The proposal of doctrinal alterations as a category for the classification of variation-units was first formally proposed in 1730 by Wettstein and has had a strong reception from the scholarship of the 20th century. With this, we can start the investigation with our earliest New Testament manuscripts. Early manuscripts dating to the 2nd century CE are very scarce (only 𝔓52 and 𝔓90, certainly date before 300 A.D.) which provides little utility in assessing the scribal trends of the 2nd century tradition. Similarly with 3rd-century fragments, they are generally discovered in fragmentary states, and contain no more than a chapter. For the manuscripts dated before the 4th century CE, only two manuscripts contain more than a chapter: 𝔓45 and 𝔓75 (3rd century respectively) For both manuscripts, the scribe, which Keyon describes as competent does not show clear christological alterations. However, M.C. Parsons contends that 𝔓75 adduces an elevated Lukan Christology and is responsible for the Western non-interpolations of Luke 24, and is generally agreed to be a theological tendency of the 𝔓75 scribe.

Interestingly, however, when we look at the scribe of 𝔓72, scholars notice a few singular readings in 𝔓72 (3rd-4th century) namely 1 Peter 5:1, Jude 5b, and 2 Peter 1:2.

2 Peter 1:2 reads, “Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” In 𝔓72, however, the verse reads differently, “τοῦ θεοῦ , καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (God, Jesus our Lord), rather than tτοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (God and of Jesus our Lord) as in the likely original text. While the original distinguished Jesus from God, the text in 𝔓72 identifies Jesus as God and Lord to the effect of the omission of καὶ. The two other singular readings of the same scribe, are noted as Terrence Callan remarks, “This peculiarity of 𝔓72 has often been noted. Because it coheres with peculiarities of two other documents copied by the same scribe, namely Jude and 1 Peter, it may be an intentional change, or at least seems to be one that reflects the views of the scribe. In Jude 5 𝔓72 speaks of θεὸς χριστος as having saved Israel from Egypt, while the probable original text speaks of κύριος. And in 1 Pet 5.1 𝔓72 speaks of the sufferings of θεοῦ, while the likely original text speaks of the sufferings of χριστοῦ. All three of these peculiarities have the effect of presenting Jesus as God.” Along with F.W. Beare, M.A King and Peter M. Head, scholars agree that such singular readings of 𝔓72 are best explained as christological alterations based on the theological views of the scribe in the deity of Christ.

Yet, the examples do not even end here. The most common sub-category of doctrinal alterations seem to interact with the names of titles of Jesus. For indeed, even within the synoptic tradition, we notice the addition of the name ‘Jesus’ to passages (Matt. 4:23; 8:7,29; 13:36; 14:22; Mark 8:17; 9:19; 12:41; 14:22.) and the reverse omission of ‘Jesus’ (Matt. 3:16; 8:22; 9:22; 14:16; Mark 1:25; 2:19; 10:21) According to Bruce Metzger 'Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis inserts 'Ιησούς, or substitutes it for κύριος or αὐτός, fifty-seven times. Furthermore, The vocative title κύριε is added in several places: Matt. 13:51 1 (C L W Byzantine Coptic); Mark 1:40 (from Matt. 8:2 // Luke 5:12?; C W Θ Itala); Mark 9:22 (D G Θ Itala); Mark 10:51 (D Itala); John 13:8 (D Θ); John 20:16 (D Itala). But it was omitted in others: Matt. 8:6 (01* italaᵏ syriacˢᶜ Origen, Hilary); Matt. 17:15 (01 Z boᴾᵗ); John 11:21 (B, syriacˢ); John 11:39 (𝔓66); John 13:37 (01* 33 565 Vg syrs saᴾᵗ boᴾᵗ). In Matt. 28:6 o κύριος is added by A C D K L W fl&13 italia) The title ‘Son of God’ is also added/substituted in several places. Victorinus of Pettau in his Commentary of the Apocalypse 4.4: Matheus autem liber liber generationis Iesu Christi filii dei filii Dauid filii Abrahae haec fades hominis Lucas autem...;Marcus incipit sic: initium euangelii Iesu Christi sicutsicut scriptum est in Esaia (Comm. Apol. 4.4.) One should also note that Jerome’s recension of Victorinus’ Commentary of the Apocalypse omits the phrases ‘filii dei’ in the citation of Mark 1:1. Nextly, In Dialogue with Timothy and Aquila, which is the Jewish-Christian dialogue between Aquila (Jew) and Timothy (Christian) In Timothy’s citation of the genealogy of Matthew 1:16, he adds the phrase, “The Son of God'' during the conclusion of the genealogy: “And Jacob begot Joseph who betrothed Mary, from whom was born the Christ the Son of God.” Tommy Wasserman argues however that this terminating phrase of filii dei is not part of the citation, but is merely a concluding point, and points towards the two additional citations of Mt. 1.16 in the dialogue, that does include the end phrase “Son of God’ as evidence for his claim. Therefore, this example is of doubt. On the topic of Matthew 1:16, variants of the verse are well-known and are normally attributed to christological influence by scholars. The UBS lists six variants, but scholarship tends to assume three main readings of Mt. 16.

1. “Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”(P¹ 01 B C K L P W 28 33 565 700 1071 etc., itᵃᵘʳ,ᶠ,ᶠᶠ¹ Vg syrᵖʰ,ʰ, ᵖᵃˡ copˢᵃ Tertullian (De carne 20) Augustine. f¹ follow this reading except for omitting Ἰησοῦς)

2. “Joseph, to whom was betrothed a virgin, Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, who is called the Christ” (Θ f¹³ itᵃ ⁽ᵇ⁾,ᶜ,ᵍ¹,⁽ᵏ⁾,q Hippolytus and Ambrosiaster)

3. Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called the Christ' (syrˢ)

Contemporary scholarship accepts the first reading as the probable original reading of Matthew 1:16 primarily because 1) it has overwhelming attestation; 2) it lacks παρθένος (virgin) which surely would have been included had the reading been a secondary one protecting the virgin birth; and 3) explanations can be found for the other two forms on the basis of the originality of the first. Thus the second reading (which in view of its support from the versions, Cesarean MSS, and Hippolytus should be ascribed to the second century) probably originated in a scribe's dissatisfaction with calling Joseph 'the husband of Mary' and his desire to clearly introduce the virginity of Mary into the text. The third reading probably arose as a paraphrase of the second. In Codex 28, Matthew 13:37 replaced ό υιός τοῦ ἄνθρωπον with ό υιός τοῦ θεοῦ (former; Son of Man, latter; Son of God) Mark 14:61 in א* (Sinaiticus) and Minuscule 579 substituted τοῦ θεοῦ with τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ. Finally, A notable example is Mark 8:29 where א, L and 157 add ό υιός τοῦ θεοῦ to the confession of Peter Σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός; a further group of MSS (W f¹³ 543 syrᵖ copˢᵃ itᵇ) add the full version of the Matthean parallel (Matt. 16:16): ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος (You are the son of the living God) See also discussion on Mark 1:1 (Shorter v. Longer Ending)

Matthew 1.16 is one of many examples (Matt 1.19, 1.25, Luke 2.5, 2.33, 2.43 Mark 6.3, Mark 3.21) of how the New Testament birth narratives, relating to the birth and parentage of Jesus, reveal a intruded textual history. Many of the ambiguities of the birth narratives of the tetraevangelium were cleared up by scribes, as Globe remarks that “most of the non-Neutral readings under consideration were introduced to remove inconsistencies between the biblical narratives and abstract doctrinal statements concerning the virginity of Mary.” This includes the potential christologically-motivated redaction of Matthew 1.19 in the Diatessaron by Tatian of Syria. Likewise, another category besides the names and titles of Jesus and the birth narrative of Christ, is the impact of Jesus and his ministry (Matthew 7.28, 8.18, Matt 9.35, 15.30, Mark 1.34, Luke 4.32, Luke 4.36, Luke 5.17, 4.40, 9.11) One particular example, is Matthew's summary of Jesus' activity closes with the phrase καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτούς in 4.24. In one section of the manuscript tradition this is altered to καὶ πάντας αὐτούς. This is an example of a type of change which appears fairly often in the manuscripts in which the impact made by Jesus is emphasized or increased (by addition or substitution of words such as the addition of πάντας)

Next, we will overview the passage, of Jesus’ ignorance of the Hour, Mark 13:32/Matthew 24:36 which reads:

Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ.

“But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

Before anything, we should address some common responses to Mark 13:32/Matthew 24:36 including the joint apologetic interpretation that knowledge here is declarative, and not perceptive. What this indicates is that the Son here does not have the authority to declare the Hour, but solely the Father. But this is reading into the text. The verb οἶδεν is the third-person active singular indicative of οἶδᾰ (to know, to be familiar with) and is not declarative in its grammatical form in the passage. Quite the opposite, the transliterated Greek directly declares that the Son is not familiar with/aware of the Hour (οἶδᾰ) which is a perceptive/cognitive action of knowing, not a “declarative” knowing. The grammatical input of οἶδεν also indicates that the action of ignorance is a completed active action, meaning any exegetical input that delays this action to a different time frame neglects the grammatical structure of the passage. Christians may cite other examples of οἶδᾰ in the New Testament such as 1 Corinthians 2.2 and Revelation 19.12, but neither examples suffice to prove that οἶδᾰ is declarative.

In the MSS tradition, Mark 13.32/Matthew 24.36 was altered in two ways to avoid the implication of Jesus' ignorance. The simplest of these was to omit the words οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός [X 983 Vg¹ᴹˢ]. Codex W took a different path by adding to the following verse so that it read ουχ οιδατε γαρ ει μή ό πατήρ και ο υιος ποτε ο καιρος εοτιν. The inserted words modify this statement [I.e. that no man knows the time of the end] to make it clear that the Father and the Son do know the time.' It is important to note, however, that both of these movements in the Markan textual tradition are attested relatively late. In fact an earlier movement involves the addition of μονος to the close of the verse, presumably under the influence of the Matthean parallel, but with the effect that the distinction between the Father's knowledge and that of the Son is actually emphasized [Arm Δ: added μονος before ὁ πατήρ; Θ Φ f¹³ 565 itᵃ ᶜ ᵏ copˢᵃ&ᵇᵒ Geo Eth etc: μονος follows ὁ] In other words the tendency is not uniformly away from ascribing ignorance to the Son, but an earlier movement in the MSS tradition emphasizes the distinction between the Father’s knowledge and the Son’s ignorance. Scholars are split on the originality of the phrase οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, primarily because the evidence, including manuscripts, ancient versions such as the Old Latin and the patristic citations are at an stalemate. Head along with Meztger assume that οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός is original and that it was omitted because of the theological difficulties it caused. For indeed, this passage was a key topic during the Arian controversy of the 3rd century, and caused much discourse, which suggests that the omission of οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός occurred relatively early perhaps even precedent to the Arian controversy.