Matthew 24:36 - Alexandrian inclusion of "nor the Son"

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Matthew 24:36 (AV)
But of that day and hour knoweth no man,
no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - 2015-01
James Snapp
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT..._id=748140715272931&offset=0&total_comments=9

Dan Wallace offers some thoughts about "nor the Son" in Matthew 24:36 in a lecture at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42L0WkMV_q8 .
Almost an hour on this one-phrase variant.

MYPOSTS

Steven Avery
.
the YouTube poster has the James White "Comman Johanneum" ailment.
🙂

.
And is a typical confusion in the note referring to " the original manuscripts".
.
=======================
.
Matthew 24:36 (AV)
But of that day and hour knoweth no man,
no, not the angels of heaven,
but my Father only.
.
Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man,
no, not the angels which are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father.
.
=======================
Looking at the very clear Jerome commentary, the interesting question is whether the omission got to Vaticanus from the Latin, or whether an Alexandrian omission was translated to the Latin, or whether these are unrelated omissions.
.
The interest of Wallace seems to be caused by the emphasis given to the omission by Ehrman's use of it as "key proof-text" on orthodox corruption, at 8:15. Which is clearly nonsensical in terms of the Origen omission, meaning the origin must be before "proto-orthodoxy", and Ehrman tries to fake the omission as beginning in the late 2nd century, countering "the rise of the adoptionist heresy".
.
Wallace does get around to this Ehrman nonsense at 36:40
"the time proposed for the rise of the omission will not work".
.
Wallace shows, as often, that two sides of doctrinal tampering claims can be made, depending on what you are trying to support.
.
Gives a few refs, Sadler, Plummer et al, starting about 1890.
.
ECW with the text is 15:20, Irenaeus. Origen "no awareness of the shorter reading", Hilary, and Chrysostom. Jerome knowing of mss with the phrase.
.
Yet the LaParola apparatus has Origen only on the side of omission, and Jerome definitely says he and Pierius of Alexandria (c. 280) support the omission in their Greek texts.
.
Funny to hear Wallace give a milquetoast nod to the Byzantine mss 21:55 "by far the largest group of witnesses..." "reaches back at least to the 4th century".
.
Wallace has the Vulgate omit, 22:35, based on Western and Alexandrian mss, when more likely it was simply the textual decision of Jerome who discusses the Greek mss. of Origen and Pierius. He places the Vulgate as "late 4th, early 5th" when we know the exact year 383 AD. for the gospels.
.
Diatessaron at 23:45 for omission, LaParola has only Armenian Diatessaron, that for inclusion.
.
Gregory of Nyssa 25:05 for omission, missing in apparatus
.
The Ambrose comment 24:45 should be looked at to see if he is simply following the Jerome comment 25:20. He does not point out that Jerome mentions mss of Origen and Pierius.
Lardner
http://books.google.com/books?id=MK8HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA174
.
Hug mentions that Jerome twice refs Origen mss
http://books.google.com/books?id=zZQvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA117
.
Nestle
http://books.google.com/books?id=RRdVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA187
... it is a strange fact that the words which Jerome says were omitted in Origen's exemplar are found in a certain passage of his works also extant only in Latin, and there expounded so fully that there cannot be the slightest doubt that he had them in his text, and, moreover, had no conception of their omission in other copies. What explanation, if any, can be given of this fact we need not pause to enquire. Nor need we take up the question where Jerome obtained access to the exemplars of Pierius. I suppose it would be in Caesarea, where he also saw the (Bible?) volumes of Origen transcribed by Pamphilus with his own hand, and actually obtained possession of his copy of the commentary on the Minor Prophets. Even supposing that what is meant by exetnplaria Adaniantii is not really a recension of the text of the Bible but simply the copy that Origen used most or used last, that copy might have been authoritative for Pamphilus if not for Eusebius, and so far, therefore, it becomes necessary for us to try and discover the Origenic text in the New Testament as well as in the Old.
.
Metzger on Origen exemplars
http://books.google.com/books?id=3pM3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA88
p. 88-91
.
26:50 - back to school for the probability text, Wallace says external alone would lead to B- or C+ for inclusion.
.
27:00 - "best explains" mind-reading nonsense "basic principle of textual criticism
.
Hort genealogical nonsense 27:10 "achilles heel" per Wallace
27:45 .. Byzantine textform initiated before Vaticanus.
continues with milquetoast affirmation of Byzantine
28:25 - Lucian recension
31:00 - cases of shorter Byz readings.
31:25 - Philippians 1:14
32:25 - "D rating, the lowest possible level of certainty" ! amazing
32:30 - Johannes ..(who?) on shorter Byz 32:55 "eastern non-interpolaions
33:05 - DTS. W.-H. J. Wu, “A Systematic Analysis of the Shorter Readings in the Byzantine Text of the Synoptic Gospels” , 2002, pro Byz on Matthew24:36
.
33:40 - "either the omitting or the adding of the words is surely intentional" - (this is total nonsense blunder)
then goes into decent-sounding grammatical stuff
39:15 - if proto-orthodox corruption - why maintained in Mark (note this refutes the Wallace "surely intentional" nonsense as well) -
39:45 - no evidence of ECW concern of doctrinal until 4th century - i.e Basil who reinterpreted - and then others
Adam G Messer (see next post)
43:05 - Mark 10:17-18 good thing for eternal life - Matthew 19:16-17
44:00 - myth of one type of orthodox impulse harmonization.
45:15 - "doctrinal agendas were not driving"
Again, this contradicts "surely intentional"
45:40 - Matthew Christology higher than Mark in parallel passages - (49:15 volition, power, knowledge power etc)
examples given
46:25 - Mark 1:12 - Matthew 4:1 - drive go to the wilderness
46:50 - Abiathar as high priest - Mark 2:26 Matthew 12:4 omits Abiathar (this is a Critical Text ultra-minority blunder)
Mark 3:10 - Matthew 12:15 - healed many or all
47:30 Mark 5:30-32 Mathew 9:18-26 - "who touched me"
47:55 - Mark 6:5 Matthew 13:58 - not do any miracle ..except
Mark 6:6 amazed at unbelief omitted by Matthew
48:25 - Mark 8:22-26 - healing w spittle - omitted by Matthew
.
50:15 - Matthew "changes Marks wording", assuming Markan priority nonsense (ongoing presumption)
52:20 - back to Ehrman - "theological motives were more subtle.." (Wallace) Ehrman error from the greater to the lesser.
.
Nothing about Ehrman's presupposition that the church was originally adoptionist / ebionite.
.
=======================
Steven Avery

Steven Avery
.
Misc. Erasmus Krans, Powell, ACCS, Snapp - Vulgate direction
.
========================
.
ECW supporting omission, per Laparola.
.
Origen Pierius (according to Jerome) (Adamantius according to Jerome) Basil Phoebadius Didymus (dub) Jerome Paulinus-Nola Ps-Athanasius John-Damascus Euthymius Greek mss according to Ambrose
.
========================
.
[textualcriticism] Mark 1:41 again, and A Closer Look at Matthew 24:36
James Snapp - Jan 19, 2006
.
========================
.
We discussed this in the context of the fascinating topic of what type of Greek mss were used by Jerome (where Wallace simply said Alexandrian and Western, however the issue is in what directions the Old Latin was corrected, if you can tell.)
.
The first post here has the Matthew 23:46 references, which are generally in the thread.
.
[TC-Alternate-list] Jerome's use of Origen's mss - Galatians 3:1 and Matthew 24:36
Steven Avery - July 18, 2011
.
[TC-Alternate-list] Jerome's "fountain" of Greek MSS - Old Latin modified in the Vulgate
.
[TC-Alternate-list] Jerome's Vulgate, verses updating Vetus Latina - Galatians 3:1
.
========================
.
Origen, Hilary and Chrysostom
commentaries on Matthew.
ACCS - Matthew 14-28
edited by Manlio Simonetti
books.google.com

Matthew 14-28

The Gospel of Matthew stands out as a favorite biblical text among patristic commentators. The patristic commentary tradition on Matthew begins with Origen's pioneering twenty-five-volume commentary on the First Gospel in the mid-third century. In the Latin-speaking West, where commentaries did...
books.google.com
.
========================
.
The Textual Problem Of "οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός" In Matthew 24:36
Charles Powell
.
Probably closer to Ehrman error than Wallace milquetoast!
.
Note the hokey Disputatio Contra Arium reference handwave, one of the heavenly witnesses Greek evidences that Wallace omits.
.
========================
.
Highly Uncertain Variants
.
textus corruptus editions
include - Bover HG (Huck/Greeven) Lach Tisch UBS Weiss WH
omit - Merk Soden Treg Vogels
.
===========
.
Erasmus - Beyond What is Written, Jan Krans p. 42
.
Erasmus annotation in 1516 says omission is easier, inauthentic.
.
"Erasmus suspects that the words have been omitted by someone who wanted to deprive adherents to the Arian heresy of a possible proof-text."
.
===========
.
References about Arian usage (as said by Jerome), Conybeare and more:
.
The 'Laterculus Malalianus' and the School of Archbishop Theodore (2007)
Jane Stevenson
books.google.com

The 'Laterculus Malalianus' and the School of Archbishop Theodore

The Laterculus Malalianus, a historical exegesis of the life of Christ, appears to be the only complete text to survive from the hand of Archbishop Theodore at Canterbury. Its language, style and intellectual frame of reference are thus of great importance for establishing the nature and scope...
books.google.com
No photo description available.
11y
Share
Edited
Steven Avery
.
Given by Isaac Newton as one of his orthodox corruptions.
can look for footnotes.
.
Newton has also: Theophylact, Augustin
.
Isaac Newton (c. 1690)
Another corruption of the same kind I meet with in Matthews Gospel, chap. 24 v. 36. For there Origen Chrysostom, Theophylact, Hilary, & Augustin in their commentaries on Matthew, & Cyril in his Thesaurus, read: But of that day & hour knoweth no man neither the Angels in heaven nor the Son but the father only. So that this was the received reading in the first ages, & no doubt is genuine because Mark follows it, & his Gospel in chap. 13, from vers 14 to verse 33, in which this occurs, is a translation of Matthews Hebrew without adding or altering any thing. Tis also still retained in some Greek & Latine copies & in the Ethiopic version to this day. But the other Versions & the generality of the Greek & Latine MSS now extant want the words neither the Son, & these words seem to have been struck out first in the Greek MSS & then in the Latine ones in the heat of the 2[22] Homousian controversy. For the Eusebians then urged them & Ambrose makes this Answer in behalf of the Catholicks. p[23] It is written, say the Eusebians, But of that day & hour knoweth no man, neither the Angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the father only. First the ancient Greek books have not, that neither the Son knows. But it is no wonder if they falsified this place also who have interpoled the divine scriptures. But why they added it is discovered while they apply it to the explication of so great sacrilege. Yet suppose it written by the Evangelists &c. By these words of Ambrose it appears that they endeavoured to strike out of both the Gospels this clause, nor the son, tho the attempt succeeded only in Matthew's; and that the clause was still in most of the Latine MSS because Ambrose in arguing against it appeals from them to the Greek. But whilst he saith, The ancient Greek MSS want it, & yet living always amongst the Latines, had no opportunity of consulting with his own eyes the MSS of the Greek Church, he seems to have taken up with the relation of Jerome who had newly sent his Commentary on Matthew to Pope Damasus to be published in the West, having writ it at the request of that Pope to inform the Latines wherein their Versions differed from the Greek. For Jerome in his Commentary on this place relates the matter thus. q[24] In some Latin books there is added, Nor the son, whilst in the Greek ones, & chiefly in the exemplars of Origen & Pierius, this is not found written. But because it is read in some, it seems that we are to discuss it. Arius & Eunomius rejoyce as if the ignorance of the master were the glory of the disciples, & say; He who knows & he who knows not, cannot be equal. &c. Here Jerome confesses that it was read in some Greek MSS & this reading insisted on by Arius & Eunomius, & only affirms that it was wanting in others, & chiefly in those copied after the editions of Origen & Pierius. He does not say that it was wanting in the very MSS which Origen & Pierius used, (for its very improbable that he should meet with those,) but in the Exemplars or Editions of those men, meaning the books copied after their MSS. For that he uses the word Exemplar in this sense is plain by his Preface to this his Commentary on Matthew where he saith concerning the disagreeing editions of the Latin Versions: r[25] For if we may trust the Latin Exemplars, let them answer which. For there are almost as many Exemplars as Books." So then the ancient Greek books of Ambrose are not all the ancient books, but only the Exemplars of Origen, and Pierius; nor yet ancient books, but such as had been transcribed since the time of those two men: no nor sincere copies of their originals, but such as had been corrupted in the (1)[26] homousian controversy. For (s)[27] Origen himself, as I told you, read the clause. I doubt whether there were so many books corrupted as Ierome represents. For he wrote his whole commentary on Matthew upon short warning, within the space of 14 days, as he tells us, & so had no time to collate many MSS.
.
=====================================
11y
Share
Edited
Steven Avery
.
Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers - Volume I
Amy M. Donaldson
Jerome also cites the evidence of previous fathers much more briefly. .... on another occasion, the patristic evidence, while persuasive to Jerome, is not enough to warrant overlooking the variant. At Matt 24:36 (§39), Jerome notes that some Latin copies (in quibusdam latinis codicibus) add "nor the Son," whereas the Greek copies, and most of all Origen and Pierius (in graecis et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus), lack the variant. 46 But then Jerome explains that because the phrase is found in some copies, it seems worth discussing it. As he continues, his real reason becomes clear: this phrase has been much abused by heretics such as Arius, and so even though Jerome finds the MS evidence to weigh against including the variant, he cannot pass it by without discussion. He then essentially validates the reading by arguing for an orthodox understanding of it. based rather on the internal evidence (other scriptural proofs and the rule of faith).
46 Metzger. "St Jerome's Explicit References." 182.
===============================
(more can be added from Vol 1)
===============================
Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers - Volume II (2009)
Amy Donaldson
.
Ambrose
It is written, they say: "But of that day and that hour no one knows, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." First of all the ancient Greek manuscripts do not contain the words, "neither the Son (knows)." But it is not to be wondered at if they who have interpolated the sacred Scriptures have also falsified this passage. The reason for which it seems to have been inserted is perfectly plain, so long as it is applied to unfold such blasphemy.
(NPNF 2.10:308 [modified])
.
Amy
Against the Arians, Ambrose argues for the omnipotence of Christ, first asking whether they might have modified this passage to their own ends. He refers to the authority of the Greek MSS, which, to his knowledge, omit the phrase in question. However, he then proceeds to assume the originality of this reading and explains how it could be properly understood. Since the title "son" encompasses both Son of God and Son of Man. the statement can apply to the Son of Man. or Christ's human nature. Only insofar as Jesus was Son of Man could he be thus ignorant, for the Son of God knows all.
.
===========
.
Notice here the Arius and Eumonius refs.
.
Jerome
"But of that day and hour, no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, save only the Father alone. " In some Latin manuscripts is added: "nor the Son." though in the Greek copies, and especially those of Adamantius [i.e., Origen] and of Pierius, this addition is not found. Yet because it is read in some, it seems necessary to discuss it. (FC 117:277-78)
.
Amy
After only brief comments on Matt 24:30-35, Jerome launches into a much longer discussion of v. 36. He cites the lemma and adds that some Latin MSS also contain the phrase "nor the Son." Even though a number of Greek copies, as well as Origen and Picrius, do not contain the addition, Jerome feels he must address it because its inclusion in some Greek copies has caused the heretics, most notably Arius and Eunomius, to use this phrase in their arguments. Jerome uses scriptural citations from John 1:3 and Matt 11:27 to argue that Christ knows all things, and moreover that he has knowledge of greater things so he would not be ignorant of what is lesser. However, while Jerome says that he has adequately defended the knowledge of the Son, he must still explain how the
text could say that the Son's knowledge is limited. To do so, Jerome appeals to Col 2:3,
.
===========

MORE

============================================
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jerome stays Greek mss do not have "not the Son" which is in Latin mss

Facebook- NT Textual Criticism - 2026-01
Demian Moscofian
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/25961632083497113/

Just a curious observation… Commenting on the addition “nor the Son” found in codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in Matthew 24:36, Jerome says the following: “Some Latin manuscripts add “nor the Son” that is found neither in the Greek manuscripts, nor the writings of Origen and Pierius”. He wrote his commentary on Matthew in 398 and I think that it is fair to assume that he was not aware of the existence of those 2 Greek codices in the 4th century.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top