glossing, specifying where tassels reside. As Jews would naturally understand “tassels” on the garment’s corners (Numbers 15:38–39; Deuteronomy 22:12), the added phrase offers no new information. Early Alexandrian manuscripts (B; א) and the tendency of later scribes to explicate idiomatic references together justify retaining the shorter, earlier text. The phrase as transmitted by B and א is succinct and original.

Matthew 23:7 — ῥαββί vs. “ῥαββί, ῥαββί”

The best witnesses—א, B, L, Δ, Θ, 0102, family 1, with early versions—support the singular address, “καλεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ῥαββί,” “to be called by people, ‘Rabbi.’” The expanded “ῥαββί, ῥαββί,” is carried by D, W, 0107, family 13, and the Byzantine tradition.

Documentary weight rests with the singular. Internally, the duplication easily reflects rhetorical intensification in later hands. Historically, the singular form matches Gospel usage where a disciple or the crowds address a teacher once by title (Matthew 26:25, 49; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; John 1:49; 3:2). The double vocative is secondary flair and should be rejected.

Matthew 23:8 — ὑμῶν ὁ διδάσκαλος vs. ὑμῶν ὁ καθηγητής [ὁ Χριστός]

Here the early Alexandrian reading “ὑμῶν ὁ διδάσκαλος”—“your teacher”—is supported by א¹, B, 33, and 892*. Two secondary forms appear. The first substitutes καθηγητής for διδάσκαλος. The second expands to “ὑμῶν ὁ καθηγητής, ὁ Χριστός,” evidently assimilating to 23:10 where καθηγητής is universally read and where “ὁ Χριστός” appears as a titular specification.

Externally, διδάσκαλος is the earlier attested reading, and internally, scribes harmonized 23:8 toward 23:10. The lexical distinction helps: διδάσκαλος is the regular term for a teacher in the Gospels, whereas καθηγητής is rare, occurring in the New Testament only in this pericope (23:10). The originality of διδάσκαλος in 23:8 is thereby confirmed by both documentary and transcriptional evidence.

Matthew 23:14 — The Omission or Insertion of the “Widows’ Houses” Woe

The earliest recoverable text of Matthew 23 lacks verse 14. The omission is supported by א, B, D, L, Z, Θ, family 1, 33, and early versions. Later manuscripts either insert the verse before 23:13 or after 23:13 with wording reflecting Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47: “Woe to you … because you devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers …”

This is a textbook case of harmonization. Once the woe against devouring widows’ houses circulated in the lectionary tradition of Mark and Luke, scribes felt compelled to ensure that Matthew contained the same denunciation. The movement of the verse—before 23:13 in some, after 23:13 in others—betrays its secondary character, and the bilingual diffusion in Greek and early versions confirms liturgical importation rather than independent Matthean origin. The earliest Alexandrian witnesses consistently exclude it. The verse should be omitted from the main text of Matthew while noted in the apparatus for historical awareness of later harmonization practices.

Matthew 23:19 — τυφλοί vs. μωροί καὶ τυφλοί

The shorter reading, simply “τυφλοί” (“blind men”), has the support of early Alexandrian and allied witnesses. The expanded “μωροί καὶ τυφλοί” (“fools and blind men”) appears widely in later tradition and is likely borrowed from 23:17. The direction of change is clear: scribes amplify invective by importing vocabulary already present nearby. The earlier form is concise and best explains the origin of the longer reading; the longer cannot account for creation of a shorter form without positing deliberate pruning, which is less probable here. The main text should retain τυφλοί.

Matthew 23:21 — καὶ ἐν τῷ κατοικοῦντι αὐτόν vs. aorist κατοικησάντι

The external evidence for the present participle κατοικοῦντι is strong, carried by א, B, Θ, family 13, and early versions. The alternative aorist κατοικησάντι (“the one having dwelt”) is read by C, D, K, L, W, Z, Δ, 0102.

Transcriptionally, the present participle is expected in a stereotyped oath formula: “whoever swears by the temple, swears by it and by the One Who dwells in it.” The aorist generates theological and temporal reflection—was God’s dwelling past at the time of speaking?—but such a construal strains the pericope’s syntax and ignores conventional Semitic legal diction in oath language. The present aligns with Jesus’ contemporaneous statement before the public pronouncement of desolation. The later aorist may reflect retrospective scribal interpretation after Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 C.E., reading the temple as a once-occupied house. The present should stand in the text.

Matthew 23:25 — ἀκρασίας vs. Substitutions for a Rare Word

With א, B, and D, the last word of 23:25 is ἀκρασίας, “self-indulgence” or “lack of self-control.” Three substitutional variants appear: ἀδικίας (“unrighteousness”), ἀκαθαρσίας (“impurity”), and πλεονεξίας (“greed”). The diffusion of replacements betrays scribal discomfort with a rarer word, prompting substitution by more common moral terms. The originality of ἀκρασίας is secured by its relative difficulty and early attestation, and by the phenomenon of lexical domestication when copyists face unusual vocabulary. Its only other New Testament occurrence is 1 Corinthians 7:5, confirming that the term, though uncommon, belongs to the earliest stratum of Christian moral admonition.

Matthew 23:26 — Cup, Dish, and Number Agreement

Two forms vie for the text. The first, shorter reading reads: “καθάρισον πρῶτον τὸ ἐντὸς τοῦ ποτηρίου, ἵνα γένηται καὶ τὸ ἐκτὸς αὐτοῦ καθαρόν”—“first cleanse the inside of the cup, that the outside of it may also become clean.” The second adds “καὶ τῆς παροψίδος … αὐτῶν,” expanding the objects to “the cup and the dish … the outside of them.” The longer form enjoys broad support in later witnesses, including א, C, L, W, 0102, 0281, and the Majority; a few manuscripts curiously combine the expanded pair with a singular αὐτοῦ, revealing internal inconsistency that betrays secondary expansion. The shorter reading is supported by D, Θ, family 1, and early versions.

Externally, the earliest Alexandrian base is partially divided because א aligns with the expansion. Yet transcriptional evidence is decisive. The expansion is patently assimilated from 23:25, in which both cup and dish appear explicitly; scribes naturally harmonized 23:26 to repeat both nouns and then adjusted the pronoun to the plural—sometimes imperfectly, which leaves a singular αὐτοῦ in some expanded witnesses. The shorter reading best explains the origin of the longer and carries the more coherent syntax. On a documentary-plus-transcriptional assessment, the initial singular formulation should be printed.

Matthew 23:35 — “Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου”

Most manuscripts read: “from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.” A minority omit “υἱοῦ Βαραχίου,” while a patristic report (Jerome on Matthew, referring to the Gospel of the Nazarenes) mentions “son of Jehoiada.” The external balance favors inclusion. Early papyrological evidence as early as the second century preserves “Βαραχίου.” With the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures arranged from Genesis to 2 Chronicles in the period before 70 C.E., Jesus’ statement summarizes the sweep of prophetic martyrdom from first to last. Critics have charged confusion with 2 Chronicles 24:20–22, where a different Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, is slain in the temple precinct. Yet the patronymic “Barachiah” focuses attention on the prophet Zechariah (Zech 1:1) within a broader accusation that Jerusalem rejects “the prophets” (23:34, 37). The absence of a narrative of the prophet Zechariah’s death is sometimes taken as counter-evidence, but silence outside Matthew does not overturn direct documentary testimony inside Matthew. Secondary omission of “υἱοῦ Βαραχίου” is best explained as a corrective attempt by scribes troubled by an apparent historical problem or by assimilation to the Chronicler’s account. The earliest recoverable Matthean text includes “υἱοῦ Βαραχίου.”

The chronological logic of Jesus’ indictment stands: from Abel (Genesis 4:8) at the beginning to Zechariah within the closing division of the Hebrew canon, the righteous suffer at the hands of the obstinate. The charge rests on the prophetic corpus as a whole, not on the harmonization of two distinct Zechariahs. As throughout this chapter, the documentary evidence—not speculative retrofitting—must govern.

Matthew 23:38 — ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν ἔρημος

Two readings exist. The shorter omits ἔρημος (“desolate”), leaving “your house is left to you.” The longer reads, “your house is left to you desolate.” A second-century papyrus of Matthew 23 (commonly designated 𝔓77) bears lacunae at this point, but the reconstruction strongly supports the presence of ἔρημος. The combined testimony of 𝔓77, major fourth-century codices, and the wide diffusion of ἔρημος before Byzantine standardization argues decisively for inclusion.

Scribal tendencies also explain the rise of the shorter text. Copyists may have judged “desolate” superfluous after ἀφίεται or removed it to soften the severity of the pronouncement. Less likely is an early harmonizing insertion prompted by Jeremiah 12:7 or 22:5 into Matthew; this would require a remarkably early and geographically wide gloss that the documentary record does not otherwise support. The longer reading should be retained. Jesus’ words signal Divine abandonment of the temple, realized historically in 70 C.E., and cue the subsequent discourse on the temple’s ruin in Matthew 24.

Scribal Habits Displayed Across Matthew 23

Across these units, a consistent pattern emerges that supports the primacy of early Alexandrian witnesses and the stability of the text from the late second to early fourth centuries. Several habits recur. Harmonization to parallels explains the importation of the “widows’ houses” woe (23:14) and the expansion at 23:26 from 23:25. Explanatory additions clarify idioms, as with “τὰ κράσπεδα τῶν ἱματίων αὐτῶν” at 23:5. Rhetorical amplification heightens invective, producing “ῥαββί, ῥαββί” at 23:7 and “μωροί καὶ τυφλοί” at 23:19. Lexical domestication replaces a rare ἀκρασίας with familiar moral terms at 23:25. Occasional theological retrospection may underlie the aorist κατοικησάντι at 23:21 in a post-70 C.E. environment. When these habits are recognized and controlled by the earliest Greek evidence, the original text consistently favors the shorter, more difficult, and more contextually native forms preserved in the Alexandrian stream.

The Coherence of the Alexandrian Text in Matthew 23

The tight alignment between early papyri and B (Codex Vaticanus) in Gospel material, attested elsewhere for Luke and John by the high agreement between 𝔓75 (175–225 C.E.) and B, illumines Matthew 23 as well. Where the Alexandrian text is united (23:5 short; 23:7 singular “ῥαββί”; 23:8 διδάσκαλος; 23:14 omission; 23:19 short; 23:21 κατοικοῦντι; 23:25 ἀκρασίας; 23:26 short; 23:38 with ἔρημος), the reading is both earlier and explains the rise of rival forms. Where Alexandrian witnesses show some internal variation (e.g., א at 23:26 with the expansion), transcriptional evidence readily reveals secondary assimilation. This coherence is not the artifact of a later recension. It reflects a continuous, well-copied stream of the Gospel text circulating already by the late second century and then represented with notable fidelity in the fourth-century great codices.

Internal Evidence in Its Proper Place

While internal arguments are not primary, they corroborate the externally established text in Matthew 23. The shorter readings are contextually sufficient and rhetorically forceful without expansion. Jesus’ appeals to oath logic (23:16–22) match the present participle κατοικοῦντι; the drive of 23:23–28 supports ἀκρασίας as an incisive term for indulgent hypocrisy rather than a generalized moral vice; and the climax at 23:38–39 calls for the strong prophetic diction of abandonment and desolation. Parablepsis explains omissions (23:4), and assimilation explains duplications (23:7; 23:26). Nothing in the internal profile requires preferring a later expanded or harmonized alternative against superior documentary testimony.

Translation Notes for Exegetical Precision

Several units in Matthew 23 invite careful rendering in English to preserve the force of the earliest Greek text. In 23:4, the combination “heavy burdens and hard to bear” should stand; it guards against under-translating the weight Jesus identifies. In 23:5, translators should avoid the secondary genitive “of their garments” unless set in a note; “tassels” is sufficient and historically transparent. In 23:7, the single title “Rabbi” matches early evidence and Jewish address conventions of the period. In 23:8 and 23:10, the distinction between διδάσκαλος and καθηγητής should be respected, noting that the rare καθηγητής in 23:10 carries the sense “guide/instructor,” and that 23:8 should not be assimilated. Verse 23:14 properly belongs in a note, with an explanation of its later insertion from Mark/Luke. In 23:19, “blind men” should be printed without “fools,” since the latter likely migrated from 23:17. In 23:21, “the One Who dwells in it” should retain the present aspect, reflecting standard oath diction. In 23:25, the uncommon “self-indulgence” rightly carries ἀκρασία; translators should resist smoothing to common moral terms. In 23:26, “cup” should remain singular with a singular pronoun, leaving “dish” to the previous verse. In 23:35, “son of Barachiah” should be printed, accompanied by a note explaining the documentary support and addressing the harmonization issue with 2 Chronicles 24:20–22. In 23:38, “desolate” belongs in the text.

Historical Orientation and Chronological Anchors

Jesus delivers the woes of Matthew 23 during the week of His crucifixion in 33 C.E., in the temple precincts, before announcing the desolation of the house (23:38) and teaching on its destruction (Matthew 24). The abandonment pronounced in 23:38 finds its historical fulfillment in 70 C.E. with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The canonical sweep invoked in 23:35 reaches from Abel’s murder (Genesis 4:8) to the last section of the Hebrew canon culminating in 2 Chronicles, thereby embracing the entire prophetic narrative that repeatedly documents Israel’s rejection of Jehovah’s messengers. These chronological anchors are not imposed on the text; they are embedded in Jesus’ own historical indictments and the documentary shape of the Gospel tradition.

Concluding Observations on Method Applied to Matthew 23’s Units

Without offering a separate summary, it is appropriate to note that at each point where later hands embellish, harmonize, or substitute, the earliest witnesses—papyri where extant, and B and א in the fourth century—establish a shorter, crisper, and historically grounded text. The documentary method, granting priority to early Alexandrian evidence while consulting Western, Byzantine, and Caesarean traditions, yields a coherent Matthean chapter whose integrity is firmly recoverable. The result is not skepticism about the text but confidence grounded in manuscripts. The Alexandrian stream here preserves the words Matthew wrote, and it does so in a way that explains the growth of the other forms.

You May Also Enjoy

Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism: Definition, Scope, Methods, and Why It Comes First

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS