The Textual Problem Of "οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός" In Matthew 24:36

Appendix II
Table Of Matthew/Mark Scribal Harmonizations

¹ Mark 13:32 has ἢ τῆς (Å D W Θ f1 f13 157 pm it syrs, p sa bopt read καί) instead of καί, ἐν οὐρανῷ instead of τῶν οὐρανῶν, and lacks μόνος (Δ Θ Φ 13. 565 pc sa bopt add μόνος). These differences can be significant in determining which passage the church fathers are quoting. Of these three differences the reflection of μόνος should be the deciding factor. The reflection of καί is virtually negligible since the church fathers usually reflect καί rather than ἢ τῆς even when its clear the father is citing Mark 13:32. Note that these differences have been virtually ignored in Alexander Roberts, & James Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers, vols. 1-10  (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1867-72; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994); Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vols. 1-14 (New York: Christian Literature, 1886-90; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994); Philip Schaff, & Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vols. 1-14 (New York: Christian Literature, 1890-1900; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994) despite the fact that the editors and translators were aware of the textual problem.

² Adversus haereses 2.28.6 omits the reference to the angels, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν. Irenaeus may be quoting from memory.

³ De Principiis 198E.2.6.1.139.17

⁴ Ancoratus 22.4.3; Panerion 3.165; 3.191.8

⁵ Commentarii in Zacharian 5.78.6 (οὐτέ instead of οὐδέ)

⁶ Responsiones ad Tiberium diaconum sociosque suos 583.19; Trin. 75.20.57; 75.368.46; 75.377.34t

⁷ Hom. Matt. 77.1. Chrysostom omits μόνος but retains τῶν οὐρανῶν. It may be that he actually has Mark 13:32 in mind even though the homily is on Matt 24:32-36.

⁸ Trin. 1.29; 9.2, 58 all reflect ἐν οὐρανῷ rather than τῶν οὐρανῶν. He also may be quoting from memory. Whether he has Matt 24:36 or Mark 13:32 is another question. Because he reflects Matthew’s μόνος, it is more likely that he unconsciously assimilated Matthew to Mark.

⁹ Fid. Grat. 5.5.192 also reflects ἐν οὐρανῷ rather than τῶν οὐρανῶν.

¹⁰ Enarrationes in Psalmos 38.6.1.9

¹¹ Commentarii in euangelium Matthaei 590.4.591

¹² It is possible that the Latin text of Origen represents the Caesarean textttype, which would make the distribution over three regions. If Chrysostom is referring to Matt 24:36, then the distribution is in the fourth century over all four regions.

¹³ Disputatio contra Arium 26.472.52. This text is supposedly a report of Athanasius’ debates with the Arians at the council of Nicea. document is most likely spurious because Athanasius was only a deacon under Alexander, bishop of Alexander, and it is unlikely that he would have even been given the opportunity to speak, much less have a long-winded debate with Arius. It is even disputed that Athanasius was even at the Council of Nicea.

¹⁴ Trin. 39.917.8. The text also has ἢ τῆς instead of καί.

¹⁵ Commentarii in euangelium Matthaei 590.4.590

¹⁶ Commentarii in euangelium Matthaei 590.4.591

¹⁷ Fid. Grat. 5.5.192

¹⁸ Adversus Arium et Sabellium de patre et filio 3.76.26. His text reads: Οὐδεὶς οἶδὲ τὴν συντελεστικὴν ἡμέραν καὶ τὴν ὥραν, οὐδ᾿ οἱ ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, ἐν τοὶς κατὰ Μάρκον εἰρημένοις, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ μόνος… Gregory cites Matthew but attributes οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός to Mark.

¹⁹ Epistula 236.28.

²⁰ Again, if Origen’s text is Caesarean, then the distribution is early over all four regions.

²¹ While υἱός and πατήρ commonly are denoted with nomina sacra, both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus spell the terms out; therefore, their example is followed.

²² The first corrector drew a line over oudeouios to denote that he believed the phrase should not be present. The second corrector apparently attempted to erase the line to show his judgment.

²³ cf. Daniel B. Wallace, “The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text: A Review Article,” GTJ 4, no. 1 (Spring 1983): 125. See also Henry Alford, Revised by Everett F. Harrison, The Greek New Testament, vol  1 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1958), 245; W. C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Gospel according to S. Matthew, 3rd ed., ICC, ed. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, & C. A. Briggs  (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), 260; Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (London: Robert Scott, 1915; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), 339.

²⁴ See Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC, ed. David S. Dockery, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 365; Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: The Churchbook: Matthew 13-28, vol. 2 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 879-80; D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in EBC, ed. Frank E. Gabelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 508; W. D. Davies, and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Gospel according to Matthew, vol.3, XIX-XXVIII, ICC, ed.  J. A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), 377; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 491-92; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 33B (Dallas: Word, 1995), 709.

²⁵ Blomberg, Matthew, 365 argues that it was omitted by scribes with a docetic christology.

²⁶ Apparently, Metzger believes οὐδὲ…οὐδὲ…must be a correlative pair. But this is not at all necessary. Matthew uses the single οὐδέ with the meaning “not even” in several places (6:28; 21:32; 25:45; 27:14). It also makes good theological sense because it was commonly believed that God kept counsel with the holy angels, although he did not necessarily reveal the hour of Israel’s deliverance (4 Ezra 4:52; b. Sanh.99a). Curiously, Carson, “Matthew,” 508 believes that Metzger’s grammatical argument is the strongest for the inclusion, although he does not explain why.

²⁷ The table records probable scribal harmonizations between Matthew and Mark. These are not all the possible harmonizations, but it does include most of probable ones that involve the major manuscripts.

²⁸ See footnote 1.

²⁹ Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianios 3.28.42-50.

³⁰ Athanasius, Disputatio contra Arium 27.473.52-54.

³¹ Gregory of Nazianzus, De filio 30.4.15-16.

³² Basil, Epistula 236.

³³ John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 77.1.

³⁴ Ambrose, Fid. Grat. 5.5.192.

³⁵ Hilary of Poitiers, Trin. 9.58-66.

³⁶ Augustine, Trin. 1.12.

³⁷ BDF §448.8; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 1024-25; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, 4th ed. (trans. Joseph Smith: Rome: Pontificii Istituti Biblici, 1963), §468-71.

³⁸ For further discussion of εἰ μή clauses see Charles E. Powell, “The Semantic Relationship between the Protasis and the Apodosis of New Testament Conditional Constructions” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2000), 180-207; “Εἰ Μή Clauses in the New Testament: Interpretation and Translation” (paper presented at the national annual meeting of ETS, 2000), 1-17.

³⁹ Other examples include Matt 12:39; 15:24; 16:4; Luke 11:29; John 3:13; 10:10; Rom 7:7; 13:8; 1 Cor 1:14; 2:2; 12:3, 5, 13; Gal 1:7; Eph 4:8; 1 John 2:22; Rev 2:17; 14:3; 19:12.

⁴⁰ Πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ, οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα τις ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν βούληται ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι. All things have been handed over to me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him.

⁴¹ Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 33A (Dallas: Word, 1993), 320.

⁴² Several scholars recognize the tension and argue that it is a deep, intimate knowledge between the Father and the Son that is exclusive. While this is close to the point, it still suffers from the assumption that εἰ μή must mean “except.” See Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, Pillar Commentary  (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 293-94; John Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, WBC, ed. Glenn A. Hubbard (Dallas: Word Books, 1993),  273-75.

⁴³ J. K. Baima, “Making Valid Conclusions from Greek Conditional Sentences” (Th.M. thesis: Grace Theological Seminary, 1986), 64-65.

⁴⁴ Morris, Matthew, 366-67.

⁴⁵ Baima, “Making Valid Inferences,” 62-63.

⁴⁶ Basil, Epistula 236.

⁴⁷ The text reads περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὔτε οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾿' οὐδ᾿ ἄν ὁ Υἰός ἒγνω, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ. By adding ἀλλά and  ἄν ἔγνω to the apodosis, the implied verb in the protasis is then understood to be ἔγνω rather than οἶδεν.

⁴⁸ The reason they chose to drop οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός rather than μόνος may be to preserve Matthew’s style of using μόνος, especially in εἰ μή clauses in the exclusive sense. See Matt 12:4; 17:8; 21:19. The reasons for the omission of οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός in Mark 13:32 by X and a few other Greek MSS may be either accidental, or due to theological motivation because of not being familiar with the preeminent understanding of εἰ μή clauses, or possibly due to harmonizing the text to Matt 24:36, since more than likely those manuscripts did not include the phrase there either.