THE TEXT OF MATTHEW 13

The Text of Matthew 13

If you take the time to compare a given passage of Scripture as rendered by different translations, you will naturally see that they do not read word-for-word the same. That is to be expected when trying to convey a thought in one language which was originally written in another language. But in the case of the New Testament, for example, being translated from ancient Greek into modern English, there is another hidden factor involved in the process that most Christians are not aware of. First, one must have an accurate Greek text with which to work. And the reality is that we do not possess any handwritten documents (also called manuscripts) by the original authors, only copies of copies of copies.

So before even beginning the translation process, teams of textual scholars must first compare all of the thousands of manuscripts with one another and make a judgment call for each verse of Scripture as to the wording of the original writing. This is necessary since it turns out that there are numerous variations in the exact wording of these many manuscripts. Some of the differences between them are due to accidental mistakes in copying (we might call them typos), while others are due to purposeful alterations which the scribes felt were necessary to “correct” or “better explain” the text.

While this may seem to cast a huge cloud over the Bible and make us feel that we can't trust anything written there, the problem is not nearly as insurmountable as it may seem. The vast majority of these textual variations can be easily dismissed as sloppy copying by the imperfectly trained “scribes.” (By the way, this problem does not exist with the Old Testament text nearly as much due to the scrupulous pains taken by professional Jewish scribes to accurately preserve the original text over the centuries.)

For those NT variations which are not as easily dismissed, modern textual scholars have a built up a whole host of common sense principles to employ in reconstructing the original wording.

For example, although going with the reading found in the majority of the manuscripts might sound like the most sensible approach to take (and it was the basic approach used in establishing the text behind the King James Bible), that can be highly misleading. The reason is that it only takes one mistake in a copy of the NT produced early on to be perpetuated over the centuries by subsequent copyists. Thus, one has to also take into account the relative ages of each manuscript (favoring the earliest ones) and the geographical scope of the manuscripts (favoring the reading found in widely different areas over one existing primarily in a narrow part of the ancient world). Other things scholars look for are purposeful changes made in order to bring the wording of one verse more in line with similar verses found elsewhere in the NT, attempts to clarify the text for the reader, and the addition of doctrinal issues mainly of importance in later church life.

So how does a reader know how accurately the scholars have done their job in establishing a reliable Greek text before the translators began their job? One way is to look at the footnotes in your English translations. Any good study Bible with not only have useful explanatory notes at the bottom of each page, but also textual footnotes beginning with parallel wording such as: “other authorities read,” “other witnesses have,” or “other manuscripts read.” Those alternative readings will represent those places where some doubt remained in the minds of the translators as to the original Greek wording.

Let's turn to Matthew 13 as a random example. If you happen to have the Jerusalem Bible, then you will note that there are textual notes for verses 9 and 35. RSV contains textual notes on verses 9, 35, and 43; NRSV has a note each for verses 9 and 43 as well as two notes for v. 35; NEB only footnotes v. 35; and the NIV Study Bible contains no textual information at all.

You can see this same disagreement in reading scholarly commentaries on this same passage, so that for example:

Hendricksen only comments on one dubious point in v. 35 while France sees textual items worth pointing out in vv. 22, 35, 43, and 55. Even within textual scholars themselves there is disagreement regarding which textual variations are important enough to justify a mention. In this regard, there are two valuable resources for those who wish to delve into this matter in more detail: Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament and Philip Comfort's A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament. Metzger's work is perhaps the better known of the two, but for those such as myself who do not read Greek fluently, Comfort has the more accessible treatment as well as providing a good introduction to the whole subject of textual criticism. Concerning Matthew 13, Metzger comments on verses 9, 13, 35a, 35b, 40, 43, 44, and 55 while Comfort discusses verses 35a, 35b, 36, 37, 41, 43, and 55.

With that overly long background to the subject, here are the specific variations found within manuscripts containing Matthew 13 just so you can get a good idea of the extent they might or might not affect the actual meaning of this passage.

Matthew 13:9

The tag line at this parable's ending reads “He who has ears, let him hear.” The Jerusalem Bible notes that some manuscripts instead read “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” to bring it into line with Matthew 11:15 and 13:43. Here we have an example of textual critics siding with the more difficult reading, the reasoning being that there is every justification for a scribe to change 13:9 so as to agree with the two other similar formulations in the Gospel, but no discernible reason for anyone to subtract “to hear” from the more common longer wording.

Matthew 13:13

There are several “families” of NT texts identified by their common textual peculiarities and the geographical area in which they tended to circulate. Thus, Greenlee states, “The Caesarean text lies mid-way, so to speak, between the Alexandrian and the Western text...It is often found in the company of the Alexandrian text (e.g., kriston einai in Mark 1:34), often with the Western text (e.g. hina blepontes me bleposin in Matt. 13:13), and often with its own readings apart from the other local texts...”

And Metzger says, “Several representatives of the Western and the Caesarean types of text, influenced by the parallel passages in Mk 4.12 and Lk 8.10, altered the construction to hina with the subjunctive mood.” The difference between the two readings is that one says the peoples' hearts are hardened so that they won't turn and repent while the other states that because their hearts are hardened, they can't repent.

France concludes: “Moreover, his [Matthew's] full quotation of Isa 6:9-10 in vv. 14-15 makes explicit what is only implicit in the summary, that the people's failure to understand keeps them from repenting and so from being healed. Set in that context, Matthew's 'because' does not seem so different from Mark's 'in order that'; intentions and results are blended into a scenario which is not at all hopeful for the enlightenment of the outsiders. 'Because' does not in itself make the parables a means of curing the people's blindness, but only a form of teaching appropriate to it.”

Matthew 13:22

This verse talks about the cares of “the world.” France translates it as “this world” instead (as do JB and TEV, for example), and explains: “There is no 'this' in the oldest Greek texts here (though many MSS and versions add it), but English idiom requires it to distinguish this age from the age to come.” Other English renderings read “worldly cares” to convey the same idea. So this example is really a combination of both textual and translation issues, with virtually no overall differences in understanding between the variations.

Matthew 13:35a

This is without a doubt the most discussed textual issue found in this chapter. Jesus introduces an OT quotation by stating: “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the prophet.” This is probably the original wording since, as Hendricksen points out, (a) alternative readings (specifically, the addition of “Isaiah” after “prophet”) have much weaker manuscript support and (b) there is also no specific name given for “the prophet” in Matthew 2:17; 3:3; 4:14; and 12:17.

Comfort adds that scribes may have added “Isaiah” since that prophet is mentioned by name in Matthew 3:3; 4:14; 8:17; and 12:17. Other places where individual scribes added “Isaiah” to the original text are found in 1:22 and 2:5.

However, not all translations agree with the above reasoning. Thus, although we see the NIV Study Bible omitting “Isaiah” and not even providing a textual note to point out the alternative, NEB includes “Isaiah” in the text itself with a footnote indicating that other manuscripts omit it.

One major problem with the inclusion of the prophet's name is that, as Hill explains, the actual quotation is not at all from Isaiah's writing but to Psalm 78:2 instead, ascribed to Asaph. But does Asaph meet the requirements of a true OT prophet? Hill responds that “All the OT scriptures have, for Matthew, a prophetic value.” To this, Nixon concurs: “While some MSS read 'Isaiah' instead of prophet, this is unlikely. Matthew may have had in mind that Asaph to whom Ps. 78 is ascribed, was described as a prophet (1 Ch. 25:2), but in any event the psalmists speak prophetically.” Other commentators point to II Chronicles 29:30 for an alternative source of that same information on Asaph as a prophet.

But not all commentators agree that the specific mention of Isaiah is inappropriate. Blomberg points to van Segbroeck as giving an alternative explanation, believing that the quotation also alludes to texts in 'Deutero-Isaiah such as Isa 40:5, in which Jesus' behavior is explained as reproducing a previously described pattern on figurative speech.”

Another defender of “Isaiah” as being original, is Menken, who feels that the word kekrymmena (“things hidden”) was introduced into the text from Isaiah 29:14b, “and so attributes the conflated quotation to Isaiah (cf. his attribution of the complex quotation of 27:9-10 to Jeremiah, even though the primary source was Zech 11:13).” (France)

I will leave it up to you to read the prophecy itself in Matthew 13:35b and compare it to both Isaiah 40:5 and Psalm 78 to see which one fits Jesus' quotation the closest in both wording and overall thought..

Matthew 13:35b

The second issue found in verse 35 involves the final words of the quotation – “of the world” following “foundation / beginning” Blomberg says that it is “textually suspect, being absent from several older manuscripts.”

In Comfort's discussion of this issue he notes that the Hebrew of Psalm 78:2, from which this quotation is taken, reads “from of old.” According to Comfort, that may refer to the foundation of the nation of Israel. However, the Greek Septuagint text of this same verse reads, “the beginning of creation.” He concludes: “On the basis of internal evidence, either reading can be argued for. Therefore, we must turn to the external evidence [i.e. manuscript support], which slightly favors the first reading.

France: “'Of the world' is missing' in some significant MSS, but since 'the foundation' alone would have been understood as the foundation of the world, the sense is not affected. It is probable that Matthew used the full phrase here, as he does in 25:34. See contra, however, Carson, arguing that the shorter reading is closer to the less explicit wording of the psalm.”

Metzger, writing for the translation committee of the RSV, discusses both possibilities and concludes that “since the preponderance of the external evidence was taken to support the inclusion of kosmos, a majority of the Committee was reluctant to drop the word from the text entirely and therefore decided to enclose it within square brackets.” This is but one indication of how carefully modern scholars approach even the most minor variants in readings between differing NT manuscripts.

Matthew 13:36

The only textual variation here consists of the fact that the three earliest manuscripts read “fully explain” while numerous later documents omit “fully.” (Comfort)

Matthew 13:37,41

The phrase “Son of Man” in this verse was a lesser known messianic title derived from Daniel 7:13-14.

Therefore, in common with other sacred names such as God, Christ, and Spirit some of the NT manuscripts tended to utilize a special way of writing it using an abbreviated spelling in capital letters with a line above the abbreviation. Thus, in these verses the copyists of two manuscripts decided to use this nomen sacrum while others do not. Either way, there is no real difference in the reading of those two document other than the added emphasis given to Jesus' divinity. (Comfort)

Matthew 13:40

Most manuscripts read “the [present] age.” However, due to the familiarity of the term “this [present] age” elsewhere in the NT, some later manuscripts inserted “this.” (Metzger)

Matthew 13:43

Four early manuscripts use the nomen sacrum for “Father” in this verse. (See Matthew 13:37,41 note above).

Matthew 13:44

Instead of “sold all that he had,” some Alexandrian texts delete “all.” Metzger attributes this shorter version to the fact that this family of manuscripts has “a penchant for pruning unnecessary words.”

Matthew 13:55

Comfort notes that the name of one of Jesus' brothers is called Joses in the earliest manuscript containing this verse. By contrast, two slightly later texts read “Joseph.” But in fact, he adds, “'Joses' is the Galilean pronunciation (yose) of the Hebrew yosep ('Joseph').” Thus, there is no difference in meaning between the two readings.

France feels that Matthew preferred the Hebrew form “which also reminds the reader of the (now dead?) head of the family who is not otherwise named.”

Conclusion

From the above examples, you can see that not a single one of the variant readings is of any real importance in affecting the message that Matthew has in mind to convey, and certainly does not cast any doubts on matters of doctrinal significance. Also, keep in mind that Matthew 13 possesses many more manuscript variations than do most chapters in the New Testament.