Matthew does not name the prophet here. The quotation comes from Isaiah 7:14, and a small line of witnesses supplies Isaiah’s name. The Textus Receptus and the modern critical text both retain the anonymous formula.
“That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet.” — Matthew 1:22
The right name in a margin can still be the wrong word in the text.
Readers identify quotations. A teacher writes “Isaiah” beside “Behold, a virgin shall be with child,” and the note helps the next reader. In a later copy the name can move into the sentence. Nothing deceitful is required.
Matthew sometimes names a prophet and sometimes writes only “the prophet.” His anonymous formulas are complete. “Spoken of the Lord by the prophet” puts the source and instrument in order: the Lord speaks; the prophet carries his word.
The manuscript history confirms the danger of filling empty places. At Matthew 2:5, copies that name the prophet offer both Micah and Isaiah. At 13:35, a few name Isaiah where the quotation comes from a Psalm of Asaph. When an anonymous formula attracts different names, the disagreement points back to no name.
Keeping Matthew’s wording does not hide the Old Testament. Isaiah 7 is the source, and responsible exposition should say so. The distinction is between identifying a quotation in commentary and claiming that Matthew wrote the identifying noun.
The verse also shows why no printed edition should be treated as a contest in which every critical choice is shorter and every received choice longer. Here both leading forms agree against an addition. Ministerial textual criticism serves the text when it refuses even a true gloss.
The prophecy’s force remains: the virgin conceives, bears a son, and his name is Emmanuel. Matthew sees the birth of Christ as the fulfillment of the Lord’s word. The prophet’s identity comes from the canonical source; the Gospel’s exact sentence remains anonymous.
This difference also marks the boundary between text and apparatus. A modern editor may print a footnote, cross-reference, or section heading that says Isaiah. Those helps do not claim to be Matthew’s words. An ancient marginal note could serve the same honest purpose before a later copy blurred the boundary. The usefulness of the note does not decide the history of the sentence.
The anonymous formula has a theological strength of its own. Matthew begins with the Lord who spoke, not with the fame of the human messenger. The prophet is a true instrument; the prophecy is the Lord’s speech. Naming Isaiah in exposition honors the instrument, while retaining “the prophet” honors the form in which Matthew places him.
Cases like this should lower the temperature of textual debate. The Textus Receptus and Nestle–Aland agree, and both reject a reading that is factually correct outside the verse. Preservation is not the accumulation of true comments around Scripture. It is the keeping of the words that belong to Scripture where they belong.
Sources and further reading
- Isaiah 7:10–16; Matthew 1:18–25; 2:5; 13:35.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 1:22.
- John William Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.