A Textual-Critical Examination of Matthew 8:3: The Presence or Absence of ὁ Ἰησοῦς
This exegetical study of A Textual-Critical Examination of Matthew 8:3: The Presence or Absence of ὁ Ἰησοῦς is based on a b-greek discussion from an unstated date. The discussion centers on the textual variation in Matthew 8:3, specifically the presence or absence of the articular proper name ὁ Ἰησοῦς before the participle λέγων. While the majority of Greek witnesses include ὁ Ἰησοῦς, several important manuscripts omit it, leading to scholarly debate regarding the original reading.
The main exegetical issue revolves around the implications of this textual variant for understanding the narrative flow and clarity of the passage. The inclusion or omission of ὁ Ἰησοῦς directly impacts the immediate identification of the subject performing the action of touching and speaking. Textual critics weigh the internal and external evidence to determine the most probable original reading, considering factors such as scribal tendencies towards clarification or assimilation, and potential instances of haplography or dittography.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἥψατο αὐτοῦ λέγων· Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι.
- Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- SBLGNT (2010) omits the phrase ὁ Ἰησοῦς before ἥψατο, reading: “καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἥψατο αὐτοῦ λέγων, Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι.”
Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
The textual apparatus for Matthew 8:3 primarily concerns the presence or absence of the name ὁ Ἰησοῦς. A significant number of Greek witnesses, including C2, E, K, L, M, N, S, U, V, W, X, Γ, Δ, Θ, Π, Σ, Ω, 047, 0211, family 35 (f35), and numerous minuscule manuscripts (399, 461, 565, 566, 1424, 1500, 2224), attest to the inclusion of ὁ Ἰησοῦς before λέγων. This reading is reflected in the Nestle 1904 edition and the Textus Receptus.
However, a strong minority of early and important manuscripts, including א (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), C* (original hand of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus), Zvid (Washingtonianus, with some doubt), family 1 (f1), family 13 (f13), and minuscules 33 and 892, omit ὁ Ἰησοῦς. This omission is preferred by modern critical editions such as the NA28 and SBLGNT, and historically by scholars like Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th editions), and Vogels.
Arguments for the omission often center on the potential for scribal clarification. Griesbach (1:84) largely defended the omission, suggesting that ὁ Ἰησοῦς might have been added to prevent ambiguity, lest the reader, misled by the words, might misattribute ἐκτείνας (extending) to the leper. This motivation is supported by the transposition of ὁ Ἰησοῦς in some Syriac and Latin versions to precede ἥψατο (touched), further emphasizing the subject. Griesbach noted that if more early witnesses omitted the name, its removal would be unequivocal, especially if no clear reason for its omission from the context could be found.
Conversely, arguments for the authenticity of ὁ Ἰησοῦς also exist. Firstly, the initial lack of explicit clarity regarding the subject might reflect the author’s own narrative style, which could be rectified by the reader from context (Fritzsche, 306). Secondly, the placement of the name so far after the supposed ambiguity (i.e., after ἥψατο αὐτοῦ), rather than immediately preceding the verb of action (e.g., καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐκτείνας . . .), is unusual if the sole purpose was clarification. A similar textual variation concerning ὁ Ἰησοῦς occurs in Mark 1:41, suggesting a broader pattern. Thirdly, if the ambiguity were truly pronounced, it is curious that a similar alteration did not arise in the parallel account of Luke 5:13. Fourthly, the omission could have arisen from unintentional assimilation to the wording of the preceding verse, which follows a structure of participle + finite verb + personal pronoun + λέγων. Fifthly, a primitive error involving haplography (skipping from one omicron to another) in a nomen sacrum construction (e.g., ΑΥΤΟΥΟΙΣ → ΑΥΤΟΙΣ) could have led to the loss of ὁ Ἰησοῦς, with subsequent scribal correction of the pronoun’s case and number failing to restore the name. A similar case of confusion involving the same nomen sacrum following αὐτῷ is observed in Matthew 26:52. Lastly, Rinck (252) posits that ὁ Ἰησοῦς might be missing in some manuscripts due to assimilation to Luke 5:13, where λέγων is sometimes found instead of εἰπών from Matthew’s account, thus supporting the originality of the received reading in Matthew.
The NA28 critical edition, relying on the strong evidence of ℵ B C*, ultimately omits ὁ Ἰησοῦς, favoring the shorter reading which is often considered more likely to be original (lectio brevior potior). This implies that the inclusion of the name represents a later scribal addition for clarification.
Lexical Notes:
For ἐκτείνας (participle of ἐκτείνω, “to stretch out, extend”), BDAG defines it as “to extend, stretch out (the hand or a part of the body).” In this context, it describes a deliberate, physical action. KITTEL (TDNT) would typically discuss the theological significance of “touching” in ancient Near Eastern contexts, especially regarding purity laws and healing miracles. The verb ἥψατο (aorist middle of ἅπτομαι, “to touch”) denotes direct physical contact. BDAG emphasizes its use in therapeutic touch and ritual defilement, though here it signifies healing. The use of λέγων (participle of λέγω, “to say”) simply introduces direct speech without particular lexical nuance beyond its grammatical function.
Translation Variants
The presence or absence of ὁ Ἰησοῦς creates a subtle but significant difference in the English translation and rhetorical impact:
- With ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Majority Text, Nestle 1904): “And extending his hand, Jesus touched him, saying…”
Grammatically, ὁ Ἰησοῦς serves as the explicit subject of both the participle ἐκτείνας and the finite verb ἥψατο, leaving no ambiguity regarding the actor. Rhetorically, it provides immediate, unambiguous identification, often characteristic of a more explicit narrative style.
- Without ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Critical Text, NA28, SBLGNT): “And extending his hand, he touched him, saying…”
In this reading, the subject “he” for both the participle ἐκτείνας and the finite verb ἥψατο is implied from the preceding narrative context (Jesus is the last mentioned active subject). Grammatically, the participle agrees with an unstated but contextually clear subject. Rhetorically, this creates a slightly more concise and dynamic narrative, requiring the reader to infer the subject, which is common in Greek prose. While theoretically allowing for ambiguity if read in isolation, the broader context of Matthew’s narrative makes Jesus the only plausible subject.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The textual evidence for Matthew 8:3 is complex. While the overwhelming numerical attestation favors the inclusion of ὁ Ἰησοῦς, the weight of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts (א B C*) supports its omission. Modern critical editions, such as NA28 and SBLGNT, privilege these earlier witnesses and adopt the shorter reading, viewing the inclusion of ὁ Ἰησοῦς as a likely scribal addition for clarification. The internal arguments regarding scribal assimilation and potential haplography also lend credence to the omission. However, arguments for the originality of the longer reading, based on authorial intent or assimilation to other texts, cannot be entirely dismissed.
In light of this textual analysis, the following translation suggestions are offered:
- “And stretching out his hand, Jesus touched him, saying, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.'”
This translation reflects the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts and the Nestle 1904 text, prioritizing the reading with explicit subject identification.
- “And stretching out his hand, he touched him, saying, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.'”
This translation follows the reading of the critical editions (NA28, SBLGNT), opting for the shorter text and relying on the immediate narrative context to identify “he” as Jesus. This is often preferred in modern scholarly translations.
- “Then Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man, saying, ‘I want to. Be clean!'”
This more dynamic and slightly interpretive translation explicitly names Jesus, but structurally rephrases the participles into finite verbs for smoother English flow, capturing the essence without being rigidly literal to the Greek syntax.