Matius 4:23

Jesus’ Healing Ministry

4:23 Jesus ¹  went throughout all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, ²  preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of disease and sickness among the people.

Matius 8:33

8:33 The ³  herdsmen ran off, went into the town, ⁴  and told everything that had happened to the demon-possessed men.

Matius 24:36

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.

[4:23]  ¹ tn Grk “And he.”

[4:23]  ² sn Synagogues were places for Jewish prayer and worship, with recognized leadership (cf. Luke 8:41). Though the origin of the synagogue is not entirely clear, it seems to have arisen in the postexilic community during the intertestamental period. A town could establish a synagogue if there were at least ten men. In normative Judaism of the NT period, the OT scripture was read and discussed in the synagogue by the men who were present (see the Mishnah, m. Megillah 3-4; m. Berakhot 2).

[8:33]  ³ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[8:33]  ⁴ tn Or “city.” But see the sn on “Gadarenes” in 8:28.

[24:36]  ⁵ tc ‡ Some important witnesses, including early Alexandrian and Western mss (א*^,2 B D Θ Ë¹³ pc it vg^mss Ir^lat Hier^mss), 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 ˹ 33 Ï vg sy co Hier^mss. 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.