Without cause meaning from Matthew 5:22

1. Summary of the results

The phrase "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22 represents one of the most significant textual controversies in New Testament scholarship. Multiple scholarly analyses reveal that this phrase is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, including the earliest and most prestigious ones such as P67, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus ^[1]. The scholarly consensus strongly suggests that the phrase was likely added by later copyists to soften the rigor of Jesus' original teaching about anger ^[2].

The King James Version (KJV) includes this phrase, but modern translations vary significantly in their approach. Some translations omit it entirely, while others include it with textual notes indicating its disputed nature ^[3]. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not include this phrase, supporting the interpretation that Jesus taught against all anger, not just unjustified anger ^[2].

Patristic evidence from early Christian fathers also supports the absence of this phrase in the original text. The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the addition occurred later in the transmission process, likely as scribes attempted to reconcile Jesus' seemingly absolute prohibition against anger with practical Christian living ^[2]. This textual modification fundamentally alters the meaning of Jesus' teaching, transforming an absolute prohibition against anger into a conditional one that permits "righteous anger."

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original query lacks crucial manuscript evidence context that demonstrates the phrase's questionable authenticity. What's missing is the understanding that textual criticism - the scholarly discipline that examines ancient manuscripts to determine original readings - has extensively studied this passage ^{[3] [4]}. The analyses reveal that multiple independent scholarly sources have reached similar conclusions about the phrase's later addition, suggesting this isn't merely academic speculation but well-established textual scholarship.

An important theological perspective missing from the simple query is how this textual variant affects Christian doctrine and practice. The presence or absence of "without a cause" dramatically changes the interpretation of Jesus' teaching on anger management and emotional regulation ^[3]. Some Christian traditions have built theological frameworks around the idea that certain types of anger are permissible, while the original text may have taught a more absolute standard.

The historical context of why scribes might have added this phrase is also absent from the original statement. Copyists likely faced practical challenges in applying Jesus' seemingly absolute prohibition against anger, leading them to soften the teaching to make it more manageable for Christian communities ^[2]. This represents a broader pattern in textual transmission where theological concerns influenced manuscript copying.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement "Without cause meaning from Matthew 5:22" presents the phrase as if it were an established part of the biblical text without acknowledging the significant scholarly debate surrounding its authenticity. This approach could mislead readers into accepting the phrase as original when overwhelming manuscript evidence suggests otherwise ^{[1] [2]}.

By not mentioning the textual controversy, the statement implicitly endorses one particular manuscript tradition (likely the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV) while ignoring earlier and more reliable manuscript evidence. This represents a form of confirmation bias where one accepts a reading that may align with preferred theological interpretations rather than following the best available textual evidence ^[2].

The statement also fails to acknowledge that different Bible translations handle this phrase differently, which would alert readers to the underlying textual uncertainty. Modern translations like the ESV, NIV, NASB, and others either omit the phrase or include textual notes indicating its disputed status ^[3]. This omission could lead readers to assume universal acceptance of the phrase when scholarly consensus actually questions its authenticity.

Furthermore, the statement doesn't recognize that accepting later manuscript additions over earlier ones sets a problematic precedent for biblical interpretation. If later additions are accepted without critical examination, it opens the door to other textual modifications that may not reflect the original authors' intentions ^[2]. This represents a methodological bias that prioritizes tradition over textual evidence.