The Greek Text of Matthew 15:6a

The clause under consideration reads in its shorter and most strongly attested form:

οὐ μὴ τιμήσει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ

This text is supported by Codex Sinaiticus (א, 330–360 C.E.), Codex Vaticanus (B, 300–330 C.E.), Codex Bezae (D, 400–450 C.E.), the Old Latin tradition, the Syriac Curetonian, and the Sahidic Coptic. The Alexandrian witnesses are of primary importance, particularly Vaticanus (B), which consistently preserves an early and stable text in the Gospels. The reading is also reflected in numerous modern translations that follow the critical text.

The Byzantine tradition, represented by C, L, W, Θ, 0106, family 1, and the Majority text, expands the clause to read ἢ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ (“or his mother”). Other minor expansions read either ἢ τὴν μητέρα (“or the mother”) or καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ (“and his mother”). These additions reflect scribal tendencies toward harmonization and parallelism rather than preservation of the earliest attainable text.

The superiority of the external documentary evidence firmly supports the shorter reading. The earliest and most reliable Alexandrian manuscripts omit any reference to “mother” in this clause. When early, diverse witnesses agree against later, more expansive forms, the documentary method compels preference for the earlier reading.

The Grammatical Force of οὐ μὴ τιμήσει

The expression οὐ μὴ with the future indicative (τιμήσει) forms a strong negation. While classically it conveys emphatic denial, in Koine Greek it frequently functions as a categorical prohibition or firm declaration of non-occurrence. Here the sense is not predictive but declarative, functioning within reported speech that summarizes the Pharisaic teaching.

The verb τιμάω (“to honor”) carries covenantal weight. It is the same verb used in the citation of the Fifth Commandment in Matthew 15:4, where Jesus quotes Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16: “Honor your father and your mother.” The LXX reads τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα. The commandment establishes filial honor as a binding moral obligation under the Mosaic Law.

By contrast, Matthew 15:6a records the practical outcome of the Pharisaic corban tradition: “he need not honor his father.” The construction does not mean that he absolutely refuses to honor his father; rather, it reflects the halakhic conclusion that such a person is no longer obligated to provide material support. The future indicative, under the force of οὐ μὴ, communicates the removal of obligation.

This clause completes the conditional statement introduced in Matthew 15:5: “Whoever says to his father or his mother, ‘Whatever you might have benefited from me is a gift to God.’” The result of this declaration, according to the tradition being criticized, is that the person “need not honor his father.”

The Contextual Framework: The Fifth Commandment and Its Application

The textual decision cannot be divorced from the immediate literary context. In Matthew 15:4, Jesus cites the Mosaic command:

“For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’”

The citation combines Exodus 20:12 with Exodus 21:17. The obligation is twofold: positive honor and avoidance of cursing. In biblical thought, “honor” includes tangible support. This is confirmed by parallel instruction in Mark 7:10–12, which preserves the same controversy.

Further Scriptural testimony clarifies that honoring parents extends beyond verbal respect. Proverbs 3:9–10 links honor with material substance: “Honor Jehovah with your wealth.” The verb τιμάω is used in the Septuagint in a context involving material provision. The same principle appears in 1 Timothy 5:3–4, where Paul writes: “Honor widows who are truly widows… but if any widow has children or grandchildren, let these first learn to practice godliness in regard to their own household and to repay their parents.” The context unmistakably ties “honor” to financial and practical support.

Thus, the controversy in Matthew 15 centers on a mechanism by which individuals could declare their assets dedicated to God (corban), thereby insulating those assets from parental claims. The Pharisaic tradition allowed the vow to override filial responsibility. The outcome was that the person “need not honor his father.”

The shorter reading preserves this sharp contrast. The singular “father” here does not exclude the mother; rather, it reflects the concluding portion of the example. Verses 4 and 5 repeatedly mention “father or mother.” By verse 6a, the argument has reached its climactic expression, and the singular object functions representatively.

Scribal Expansion and the Drive Toward Parallelism

The presence of expansions adding “or his mother” is readily explained by scribal habits observable throughout the manuscript tradition. Scribes frequently expanded shorter readings to conform to familiar patterns or to restore perceived symmetry.

In Matthew 15:4–5, both parents are mentioned three times in close proximity. A copyist encountering verse 6a with only “his father” could easily perceive an imbalance and insert “or his mother” to maintain the established parallelism. Such expansions are characteristic of the Byzantine textual tradition, which often smooths and harmonizes.

The principle lectio brevior potior (the shorter reading is to be preferred) must not be applied mechanically; however, when the shorter reading is supported by early and geographically diverse witnesses and the longer reading reflects obvious harmonization, the conclusion is strengthened. In this instance, the shorter reading is not only briefer but also more difficult in terms of stylistic symmetry. That difficulty explains the expansion.

There is no compelling evidence of accidental omission through homoeoteleuton. The phrase ἢ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ does not share a similar ending with τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ that would naturally cause a scribe’s eye to skip. Moreover, the earliest Alexandrian witnesses lack the expansion, demonstrating that the shorter reading predates the Byzantine smoothing.

The cumulative documentary evidence establishes that the original text of Matthew 15:6a read οὐ μὴ τιμήσει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ.

The Legal and Ethical Implications of the Reading

The textual form bears directly upon interpretation. By stating “he need not honor his father,” the text exposes the practical nullification of the Fifth Commandment. The singular focus intensifies the example. It presents a concrete case: a son who declares his resources dedicated to God is considered exempt from supporting his father.

This exposes the underlying issue: tradition displacing commandment. Jesus immediately proceeds in Matthew 15:6b (addressed separately) to indict the tradition for invalidating the word of God. The documentary text of verse 6a sets the stage for that indictment.

The authority cited in verse 4 is God Himself: “For God said.” The command to honor parents is not a cultural custom but divine law. By contrast, the corban regulation arises from interpretive tradition. The conflict is therefore between divine command and human regulation.

The singular “father” also resonates with the patriarchal structure of first-century Jewish society, where the father commonly functioned as head of household and primary economic authority. While the commandment equally includes the mother, the narrative example in verse 6a crystallizes around the father as representative.

Nevertheless, the moral scope remains inclusive. Scripture consistently binds children to both parents. Exodus 20:12 commands honor to both. Deuteronomy 27:16 pronounces a curse upon one who dishonors father or mother. Proverbs 23:22 instructs: “Listen to your father who begot you, and do not despise your mother when she is old.” The covenantal obligation is comprehensive.

The shorter reading does not weaken this obligation; rather, it preserves the precise wording transmitted in the earliest witnesses. The ethical force of the passage remains intact and undiminished.

Translation Considerations

The translation “he need not honor his father” accurately conveys the legal nuance. The Greek construction expresses removal of obligation rather than emotional hostility. The issue is not inward disrespect but external exemption from support.

Some translations render the clause as “he is not to honor his father,” which risks implying a command not to honor. The context indicates that the tradition declared him free from the duty, not that it ordered him to dishonor.

The phrase must also be read in continuity with verse 5. The declaration of a gift dedicated to God serves as the legal pretext. The structure is conditional-result: if one declares his resources dedicated, then he is exempt from honoring his father. The text is elliptical but coherent.

The documentary method confirms that the shorter text is not the product of doctrinal bias or theological editing. It is preserved in early, high-quality manuscripts whose textual character repeatedly demonstrates reliability in the Gospel tradition. Codex Vaticanus (B) in particular consistently aligns with early papyri in preserving concise readings in Matthew. The convergence of Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B) carries substantial weight.

The Stability of the Gospel Text in This Passage

Matthew 15:6a illustrates both the minor nature of many textual variants and the overall stability of the Gospel tradition. The variant concerns a brief expansion for stylistic parallelism. No doctrinal content is altered. The ethical teaching remains clear regardless of the expansion.

However, textual criticism aims not merely at preserving doctrine but at restoring the exact wording of the original text. The early Alexandrian witnesses demonstrate that Matthew wrote the clause without the additional phrase “or his mother.” The expansions are secondary.

This passage stands as another example of how the manuscript tradition, when evaluated according to sound documentary principles, allows confident recovery of the original wording. The early papyri and majuscules consistently anchor the text of the Gospels within a narrow and stable transmission stream.

The reading οὐ μὴ τιμήσει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ represents the original text of Matthew 15:6a. It reflects the precise formulation by which Jesus exposed the Pharisaic tradition’s practical nullification of the Fifth Commandment. The documentary evidence is decisive, and the textual certainty in this clause is high.

You May Also Enjoy

The Role of Origen in New Testament Textual Criticism

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS