Skip to main content
Christanity

Matthew 27:35 Prophecy Fulfillment Addition — Absent from the Five Most Important Manuscripts and Rejected by All Critical Editions

12 min read 2604 words
How to Navigate This Note The Verse Under Study — The disputed text The Problem Defined — What was added and why Three Reasons the Deletion Reading Is Correct — External evidence, internal evidence, critical consensus The Accidental Error Hypothesis — And Why It Fails — Homoeoteleuton and its refutation The Five Most Important Manuscripts — The Addition Is Absent — Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, Beza, Washington Arabic and English Versions Compared — Short vs. long reading across translations Greek Critical Editions — NA27, UBS, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Von Soden, Westcott-Hort Manuscript Evidence — Full Witness Lists — All witnesses for deletion and addition What the Scholars Said — Metzger, Comfort, Green, Jesuit Commentary, CNTTS Conclusion

The Verse Under Study

Matthew 27:35 — Van Dyke / KJV (Traditional text, contains the disputed addition) “And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”

The disputed portion — marked in braces — is:

{that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.}

In Greek:

{ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου, Διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον}

This clause — attributing the dividing of garments to the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 — is absent from the oldest and best manuscripts of the New Testament across all languages: Greek, Latin, Coptic, and Syriac.

The Problem Defined

The unknown author of the Gospel called “The Gospel of Matthew” describes the Roman soldiers dividing Christ’s garments by casting lots at the crucifixion. This is standard synoptic material. The problem is the additional clause claiming this fulfills a prophecy from Psalm 22:18.

It is the characteristic habit of the author of Matthew to link events in the life of Christ to Old Testament prophecies. A parallel passage exists in John 19:24:

John 19:24 — the parallel passage “And they said to one another, ‘Let us not tear it, but let us cast lots for it as to whose it shall be,’ that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says, ‘They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots.’ This is what the soldiers did.”

The addition in Matthew 27:35 was taken directly from John 19:24 — copied by scribes who wished either to attach an Old Testament prophecy to Jesus following Matthew’s usual style, or to harmonize the two Gospel accounts. The textual evidence for this conclusion is overwhelming.

Three Reasons the Deletion Reading Is Correct

Reason 1 — External Evidence

The five most important Greek manuscripts of the New Testament all support the deletion reading:

  • Codex Sinaiticus — 4th century
  • Codex Vaticanus — 4th century
  • Codex Washingtonianus — late 4th / early 5th century
  • Codex Bezae — 5th century
  • Codex Alexandrinus — 5th century

The oldest Greek manuscripts that contain the long reading are the Theta and Delta manuscripts from the ninth century — five full centuries later than the deletion witnesses.

Beyond the Greek, the deletion reading is supported by early Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Slavonic witnesses. The agreement of five of the most important manuscripts ever produced, across multiple text families and multiple ancient languages, constitutes overwhelming external evidence.

Reason 2 — Internal Evidence

If the original reading was the long reading (containing the prophecy clause), what motive would have led copyists across multiple text families and multiple languages to delete it simultaneously? There is no plausible motive for deletion.

By contrast, if the original reading was the short reading, there are two clear motives that would have pushed copyists to add the prophecy clause:

  1. The desire of scribes to attach Old Testament prophecies to Jesus, following Matthew’s characteristic style.
  2. The desire to harmonize the text with the parallel passage in John 19:24, which contains the identical prophecy citation. Scholars call this the possibility of copying — one of the most important rules of textual criticism.

Reason 3 — Critical Edition Consensus

All critical editions of the Greek New Testament have chosen the short reading without exception — NA27, UBS, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Von Soden, and Westcott-Hort. This consensus is based on the manuscript evidence above and on the application of standard critical rules.

The Accidental Error Hypothesis — And Why It Fails

A third explanation has been proposed by some: that the passage was accidentally omitted due to a visual copying error called homoeoteleutonHomoeoteleuton (Greek: similar ending) — a scribal error in which a copyist’s eye skips from one word or phrase to another identical word or phrase further along in the text, accidentally omitting everything between them.. The argument is that the copyist’s eye fell on the second occurrence of the word “lots” (κλῆρον) instead of the first, skipping over everything between them:

“And when they crucified him, they divided his garments, casting lots for them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”

This hypothesis can be refuted on two grounds:

First: The large number of manuscripts that testify to the deletion reading, their diversity across text families, and their quality across multiple ancient languages — Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Georgian, and Ethiopic manuscripts — negates the possibility of an accidental error affecting all of them independently.

Second: The copying possibility (harmonization with John 19:24) provides a simpler and more complete explanation for why the addition appeared.

But suppose for the sake of argument that this was a spontaneous visual error. How did this identical error reach such a large, important, and geographically diverse number of manuscripts in the original language and various languages of the ancient world, all the way up to the fifth century?

The Only Way the Accidental Error Hypothesis Works The only scenario in which a single accidental copying error could have propagated to all manuscripts up to the fifth century is if all those manuscripts descended from one single original copy. When that one copy made the error, every subsequent manuscript inherited it.
But this destroys the most important guarantee of biblical textual integrity: the criterion of dissemination. If there was a period when all manuscripts depended on one single source, then whoever owned that original manuscript had the ability to make deliberate changes — with no other manuscripts to check against. All manuscripts until the beginning of the fifth century would have reflected his copy alone. The homoeoteleuton hypothesis, taken to its logical conclusion, undermines the very argument it was meant to support.

The Five Most Important Manuscripts — The Addition Is Absent

The interlinear Greek text of Matthew 27:35 shows the original short form:

Interlinear Greek-English text of Matthew 27:35 — the short reading without the prophecy fulfillment clause
Interlinear Greek-English text of Matthew 27:35 — the short reading without the prophecy fulfillment clause

The text in uppercase (uncial script) as written in the early Greek manuscripts:

Matthew 27:35 in uncial uppercase script — the form in which early Greek manuscripts were written
Matthew 27:35 in uncial uppercase script — the form in which early Greek manuscripts were written

1. Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) — The passage is missing

Codex Sinaiticus — Matthew 27:35 without the prophecy fulfillment addition, 4th-century manuscript
Codex Sinaiticus — Matthew 27:35 without the prophecy fulfillment addition, 4th-century manuscript

2. Codex Vaticanus (4th century) — The passage is missing

Codex Vaticanus — Matthew 27:35 without the addition, 4th-century Vatican manuscript
Codex Vaticanus — Matthew 27:35 without the addition, 4th-century Vatican manuscript

3. Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) — The passage is missing

Codex Alexandrinus — Matthew 27:35 without the addition, 5th-century manuscript
Codex Alexandrinus — Matthew 27:35 without the addition, 5th-century manuscript

4. Codex Bezae (5th century) — The passage is missing

Codex Bezae — Matthew 27:35 without the addition, 5th-century bilingual Greek-Latin manuscript
Codex Bezae — Matthew 27:35 without the addition, 5th-century bilingual Greek-Latin manuscript

5. Codex Washingtonianus (late 4th / early 5th century) — The passage is missing

Codex Washingtonianus — Matthew 27:35 without the addition, late 4th-century manuscript
Codex Washingtonianus — Matthew 27:35 without the addition, late 4th-century manuscript

Arabic and English Versions Compared

Arabic Versions

Among the Arabic translations, one translation — the Van Dyke (the translation widespread among Arab Christians) — contains the long reading with the prophecy clause. Nine Arabic translations give the text in its short form:

Van Dyke (long reading — traditional text):

“And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”

Common Arabic (short reading):

“And they crucified him, and cast lots for his garments, and divided them.”

Simplified Arabic (short reading):

“And when they had crucified Jesus, they divided his garments among them, and cast lots among them.”

Jesuit (Catholic) Arabic (short reading):

“And they crucified him, and divided his garments among them, and cast lots for them.”

Al-Hayat (Life) (short reading):

“And they crucified him, and divided his garments among them, and cast lots for them.”

Sarah Translation (short reading):

“And they crucified him, and cast lots for his garments, and divided them.”

English Versions

Versions containing the long reading (addition present): DRA, ETH, GNV, KJG, KJV, NKJ, PNT, RWB, TNT, WEB, YLT

Versions with the short reading (addition absent): ASV, CEB, CJB, CSB, CSBO, DBY, BBE, ERV, ESV, GWN, LEW, MGI, MIT, MRD, NAB, NABO, NAS, NAU, NET, NIB, NIRV, NIV, NJB, NLT, NRS, RSV, TNIV

The pattern is consistent with the Luke 1:28 findings: older translations based on the Textus Receptus contain the addition; modern translations based on the critical text omit it.

Greek Critical Editions

All critical editions of the Greek New Testament choose the short reading:

  • Nestle-Aland NA27: κλῆρον,
  • UBS GNT: ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ βάλλοντες κλῆρον,
  • Tischendorf (TIS): δὲ αὐτὸν διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ βαλόντες κλῆρον,
  • Tregelles (TRG2): δὲ αὐτὸν διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, βάλλοντες κλῆρον·
  • Von Soden (VST): σταυρώσαντες δὲ… βάλλοντες κλῆρον,
  • Westcott-Hort: short reading

Not one critical edition retains the addition.

Manuscript Evidence — Full Witness Lists

Witnesses to the Short Reading (Deletion)

Greek manuscripts: Sinaiticus (4th c.), Vaticanus (4th c.), Bezae Greek (5th c.), Washingtonianus (5th c.), plus 19 other later Greek manuscripts (01, 02, 03, 05, 07, 09, 011, 013, 017, 019, 021, 028, 030, 032, 034, 041, 045, 2*, 33, 35, 157, 565, 579, 700, 1005, 1582c, 2358, 2372, MT, SBL)

Latin manuscripts: Bezae Latin (5th c.), Manuscript f (5th c.), Manuscript ff2 (5th c.), Manuscript g1 (9th c.), Vulgate

Syriac manuscripts: Peshitta (5th c.)

Other versions: Ethiopic manuscripts, Slavonic manuscripts, several patristic citations

Witnesses to the Long Reading (Addition)

Greek manuscripts: Delta (9th c.), Theta (9th c.), Family 13, four other late Greek manuscripts (037, 038, 1, 2c, 69, 118, 124, 346vid, 788, 1071, 1424, 1582*, f1, f13, TR)

Latin manuscripts: Manuscript A (4th–5th c.), Manuscript B (5th–6th c.), Manuscript C (11th–12th c.), Manuscript H (5th–6th c.), Manuscript Q (6th–7th c.), Manuscript R1 (6th–7th c.)

Coptic manuscripts: One Middle Egyptian Coptic manuscript, late in time

Other versions: One Armenian, one Ethiopic, one Georgian manuscript; several patristic citations

The contrast is clear: the deletion reading has 4th and 5th century support across multiple text families. The addition reading’s earliest Greek support is from the 9th century.

What the Scholars Said

Bruce Metzger

Bruce Metzger — A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.) “After κλῆρον the Textus Receptus, following D Q 0250 f1 f13 1424 al, adds ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου· Διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον (Ps 22:18). Although it could be argued that the passage fell out by reason of homoeoteleuton, the eye of the copyist passing from κλῆρον to κλῆρον, the Committee was impressed by the absence of the passage from early witnesses of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text (א A B D L W Γ P 33 71 157 565 700 892 c it ff2, l vg mss syrS, p, h mg, pal eth pers) and the likelihood that copyists were influenced by the parallel passage in John 19:24, with the phrase τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ (or διά) τοῦ προφήτου assimilated to Matthew’s usual formula of citation.”

Bruce Metzger — Textual Commentary, Matthew 27:35, committee note on deletion with manuscript evidence
Bruce Metzger — Textual Commentary, Matthew 27:35, committee note on deletion with manuscript evidence

Bruce Metzger — Matthew 27:35 committee comment image, showing the different readings and their witnesses
Bruce Metzger — Matthew 27:35 committee comment image, showing the different readings and their witnesses

Metzger’s committee acknowledges the homoeoteleuton possibility but rejects it — impressed instead by the breadth and quality of the deletion witnesses spanning both the Alexandrian and Western text families.

Philip Comfort

Philip Comfort — New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, p. 85 “Because of the excellent support for the shorter text, it must be judged that the long addition came from John 19:24, coupled with a typical Matthean introduction to a prophetic citation (see 4:14). It was natural for scribes, wanting to emulate Matthew’s style, to make this addition, because Matthew had a penchant for showing how various events in Jesus’ life and ministry fulfilled the Old Testament Scriptures (in this case, Ps 22:18, from the most quoted chapter in the NT concerning the crucifixion). Some of the same scribes also made this addition in Mark 15:27.”

Philip Comfort — NT Text and Translation Commentary, p. 85, Matthew 27:35 analysis
Philip Comfort — NT Text and Translation Commentary, p. 85, Matthew 27:35 analysis

Philip Comfort makes an important additional observation: some of the same scribes who added the prophecy clause to Matthew 27:35 also added it to Mark 15:27. This pattern of scribal harmonization across multiple Gospels further confirms that the addition was deliberate and motivated by the desire to import Matthean prophetic citation style into parallel passages.

Jay P. Green

Jay P. Green, Sr. — Textual and Translation Notes on the Gospels (1994) “Matthew 27:35. The quotation is from Psalm 22:18. The majority of the manuscripts do not have ‘that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.’”

Jesuit Translation — Critical Footnote

Jesuit (Catholic) Translation — p. 115, footnote 20 “Some manuscripts add, ‘That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: They shall divide my garments among them, and cast lots for my clothing’ (Psalm 22:19). There is no doubt that this addition was taken from John 19:24.”

Jesuit Fathers' Translation — footnote on Matthew 27:35 confirming the addition was taken from John 19:24
Jesuit Fathers' Translation — footnote on Matthew 27:35 confirming the addition was taken from John 19:24

The Jesuit translation — a Catholic critical edition — states plainly and without qualification: “There is no doubt that this addition was taken from John 19:24.”

CNTTS Critical Apparatus

The H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies critical apparatus lists the following witnesses:

Short reading witnesses: 01, 02, 03, 05, 07, 09, 011, 013, 017, 019, 021, 028, 030, 032, 034, 041, 045, 2*, 33, 35, 157, 565, 579, 700, 1005, 1582c, 2358, 2372, MT, SBL, f, ff2, g1

CNTTS critical apparatus — Matthew 27:35 manuscript witnesses listed for short and long readings
CNTTS critical apparatus — Matthew 27:35 manuscript witnesses listed for short and long readings

CNTTS apparatus continued — additional manuscript data for Matthew 27:35 deletion and addition readings
CNTTS apparatus continued — additional manuscript data for Matthew 27:35 deletion and addition readings

Long reading witnesses: 037, 038, 1, 2c, 69, 118, 124, 346vid, 788, 1071, 1424, 1582*, f1, f13, TR, a, b, c, h, q

CNTTS — long reading witness list for Matthew 27:35, all late manuscripts
CNTTS — long reading witness list for Matthew 27:35, all late manuscripts

Von Soden’s Critical Edition

Von Soden critical edition — Matthew 27:35, short reading chosen as original text
Von Soden critical edition — Matthew 27:35, short reading chosen as original text

Von Soden’s critical edition likewise adopts the short reading, consistent with every other critical edition.

Conclusion

The prophecy fulfillment clause in Matthew 27:35 — “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots” — was not written by the author of Matthew. It is absent from Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, and Washingtonianus — the five most important Greek manuscripts in existence. It is absent from the early Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Slavonic witnesses. Its earliest Greek manuscript support comes from the 9th century, five centuries after the deletion witnesses. Every critical edition rejects it. Every critical scholar — Metzger, Comfort, Green — confirms it was copied from John 19:24.

The Jesuit Catholic translation states it without qualification: “There is no doubt that this addition was taken from John 19:24.”

This is tahrifArabic: تحريف — scribal alteration of the biblical text. Here the addition was motivated by the desire to harmonize Matthew with John and to imitate Matthew’s characteristic style of linking events to Old Testament prophecy. — not by hostile outsiders but by Christian scribes, copying from one Gospel into another, motivated by piety and the desire to make the text conform to what they believed it should say.

سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي لَمْ يَتَّخِذْ وَلَدًا وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ شَرِيكٌ فِي الْمُلْكِ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ وَلِيٌّ مِّنَ الذُّلِّ وَكَبِّرْهُ تَكْبِيرًا

وَآخِرُ دَعْوَانَا أَنِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

2025 https://www.openislam.wiki/og/matthew-27-35-prophecy-fulfillment-addition-absent-from-the-five-most-important-manuscripts-and-rejected-by-all-critical-editions.png