Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
> “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” — Matthew 24:36
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
Historical annotation witness
Erasmus’s Annotationes
Erasmus’s printed Greek text, his Latin annotation, and the Research Center’s evaluation are distinct evidence. Each edition remains separately identified because Erasmus revised the Annotationes across his five editions.
Not yet assessed. No inference about Erasmus’s silence has been made. A Latin annotation and translation will appear here only after an edition and exact locus have been verified.
The Erasmus annotation audit has not yet been completed for this locus. Do not infer from this status that Erasmus was silent.
Westminster and Dutch annotation witnesses
Westminster Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
Dutch Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
No distinct NA28 reading has been entered; the received and NA28 texts may agree at this unit.
Translation or explanation
The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of the variation unit. The note grounds the relevant decision in the weight and distribution of external attestation, a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, the likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion, the comparative difficulty of the readings; the printed confidence rating represented here is {C}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., note on Matthew 24:36
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
UBS6 retains the NA28 / UBS5 Greek main-text wording in Matthew, so no main-text change is shown for this passage. The separate project ledger covers Acts, Mark, and Revelation.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony
Exact proposition affected
The identity and divine sonship of Jesus Christ.
Doctrinal analysis
Modern editors usually print it and argue that scribes removed it because they feared its use against the deity of Christ. The doctrine of Christ does not require us to deny Mark. That doctrinal answer means we need not choose Matthew’s text from fear.
Controlled source-list matches
Doctrinal significance and Westminster use
This passage is listed in one or both controlling research files. Their claims are reported with exact source identity and confessional use; list membership does not by itself establish the original reading or the Research Center’s final entailment.
Westminster proof-text listMatthew 24:36
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standards
Seth Stark — supplied source file pp. 22–23
Textual wording marked in the source
Critical/ESV side: nor the Son
Westminster doctrines and propositions supported
WCF 33.3 — Of the Last Judgment
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.
WLC 16 — How did God create angels?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- excelling in knowledge
WLC 88 — What shall immediately follow after the resurrection?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord. Source marks this portion as relying only on this cited proof text
Editorial qualification: This establishes a confessional proof-text and reception connection. It does not by itself establish the original reading, and its English-version comparison must be checked against the Greek variation unit.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 24:36, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. At verse 36, the critical text adds “neither the Son” after the angels; the Textus Receptus does not. At verse 42, the received text says the disciples do not know what hour their Lord comes, while the critical text says what day. Modern editors usually print it and argue that scribes removed it because they feared its use against the deity of Christ.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 24:36 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony: Modern editors usually print it and argue that scribes removed it because they feared its use against the deity of Christ. The doctrine of Christ does not require us to deny Mark. That doctrinal answer means we need not choose Matthew’s text from fear.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
In Matthew it has strong early support but is absent from the received church text and from many other witnesses. The words move within Matthew’s witnesses, and their secure place in Mark gave every reader a ready source. Weighing the Synoptic source is more exact than assigning a motive to every shorter witness.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Modern editors usually print it and argue that scribes removed it because they feared its use against the deity of Christ. Copyists could also add the phrase from the near-identical saying in Mark. The received omission, the Synoptic source for addition, and the long ecclesiastical reading favor the Textus Receptus here.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
At verse 36, the critical text adds “neither the Son” after the angels; the Textus Receptus does not. At verse 42, the received text says the disciples do not know what hour their Lord comes, while the critical text says what day. In Matthew it has strong early support but is absent from the received church text and from many other witnesses.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 24:36. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
At verse 36, the critical text adds “neither the Son” after the angels; the Textus Receptus does not. At verse 42, the received text says the disciples do not know what hour their Lord comes, while the critical text says what day. Modern editors usually print it and argue that scribes removed it because they feared its use against the deity of Christ.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 1 passage-specific note attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster StandardsWestminster proof-text and translation comparison
Seth Stark — supplied PDF pp. 22–23
At Matthew 24:36, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.”” with the ESV/critical-text wording “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”” and associates the passage with WCF 33.3, WLC 16.
Editorial use: This establishes a confessional proof-text and reception connection. It does not by itself establish the original reading, and its English-version comparison must be checked against the Greek variation unit.
Conclusion
That is why doctrinal discomfort cannot serve as the sole account of omission. Some scribes may have feared the phrase; others copied it faithfully in Mark. Its appearance in Matthew can arise from the same faithful memory. Weighing the Synoptic source is more exact than assigning a motive to every shorter witness.
“Hour” also resists timetable religion. Watchfulness is not the skill of narrowing prophecy to a date others missed. It is faithful service when the master seems delayed: feeding the household, refusing abuse, and remaining ready. The unknown hour measures character in ordinary time.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Canonical-status rule: Physical printing is not canonical inclusion. If an edition prints a passage in double brackets while judging it secondary or non-original, it disagrees with the received text concerning the identity and extent of inspired Scripture.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Matthew 24:36, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” — Matthew 24:36”. The assessed critical reading is “The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Matthew 24:36, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” — Matthew 24:36”. The assessed critical form is “The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Matthew 24:36, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” — Matthew 24:36”. The assessed critical reading is “The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standardssupplied PDF pp. 22–23 — Westminster proof-text and translation comparison
- German Bible Society — The Sixth Edition of the Greek New TestamentCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- INTF — Online Tools for the ECMCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” — Matthew 24:36
Two time words are disputed in Christ’s watchfulness discourse. At verse 36, the critical text adds “neither the Son” after the angels; the Textus Receptus does not. At verse 42, the received text says the disciples do not know what hour their Lord comes, while the critical text says what day.
The first reading has drawn far more heat because it touches Christ’s knowledge. Heat is a poor substitute for exegesis.
“Neither the Son”
Mark 13:32 contains the phrase in every standard text. In Matthew it has strong early support but is absent from the received church text and from many other witnesses. Modern editors usually print it and argue that scribes removed it because they feared its use against the deity of Christ.
That motive is possible, but it cannot be read from parchment. Copyists could also add the phrase from the near-identical saying in Mark. The words move within Matthew’s witnesses, and their secure place in Mark gave every reader a ready source.
The doctrine of Christ does not require us to deny Mark. The eternal Son knows all things. In his incarnate office he truly assumed a servant’s place, grew in human wisdom, and received what the Father appointed him to reveal. Christians have explained Mark’s words in that economic and incarnate setting without making the Son a mere creature.
That doctrinal answer means we need not choose Matthew’s text from fear. The question is historical. The received omission, the Synoptic source for addition, and the long ecclesiastical reading favor the Textus Receptus here.
Day or hour?
Verse 42 reads “what hour” in the received text and “what day” in the critical. Both words occur throughout the discourse: day and hour in verse 36, day in verse 50, hour in verse 44. Assimilation can be argued in either direction.
“Hour” gives the warning its edge. A householder who knew the watch of the thief would remain awake. A servant does not know the hour of the master’s return. The command is not to calculate a date but to live ready.
Matthew’s received form therefore reads as a joined refrain: no man knows the day and hour; the disciples do not know the hour; the Son of man comes in an hour they think not. The repetition is purposeful.
Keep both received readings without turning them into a test of orthodoxy. Mark’s “neither the Son” is Scripture, and Matthew’s shorter form is Scripture. Together the Gospels teach humble watchfulness, not confident charts.
The phrase in Mark belongs to the mystery of the one person in two natures. The Son is not divided into two persons, one knowing and one ignorant. He truly lives a human life and acts in the servant office without ceasing to be the eternal Word. Orthodox explanation must confess every text before it coordinates them.
That is why doctrinal discomfort cannot serve as the sole account of omission. Some scribes may have feared the phrase; others copied it faithfully in Mark. Its appearance in Matthew can arise from the same faithful memory. Weighing the Synoptic source is more exact than assigning a motive to every shorter witness.
“Hour” also resists timetable religion. Watchfulness is not the skill of narrowing prophecy to a date others missed. It is faithful service when the master seems delayed: feeding the household, refusing abuse, and remaining ready. The unknown hour measures character in ordinary time.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 24:32–51; Mark 13:28–37; Luke 2:52; John 16:30; 21:17.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, notes on Matthew 24:36 and 24:42.
- Westminster Confession of Faith 8.2; Definition of Chalcedon.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-1071
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 2026-07-22 · Exact Day
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Recovered project data; bibliographic and source-level verification remains record-specific. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis; cited sources retain their stated rights.
- Known limitations
- Staging record; independent review remains open.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Matthew 24:36, 42 — “Neither the Son” and “What Hour”: The Text of Christ’s Watchfulness Warning,” VAR-1071, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas