Matthew 24:36, “nor the Son”: the phrase scribes couldn't bear
Matthew 24:36 is printed with “nor the Son” in reading A, while reading B omits it. The question is whether Matthew’s sentence names the Son alongside the angels.
The APB text at this verse
The manuscripts, editions, and versions
The committee record at this verse
The APB's translation committee works blind: it is never told it is translating the Bible, never given a book name or a verse number, and it never sees the witnesses above. Since revision 3.5, the places where the manuscripts disagree are decided before translation by three readers, Grok 4.3, GPT-6 Astra, and Claude Fable 5.1, who see the readings and the witnesses by age and class but never a reference or a manuscript name. Whatever was done at this verse was done on the language and the evidence alone, and the record is public.
“The base text reads (nothing). The copies also carry τῆς [greek majuscule; later majority tradition]; the committee kept the base text. The evidence is not overwhelming; another reader might reasonably weigh the four majuscule witnesses for τῆς more heavily.”
“The base text reads οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός,. The copies also carry the omission [greek majuscule; early greek manuscript tradition; later majority tradition]; the committee kept the base text. Default wording chosen; evidence is not strong enough to overturn it with high confidence.”
“The base text reads (nothing). The copies also carry μου [greek majuscule; later majority tradition]; the committee kept the base text. The default wording is preferred because the external evidence for the omission is both earlier and more independent while the internal evidence shows that μου is the smoother addition.”
“The base text reads οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός. The copies also carry the omission [greek majuscule; early greek manuscript tradition; later majority tradition]; the committee kept the base text. Default wording chosen because the external evidence favors οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός and the internal evidence supports it as the source of the shorter reading.”
“The base text reads πατὴρ. The copies also carry μου [later majority tradition]; the committee kept the base text. Default wording chosen because the external evidence is early and independent while the internal evidence favors the shorter reading.”
The APB 3.5 decision kept οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός in the base text. Its relevant note says, “Default wording chosen because the external evidence favors οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός and the internal evidence supports it as the source of the shorter reading.” The note also says that copies carry the omission. The committee’s printed text consequently reads “nor the Son,” and the pericope’s audit verdict is recorded as “clean.”
The argument for each reading
If “nor the Son” belongs
Reading A retains οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, so the saying names three groups who do not know the day or hour: human beings, the angels, and the Son. NA28 prints the phrase, and the apparatus line aligns WH and NA28 for it. The NA28 witness note further associates this wording with the earliest uncials. The packet’s description of the competing Byzantine wording proposes a possible internal explanation for the shorter text: removing the three words can provide doctrinal relief. On that account, the difficulty of the Son’s inclusion may help explain why some copies have the shorter sentence. The APB printed text likewise includes the phrase.
If it was never in Matthew
Reading B leaves the sentence with “no one” and the angels, then moves directly to the Father. RP reads πατὴρ and does not contain οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός; the apparatus likewise places Treg and RP on the omission side. This reading has a concise form and is represented by the Byzantine majority edition named in the packet. Its own witness note identifies the wording as Matthew’s form in that tradition. The same apparatus records a separate variation after πατὴρ, where RP adds μου, showing that the Father clause also circulated in more than one form. Reading B therefore presents a Matthew 24:36 without the explicit reference to the Son.
The packet presents a real division between editions and gives both an external and an internal rationale for retaining the longer wording, while also preserving the omission as a live reading. The immediate difference is whether Matthew explicitly includes the Son among those who do not know the day or hour. This variant does not by itself settle doctrine: doctrines ordinarily rest on many passages, and the page records competing forms of one sentence rather than a doctrinal conclusion.
Common questions
Does Matthew 24:36 include “nor the Son”?
Reading A includes οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, “nor the Son,” and is printed by NA28 and WH. Reading B omits the phrase and is represented here by Treg and RP.
Why do some copies omit “nor the Son”?
The packet describes the absence in Matthew as easiest to explain as doctrinal relief. That is an internal explanation offered for the shorter reading, alongside the external division between the listed editions.
What did the APB committee print at Matthew 24:36?
The committee’s printed text includes “nor the Son.” Its 3.5 note says the default wording was kept because external evidence favors οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός and internal evidence supports it as the source of the shorter reading.
Related entries
Witness readings for critical editions are quoted from the SBLGNT apparatus (CC BY 4.0); Hebrew text from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible). Readings of ancient manuscripts and versions are cited as published scholarly fact with their sources linked above. The page does not declare which reading is original.
The registry gives no verdict
The registry does not say which reading is original. Each page lists the witnesses, shows what the committee did with the same text, and leaves the judgment to the reader.