There are several passages in the first chapter of Matthew’s gospel which involve points of principle, either in the textual criticism of the underlying Greek text or in the translation. Passages which relate to the birth of our Lord are of particular importance, and require careful attention.

2-16: “begat”

In these verses the word “begat” occurs thirty-nine times in the Authorised Version (updated as “begot” in the Revised Authorised Version). The word expresses the act of generating children, with an emphasis on the role of the male parent. In most modern English versions, instead of “Abraham begat Isaac” and “Isaac begat Jacob” etc. we find “Abraham was the father of Isaac…” The reason for this, of course, is that the verb “beget” is no longer in everyday English usage. However, the use of the formula “was the father of” leads to two significant changes of emphasis.

The lesser of these changes is cultural rather than theological. On four occasions Matthew describes a father as begetting a child of or from the mother (Tamar vs.3, Rahab and Ruth vs.S, Uriah's widow vs.6). However much it may jar upon the sensitivities of feminists, the Greek carries a definite implication that the mother's role was thought of as instrumental or passive. Having abandoned the word “begat”, the modern versions are obliged to use such phrases as “Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth” (verse 5), thus introducing an equality of parental roles which is not in the original.

More importantly, Matthew distinguishes between the genetic relationship of father to son among Joseph's ancestors and the non-genetic relationship between Joseph and Jesus. In a legal sense Joseph was the “father” of Jesus (see Luke 2.48), but he did not in any sense beget Him. This vital distinction becomes less clear in the modern versions.

16: “Mary, of whom was born Jesus”

The true parentage of Jesus is radically questioned by a heretical reading in the Sinai tic Syriac version (5th century), which has “Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called the Christ”. Although this variant is not found in a single Greek manuscript, it nevertheless found its way into the English translation of James Moffatt and appeared in the footnotes of the Revised Standard Version (removed again in 1971) and of the New English Bible. H.F. von Soden translated this verse from Syriac into Greek and adopted it for his edition of the Greek New Testament published in 1913.

Comparison with Luke 2.33,43

This defective treatment of the virgin birth is continued by the Sinaitic Syriac at Matthew 1.21 (she shall bear to thee a son) and 1.25 (omission of “knew her not” and substitution of “bore to him a son” for “brought forth her firstborn son”). It is of no surprise subsequently to find that this Syriac manuscript favours the reading “His mother and father” in Luke 2.33 and “His parents” in Luke 2.43 (instead of “Joseph and His mother” in each case), which is also found in the Greek uncial codices Aleph B D L W and the Latin Vulgate. Although the use of the word “parents” is not heretical in itself (see Luke 2.27 and 41), a change of wording in this direction may reflect an unsound view of the virgin birth.

Some textual critics suggest, on the contrary, that the majority reading of the manuscripts- “Joseph and His mother” - was originally invented by pious copyists in order to safeguard the doctrine of the virgin birth (B.M. Metzger ed. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1975, pp. 134-5). If this was the motive of the copyists, however, it is curious that such alterations should have been so successful in verses 33 and 43 (where practically all manuscripts read “Joseph and His mother”) , but so unsuccessful in verses 27, 41 and 48 (where most manuscripts read “parents” or “father”). Textual critics are at a loss to explain this strange inconsistency to which their theory leads them.

If, on the other hand, a few early copyists or editors with heretical views wished to make Luke consistently portray Joseph as being the natural father of Jesus, they might well seek to alter the wording of verses 33 and 43 of Luke chapter 2. The same motivations which produced the heretical Syriac readings in Matthew 1.16, 21 and 25, may well have produced a similarly defective text in the few Greek manuscripts which agree with the Sinaitic Syriac in Luke 2.33 and 43, and in turn influenced the Latin Vulgate. Under Vulgate influence the same error was committed in the 16th century by Erasmus, Luther and Tyndale, but was in due course corrected by Stephanus, Beza, the Geneva Bible and the Authorised Version.

In the present century the desire of textual critics to safeguard the reputation of codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Aleph and B), and to preserve the “established” critical theory, has diverted attention from the unsound theological tendencies with which these sources are associated. It is regrettable that in these two verses of Luke most modern versions have unquestioningly followed such sources, without so much as a footnote to indicate that the majority of the Greek manuscripts, combined with a range of versional evidence from the 2nd to 4th centuries, testify to the reading “Joseph and His mother”.

25: “her firstborn son”

The word “firstborn” is, among other things, a confirmation that Mary had no other children before Jesus, thus corroborating the virgin birth. However, the word is omitted in eight Greek manuscripts, most critical editions and modern versions. The authorities for omission include the 4th century codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, supported by some Syriac, old Latin and Coptic evidence. In the view of many textual critics the word was added later, harmonising the text with Luke 2.7.

The documents which attest the genuineness of “firstborn” include a wide variety of 4th century patristic writings, the Peshitta Syriac, the Latin Vulgate and several other early versions, three Greek manuscripts from the 5th century (CD W) and practically all other manuscripts up to the 15th century, some hundreds in total. The suggestion that this reading arose from a tendency to “harmonise” is not an adequate explanation of this wide consensus of documents.

If anything, the motivation for altering this verse headed in a quite opposite direction. Some early church writers with ascetic tendencies were convinced of the perpetual virginity of Mary (a Catholic doctrine), and that after Jesus she bore no further children. Other writers tried to use the word “firstborn” to prove that there must have been subsequent children. This was a matter of vigorous debate between Jerome and Helvidius in the 4th century. It is easy to see that some copyists who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity might have been tempted to leave out the inconvenient “firstborn”.

A convincing illustration of this particular theological motive is found in the Curetonian Syriac version of the 5th century. In the first chapter of Matthew this version twice omits a reference to Joseph as Mary's husband (verse 16 and 19) and twice omits a reference to Mary as Joseph's wife (verse 20 and 24), as well as omitting “firstborn” in verse 25. C.H. Wailer made the following remarks on this subject:

“The absolute omission from the Curetonian Syriac of all mention of Joseph as Mary's husband, or of Mary as his wife is very remarkable ... the feeling in favour of Mary's perpetual virginity on the mind of the translator of the Curetonian Syriac was so strong as to draw him to four distinct and separate omissions, in which he stands unsupported by any authority ...

“I do not see how anyone can deny that here we have emendations of the most deliberate and peculiar kind. Nor is there any family of earlier readings which contains them, or to which they can be referred. The fact that the Curetonian text has some readings in common with the so-called Western family of text is not sufficient to justify us in accounting for such vagaries as this. It is indeed a ‘Western’ superstition which has exalted the virgin Mary into a sphere beyond the level of all that rejoice in God her Saviour. But the question here suggested is whether this way of regarding the matter is truly ancient; and whether the manuscript of an ancient version which exhibits such singular phenomena on its first page is worthy to be set above the common Peshitta] version which is palpably its basis. In the first sentence of the Preface, Dr. Cure ton [the editor of this Syriac manuscript] states that it was obtained from a Syrian monastery dedicated to St. Mary Deipara [“Mary the Mother of God”]. I cannot but wonder whether it never occurred to him that the cultus of the Deipara, and the taste which it indicates, may partly explain why a manuscript of a certain character and bias was ultimately domiciled there. (Appendix VI of J .W. Burgon and E . Miller The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, 1896, pp.295-6).

It is hardly surprising to find that theologically motivated changes of the kind exhibited in the Curetonian Syriac crept into a few Greek manuscripts. What is astonishing is that some of these minority variants, which were excluded from church usage over a period of at least 1,500 years, have been reintroduced into nearly every modern edition and translation of the New Testament, without question or footnote. Few users of a professedly evangelical translation such as the New International Version are aware that at Matthew 1.25 they are using a form of text which was probably produced by early scribes or theologians deliberately to enhance the invented dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity.

6: “the king” (2nd occurrence)

A less harmful alteration of the text is the omission by modem editors and translators of the second occurrence of “the king”, as the title of David. A 3rd century papyrus and codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, accompanied by the usual small group of later manuscripts and the Syriac and Coptic versions and some Latin evidence, omit the words. In two 5th century manuscripts (C W) and the vast majority of other Greek manuscripts, as well as most of the Latin evidence and two other early versions, the words are retained. The omission should probably be interpreted in terms of the known Alexandrian tendency to abbreviate and economise by eliminating “redundant” vocabulary. Matthew's purpose in repeating “the king” may have been to mark the beginning of the second series of fourteen generations in his genealogical scheme.

7-8: “Asa”

Most critical editions of the Greek New Testament have “Asaph” instead of “Asa”. From the Old Testament it is known that Asa was one of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 15.9-24; 2 Chronicles 14-16), whereas Asaph was the chief of David’s singers. Clearly the latter has no rightful place in the royal genealogy of Christ. The United Bible Societies’ Textual Commentary, edited by Metzger, suggests that Asaph was Matthew’s original spelling and that this was an error which Matthew derived from his source documents. Metzger explains the prevalence of Asa in the later manuscripts as resulting from a scribal tendency to correct such an error by reference to the Old Testament spelling.

It is striking that the first page of this textual handbook, which the United Bible Societies recommend for the use of Bible students and translators, thus contains a denial of the inerrancy of the gospel account. They inform us that the textual evidence for Asaph is “very strong”, consisting of the Alexandrian uncial manuscripts Aleph B C, eight “Caesarean” minuscule manuscripts, and early versions in Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Latin. However, the Bible student or translator who has a high view of the inerrancy of Scripture will draw the opposite conclusion about the relative strength of this evidence. Because he knows that Asaph is a historical error, he will question the authority of the manuscripts which exhibit that error. He will conclude that the combination of “Alexandrian” and “Caesarean” manuscripts with a variety of early versions is not to be trusted, and will prefer to rely on the evidence of the majority of manuscripts from the 5th century onwards (which also happen to be supported here by early Syriac and Latin evidence).

Burgon sums it up as a “preposterous notion, that ‘Asa’ was written Asaph by the Evangelist -in conformity with six [now eleven] manuscripts of bad character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability” (The Revision Revised, 1883, p. 187).

“Asaph” has not been adopted by the main modem English translations, but it appears as a footnote in the Revised Version, Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible. Such a note in effect questions the accuracy of Matthew’s account.

6: “the king” (2nd occurrence)

A less harmful alteration of the text is the omission by modem editors and translators of the second occurrence of “the king”, as the title of David. A 3rd century papyrus and codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, accompanied by the usual small group of later manuscripts and the Syriac and Coptic versions and some Latin evidence, omit the words. In two 5th century manuscripts (C W) and the vast majority of other Greek manuscripts, as well as most of the Latin evidence and two other early versions, the words are retained. The omission should probably be interpreted in terms of the known Alexandrian tendency to abbreviate and economise by eliminating “redundant” vocabulary. Matthew's purpose in repeating “the king” may have been to mark the beginning of the second series of fourteen generations in his genealogical scheme.

7-8: “Asa”

Most critical editions of the Greek New Testament have “Asaph” instead of “Asa”. From the Old Testament it is known that Asa was one of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 15.9-24; 2 Chronicles 14-16), whereas Asaph was the chief of David's singers. Clearly the latter has no rightful place in the royal genealogy of Christ. The United Bible Societies’ Textual Commentary, edited by Metzger, suggests that Asaph was Matthew’s original spelling and that this was an error which Matthew derived from his source documents. Metzger explains the prevalence of Asa in the later manuscripts as resulting from a scribal tendency to correct such an error by reference to the Old Testament spelling.

It is striking that the first page of this textual handbook, which the United Bible Societies recommend for the use of Bible students and translators, thus contains a denial of the inerrancy of the gospel account. They inform us that the textual evidence for Asaph is “very strong”, consisting of the Alexandrian uncial manuscripts Aleph B C, eight “Caesarean” minuscule manuscripts, and early versions in Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Latin. However, the Bible student or translator who has a high view of the in errancy of Scripture will draw the opposite conclusion about the relative strength of this evidence. Because he knows that Asaph is a historical error, he will question the authority of the manuscripts which exhibit that error. He will conclude that the combination of “Alexandrian” and “Caesarean” manuscripts with a variety of early versions is not to be trusted, and will prefer to rely on the evidence of the majority of manuscripts from the 5th century onwards (which also happen to be supported here by early Syriac and Latin evidence).

Burgon sums it up as a “preposterous notion, that ‘Asa’ was written Asaph by the Evangelist - in conformity with six [now eleven] manuscripts of bad character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability” (The Revision Revised, 1883, p .187). “Asaph” has not been adopted by the main modem English translations, but it appears as a footnote in the Revised Version, Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible. Such a note in effect questions the accuracy of Matthew’s account.

10: “Amon”

Most critical editions of the Greek New Testament have “Amos” instead of “Amon”. However, whereas Amon was among the kings of Judah, Amos was a prophet and not in the royal lineage. The editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament here follow similar evidence to that which supports Asaph in verses 7-8. They were “impressed by the weight” of the evidence for Amos, which they regard as being Matthew's original text but which they simultaneously describe as an “error”. Those who believe in the accuracy of Scripture will, on the contrary, again conclude that the manuscripts cited should not be regarded as a reliable basis for the New Testament text. The sceptical tendency of modern editors and translators has resulted in the adoption of “Amos” into the text of the Revised Standard Version and the Translators’ New Testament (UBS, 1973), and into the footnotes of the Revised Version and New American Standard Bible.

11: “Jechonias”

An apparent gap in Matthew’s genealogy has long been discerned by commentators, relating to Jehoiakim who was the son of Josiah and the father of Jechonias. Various solutions have been proposed, including the suggestion that a sentence has fallen out of the original text of Matthew. Although there is no mention of Jehoiakim in most of the manuscripts, there are about a hundred manuscripts which have “Josiah begat Jehoiakim and Jehoiakim begat Jechonias” supported by the Harcleian Syriac and Georgian versions, the Diatessaron and several early fathers. In the 16th century, Colinaeus included this clause in his Greek New Testament edition of 1534, and Stephanus’ edition of 1550 cited one manuscript as having this reading. Beza included it in his Latin New Testaments of 1556 and 1565 and his Greek octavo editions of 1567-90. The first English version to include this clause was the Whittingham New Testament of 1557, relying on Beza, and was followed by the Geneva Bible of 1560 and the Bishops’ Bible of 1568. It was relegated to the margin of the later editions of the Bishops’ Bible, from which it found its way into the margin of the 1611 Authorised Version.

In spite of this interesting variety of authorities for the extra clause, there is good reason to believe that it resulted from a deliberate harmonisation by a minority of copyists who mistakenly thought that Matthew intended to give a complete genealogy. It is evident that Matthew (or his source documents) deliberately imposed a pattern of three series of fourteen generations, and several genealogical steps were intentionally left out. Proof of this is found in verse 8, in particular, where the names of Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah are left out between Joram and Ozias, as can easily be seen by comparison with 1 Chronicles 3.11-12. It is most instructive to find that, not perceiving Matthew's careful symmetrical scheme, the Curetonian Syriac and Ethiopic versions reinserted these names in verse 8. It is highly likely that a similar harmonising tendency resulted in the insertion of Jehoiakim in verse 11 by a number of manuscripts. We can be confident that in this passage the Authorised Version has correctly preserved Matthew’s inspired wording in the text, while the reading in the margin is a respectable but less authoritative variant.

This article was first published QR 491.