Methodological Orientation for Matthew 27

This commentary proceeds verse by verse through the principal textual units in Matthew 27 where meaningful variation occurs. The method is documentary in priority: the earliest and best manuscripts, especially the Alexandrian witnesses, are weighed most heavily, while Western, Byzantine, and so-called Caesarean readings are evaluated as important but secondary controls. Internal evidence is then considered, not to override the witnesses, but to test whether the transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities comport with the documentary record. This method recognizes the stability of the text preserved in the second–fourth centuries C.E. and affirms that the original wording can be recovered where the evidence permits. Throughout, the commentary explains scribal habits that affected transmission in this chapter, including harmonization to parallels, pious clarifications, conflations, and marginal glosses that later entered the text. Where relevant, lexical and contextual observations are made to clarify why a particular reading is authorial for Matthew’s narrative of Jesus’ trial, death, burial, and the guard at the tomb in 33 C.E., under the prefecture of Pontius Pilate (26–36 C.E.).

Matthew 27:2 — Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι or Ποντίῳ Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι?

The principal variation concerns whether Matthew wrote simply “Pilate the governor” (Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι) or the fuller “Pontius Pilate the governor” (Ποντίῳ Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι). The documentary evidence favors the shorter form with strong Alexandrian support. The fuller form reflects a harmonizing tendency toward Luke 3:1; Acts 4:27; and 1 Timothy 6:13, where the double name is used in historical and confessional contexts. Transcriptionally, a scribe encountering the shorter designation in Matthew would naturally expand it to the full, well-known name; the reverse change is far less likely. The shorter reading also matches Matthean economy elsewhere when named officials are introduced without superfluous titulature. The autograph therefore most likely read Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι, with “Pontius” added secondarily for conformity.

Matthew 27:4 — αἷμα ἀθῷον or αἷμα δίκαιον / αἷμα τοῦ δικαίου?

Judas’ confession presents the well-attested “innocent blood” (αἷμα ἀθῷον). The expression is idiomatic in the Septuagint for wrongful execution. Given the breadth of support and the idiom’s currency, the shift to “righteous blood” (αἷμα δίκαιον) or “the blood of the righteous one” (αἷμα τοῦ δικαίου) discloses a pious elevation of Jesus from innocence to righteousness, likely influenced by apostolic proclamation such as Acts 3:14–15. The trajectory of change is from ordinary, scriptural idiom to heightened christological precision. The documentary record and the direction of scribal tendency both confirm αἷμα ἀθῷον as original.

Matthew 27:5 — ῥίψας τὰ ἀργύρια εἰς τὸν ναόν or ἐν τῷ ναῷ?

The prepositional choice in this verse is not trivial, because ναός in Matthew typically denotes the sanctuary proper rather than the temple courts, which Matthew calls ἱερόν. The best witnesses favor εἰς τὸν ναόν, “into the temple,” which fits Matthean usage and suggests an act of deliberate desecration: Judas, overcome with remorse, hurls the coins into the sanctuary area. The alternative ἐν τῷ ναῷ, “in the temple,” could be read as Jesus’ betrayer discarding the silver while standing inside the sanctuary, but this raises additional narrative complexity and may reflect stylistic smoothing or Alexandrian refinement noted by some. Given both usage and attestation, εἰς is authorial, with ἐν a secondary alternative that minimizes the vivid directional nuance of Judas’ final gesture.

Matthew 27:9 — Ἰερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου or Another Prophetic Name?

The name “Jeremiah the prophet” stands in all major witnesses, even though the most obvious verbal parallels are in Zechariah 11:12–13. Matthew’s citation is composite: Jeremiah 19:1–11 and 32:6–9 supply the motifs of the potter, the field, and “innocent blood,” while Zechariah furnishes the valuation of thirty pieces of silver and the throwing of the money back. In a Jewish setting, prophetic attributions could name a principal source when multiple texts were in play. Because Jeremiah supplied the crucial narrative hooks Matthew exploited—the potter, the field, and the renaming—scribes who perceived the Zecharian wording sometimes altered “Jeremiah” to “Zechariah,” while others removed the prophet’s name to avoid the perceived difficulty. The stable, early testimony for Ἰερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου, together with Matthew’s compositional method elsewhere, establishes the originality of “Jeremiah.”

Matthew 27:11 — Omission of ὁ ἡγεμών

A few witnesses omit ὁ ἡγεμών after Πιλᾶτος due to homoeoteleuton with the following λέγων. The omission is accidental rather than deliberate, since the surrounding context has just identified Pilate as the governor, and scribes had no motive to remove the title here. The inclusive reading is authorial.

Matthew 27:16–17 — “[Ἰησοῦν] Βαραββᾶν” and “Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός”

The question whether Barabbas bore the name “Jesus” is one of the most discussed units in this chapter. A strand of early evidence, including patristic notes and a group of manuscripts often associated with a Caesarean profile, preserves “Jesus Barabbas,” while many early Alexandrian and other majuscule witnesses read simply “Barabbas.” Several converging lines commend “Jesus Barabbas” as original in Matthew. First, transcriptional probability strongly favors suppression of the divine name from a notorious criminal over its insertion into his name. There was a well-attested reluctance to ascribe the name Ἰησοῦς to a sinner, and marginal notes by ancient readers indicate awareness of earlier copies that did include it. Second, Matthew’s wording in 27:17 creates a deliberate antithesis: “Jesus Barabbas” versus “Jesus, the One called Christ.” The second designation becomes explanatory only if two men named Jesus stand before the prefect. Third, one of the chief Alexandrian codices retains the article before Βαραββᾶν where, were Ἰησοῦν absent in the exemplar, the article would be anomalous; this subtle grammatical phenomenon is best explained if the scribe’s model originally read Ἰησοῦν τὸν Βαραββᾶν. Although the earliest complete Alexandrian witnesses do not write “Jesus” before “Barabbas,” the weight of transcriptional probability and the internal congruity of Matthew’s rhetoric tip the scales toward “[Ἰησοῦν] Βαραββᾶν” as the authorial reading, with subsequent excision under the impulse of reverential caution. Where editors retain it, it is appropriate to distinguish “Jesus Barabbas” from “Jesus, the One called Christ,” exactly as Matthew’s contrast requires.

Matthew 27:16b — Explanatory Expansion About Barabbas’ Crimes

The clause describing Barabbas as imprisoned for “murder and insurrection” reflects an assimilation to Mark 15:7. Its occurrence in a small cluster of witnesses shows a typical tendency to supply background details Matthew chose to omit. Matthew’s narrative already presupposes Barabbas’ notoriety; therefore the expansion is secondary.

Matthew 27:24 — ἀθῷός εἰμι ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τούτου or Addition of τοῦ δικαίου

The shorter Pilate declaration, “I am innocent of this blood,” has the better credentials. The addition “of this just man” borrows language from 27:19, where Pilate’s wife calls Jesus “a righteous man,” and from Lukan and Johannine assessments of Jesus’ innocence. This is a classic case of scribal gap-filling to make explicit what Matthew leaves the reader to infer from Pilate’s symbolic handwashing. The documentary evidence and the pattern of assimilation to nearby wording both affirm the shorter reading as Matthew’s.

Matthew 27:28 — ἐκδύσαντες or ἐνδύσαντες?

The earliest and most diverse witnesses indicate that the soldiers “stripped” Jesus (ἐκδύσαντες αὐτόν) before dressing Him in a mock royal cloak. A small number of manuscripts read “clothed” Him (ἐνδύσαντες αὐτόν) with the scarlet robe. Narratively, one could argue that, having just flogged Him, they might clothe rather than strip again, yet the mock-investiture sequence fits the ritual: stripping, then robing, then the crown and scepter parody. The variant that omits the stripping is best explained as harmonization to Mark or John or as narrative smoothing by a scribe uncomfortable with a second stripping. The initial stripping remains the earliest recoverable text.

Matthew 27:32 — Supplemental Details About Simon of Cyrene

Isolated witnesses add that Simon was “coming in from the country,” or that he met Jesus, mirroring Mark 15:21 and Luke 23:26. These expansions supply information Matthew chose not to repeat. Because they are borrowed and sporadic, they are not authorial.

Matthew 27:34 — οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον or ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον?

The best witnesses read “wine mixed with gall,” which matches Matthew’s distinctive diction and preserves his allusion pattern. The variant “sour wine” reflects assimilation to the Synoptic and Johannine passion accounts and to the Greek of Psalm 69:21. The pull of the other Gospels and of the psalm explains the shift; Matthew’s wording is secure.

Matthew 27:35 — Simple Lot-Casting or Fulfillment Formula Inserted?

The earliest and most reliable witnesses present the concise report, “they divided His garments, casting lots.” Later witnesses add the familiar Matthean fulfillment formula and the wording of Psalm 22:18, seemingly drawn from John 19:24 and shaped in Matthew’s style. Because Matthew frequently uses fulfillment formulas, scribes often anticipated them and supplied them where absent. The shorter reading is original; the longer is a harmonizing, stylistically Matthean gloss that entered the stream in later hands.

Matthew 27:38 — The Naming of the Two Criminals

A few witnesses supply names for the two men crucified with Jesus. The variety of names across manuscripts shows independent, secondary attempts to fill a perceived gap. The earliest text leaves them unnamed, consistent with Matthew’s focus on the mockery and the fulfillment contours of the narrative.

Matthew 27:41 — “Scribes and Elders” or Inclusion of “Pharisees”?

The earliest witnesses report that the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked Jesus. Later readings add “Pharisees,” likely because the Pharisees figure elsewhere among Jesus’ opponents and in 27:62 they approach Pilate. The impulse to list all major opponents leads to expansion here. The original coordination includes “scribes and elders” without “Pharisees.”

Matthew 27:42 — Indicative Sarcasm or Conditional Mockery?

The earliest text reads as an ironic assertion: “He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe.” The conditional “If He is the King of Israel…” with a subjunctive for “we would believe” neutralizes Matthew’s sharp sarcasm and dulls the force of the taunt. Scribes who missed the ironic tone introduced the conditional particle and adjusted the verb form. The indicative is authorial and rhetorically more potent, aligning with Matthew’s portrayal of willful unbelief.

Matthew 27:46 — ἠλί ἠλί or ἠλοΐ ἠλοΐ?

In Matthew, the broader manuscript tradition preserves ἠλί ἠλί, reflecting the Hebrew of Psalm 22:1, while a limited but important group reads ἠλοΐ ἠλοΐ, reflecting Aramaic. Intrinsically, Jesus’ cry was in Aramaic, and the following transliteration of λεμὰ σαβαχθανί supports this. Yet Matthew, more than Mark, often frames citations in a way that heightens their scriptural resonance in Israel’s language. The documentary balance favors ἠλί ἠλί in Matthew and ἠλοΐ ἠλοΐ in Mark, preserving the distinct profiles of each Evangelist. Moreover, the onlookers’ misunderstanding of “Eli” as “Elijah” works sufficiently with the Hebrew form; the three-syllable Aramaic may make the confusion easier, but this is not decisive against the strong attestation for Matthew’s ἠλί ἠλί. The Greek author of Matthew can present the Hebrew incipit while retaining the widely known Aramaic clause that follows; this mixed representation is perfectly consistent with first-century bilingual realities and with Matthew’s literary aims.

Matthew 27:49 — The Spear-Thrust Before Jesus’ Death?

A difficult longer reading reports that “another, taking a spear, pierced His side, and out came water and blood,” placed before Jesus’ loud cry and death in Matthew. The support for the addition is early and Alexandrian, and its wording is not a verbatim import from John 19:34, reversing “blood and water” to “water and blood” and adding narrative features absent in John. Several factors nevertheless indicate that Matthew did not originally contain this sentence. First, harmonization typically moves toward fuller Passion narratives; here, the most plausible mechanism is a marginal gloss influenced by the Johannine passion that migrated into the text at an early stage in Egypt. Second, the placement before Jesus’ death jars Matthew’s sequence and creates a tension with the consistent Johannine positioning after death, a tension likely to provoke omission by harmonizing scribes—but the broad omission across textual families suggests the sentence was never widely present to be deleted. Third, Matthew’s narrative emphasis from 27:45 to 27:54 is the darkness, the abandonment cry, the loud voice, the veil, the earthquake, and the centurion’s confession; the spear detail disrupts that arc. Given these considerations, the longer sentence deserves double brackets where printed as an ancient, important gloss, but the initial text of Matthew ends the verse with the bystanders’ challenge, “Let us see if Elijah comes to save Him.”

Matthew 27:56 — Ἰωσῆ or Ἰωσήφ?

A significant split exists between “Joses” and “Joseph” among the list of women and their sons. The longer, later tradition often regularizes names, and here one motive for replacing “Joses” with “Joseph” would be the desire to avoid the appearance that Mary and Joseph named another son with the father’s own name, if one incorrectly assumed identity of persons from Matthew 13:55. Yet the earliest and best witnesses that read Ἰωσῆ show that the shorter form of the name was known and used. Matthew elsewhere distinguishes between “Joseph” and “Joses” as separate names. The form Ἰωσῆ is original here.

Matthew 27:64 — “His Disciples May Steal Him” or “May Steal Him at Night”?

In the consultation with Pilate, the guard request includes the fear that the disciples will steal the body. The phrase “at night” appears in a later strand and was almost certainly imported from the malicious report in 28:13. A scribe anticipating that narrative detail supplied it prematurely to create tight verbal cohesion across the pericope. The earlier text omits “at night” here, preserving Matthew’s pacing: the nocturnal element is the substance of the later bribed narrative, not the wording of the initial request.

Observations on Scribal Tendencies in Matthew 27

The variants in Matthew 27 display several recurrent tendencies. Harmonization to Mark and John appears at 27:16b, 27:32, 27:34, 27:35, and 27:49, sometimes subtle and sometimes extensive. Pious clarifications that elevate Jesus’ status are visible in 27:4 and 27:24. Attempts to augment lists of opponents occur in 27:41, and clarifying conditionals or softened assertions occur in 27:42. Narrative smoothing explains omissions or substitutions at 27:11 and 27:28. The presence of a hard reading with strong patristic awareness in 27:16–17 (“Jesus Barabbas”) illustrates early scribal reverence influencing text alteration by excision rather than addition. Each of these patterns can be explained without resorting to speculative theories about late recension: the earliest documentary evidence already exhibits these tendencies in discernible, classifiable ways, allowing the initial text to be recovered with confidence.

The Historical Frame and the Language of Matthew 27

Historically, Matthew 27 unfolds during the Passover of 33 C.E., under the prefecture of Pilate. The chapter’s language choices are consistent with a Jewish audience steeped in Scripture. This explains the Hebrew phrasing in 27:46 alongside the Aramaic clause, and it helps account for Matthew’s patterned fulfillment motifs that scribes later amplified in 27:35. The sanctuary terminology in 27:5 displays Matthew’s precision: ναός denotes the sanctuary proper, intensifying the scene of Judas’ remorse. The careful titling of Pilate in 27:2 and the reserved, uncluttered citations until 27:35 match the Evangelist’s style throughout his Passion narrative, against which later expansions are readily detected.

Synthesis of External and Internal Considerations for Key Units

Two units in this chapter especially highlight the interplay of evidence. For 27:16–17, the external tradition is divided, yet the transcriptional direction, the patristic awareness, and the intrinsic rhetorical structure favor “Jesus Barabbas.” For 27:49, the external Alexandrian support is notable, but the narrative fit, the likely gloss trajectory from John, and the widespread absence across diverse textual streams point to non-authenticity for the spear sentence in Matthew. In both cases, prioritizing the documentary record while allowing internal criteria to illuminate scribal motivations produces stable results that cohere with Matthew’s style and with the broader Passion tradition.

Concluding Textual Decisions Across Matthew 27

Across the units considered, the following readings are original for Matthew 27: “Pilate the governor” at 27:2; “innocent blood” at 27:4; “threw [the silver] into the sanctuary” at 27:5; “Jeremiah the prophet” at 27:9; inclusion of ὁ ἡγεμών in 27:11; “Jesus Barabbas” at 27:16–17; the shorter Pilate declaration at 27:24; “stripped Him” at 27:28; omission of the borrowed Markan details at 27:32; “wine with gall” at 27:34; the simple lot-casting clause without fulfillment formula at 27:35; unnamed criminals at 27:38; “scribes and elders” without “Pharisees” at 27:41; the sarcastic indicative at 27:42; ἠλί ἠλί in Matthew 27:46; omission of the spear sentence in 27:49 (with double-bracket acknowledgment of its antiquity); “Joses” at 27:56; and omission of “at night” in 27:64. Each decision rests on early, weighty documentary evidence read in light of well-attested scribal habits and Matthew’s diction. In this way the text of Matthew 27 emerges with clarity and coherence, reflecting a stable transmission that preserves what Matthew wrote concerning the crucifixion, death, and burial of Jesus the Messiah in 33 C.E.

You May Also Enjoy

Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism: Definition, Scope, Priority, and the Scholarly Necessity of Reconstructing the Original Text

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS