Matthew 24:36-44 - Revision of the Textus Receptus

The gospel according to Matthew

Chapter 24

---

 

36. περι δε της ημερας εκεινης και [1] ωρας ουδεις οιδεν ουδε οι αγγελοι των ουρανων ει μη ο πατηρ μου μονος “But no one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven [2], but my[3] Father only.

37. ωσπερ δε αι ημεραι του νωε ουτως εσται και η παρουσια του υιου του ανθρωπου And[4] as the days of Noah were, so will also[5] be the coming of the Son of Man.

38. ωσπερ[6] γαρ ησαν εν ταις ημεραις ταις προ του κατακλυσμου τρωγοντες και πινοντες γαμουντες και εκγαμιζοντες[7] αχρι ης ημερας εισηλθεν νωε εις την κιβωτον For as in the[8] days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark,

39. και ουκ εγνωσαν εως ηλθεν ο κατακλυσμος και ηρεν απαντας ουτως εσται και η παρουσια του υιου του ανθρωπου and they did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so will also[9] be the coming of the Son of Man.

40. τοτε δυο εσονται εν τω αγρω ο[10] εις παραλαμβανεται και ο εις αφιεται Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken, and one will be left.

41. δυο αληθουσαι εν τω μυλωνι[11] μια παραλαμβανεται και μια αφιεται Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken, and one will be left.

42. γρηγορειτε ουν οτι ουκ οιδατε ποια ωρα ο κυριος υμων ερχεται Therefore watch, for you do not know in what hour[12] your Lord comes.

43. εκεινο δε γινωσκετε οτι ει ηδει ο οικοδεσποτης ποια φυλακη ο κλεπτης ερχεται εγρηγορησεν αν και ουκ αν ειασεν διορυγηναι[13] την οικιαν αυτου But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have watched, and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.

44. δια τουτο και υμεις γινεσθε ετοιμοι οτι η ωρα ου δοκειτε ο υιος του ανθρωπου ερχεται For this reason you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

---

[1] NA-Text and M-Text omit the definite article “της” before “hour”. The omission is supported by codices א, B, D and the Byzantine minuscules. The inclusion of the article is supported by codex Θ, Chrysostom and Theophylact. The omission of the second article would emphasize more the unity of the day and the hour as aspects of the same event, which is true here because the day and the hour certainly intersect at a certain point in time, but as the parallel passage in Mark 13:32 contains the article before both the day and the hour, this nuance then is not a necessary part of what the apostles wanted to communicate. The inclusion of the article may be due to harmonization with the parallel passage in Mark or the omission just a natural way a scribe would have understood it as components of the same reality in his mind, thus omitting the article. Both the patriarchal text and WPF³⁵ omit the article in this verse. The inclusion of the article by harmonization with the parallel passage is more probable and is more aligned with the evidence. The article has then been removed from the Greek text.

[2] NA-Text adds “nor the Son” after angels of heaven. The inclusion of this additional clause is supported by codices א*, א^2vid, B, D, Θ, Φ, family of manuscripts ƒ¹³, minuscules 28, 1195, 1230*, 1505, 2680, 13 old Latin codices (it^a, it^aur, it^b, it^c, it^d, (it^e), it^f, it^ff1, it^ff2, it^h, it^l, it^q and it^r1), the Palestinian Syriac, the Fayyumic Coptic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Georgian¹ and Georgian^B versions, Fortunatianus and Chrysostom. The omission is supported by codices א¹, E, F, G, H, K, L, W, Y, Δ, Π, Σ, 0133, family of manuscripts ƒ¹, 22, 33, 157, 180, 205, 565, 579, 597, 700, 892, 1006, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1216, 1230^c, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1253, 1292, 1342, 1344, 1365, 1424, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174, the Byzantine minuscules, 2 old Latin codices (it^g1 and it^l), the Syriac Sinaiticus, the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac, the Sahidic Coptic, the middle Ӕgyprian Coptic, the Bohairic Coptic and the Georgian^A version, Origen, Jerome, Basil, John of Damascus, Euthymius and Theophylact. Jerome commenting on this passage 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”. Ambrose believed that “nor the Son” was an Arian interpolation in the scriptures, but he seems to be referring to Mark 13:32, not Matthew (On the Christian faith, Book 5, Ch. 16.192). He then goes on to expound the meaning of “nor the Son” on the supposition that the clause was original. Epiphanius did not question the originality of “nor the Son” and he goes on to explain the meaning of the sentence (Panarion, Against the Arian Nuts, 69:43,1-5). We notice that the fathers were capable of explaining this clause from a Trinitarian perspective without having to remove it from the scriptures. Athanasius addresses the clause in his work “Four discourses against the Arians” (Discourse 3, chapter 28.42-53) stating that the ignorance is according to his human nature, but in his Divine nature he knows all things as the Word. In his homily 77, Chrysostom shows similar passages in the Old Testament that seemed to imply that God was ignorant about what was going on in a particular situation, a similar argument used by Ambrose. Augustine had no problem with the clause in his exposition on the 10^th Psalm, nor Hilary, known as the Athanasius of the West, on his book on the Trinity (Book 1). So, the idea that the omission in Matthew is motivated by a Trinitarian theology is not a strong argument because the church has preserved “nor the Son” in Mark 13:32 both in the Latin and in the Greek scriptures and also because the fathers did not have to remove it from the scriptures in order to defend orthodoxy. The clause was probably added here in Matthew from the parallel passage in Mark because the fathers were anxious to deal with the Arian challenge. It is hard to imagine that they would let go of the opportunity afforded by this text to instruct and protect their congregations from the Arian heresy. Thus, the addition would have been rather circumstantial and for the benefit of the Christian flock. Origen’s manuscript in the 200’s did not have the clause, precisely because the Arian controversy had not yet started. Lastly, the Diatessaron should not be cited as an early witness for the inclusion of the phrase here because it cannot be proven that the sentence in that harmony was pulled from the gospel of Matthew.

[3] NA-Text and VgSt omit “my” and render “the Father”. The omission of the personal pronoun is supported by codices א, B, D, Θ, Chrysostom and Jerome. The inclusion is supported by the Byzantine text and Theophylact and it must be maintained here for consistency’s sake with the previous text choice. The phrase “But the Father only” is possibly an adjustment in the text for having added “nor the Son” so as to create the parallel “The Father / The Son”.

[4] NA-Text reads “For”.

[5] See note in verse 27.

[6] NA-Text reads “ως”, which can mean the same “as”.

[7] NA-Text reads “γαμιζοντες”, which means the same thing in this context.

[8] NA-Text adds “those” (Gr.: εκειναις) in brackets for a possible reading “in those days”.

[9] See note in verse 27.

[10] NA-Text omits the definite article before the one who will be taken and again before the one who will be left, which is possibly a harmonization with the missing articles in the following verse.

[11] NA-Text reads “μυλω”, which can mean the same thing and is supported by codices א, B, K, L, W, Γ, Δ, 067, 0133 and minuscule 33. The TR is supported by codices D, Θ, both family of manuscripts ƒ¹ and ƒ¹³, minuscules 28, 565, 700, 892, 1010, 1241, 1424 and the Byzantine minuscules, Chrysostom and Theophylact. Both are well supported.

[12] Or “day” (NA-Text), which has an excellent support in the manuscript tradition.

[13] NA-Text reads “διορυχθηναι” (aorist instead of second aorist)

----

Notes:

1. Text in red letters are places where the original reading in the Textus Receptus has been revised and corrected;

2. The English translation used as a reference is the WEB brought to conformity as literal as possible to the Textus Receptus. The end product though is not the WEB or a revised WEB and it should not be called WEB. The content of this post is freely available to everyone and it is not supposed to be copyrighted;

3. TR: Textus Receptus. This text is not copyrighted;

4. NA-Text: Nestle-Aland text commonly known as critical text;

5. M-Text: Majority Text;

6. VgSt: Vulgate of Stuttgart;  

7. WPF³⁵: Wilbur Pickering-family 35;

8. PT: Patriarchal Text, also known as Patriarchal Greek New Testament, published by the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

9. The creator of the variant apparatus available in the VarApp kindly gave me permission to freely use the information contained in the material he put together.

---

To God all the glory for the preservation of the scriptures! He reigns!