Matthew 3:11 in the Byzantine Text

          A textual variant in Matthew 3:11 presents an interesting puzzle.  Although Western and Alexandrian witnesses generally include the words “and fire” (Greek και πυρι) at the end of the verse, the Byzantine Text – the text found in the majority of Greek manuscripts – does not.  Thus a simple question arises:  did the original text of Matthew 3:11 state that John the Baptist said that the Messiah would baptize “with the Holy Spirit and fire,” or merely that the Messiah would baptize with the Holy Spirit?

Papyrus 101, recto,
with reconstruction

          The 27^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testament Graecae and the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament offer no guidance on this question whatsoever; they do not mention this variant-unit.  Wieland Willker, however, discussed it in his online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels.  Edward Miller’s Textual Commentary on Matthew 1-14, published in 1899, is also helpful.  The reading “and fire” is supported by Papyrus 101, codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, [A is not extant here] [G^e, a.k.a. 011, is not extant here] D^s (that is, a supplement-page of Codex Bezae), K, Π, L, M, Σ [Φ is not extant until 6:3 due to damage], U, W, Γ, Δ, and f¹, f¹³, 22, 33, 565, 892, 1273, and other manuscripts support the inclusion of “and fire.”  That’s a very broad range of support.  Those manuscripts are from diverse locales and represent diverse text-types.   

          Papyrus 101 has undergone damage but its testimony on this point is sufficiently clear:  the first two letters of και (“and”) appear after the reference to the Holy Spirit.  This fragment is from the 200’s. 

PATRISTIC EVIDENCE

          Before further consideration of the manuscript-evidence (and some versional evidence), let’s turn to patristic evidence.  Some patristic evidence is not as clear as one might wish, because the episode in Matthew 3:11 is paralleled in the other Gospels:

Mark 1:8:  “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
Luke 3:16:  “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

Codex K supports the inclusion of "and fire."

John 1:33:  “this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.”

          Because the parallel-passages are so similar, one cannot trust mere allusions; precise references to Matthew’s Gospel, or distinct quotations of the surrounding Matthean text, are required before a patristic statement can confidently be considered a quotation of Matthew 3:11 instead of one of the other accounts.

          Justin Martyr, sometime before 160, probably used a Gospel-harmony that blended the contents of Matthew, Mark, and Luke into one continuous narrative.  Nevertheless his testimony is helpful.  In Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 49, Justin wrote the following about John the Baptist:  “He cried, as he sat by the river Jordan:  ‘I baptize you with water to repentance; but He that is stronger than I shall come, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry.  He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: whose fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor, and will gather the wheat into the barn; but the chaff He will burn up with unquenchable fire.’”  This resembles Matthew 3:11-12 and Luke 3:16-17, but where Luke refers to loosing Jesus’ sandal-strap, Matthew and Justin refer to carrying Jesus’ sandals.  Thus it seems probable that Justin’s Synoptics-Harmony at this point consisted of a selection from Matthew.

Codex L supports the inclusion of "and fire."
Notice the telos symbol.

          Tatian’s Diatessaron, composed around 172 as a continuous narrative consisting of the contents of all four Gospels, was used in the mid-300’s by Ephrem Syrus as the basis for a commentary.  Ephrem stated that John the Baptist was to proclaim “Him who would baptize with fire and with the Holy Spirit,” but it is unclear whether Ephrem was citing Tatian’s Diatessaron or a continuous Gospels-text, either way, it is unclear whether Tatian was drawing from Matthew or from Luke.        

          Irenaeus, in the course of Book Four of Against Heresies, in the 180’s, states in chapter 4 that John the Baptist said of Christ, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire, having His fan in His hand [to cleanse His floor;] and He will gather His fruit into the garner, but the chaff He will burn up with unquenchable fire.”  Unfortunately it is not clear if Irenaeus was utilizing Matthew, or Luke.

MS 700 includes "and fire."

           Similarly Tertullian, in chapter 10 of his composition De Baptismo (On Baptism), around 200, stated that John the Baptist stated that “shortly one would come who would baptize in the Spirit and fire,” but does not specify which Gospel he is using.  His full statement is as follows:  John said that “he baptized in repentance only, but that One would shortly come who would baptize in the Spirit and fire; of course because true and stable faith is baptized with water unto salvation; pretended and weak faith is baptized with fire, unto judgment.” 

MS 72 includes "and fire."

          Hippolytus, a contemporary of Tertullian, wrote the following in a composition called  The Discourse on the Holy Theophany, chapter three:   John the Baptist “cried out and spoke to those who came to be baptized of him:  ‘O generation of vipers,’ why look ye so earnestly at me?  ‘I am not the Christ;’ I am the servant, and not the lord . . . but ‘after me there comes One who is before me’ – after me, indeed, in time, but before me by reason of the inaccessible and unutterable light of divinity.  ‘There comes one mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.  He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.’  I am subject to authority, but He has authority in Himself.  I am bound by sins, but He is the Remover of sins.  I apply the law, but He brings grace to light.  I teach as a slave, but He judges as the Master.  I have the earth as my couch, but He possesses heaven.  I baptize with the baptism of repentance, but He confers the gift of adoption:  ‘He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.’  Why give ye attention to me?  I am not the Christ.”  The portion in bold print appears to be a quotation from Matthew 3:11. 

In Lectionary 150, "and fire" does not appear
in the lection that consists of Mt. 3:1-11.
(Goodspeed Manuscript Collection
MS 128-294)

          Origen, writing Book Six of his Commentary on John, around 235, made a comparison of the four Gospels’ statements of this particular episode, as follows:        

          “Matthew reports that the Baptist, when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, after the words of rebuke which we have already studied, went on:  “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He that comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”  This agrees with the words in John, in which the Baptist declares himself to those sent by the Pharisees, on the subject of his baptizing with water.  Mark, again, says, “John preached, saying, ‘There comes after me He that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.  I baptized you with water, but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.”  And Luke says that, ‘As the people were in expectation, and all were reasoning in their hearts concerning John, whether haply he were the Christ, John answered them all, saying, “I indeed baptize you with water; but there comes one mightier than I, whose sandal-strap I am not worthy to unloose; He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”’”

          Thus, even though Origen does not describe the statement from the Gospel of John precisely – only enough to show that both passages say that John the Baptist baptized with water – it is evident that in the Gospel of Matthew, Origen read και πυρι at the end of 3:11.  These two words were not in his text of Mark 1:8, but they were in his copies of Luke 3:16.  Origen resided at Caesarea when he wrote this.

In Lectionary 63, "and fire" does not appear
in the lection that consists of Mt. 3:1-11.

          Around 250, Cyprian of Carthage (in north Africa) made a specific reference to Matthew 3:11 in Book One, chapter 12 of his Three Books of Testimonies:  “In the Gospel according to Matthew, John says, ‘I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.  He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire.’”        

          Around the same time (257 or 258), an anonymous writer composed De Baptismate, and utilized Luke 3:16 (including the part about loosing the sandal-strap, thus ensuring that the quotation was from Luke rather than from Matthew). 

          Hilary of Poitiers wrote his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew in 356 – about the same time when Codex Sinaiticus was made – and quoted and commented on Matthew 3:11 with the words “and fire,” offering the following interpretation:  “It remains only for those baptized in the Holy Spirit to be brought to perfection by the fire of judgment.”  

In MS 2474, Mt. 3:11 has "and fire."
(Goodspeed Manuscript Collection,
MS 1053-10)

          Basil of Caesarea-in-Cappadocia (330-379), in De Spiritu Sancto, chapter 15, part 36, wrote the following:  “John indeed baptized with water, but our Lord Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost.  ‘I indeed,’ he says, ‘baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.  He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.’”   The content of the first part of the quotation shows that it is from Matthew 3:11. 

          In the composition known as the Opus Imperfectum, composed sometime in the first half of the 400’s, the author commented on the text of Matthew 3:11 with the phrase “and fire,” proposing that baptism in water washes away past sins, the Holy Spirit drives away sinful desires, and fire purges away the source of evil desires, thus ensuring against past, present, and future sins.

         Prosper of Aquitaine quotes Matthew 3:11 with “and fire” – “et igni” in Latin – and specifies that he is quoting from the Gospel of Matthew, in a composition preserved in Volume 51 of Migne’s Patrologia Latina, column 852 (digital page 431). 

         In the year 400, Augustine compared the relevant parallel-passages in Book Two,12:26 of his book, On the Harmony of the Gospels.  The chapter is focused on the subject of the words of John the Baptist.  Augustine begins by specifically stating that he is quoting from the Gospel of Matthew; then he quotes Matthew 3:5-12, and in the course of quoting verse 11, Augustine includes “and fire.”  Augustine proceeds to say the following:  “For as in Matthew, so also in Luke, the words are the same, and they are given in the same order, ‘He shall baptize you in the Spirit and in fire’ with one exception, that Luke has not added the adjective ‘holy,’ while Matthew has given it thus:  “in the Holy Spirit and in fire.”  Not only is this spectacularly detailed, showing that Augustine’s text of Matthew 3:11 included “and fire,” but it is also helpful because it points out that in an Old Latin form of the Gospels-text used in Africa, Luke 3:16 lacked the word “Holy,” giving us a satisfying clue that Tertullian was utilizing Luke, not Matthew, in De Baptismo.

          In addition, in Excerpts from Theodotus (a heretic who was active in 150-180), the writer (as cited by Clement of Alexandria) says that John the Baptist said, “There comes after me He that baptizes with the Spirit and fire.”  The absence of the word “holy” indicates that this is probably drawn from Luke, rather than Matthew).

In MS 551, the words "and fire"
do not appear in Mt. 3:11.

          Eusebius of Caesarea, in the early 300’s (about the time when Codex Vaticanus was produced), in his Commentary on Isaiah, saw a connection between Isaiah 4:4 (which refers to the purification of the blood of Jerusalem “by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning”) and John the Baptist’s statement about Christ baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire.  Eusebius does not specify which Gospel he is quoting, but attributes the statement to “the Gospels.”  One may thus make a calculated guess that Eusebius read “and fire” in Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16, inasmuch as otherwise he would probably have specified that the statement was found in the Gospel of Luke.  (Jerome, in his commentary on Isaiah, later made the same connection between Isaiah 4:4 and John the Baptist’s statement, having borrowed heavily from Eusebius’ work.)

MS 505 does not have "and fire" in Mt. 3:11.

          Ambrose of Milan, in the late 300’s, in On the Holy Spirit, Book One, 3/42,  quotes Matthew 3:11 (without naming Matthew, but with the wording “whose sandals I am not worthy to bear,” rather than “whose sandal-strap I am not worthy to loosen”).  In chapter 14 of the same composition, and again in his composition Concerning Repentance, Book 1, 8/34 (immediately before quoting Mark 16:17-18), Ambrose says that Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire, but without specifying his source. 

MS 495 does not have "and fire" in Mt. 3:11.

          John Chrysostom, in Homily #11 on Matthew, refers to the phrase “and fire,” and one might naturally assume that we are looking at a quotation from Matthew 3:11, inasmuch as the homily is on Matthew.  However, earlier in the same section of the homily, Chrysostom uses the verbiage of Luke 3:16, about loosing the sandal-strap, rather than the verbiage of Matthew 3:11, about carrying the sandals.  Thus this evidence is not airtight.  However, had Chrysostom’s text of Matthew 3:11 lacked “and fire” it is very likely that he would have said so. 

MS 304 does not have "and fire" in Mt. 3:11.
(The text is interspersed with commentary.)

          Cyril of Alexandria, in his not-entirely-original Commentary on Isaiah (written around 420), specifically quotes Matthew 3:11 with the words “and fire” included. 

  

VERSIONAL EVIDENCE

          Among the early versions there is hardly any support for the non-inclusion of “and fire” in Matthew 3:11.  The Peshitta includes the words.  The Sinaitic Syriac has “he shall baptize you with fire and with the Holy Spirit.”  The Old Latin manuscripts, including the Latin text in Codex Bezae, support the inclusion of the words, with the exception of m (Codex Speculum, from c. 425).  (Old Latin k is not extant at this point; it is missing a leaf which contained Matthew 3:11-4:1.  Likewise Old Latin n is not extant at this point; its text of Matthew begins at 17:1.)  The Vulgate also includes the words.  The Gothic Codex Argenteus, unfortunately, is not extant in Matthew 3.  According to Miller, the Curetonian Syriac, the Harklean Syriac, the Bohairic version, and the Sahidic version all support the inclusion of “and fire” in Matthew 3:11.  Mae-2 (Schoyen 2650) is not extant until Mt. 5:38.

MS 716 does not have "and fire" at the end
of Mt. 3:11.  Notice the lection-related marks.

           The Palestinian Aramaic lectionary is an interesting exception:  not only does it fail to include “and fire” in Matthew 3:11 but it also does not include the text of verse 12.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE AND LECTIONARY EVIDENCE

          Having reviewed the major witnesses, we turn to internal considerations.  If one were to apply the canon, “prefer the shorter reading” – a standard which has been justly challenged and nullified, but which is still employed by some influential textual critics and compilers – then one could explain the longer reading as a natural harmonization to Luke 3:16.  On the other hand, the shorter reading can be accounted for as a harmonization to Mark 1:8 or John 1:33.  Harmonizations tended to emanate from Matthew, rather than onto Matthew, but this tendency is not absolute. 

   

MS 27 does not have "and fire" at the end
of Mt. 3:11.  Notice the lection-related marks.

           As a point in favor of the shorter reading, one might consider that it is supported by the Byzantine Text.  If one were to accept the premise that the Byzantine Text of the Gospels generally has more embellishments than the Alexandrian Text, then – in approximately the same way in which Westcott and Hort argued for the genuineness of shorter Western readings, because the tendency of the Western Text was toward expansion – a shorter reading in the Byzantine Text, in a passage in which harmonization to Luke 3:16 would be a natural expansion, is a point in favor of the shorter reading.

Lectionary 24 does not have "and fire"
at the end of the lection for the Saturday
before Epiphany.  This is the usual
form of the lection in Byzantine lectionaries.

          However, a special factor seems to have been in play that resulted in the loss of και πυρι in the Byzantine text-stream:  the treatment of Matthew 3:11 in the lectionary.  Matthew 3:11 was part of a prominent lection:  Matthew 3:1-11 was read at Christmastime, as the lection for the first hour of the Eve of Epiphany.  As the old lectionaries show, the text of Matthew 3:11, in the lection, stopped with the mention of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, without including the words “and fire.”  This appears to have been a slight liturgical adjustment – probably made for two reasons:  first, to focus on positive aspects of baptism, rather than on the baptism in fire which could be construed (as done by Tertullian and others) as a reference to fiery condemnation rather than to the fires of zeal and of testing, and second, to close the lection at the same point as the lection which followed it (Mark 1:1-8).    

          In manuscript 1273 (the George Grey Gospels), we see a τελος symbol in the text of Matthew 3:11, instructing the lector to stop reading at exactly that point, without pronouncing και πυρι which follows the τελος symbol.  It was a natural adjustment for copyists, when making continuous-text manuscripts intended to be accompanied by a lectionary-apparatus and to be used in church-services for lection-reading, to drop the και πυρι to simplify the lector’s task.  Thus we see in the evidence a natural progression:  

first, the text circulated with και πυρι; 

second, the text circulated with και πυρι accompanied by a τελος symbol before και πυρι; 

MS 1273, on the last line of the page shown here,
has a red telos-symbol between the words
"Holy Spirit" and "and fire" in Matthew 3:11.

third, και πυρι was excised in copies which were intended to be used by lectors, as a simplification; fourth, copies with the simplified text that had been intended for lectors were used as exemplars for ordinary copies.

          Many Byzantine Gospel-manuscripts were not influenced by this lectionary-related excision, but apparently, enough were affected to cause the shorter reading to become the majority reading.  The text without και πυρι was displayed in the Greek text of the Complutensian Polyglot (although the Latin text had et igni) in 1514; later in a 1609 copy of Benito Arias Montano’s Greek-Latin interlinear text, και πυρι was included.  Later still, in C. F. Matthaei’s 1803 compilation, και πυρι was not included in the text; a τελος symbol was placed in the text and the longer reading was mentioned in a footnote.

          The genuineness of και πυρι in Matthew 3:11, and the mechanism that caused its widespread loss in the Byzantine text-stream, illustrate two things:  first, there was mild instability in the Byzantine text at certain points that were simplified for lection-reading.  This effect was felt most forcefully in the later Middle Ages but it began much earlier, at least as early as the time when the Palestinian Aramaic version was made.  It has especially influenced members of the f³⁵ group.  Second, the archetype of the Byzantine Text, which includes και πυρι, cannot be fully reconstructed by appealing to a simple statistical majority of manuscripts; the weight of manuscripts which share a pattern of lectionary-related simplifications, such as the absence of και πυρι in Matthew 3:11, should be boiled down.      

Matthew 1:25 - Mary's Firstborn Son

      With Christmas approaching, many Bible-readers are likely to encounter the variant-unit in Matthew 1:25 – The Byzantine Text says that Joseph “knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus.”  The Alexandrian Text says that Joseph “knew her not until she had brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus.”

          Although there are some other variant-units in this verse, let’s focus today on this one:  “had brought forth a son,” or “had brought forth her firstborn son.”  With some data derived from Jonathan Clark Borland’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament blog, we can obtain some hard figures about the quantities involved in the support for each variant.  These numbers are slightly obsolete but nevertheless they indicate the proportions involved:  τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον (her firstborn son) is supported exactly by 1,446 MSS, and inexactly by 13 MSS; υιον (a son) is supported exactly by 7 MSS, and inexactly by 1 MS. 

           The seven manuscripts which support υιον include Sinaiticus (À) and Vaticanus (B).  Also listed in UBS4 is Z (035), that is, Codex Dublinensis, a palimpsest from the mid/late 500’s.  According to Swanson, 1, 1582*, 33, and 788 (a member of f¹³) also support υιον.  Borland describes this slightly differently, including them all, along with 071^vid (400’s or 500’s, discovered at Oxyrhynchus) and 1192 (a member of f¹), but qualifying Z as Z^vid. 

           The testimony of 071 merits closer investigation.  This was the first item presented in 1910 in Volume 3 of Grenfell & Hunt’s series on the Oxyrhynchus Papyri and therein we find this acknowledgement:  “The vestiges are indecisive between υιον (ÀBZ, W-H.) and τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον (CDEKLM, T-R.), since with either reading the letters αυ would come where they appear to do in l. 14, and there is not enough at the beginning of l. 15 to show whether the word to which ν belongs was abbreviated or not.”  Thus 071 cannot legitimately be regarded as a witness for either reading.  (UBS2 listed 071^vid as a witness for υιον but UBS4 does not.)

Mt. 1:25 in Codex Bezae (D)

          UBS4 lists f¹ and f¹³ as support for υιον although most members of each family display the reading τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον; apparently the UBS compilers assumed that copyists have thoroughly conformed most group-members to the Byzantine reading.

          Willker provides data about the versional evidence (see variant-unit #10 in his Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels); the Old Latin and Palestinian Aramaic are split; the Peshitta and the Vulgate and the Harklean Syriac favor τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον.  (The Vulgate reads:  “Et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum: et vocavit nomen ejus Jesum.”)  The Nubian version, of which only scant remains are extant, favors τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον.  The Armenian and Ethiopic versions also favor τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον, although the Old Georgian supports υιον.  The Sahidic and Bohairic versions favor υιον, the Curetonian Syriac favors υιον, and the Sinaitic Syriac wanders off on its own with a reading that means “to him a son,” which is an aspect of the thorough corruption in the Sinaitic Syriac (shared, to an extent, by Codex Bobbiensis) in Matthean passages pertaining to the relationship between Joseph and Jesus.  The Gothic version is a non-witness here because Codex Argenteus is non-extant in Matthew 1:1-5:14.  The Middle Egyptian manuscript (Schoyen 2650) supports υιον.  

Mt. 1:25 in Codex Regius (L)

           As far as patristic evidence goes, UBS4 lists only Ambrose and Chromatius in support of υιον; however, Jerome, in Against Helvidius, in chapters 3 and 5 (written in 383), uses the reading with υιον, and in chapter 9 he appears to quote Helvidius doing so.  Bengel noticed this, but also noticed that Jerome, in his Commentary on Matthew (composed in 398), quotes the complete passage with the reading “she brought forth her firstborn son.”

           UBS4 lists Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus, Didymus^dub, Epiphanius (in Panarion 78:17), Chrysostom, Proclus, Jerome, and Augustine (Harmony of the Gospels, 2:5) as support for τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον.  Basil of Caesarea (330-379) also clearly utilized a text with τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον in Matthew 1:25. 

           The testimony of the Latin-writing author of Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum regarding Matthew 1:25 has been contested.  This work, from the early 400s, (it is worth mentioning that this composition was edited by Erasmus in 1530) quotes Matthew 1:25 as “Et non cognovit eam, donec peperit filium suum primogenitum” according to Migne’s P.G. vol. 56, col. 635, on lines 37-38 – supporting the Byzantine reading.  However, in the recent edition of Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum translated by James A. Kellerman (in the Ancient Christian Texts series), the quotation of Mt. 1:25 is presented as if it agrees with the Alexandrian reading.  However the content of what immediately follows indicates that the author read τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον:  the author mentions the view of followers of Eunomius and states that “he calls Christ the firstborn because we call him firstborn whom other siblings follow.”

Mt. 1:25 in Codex Sangallensis (Delta)

          The testimony of the Diatessaron is shown in Ephrem of Syrus’ commentary on the Diatessaron; in his comments on the birth and conception of Jesus (See Carmel McCarthy’s Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron, pages 45-65), Ephrem repeatedly cites verse 25:  “He lived with her chastely until she gave birth to her First-born.”

          The reference in UBS4 to Didymus^dub refers to De Trinitate, 3:4, where the author (either Didymus, or someone else in Egypt in the late 300s) states:  “It helps us to understand the terms ‘firstborn’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist states that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born Son;’ for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin.”  Also, in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series, in the volume on Matthew, Chromatius is presented as quoting Matthew 1:25 in support of τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον in his Tractate on Matthew 3:1.  In the same volume on the same page, Chrysostom quotes Matthew 1:25 with υιον. 

Mt. 1:25 in MS 700

With the external evidence described, we now turn to internal considerations.

          Metzger expressed the judgment of the UBS Committee when he dispatched the Byzantine reading in a single sentence:  “The Textus Receptus, following C D* K W Δ Π most minuscules al, inserts τόν before υιον and adds αυτης τόν πρωτότοκον (“her firstborn son”) from Lk 2.7.”  If this appraisal is correct, the words must have been inserted very early so as to appear in witnesses as diverse as D, W, the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Diatessaron, and 087 (from the 500’s).  Against this consideration, however, one may counter that the reading υιον may be a natural conformation to the wording of Matthew 1:23 (which itself quotes from Isaiah 7:14).  A charge of harmonization can be made against the Byzantine reading, to the effect that a copyist reached into Luke to find the basis for an expansion, but a charge of harmonization can also be made against the Alexandrian reading, to the effect that a copyist reached back two verses to find the basis for an abridgment which yielded a tighter symmetry between the prophecy (in verse 23) and its fulfillment (in verse 25).

Mt. 1:25b in MS 490

          In addition, the theory that the Byzantine reading is a harmonization to Luke 2:7 faces an obstacle:  the popularity of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.  As one can see from Jerome’s response to Helvidius, Luke’s reference to “her firstborn Son” was interpreted as evidence that Mary had subsequent children – the idea being that the existence of a firstborn implies a second-born, and thus that the individuals who are called Jesus’ brothers and sisters in the Gospels were literally the children of Mary, rather than Jesus’ cousins, or the children of Joseph from a previous marriage (as some writers in the early church insisted that they were).  The proposed harmonization thus requires that a copyist deliberately made the passage more difficult, which goes against the general tendencies of scribes.

          One might say, however, “If this was such a problem, why was the passage in Luke 2:7 left untouched?”.  But if we consider data which was unavailable to Westcott and Hort, we can see in Codex W that Luke 2:7 was not left altogether untouched:  although Codex W refers to Christ as “her first-born Son” in Matthew 1:25, in Luke 2:7 (where, as Willker notes, W’s text is predominantly Alexandrian), τόν πρωτότοκον is absent.  This is a fairly clear symptom of a theological concern.  And if it could happen in part of the early Alexandrian text-stream in Luke 2 (as seen in one Greek manuscript), it could happen in another part of the early Alexandrian text-stream in Matthew 1 (as seen in seven manuscripts).

Mt. 1:25 in MS 72

          An important consideration, however, is the question:  how likely is it that both Matthew and Luke would happen to employ the five-word phrase τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον?  This is not as improbable as one might initially assume.  One might similarly ask:  how likely is it that both Matthew and Luke would happen to employ the seven-word phrase υιον καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ιησουν?  Matthew has these exact words in Mt. 1:21; Luke has these exact words in Lk. 1:30 – because this phrase is based on the final phrase of the Septuagint’s text of Isaiah 7:14 (διὰ τοῦτο δώσει Κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Εμμανουήλ.)

           Two authors’ use of the same source can give a false impression that one author is dependent upon the other.  Is there an identifiable source which employs the phraseτον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον?  No.  However, it does not seem implausible that two authors could independently use the same common words to make a connection to to Exodus 4:22 – “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, ‘Israel is My son, My firstborn.’” (LXX:   σὺ δὲ ἐρεῖς τῷ Φαραώ· τάδε λέγει Κύριος· υἱὸς πρωτότοκός μου ᾿Ισραήλ.)  An explicit identification of Jesus as “firstborn” is consistent with Matthew’s treatment of Hosea 11:1:  in Mt. 2:15, Matthew rejects the Septuagint’s rendering and follows instead the Hebrew reading of Hosea 11:1 – “Out of Egypt have I called My Son” – so as to construct a parallel between Israel, the anointed people, and Jesus, the anointed Person.

Mt. 1:25 in MS 478

    

          When one considers 

(1) the second-century support for τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον from the Diatessaron,

(2) the wide-ranging patristic support for τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον – from North Africa (Augustine) to Cyprus (Epiphanius) to Egypt (De Trinitate) to Syria (Peshitta) to Constantinople (Proclus),

(3) the likelihood that early scribes could regard τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον as potentially scandalous, drawing the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary into question,

(4) the evidence from Codex W that τον πρωτοτοκον was considered objectionable somewhere in the Alexandrian text-stream,

(5) the close proximity of Mt. 1:21, compared to the relatively distant proximity of Luke 2:7, rendering the former more likely to be the basis for a harmonization,

(6) the relative scope of support for the rival readings:  τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον has the support of approximately 99.4% of the Greek manuscripts, drawn from members of every text-type, whereas the epicenter of the shorter reading appears to be in Egypt, and

(7) the thematic consistency of a description of Jesus as a firstborn son in 1:25, echoing Exodus 4:22 (where Israel is the subject) in a way similar to the way in which Matthew 2:15 treats Hosea 11:1,

the evidence, on balance, favors τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον as the original reading; the Alexandrian reading is a conformation to the wording in Mt. 1:21 and 1:23. 

The Face of Jesus

Jesus the Christ
(by Richard Hook, 1962)

          Almost every year, when Christmas approaches, secular magazines publish stories about Jesus with outlandish claims and shocking headlines.  Even though these flimsy attempts to challenge the faith of Christian readers fall apart under examination, they successfully increase magazine-sales.  This year, however, it appears that the writers have gotten lazy.  Instead of introducing a new imaginary scandal about Jesus, they are recycling an old story about what Jesus might have looked like.  Originally the article The Real Face of Jesus by Mike Fillon appeared in Popular Mechanics in 2002.  The gist of that article is currently reappearing online, with plenty of embellishments; a video at the Salon website, for example, states that British scientists “were able to figure out the shape of Jesus’ head and facial muscles.”

Abgar, king of Edessa,
receiving the Mandylion.
(From a panel from Saint
Catherine's Monastery)

          When one takes a close look at the article, the events that led up to it are not hard to discern:  Richard Neave, a specialist at forensic reconstruction, was given some skull-bones that had been obtained from excavations of first-century sites in Israel.  Neave reconstructed the head of an individual whose skull-bones he had been given.
          Many of the details of the reconstruction, including the shape of the eyes, the shape of the ears, the shape of the nose, and the shape of the mouth, the pigmentation, and the hair-style, are based on guesswork – and this was acknowledged in the 2002 article.  What we have here is a reconstruction of the face of Random Dead Guy, and while the basic profile shows what somebody in first-century Judea could have looked like, it is not a scientific reconstruction of the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and hair of Jesus.  One could label Neave’s  reconstruction “The Real Face of Rabbi Gamaliel” or “The Real Face of Lazarus” or “The Real Face of the Apostle James” with more justification.
         An article called, “The Real Face of a Random First-century Jewish Man” would be more honest, but it would not sell very many magazines.  That is why we got the article-title that appeared back in 2002, and that is why we are seeing it again in 2015.  I suspect that the data from Mike Fillon’s article is being recycled not only to sell magazines but also to provide the basis for a charge of racism and/or hypocrisy against American Christians who are reluctant to open the borders to Middle-Eastern refugees, in light of the probability that Islamic extremists may take advantage of the refugee-crisis as an opportunity to enter the United States intending to do harm to Americans.  But for the moment, let’s set aside that concern, and focus on the question that has been raised:  what did Jesus look like?     

From the Catacombs of
Commodilla, at Rome.

From the Catacombs of
Marcellinus, at Rome.

          We have no scientifically verified evidence of what Jesus looked like; nor do we have early historical accounts that mention his appearance (other than two Old Testament passages:   Isaiah 50:6, which mentions the beard of the Servant of the Lord, and the prophecy in Isaiah 53:2, which indicates that His physical appearance was unremarkable).  The earliest report of an image of the face of Jesus is contained in an expanded form of a story that is found in chapter 13 of Book One of Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius wrote in the early 300’s, but he stated that he had obtained the report from an earlier account, which had been written in the Syriac language and which had been found in the archives in the city of Edessa – including the text of a letter from Abgar to Jesus, and the response from Jesus to Abgar.  This report is known as the Story of Abgar and it was extremely popular in the early Middle Ages.
        

A page from the Rabbula Gospels, depicting
Christ's death on the cross, the visit of the
women to the empty tomb, and His appearance
to the women after He rose from the dead.

          When the story was retold in the early 400’s in a composite-work called the Doctrine of Addai, it included an additional detail, stating that the emissary of Abgar, when he realized that Jesus would not go to Abgar, was allowed to paint a picture of Jesus.  (In other versions of the story, the emissary attempts to paint a picture but is unable to do so, so Jesus Himself pours water on His face and miraculously transfers the image of His face onto a cloth.)  This item, called the Mandylion, is mentioned in accounts from as late as 944, when it is said to have been taken from Edessa to Constantinople – but written details about the image itself are not given.  Several medieval artistic representations of the Mandylion, however, still exist.    

          Similarly, there is a persistent tradition that Saint Veronica – the woman afflicted with an issue of blood, who was healed when she touched the hem of Jesus’ robe, as recorded in the Gospels – saw Jesus bearing the cross, and when she tried to wipe His face with a towel, the image of His face was transferred to the towel.  This tradition is the basis for the “Sixth Station of the Cross” in Easter-processions observed by some denominations.

          The earliest artistic depictions of Jesus are in wall-paintings in the Syrian city of Dura-Europos, (which was destroyed in a war in A.D. 256).  An artist used the motif of the Good Shepherd (which is not uniquely Christian – although easily adapted to interlock with Jesus’ words in the Gospel of John) in a picture above the baptistry in the earliest known Christian house-church.  Another depiction of Jesus as the Good Shepherd is in the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome.

Christ Pantocrator - the image itself (at left),
and the mirror-images of each half.
A similar image is at Constantinople.

          The pictures at Dura-Europos leave something to be desired as far as the details of Christ’s face are concerned.  Early pictures in the catacombs at Rome provide more detail.  In a Syriac manuscript of the four Gospels, known as the Rabbula Gospels, a series of pictures preceding the text includes several images of Jesus and His disciples.  This manuscript is from the year 586.

          Perhaps the most definitive early image of Jesus is the Pantocrator of Saint Catherine’s Monastery.  This icon, produced in the 500’s or 600’s (possibly in Constantinople during the reign of Justinian), employs a motif that is very widespread in Eastern Christendom.  The picture may have been designed to convey the dual nature of Christ – human, and divine.  Or, the two halves may represent the opposite roles of Christ on Judgment Day – either as a welcoming friend, or a weeping judge.

by Rembrandt (1648)

by Van Dyck (c. 1625)

          This kind of image – with dark, shoulder-length hair and dark eyes – was the standard depiction of Christ in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance.  Not all European artists adhered to it, but many of them did.  Sometimes when an artist resorted to a semi-abstract style (as in the Book of Kells) or blended mythological motifs with Christian ones, anything could happen.  Occasionally artists painted Christ without a beard – for instance, in Michelangelo’s Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel, and in The Supper at Emmaus by Caravaggio – but in general, the iconic features of the Pantocrator were maintained with consistency until the 1800’s. 

       An objection has been repeatedly raised about the shoulder-length hair in these depictions, on the grounds that Saint Paul, in First Corinthians 11:14, wrote, “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him?” – the idea being that Paul would not have said this if Jesus’ hair had been long.  However, it seems likely to me that Paul was thinking of hair much longer than shoulder-length.  It was not unusual in the first century for Jewish men to take temporary Nazarite vows, which (according to Numbers 6:1-8) involved, among other things, letting one’s hair grow.  Paul himself took such a vow and let his hair grow so long that when he got a haircut, his fellow-traveler Luke made a note of it, in Acts 18:18.  Thus there is no Biblical or historical objection against the idea that the length of Jesus’ hair varied from time to time.

Sallman's
Head of Christ

          In the 1800’s, some European and American artists, either guided by the imperialistic spirit of the times, or by racism, or by simple ignorance of the historical probabilities involved, portrayed Jesus with distinctly European features.   (Sometimes, artists made pictures of Jesus based on visions, too; some of these have been unfairly misinterpreted as if they were meant as representations of what Jesus looked like during His ministry.)

          This trend continued into the 1900’s, and influenced Warner Sallman, whose picture Head of Christ was so thoroughly distributed that in the United States it has almost become the definitive portrait of Christ, even though in the original painting (Sallman made several versions of this picture), Jesus has blue eyes, a feature extremely unlikely to be historically accurate.
          Sallman claimed that his picture was based on a vision, or dream, that he had experienced, and for some folks, such testimony is enough to add plausibility to the accuracy of the picture.

The face on the Shroud of Turin,
and a portrait of Jesus based on it.

          However, there are at least two good reasons not to rely on dreams as the basis of a theory of what Jesus looked like during His ministry.  First, because in Revelation, when Jesus appears in a vision, He has a glorified, heavenly form that is far different from the everyday earthly form He had during His ministry.  Second, because it is possible for a human being to subconsciously picture Jesus in a dream, using whatever preconception he has, just as it is possible for a person to dream about Jesus speaking English, or Spanish, or Arabic.  The genuineness of any particular such dream or vision is not the question at hand; I only mean to point out that they are not secure guides to what Jesus looked like during His ministry, any more than they are secure guides to what language or languages Jesus spoke during His ministry.  Dreams are very personal things.

Brian Deacon, actor -
The Jesus Film

          In the past 50 years, many artists have consciously attempted to return to a more historically plausible portrayal of what Jesus looked like.  As a result, the portrayals of Christ by more recent artists, such as Richard and Francis Hook, tend to resemble the ancient depictions found in icons, though often from different angles, and with different expressions.  

          Some artists have made portraits of Christ based on the face on the Shroud of Turin – the features of which resemble the depiction in many medieval icons.  Movies, however, have been inconsistent; some movies about Jesus have featured rather European-looking actors; others, however, such as The Jesus Film, have featured actors whose natural features resemble the iconic depiction of Jesus. 
           While we should be concerned not to misrepresent the historical aspects of Jesus’ appearance (to whatever extent they can be surmised), a higher priority should be to affirm that Christ is the fellow-heir of every member of His church, regardless of nation or language or any physical trait.  He is, as Colossians 1:15 says, the image (in Greek, εικων, eikon) of the invisible God.  If we want to see what Jesus looks like, then let us pursue His presence in our lives, seeing Christ in those in need, so that Christ may be seen in the church.  Let us consider the true meaning of Psalm 27:7-8:
        “Hear, O LORD, when I cry with my voice!  Be gracious to me, and answer me.  When You said, “Seek My face,” my heart said to You, “Your face, LORD, I will seek.””