“But as for that day and hour no one knows it – not even the angels in heaven ¹  – except the Father alone.

biblegateway Mat 24:36

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

"Now concerning that day and hour no one knows--neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son--except the Father only.

"But concerning that day and hour no one knows—not even the angels of heaven nor the Son—except the Father alone.

biblegateway Mat 24:36

"No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

bibleoremus Mat 24:36

"But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

“Yet about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the Son; no one but the Father alone.

biblegateway Mat 24:36

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.

But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

biblegateway Mat 24:36

“But as for that day and hour no one knows it – not even the angels in heaven ¹  – except the Father alone.

¹ 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.