NETBible KJV GRK-HEB XRef Arts Hymns
  Discovery Box

Matthew 5:32

Context
5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 12:24

Context
12:24 But when the Pharisees 1  heard this they said, “He does not cast out demons except by the power of Beelzebul, 2  the ruler 3  of demons!”

Matthew 12:39

Context
12:39 But he answered them, 4  “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

Matthew 13:57

Context
13:57 And so they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own house.”

Matthew 24:36

Context
Be Ready!

24:36 “But as for that day and hour no one knows it – not even the angels in heaven 5  – except the Father alone.

1 sn See the note on Pharisees in 3:7.

2 tn Grk “except by Beelzebul.”

sn Beelzebul is another name for Satan. So some people recognized Jesus’ work as supernatural, but called it diabolical.

3 tn Or “prince.”

4 tn Grk “But answering, he said to them.” This construction is somewhat redundant in English and has been simplified in the translation.

5 tc ‡ Some important witnesses, including early Alexandrian and Western mss (א*,2 B D Θ Ë13 pc it vgmss Irlat Hiermss), have the additional words οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός (oude Jo Juios, “nor the son”) here. Although the shorter reading (which lacks this phrase) is suspect in that it seems to soften the prophetic ignorance of Jesus, the final phrase (“except the Father alone”) already implies this. Further, the parallel in Mark 13:32 has οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, with almost no witnesses lacking the expression. Hence, it is doubtful that the absence of “neither the Son” is due to the scribes. In keeping with Matthew’s general softening of Mark’s harsh statements throughout his Gospel, it is more likely that the absence of “neither the Son” is part of the original text of Matthew, being an intentional change on the part of the author. Further, this shorter reading is supported by the first corrector of א as well as L W Ë1 33 Ï vg sy co Hiermss. Admittedly, the external evidence is not as impressive for the shorter reading, but it best explains the rise of the other reading (in particular, how does one account for virtually no mss excising οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός at Mark 13:32 if such an absence here is due to scribal alteration? Although scribes were hardly consistent, for such a theologically significant issue at least some consistency would be expected on the part of a few scribes). Nevertheless, NA27 includes οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός here.



TIP #15: To dig deeper, please read related articles at bible.org (via Articles Tab). [ALL]
created in 0.07 seconds
powered by bible.org