Complete textual-variant dossier
No adverse entailment · agrees with the received text
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
> “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda.”
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda.” — Matthew 2:6
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
Historical annotation witness
Erasmus’s Annotationes
Erasmus’s printed Greek text, his Latin annotation, and the Research Center’s evaluation are distinct evidence. Each edition remains separately identified because Erasmus revised the Annotationes across his five editions.
Not yet assessed. No inference about Erasmus’s silence has been made. A Latin annotation and translation will appear here only after an edition and exact locus have been verified.
The Erasmus annotation audit has not yet been completed for this locus. Do not infer from this status that Erasmus was silent.
Westminster and Dutch annotation witnesses
Westminster Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
Dutch Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
No distinct NA28 reading has been entered; the received and NA28 texts may agree at this unit.
Translation or explanation
The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of the variation unit. The note grounds the relevant decision in the weight and distribution of external attestation. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., note on Matthew 2:5
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
UBS6 retains the NA28 / UBS5 Greek main-text wording in Matthew, so no main-text change is shown for this passage. The separate project ledger covers Acts, Mark, and Revelation.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony
Exact proposition affected
The truthfulness and verbal integrity of inspired Scripture.
Doctrinal analysis
The Evangelist can render Hebrew sense, gather related scriptural language, and apply it to Christ under inspiration.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 2:5, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The Textus Receptus and the standard critical text introduce the answer with the bare words “by the prophet.” Exactness lies in what Matthew wrote, not in forcing him to reproduce a modern critical edition of Micah.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 2:5 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony: The Evangelist can render Hebrew sense, gather related scriptural language, and apply it to Christ under inspiration.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
A few witnesses add Micah, the correct source.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
This is a clean example of preserving the received text by refusing an addition even when the addition states a fact. A correct Micah addition could be explained as lost authorial text restored by a careful scribe.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Textus Receptus and the standard critical text introduce the answer with the bare words “by the prophet.” This is a clean example of preserving the received text by refusing an addition even when the addition states a fact. John William Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 2:5. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
The Textus Receptus and the standard critical text introduce the answer with the bare words “by the prophet.” Exactness lies in what Matthew wrote, not in forcing him to reproduce a modern critical edition of Micah.
Conclusion
Matthew’s combined wording also warns against treating quotation as modern stenography. “According to what is written” need not mean a mechanical copy of one surviving Greek column. The Evangelist can render Hebrew sense, gather related scriptural language, and apply it to Christ under inspiration. Exactness lies in what Matthew wrote, not in forcing him to reproduce a modern critical edition of Micah.
This is why a cross-reference belongs beside the Bible rather than inside its sentence. Readers should know Micah 5:2 and 2 Samuel 5:2. They should also know that the Gospel’s own introduction names no prophet. Good study makes sources visible while leaving the text whole.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Canonical-status rule: Physical printing is not canonical inclusion. If an edition prints a passage in double brackets while judging it secondary or non-original, it disagrees with the received text concerning the identity and extent of inspired Scripture.
No adverse entailment: agrees with the received text.
Necessary reasoning chain
- The current critical main-text reading assessed at Matthew 2:5 agrees with the received Hebrew/Greek reading at the variation unit governed by this card.
- An adverse preservation entailment at this locus would require the current critical form to displace a different received reading.
- Because no such displacement occurs at the assessed locus, no adverse preservation consequence follows here.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — The Sixth Edition of the Greek New TestamentCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- INTF — Online Tools for the ECMCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — Interview with Hugh HoughtonCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
“And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda.” — Matthew 2:6
When Herod asks where Christ should be born, the priests answer from the prophet. The Textus Receptus and the standard critical text introduce the answer with the bare words “by the prophet.” A few witnesses add Micah, the correct source. Others add Isaiah, the wrong one.
That divided naming is strong evidence for the anonymous reading.
Two glosses from one open space
Micah 5:2 supplies the prophecy about Bethlehem. A careful reader can write “Micah” beside Matthew 2:5. Another reader, used to Isaiah’s large place in messianic quotation, can supply “Isaiah.” If Matthew had named Micah, it is hard to explain why anyone would replace the correct minor prophet with Isaiah. If he named Isaiah, correction to Micah is easy, but the broad anonymous text would require a second repair.
Begin with no name and every form follows. One explanatory note is right; another is wrong; the Gospel itself remains untouched.
The same pattern appears elsewhere in Matthew. Anonymous prophetic formulas attract names because readers want a source label. That desire is useful in a study Bible and dangerous in a copy.
Matthew does more than lift a line from Micah. He gives the priests’ answer in a form that joins Micah’s Bethlehem ruler with the shepherd language of 2 Samuel 5:2. “Out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel” presents David’s town and David’s greater Son together.
Calling the passage “Micah” is therefore correct as source identification but incomplete as an account of Matthew’s canonical use. The anonymous “prophet” leaves room for the Evangelist’s joined wording without pretending he supplied a modern footnote.
Both major Greek editions rightly reject the names. This is a clean example of preserving the received text by refusing an addition even when the addition states a fact. Matthew wrote no prophet’s name at verse 5. Micah still speaks, David’s history still sounds, and Bethlehem still points to the Shepherd-King.
The wrong Isaiah gloss is especially valuable evidence. A correct Micah addition could be explained as lost authorial text restored by a careful scribe. Isaiah cannot be explained that way without making Matthew name the wrong source. The two names together are better understood as independent answers to the same blank. One reader checked the passage; another supplied the prophet most present in memory.
Matthew’s combined wording also warns against treating quotation as modern stenography. “According to what is written” need not mean a mechanical copy of one surviving Greek column. The Evangelist can render Hebrew sense, gather related scriptural language, and apply it to Christ under inspiration. Exactness lies in what Matthew wrote, not in forcing him to reproduce a modern critical edition of Micah.
This is why a cross-reference belongs beside the Bible rather than inside its sentence. Readers should know Micah 5:2 and 2 Samuel 5:2. They should also know that the Gospel’s own introduction names no prophet. Good study makes sources visible while leaving the text whole.
Sources and further reading
- 2 Samuel 5:2; Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:1–12.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 2:5–6.
- John William Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-1008
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 2026-07-22 · Exact Day
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Recovered project data; bibliographic and source-level verification remains record-specific. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis; cited sources retain their stated rights.
- Known limitations
- Staging record; independent review remains open.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Matthew 2:5 — Did a Copyist Add Micah—or Even Isaiah—to the Prophetic Citation?,” VAR-1008, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas