WM 187: Text Note: Matthew 1:25: "her firstborn son"

 

I want to add another note on the text of Matthew, focusing on several variants in Matthew 1, before settling on a significant one in 1:25.

I am currently preaching through Matthew, and I previously did a post on the genealogy, looking at Matthew 1:7-8, 10 (see WM 185).

I thought I would add another on a variant at Matthew 1:25, but before getting there I want to look briefly at a couple of other variants which Bruce Metzger discusses in his Textual Commentary, second edition (1994).

Several of these variants are supported by the TR, and incorporated into the modern critical text, yet Metzger discusses them, and his interest seems especially aimed at examining or considering readings that would be at odds with an orthodox theological understanding of Christology or with inerrancy/infallibility.

Brief look at five other variants addressed by Metzger:

Between the opening two notes on Matthew 1:7-8 and 1:10, and the final note on 1:25, Metzger discusses five other passages:

First: 1:11: He notes that several mss. add a name to the genealogy, Joakim. He gives the omission an {A} rating.

Second: 1:16: the description of Joseph as “the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” This is the TR reading, and it also has an {A} rating.

Metzger notes two variants.

Given the above as the first reading, the second is: “to whom being betrothed the virgin Mary bore Jesus, who is called Christ”.

And the third: “Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called Christ.” This is found in the Sinaitic Syriac.

It is the last variant that seems most to intrigue BM, since it would be a reading that would deny the virgin birth and see Jesus as the natural son of Joseph.

This is the longest discussion in the commentary on Matthew 1 (pp. 2-6) and closes with a decisive paragraph debunking the third reading (p. 6), but one might wonder why there was so much interest to begin with? Note: There will be a connection with 1:25.

Third: 1:18: “of Jesus Christ.” This gets only a {B} reading since Metzger dubs it “intrinsically improbable” that “Jesus Christ” would be prefixed by a definite article. He even says this construction only appears in “inferior manuscripts” like those with Acts 8:37. Circular reasoning!

Fourth: 1:18: The modern critical text reads genesis (creation, generation) rather than gengesis (birth) as in the TR.

The traditional reading seems right in context, the genealogy having already been given, and it seems even the modern English translations use “birth” here.

Fifth: 1:22: It is noted here that a few ms. insert the name “Isaiah” here as a “scribal explanation.”  Neither the modern text or the TR include the prophet’s name.

What is the issue in Matthew 1:25?:

The traditional text reads (Scrivener’s TR):  και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως ου ετεκεν τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον και εκαλεσεν το ονομα αυτου ιησουν

An English translation (KJV): “And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”

 

The modern critical text (W & H): και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως [ου] ετεκεν υιον και εκαλεσεν το ονομα αυτου ιησουν

An English translation (ESV):  ^“but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.”

 

Cf. Luke 2:7 (Scrivener): και ετεκεν τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον και εσπαργανωσεν αυτον και ανεκλινεν αυτον εν τη φατνη διοτι ουκ ην αυτοις τοπος εν τω καταλυματι

 

External Evidence:

The traditional reading is supported by, among others, the uncial codices C, D, K, L, N, W, Gamma, and Delta (note: of these C, D, and W are very early), as well as the vast majority of later minuscules. It is the Majority reading. It is also found in various Old Latin mss. (aur, d, f, ff1, and q),as well as the Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta and the Harklean Syriac.

The modern reading is supported by the two heavyweights Aleph and B, perhaps Z, perhaps 071, family 1, family 13, and 33, as well the Old Latin, the Middle Egyptian, the Old Syriac (Sinaitic and Curetonian), and the Coptic (Sahidic and Bohairic, with some variation).

Internal Evidence:

Metzger’s major assumption (see his first paragraph in this entry) is that the traditional reading is a harmonization with Luke 2:7 (Scrivener): και ετεκεν τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον και εσπαργανωσεν αυτον και ανεκλινεν αυτον εν τη φατνη διοτι ουκ ην αυτοις τοπος εν τω καταλυματι

Though both Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 are part of their respective birth narratives, they are not necessarily literary parallels. Matthew 1:25 comes after the account of the angelic appearance to Joseph and the fulfillment citation of Isaiah 7:14. Luke 2:7 comes in its own distinctive context.

Would a scribe have recalled this parallel or even turn to compare it?

Is it not just as possible not that a scribe of Matthew drew from Luke to “correct” Matthew, but that both Matthew and Luke drew from a common Christian tradition that identified Jesus as the firstborn son of Mary?

Metzger proceeds to note the reading in the Sinaitic Syriac: “She bore to him [to Joseph] a son.” And to compare this to the Sinaitic Syriac of Matt 1:16.

His point seems to be to raise the possibility of early sources that would not have known the virgin birth and there did not need to stress Jesus as the first born son of Mary.

Conclusion:

The traditional reading of Matthew 1:25 has ancient (C, D, W) and widespread (Majority, early vulgar translations) attestation.

Jesus was clearly known in the tradition as the “firstborn [prōtotokos]” of Mary (cf. Luke 2:7).

We can easily see either how the traditional reading might have been omitted through scribal error or through an intentional effort to deny the virgin birth.

On the other hand, we do not believe there is a compelling reason to abandon the traditional reading and run the risk of possibly undermining a cardinal doctrine of Christ’s virgin birth.

We are repeatedly told that no variant affects doctrine, but this is not so. Aside from doctrines of canon, sufficiency, and preservation of Scripture, various issues arise within individual variants like this one in Matthew 1:25. The modern critical text of Matthew 1:25 by omitting “her firstborn son” offers a muted undermining of the traditional text’s affirmation of the miraculous conception and virgin birth of Christ.

The traditional text, thus, should be maintained.

JTR

Blomberg on the Virgin Birth and the problems with "a-confessional evangelicalism"

I’ve been working my way through Craig Blomberg’s Jesus and the Gospels, Second Ed. (B & H Academic, 2009) in the Life of Jesus class I’m teaching this semester.  Blomberg represents what are some of the best and worst aspects of evangelical scholarship which attempts to use all the modern historical-critical tools, while at the same time trying to maintain and defend various traditional, pre-critical perspectives (e. g., affirming purported authorship of the canonical Gospels, historicity of those Gospels, etc.).  For a critique of evangelical scholarly embrace of modern critical methods in Gospel research and a charge that this necessarily leads to compromise (including particular criticism of Blomberg), see Robert F. Thomas, Ed. The Jesus Crisis:  The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship (Kregel, 1998).

My sense is that the difficulties with Blomberg arise not only from his embracing modern historical-critical method (e. g., embracing Markan priority and the two source theory) but also, and more significantly, from his lack of a clear confessional framework in approaching the Bible and Christian theology.  Like most evangelicals he seems to approach the NT with definite “conservative” doctrinal presuppositions but not from a clearly defined, historical, creedal perspective.  We might well describe this position as a-confessional evangelicalism.

This stands out in particular in his treatment of the virgin birth (i. e., virginal conception) in Jesus and the Gospels.  On one hand, Blomberg offers cautious but clear reasons why the virginal conception might be reasonably defended as historical.  He notes in particular that conclusions reached on the virgin bith, as with other supernatural aspects of the Gospels, depend on one’s presuppositions:  “Of course, if one rules out the supernatural a priori, there is much here [in Matthew and Luke’s teaching of the virginal conception] that will have to be dismissed or radically reinterpreted” (p. 243).  He notes that the Gospel descriptions of the virginal conception are given in a “straightforward” manner without “embellishments” (p. 243).  He argues that the Semitic style of the birth narratives in both Matthew and Luke suggests the use of early source material for this tradition.  He concludes that “early Christians would never have invented the narratives of the virginal conception itself” and notes that “Luke’s narrative shows remarkable restraint compared to various Greco-Roman myths of ‘virgin births’” (p. 244).  He adds: “Narrators creating pious legends usually go into much more detail than Luke does here” (p. 244).  He sums up:  “All of these observations make it highly unlikely that the church would have included these accounts unless there were strong historical reasons for doing so” (p. 244).

If left here, one might commend Blomberg for his thoughtful defense of the historicity of the virginal conception.  However, he then proceeds to offer reflections on the theological significance of the virginal conception.  He opens by downplaying the doctrine noting that “it neither proves the incarnation nor is demanded by it” (p. 244).  He  concludes:  “Given how little the New Testament and even the Gospels make of this doctrine it probably does not deserve to rank among the top five fundamentals of the faith [a footnote here references Dixon and Meyer’s The Fundamentals].  Yet it remains a cherished truth not to be glibly denied or explained away” (p. 245).

This conclusion follows an apologetic approach which Blomberg uses elsewhere in this work.  He defends the historical and critical plausibility of a traditional perspective but then concludes that even if the viewpoint is found to be untenable its loss would be inconsequential to an orthodox position.  For example, in his discussion of the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, Blomberg ably defends the traditional view that the Gospel was written by John Mark in consultation with the apostle Peter but then concludes:  “Little of interpretive significance depends on whether or not Mark was the author, but modern objections scarcely outweigh the unanimous testimony of the early church” (p. 140; he reaches similar conclusions on Matthew, p. 156; Luke, p. 174; and John, p. 201).

Whatever the apologetic reasoning, it is striking to read an evangelical scholar willing to abandon the virginal conception as a foundation (fundamental) Biblical doctrine.  Yes, as my daughter pointed out to me in a family devotion discussion of the resurrection over Easter weekend, Paul did not include the virgin birth in his summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, but still the virginal conception has long been affirmed as essential and foundational to Christian faith, particularly in its creedal tradition, based on its unequivocal presence in the Gospels (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:26-27, 30-31, 34-35; cf. also subtle or ironic references to the virginal conception in the Gospels which do not include explicit birth narratives:  Mark 6:3; John 5:18; 6:42; 8:19, 41; 16:28); in addition, cf. a possible Pauline reference in Galatians 4:4).  The oldest post-canonical Christian symbol, the Apostles’ creed, originating in the mid second century affirms that Jesus was “conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.” The doctrine then becomes firmly embedded in the confessional tradition, including, eventually, the Westminster/London Baptist Confessions.  Consider chapter eight, paragraph two of the London Confession on “Of Christ the Mediator” (emphasis added):

The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.

(John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5)

Given the strong Biblical and confessional emphasis given to the doctrine of the virginal conception and its significance for understanding the person and nature of Christ, as emphasized especially in the creedal tradition, Blomberg’s conclusion that it does not rank among the cardinal Christian doctrines is incomprehensible.  It illustrates the dangers of joining evangelical Biblical scholarship to the historical-critical method without a clear confessional framework.

JTR