Methodological Orientation

This chapter presents the pinnacle of Matthew’s narrative: the resurrection and commissioning. Because of the theological weight placed on these verses, scribal piety and liturgical usage frequently left detectable fingerprints on the transmission history. The responsible approach is to prioritize documentary (external) evidence over speculative internal arguments. When the early and best witnesses cohere—as they often do here—the critic can speak with confidence. The Alexandrian tradition, represented especially by Codex Vaticanus [B, 300–330 C.E.] and Codex Sinaiticus [א, 330–360 C.E.], provides the backbone for the chapter’s earliest recoverable text. Western, Byzantine, and other local text-forms are weighed as witnesses but not granted determinative authority when earlier, diverse Alexandrian support is at hand. The result is a text that is historically grounded and enables exegesis anchored in what Matthew actually wrote.

As to historical setting, the events of Matthew 28 take place on the first day of the week immediately following Jesus’ crucifixion on 14 Nisan, 33 C.E., with the empty-tomb discovery and subsequent appearances occurring on 16 Nisan, 33 C.E., and the great commission delivered within the forty days before the Ascension in 33 C.E. The chronology is not peripheral; it frames Matthew’s compressed, purposeful presentation and explains the early Christian liturgical interest that later influenced copyists’ habits.

Manuscript Resources Relevant to Matthew 28

The papyrological attestation for Matthew 28 is not as deep as for some sections of Luke and John, yet the principal majuscule witnesses are ample. Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א) stand prominently, often joined by D (Bezae, 400–450 C.E.), W (Washingtonianus, 400 C.E.), Θ (Koridethi, 800–900 C.E.), L (Regius, 700–800 C.E.), and members of the f1 and f13 families, along with a broad Byzantine tradition. Versions in Syriac and Coptic frequently corroborate the earliest Greek readings, and where the Byzantine text adds clarifying expansions, the pattern is precisely what one expects when liturgical and catechetical reading shapes a scribe’s sense of what “ought” to be explicit in the church.

Matthew 28:2 — Rolling Away the Stone

The Westcott-Hort/NA text reads ἀπεκύλισεν τὸν λίθον, “he rolled away the stone.” The principal witnesses—א B D with Syriac and Coptic versions—deliver a compact and unforced clause that fits Matthew’s style of terse, sequential narration. Two expansions developed. One reads ἀπεκύλισεν τὸν λίθον ἀπὸ τῆς θύρας, “he rolled away the stone from the entrance,” supported by A C K W Δ and Syriac. A second extends it further: ἀπὸ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου, “from the entrance of the tomb,” reflected in L Γ Θ, family 13, and 33. The logic of development is transparent. The base text already implies the location; the expansions simply articulate what hearers already infer. This is classic scribal explication, not competition between two independent forms of the tradition. The earliest and most diverse attestation supports the shorter text, and there is no countervailing internal pressure to enlarge the wording. The documentary method therefore confirms ἀπεκύλισεν τὸν λίθον as original.

A brief grammatical note strengthens this judgment. Matthew frequently employs asyndetic or minimally connective narrative clauses in resurrection material, reserving fuller prepositional specification for marked emphasis. Here the agent, the angel of the Lord, is the focus; the location was already established in 27:60–66. Early scribes, reading the text in congregational settings, naturally supplied the explicit “from the door [of the tomb]” to aid novice hearers. That pastoral instinct is intelligible, yet it witnesses to secondary clarification, not the autograph.

Matthew 28:6 — “The Place Where He Was Lying”

The WH/NU reading τὸν τόπον ὅπου ἔκειτο, “the place where he was lying,” stands with א B Θ 33 and early versions. By contrast, later hands insert christological identifiers: “the place where the Lord was lying,” or “where Jesus was lying,” or even “where the body of Jesus was lying.” These are predictable expansions. They neither correct an ambiguity in the base nor resolve a syntactic difficulty. Rather, they reflect reverential precision, a hallmark of scribal clarification in resurrection scenes. In the immediate context, the angel has just said “He is not here; for he has been raised,” so Matthew’s demonstrative focus on the formerly occupied resting place is already unmistakable. The unadorned τὸν τόπον ὅπου ἔκειτο is fully adequate and characteristically Matthean, where a simple relative clause points to the evidentiary spot.

Externally, the earliest and best witnesses align with the shorter text. Internally, later expansions are easily explained: in catechetical reading, specifying “the Lord,” “Jesus,” or even “the body of Jesus” was felt to serve clarity and piety for hearers. No internal argument overrides the combined weight of early Alexandrian support and transcriptional probability. The documentary case is decisive for the shorter reading.

Matthew 28:7 — “He Was Raised” versus “He Was Raised from the Dead”

A small cluster of witnesses (D 565 and Syriac Sinaitic) abbreviates the angelic report to ἠγέρθη, “he was raised,” omitting ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν, “from the dead,” which is present in all other manuscripts. The broader and earlier tradition includes the prepositional phrase, and Matthew’s Gospel regularly employs ἐγείρω with ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν or ἐκ νεκρῶν in speaking of resurrection. The truncation is best understood as stylistic trimming or accident arising from visual or auditory omission in a line where the essential predicate “he was raised” seemed sufficient for sense. The documentary evidence is overwhelmingly against the shorter reading here, and the consistent Matthean usage supports retaining “from the dead” as part of the autograph.

Matthew 28:9 — The Meeting With Jesus on the Way

The WH/NU text reads succinctly: καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἰησοῦς ὑπήντησεν αὐταῖς, “and behold, Jesus met them,” supported by א B D W Θ, family witnesses, Syriac Peshitta, and Coptic. A longer reading appears in the Textus Receptus and many later manuscripts: Ὡς δὲ ἐπορεύοντο ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἰησοῦς ὑπήντησεν αὐταῖς, “And as they went to tell his disciples—and behold, Jesus met them.” Two observations are determinative.

First, the documentary evidence. The shorter reading is early and geographically diverse. The longer reading clusters in later witnesses and aligns with the broader Byzantine tendency to smooth narrative transitions by importing a clause whose sense is already inferable from 28:8.

Second, transcriptional probability. The preceding verse ends with ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ. The longer reading reproduces that wording at the head of 28:9, creating a duplication that is hard to explain as an original Matthean composition. Its insertion yields an awkward flow, especially when the next clause begins with καί, producing a stacking of connectives that native Greek narrative style would avoid. Homoeoteleuton could be invoked to explain a loss of the longer text, but that would leave unaddressed why the most reliable witnesses, which otherwise preserve fuller readings where appropriate, would uniformly omit the clause here. More plausibly, a scribe supplied a transitional phrase to “bridge” the action and then let καί carry the narrative forward. The shorter reading, with the stronger witnesses and the tighter style, should be adopted.

Matthew 28:10 — “My Brothers,” Not “My Disciples”

A handful of late witnesses substitute μαθηταῖς μου, “my disciples,” for ἀδελφοῖς μου, “my brothers.” The alteration is self-explanatory. “Disciples” is a straightforward category term that scribes could supply reflexively; “brothers” in this context reflects the new relational reality created by the resurrection and aligns with the theological affirmation that those who believe are begotten again to a living hope (1 Peter 1:3). The documentary support for ἀδελφοῖς μου is universal outside the two late manuscripts. There is no plausible case for originality of “my disciples.” Matthew’s choice of “brothers” at this climax signals the transformation effected by the resurrection in 33 C.E., not a mere classroom designation.

Matthew 28:17 — “They Worshiped” With or Without an Explicit Object

Several witnesses add either αὐτόν or αὐτῷ after προσεκύνησαν, producing “they worshiped him” or “they paid homage to him.” The verb προσκυνέω can govern a dative or take an explicit object, but Greek usage often leaves the object implicit when the referent is contextually obvious. In 28:17 the sight of the risen Jesus is the trigger for worship; Matthew does not need to add a pronoun to complete the sense. The tendency to clarify with αὐτόν/αὐτῷ is typical of scribes aiming for liturgical clarity. Externally, the addition is later and widely distributed in the Byzantine tradition. Internally, the omission is fully natural Greek and avoids forcing a narrower construal of the worship’s direction than Matthew supplies. The earliest recoverable text reads simply προσεκύνησαν without an object, and English translations may reflect that spareness without loss of clarity.

Matthew 28:20 — The Final “Amen”

The question of whether Matthew ends with ἀμήν is settled by the earliest evidence. א A* B D W f1 33 and Coptic witnesses omit ἀμήν; Byzantine witnesses tend to add it, reflecting the widespread practice of concluding public readings with an audible “amen.” The phenomenon is not unique to Matthew. Over time, “amen” entered the written text at the end of all four Gospels and Acts in many manuscripts, and similar additions appear at the end of Epistles where the author’s autograph almost certainly did not include it. The transmissional history is thus transparent: liturgical usage bled into written form. The earliest, best witnesses anchor Matthew’s Gospel without a concluding ἀμήν. The clause “I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age” therefore stands as the deliberate terminal cadence of the Gospel.

Subscription — “According to Matthew”

Codex Vaticanus concludes the book with κατα Μαθθαῖον, “According to Matthew.” Such subscriptions are not authorial; they are paratextual identifiers that early Christians used to mark copies in codex form. They do, however, reflect settled attribution in very early Christian circulation. While subscriptions vary in wording across manuscripts, the presence of κατα Μαθθαῖον in B confirms the stable association of this Gospel with Matthew at a very early stage of codex production in the fourth century.

Translation Notes and Exegesis Tethered to the Recovered Text

The translation of 28:2 should reflect the autograph’s brevity: “he rolled away the stone.” There is no need to add “from the entrance,” since the location is explicit in the context established in 27:60–66 and assumed in 28:1. English versions that retain brevity here adhere more closely to Matthew’s manner of letting setting supply specifics without explication in each clause.

In 28:6 the focus on “the place where he was lying” is evidential. The angel directs the women to the objective sign—a vacated space. By refusing to add “the Lord,” “Jesus,” or “the body of Jesus,” Matthew lets the sight-line do the work. Narrative economy highlights the reality of resurrection without rhetorical amplification.

In 28:7 the phrase “from the dead” is integral to Matthew’s resurrection idiom. Removing it reduces the angelic proclamation to a bare predicate and diminishes the categorical contrast Matthew asserts: the crucified One has been raised out from among those who are dead. The early and broad testimony preserves this pivotal expression.

In 28:9 the compressed “and behold, Jesus met them” fits Matthew’s stylistic use of καὶ ἰδού to introduce sudden, God-directed interventions. The longer transitional phrase in later manuscripts dilutes the dramatic immediacy and obstructs narrative momentum. The shorter form preserves the Gospel’s crisp movement from obedience (“they departed quickly”) to encounter (“Jesus met them”).

In 28:10 the wording “my brothers” carries weight in the canonical movement from Jesus’ earlier identification of His true family as those who do the will of His Father (12:48–50) to the resurrection community that He now embraces with familial language. Scribes who replaced it with “my disciples” inadvertently dampened that development.

In 28:17 the implicit object after “they worshiped” preserves a purposeful ambiguity. The worship is prompted by seeing Jesus; Matthew’s syntactic restraint allows readers to recognize worship directed to God in the presence of the risen Messiah without imposing a grammatical specification that Matthew himself did not write. The subsequent commissioning in 28:18–20, with Jesus’ declaration of universal authority and the baptismal triad, supplies the theological frame within which that worship is understood.

In 28:20 the absence of “amen” leaves the risen Lord’s promise as the final sound of the Gospel. The open-ended assurance—“I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age”—is not capped by a congregational response imported into the text. It is the Lord’s voice that closes the book.

Scribal Habits Displayed in Matthew 28

The variant units in this chapter showcase familiar scribal behaviors. First is explanatory expansion. When a setting has already been supplied, later hands restate it explicitly, as in 28:2. Second is pious specification, where christological titles, proper names, or reverential phrases are inserted to heighten clarity or devotion, as in 28:6 and 28:17. Third is liturgical assimilation, in which public reading customs—like adding “amen” at a text’s conclusion—eventually enter the written line in some traditions, as in 28:20. Fourth is narrative gap-filling, as in 28:9, where a transitional clause is duplicated from the immediate context to smooth a perceived abruptness.

These tendencies are well understood and do not undermine confidence in the text. Rather, they help the critic discriminate between earlier and later forms. When the earliest and most reliable witnesses present the shorter, tighter form, and when the longer forms are best explained by these scribal habits, the path to the autograph is straightforward.

The Coherence of the Alexandrian Witness in the Resurrection Narrative

Although Matthew 28 lacks the density of second-century papyri available for portions of Luke and John, the agreement of B and א, often joined by D and W, yields a coherent Alexandrian profile that is not the result of a later recension but represents a conservative transmission line reaching back to the earliest centuries. The same stability observable in P75’s close affinity with Vaticanus in Luke and John (late second to early third century for P75; early fourth for B) gives methodological support for preferring the Alexandrian form where it is amply and variously attested in Matthew 28. The pattern in this chapter aligns with that larger picture: the Alexandrian witnesses preserve a text free of liturgical accretions and pious glosses, while later traditions frequently expand or specify.

Transmission and the Influence of Early Christian Worship

Matthew’s resurrection narrative was central to preaching and catechesis in the decades and centuries after 33 C.E. The inevitable result was a textual environment in which scribes, often copying for congregational use, would make small adjustments toward clarity. The great commission, with its baptismal formula and assurance of the Lord’s enduring presence, was read, recited, and memorized. The addition of “amen” at the close fits naturally within that worship setting. Recognizing this environment does not rest on speculation; it is the straightforward explanation for the pattern of later readings across a broad range of books and manuscripts. The distinction between authorial text and liturgical voice is essential. The critic restores the former without disparaging the pastoral instincts that produced the latter.

English Rendering Guided by the Restored Greek

A translation that follows the documentary findings for Matthew 28 will keep the prose lean where the Greek is lean and will avoid importing later clarifications. “He rolled away the stone” needs no added prepositional phrase; “the place where he was lying” needs no inserted title. “He was raised from the dead” should stand in full; “and behold, Jesus met them” should remain uncluttered by duplicated transitional language. “My brothers” must be preserved because it voices the new resurrection relationship, and “they worshiped” should not be forced to say “they worshiped him” when Matthew did not write that pronoun. Finally, the Gospel should close with the Lord’s promise, not with a congregational “amen” added centuries later.

The Documentary Case for Confidence in Matthew 28

The critical units in Matthew 28 are small, and none jeopardizes the chapter’s history-shaping affirmations. The overwhelming trajectory of the evidence supports a text that is early, restrained, and theologically potent precisely in its restraint. The women encounter an empty resting place and the risen Lord; the disciples meet Jesus, worship, and receive the commission grounded in His universal authority. The variants that entered the stream—expansions, specifications, liturgical seals—are transparent and reversible once the manuscripts are weighed properly. The result is not uncertainty but clarity: the text recovered by preferring the best, earliest, and most diverse witnesses is the text Matthew wrote.

Verse-by-Verse Synopsis of Decisions Within the External-Evidence Priority

At 28:2 the autograph is ἀπεκύλισεν τὸν λίθον. The expansions with ἀπὸ τῆς θύρας and ἀπὸ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου reflect explanatory tendencies and later diffusion. At 28:6 the autograph is τὸν τόπον ὅπου ἔκειτο; the additions identifying “the Lord,” “Jesus,” or “the body of Jesus” are reverential elaborations. At 28:7 the full ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν is preserved; the abbreviation to ἠγέρθη is secondary. At 28:9 the concise καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἰησοῦς ὑπήντησεν αὐταῖς stands as the earliest recoverable text; the longer transitional clause reproduces adjacent wording and interrupts Matthew’s style. At 28:10 ἀδελφοῖς μου is original, not μαθηταῖς μου. At 28:17 the absence of an explicit object after προσεκύνησαν matches idiomatic Greek and the earliest witnesses; later addition of αὐτόν/αὐτῷ is clarifying. At 28:20 the omission of ἀμήν reflects the autograph; its later presence mirrors liturgical practice, not authorial intention. The subscription κατα Μαθθαῖον in B is a reliable fourth-century paratext reflecting the settled attribution.

Theological Coherence Emerging from the Restored Text

The unity of Matthew’s conclusion is sharpened by the documentary text. The angel’s command and the Lord’s assurance frame the narrative without gratuitous embellishment. The focus is on what God accomplished in raising Jesus in 33 C.E., on the verification provided by the empty resting place, on the authority the risen Christ declares, and on the mission entrusted to the disciples with the promise of His abiding presence. The restorations enacted by textual criticism here do not alter doctrine; they refine the wording so that exegesis rests on authorial lines rather than later interpretive aids. This strengthens confidence not only in Matthew 28 but in the transmissional integrity of the New Testament as a whole, where early, high-quality witnesses consistently enable us to recover the original text with precision.

Concluding Observations on Method as Demonstrated in Matthew 28

Matthew 28 illustrates why external evidence must lead. The earliest witnesses agree on the shorter, stricter form of the text; later manuscripts explain themselves by their expansions. Internal arguments confirm but do not drive the decision-making. The documentary method preserves Matthew’s narrative voice. It respects the providential preservation of the text through faithful transmission and applies rigorous, evidence-based evaluation to restore the original wording. In this chapter, that means resisting pious additions, honoring early Alexandrian stability, and presenting the church’s foundational resurrection narrative exactly as Matthew wrote it.

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