Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
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
Mark’s wineskin saying has several competing grammatical forms. The received text states that new wine bursts old skins, the wine is spilled, the skins are marred, and new wine must go into new skins.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The full received sequence: the new wine bursts the skins, the wine is spilled, the skins are marred, and new wine must be put into new skins.
Authorized Version
“New wine must be put into new bottles.” — Mark 2:22
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
Shorter and differently arranged forms, including “the wine is destroyed, and the skins,” followed by “but new wine into fresh skins.”
Translation or explanation
Shorter and differently arranged forms, including “the wine is destroyed, and the skins,” followed by “but new wine into fresh skins.”
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of 2 variation units within this record's range. The notes ground the relevant decisions in the weight and distribution of external attestation, a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, scribal harmonization to a parallel passage; the printed confidence rating represented here is {C}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on Mark 2:22, 2:22
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
No UBS6 / intended NA29 main-text change is recorded for this passage in the controlled 169-change ledger.
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
No meaningful doctrinal effect
Exact proposition affected
The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
Doctrinal analysis
No doctrine should be built from whether the last verb is expressed or understood.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Mark 2:22, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. A sentence copyists tried to repair Some critical forms are abrupt: one verb may govern “the wine and the skins,” while the final “but new wine into fresh skins” depends on a verb carried over from earlier. Textual criticism loses credibility when an apparent difficulty is merely an unexamined change in English usage.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 2:22 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
No meaningful doctrinal effect: No doctrine should be built from whether the last verb is expressed or understood.
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
Other witnesses change the verb, rearrange its subject, omit a supplied verb in the final clause, or shorten the ending. “Bottles” in the Authorized Version means leather wineskins, not glass vessels. , The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A sentence copyists tried to repair Some critical forms are abrupt: one verb may govern “the wine and the skins,” while the final “but new wine into fresh skins” depends on a verb carried over from earlier. That economy can be original, and scribes often add verbs to clarify ellipsis. Matthew 9:17 and Luke 5:37–38 also offer smooth wording that could influence a copyist.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text gives each consequence its fitting expression before stating the rule.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 2:22. 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
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. A sentence copyists tried to repair Some critical forms are abrupt: one verb may govern “the wine and the skins,” while the final “but new wine into fresh skins” depends on a verb carried over from earlier. Textual criticism loses credibility when an apparent difficulty is merely an unexamined change in English usage.
Conclusion
The English history of “bottles” can mislead a modern reader into imagining shattered glass. Early English Bibles used the word for containers more generally, including skins. Importer metadata and excerpts should therefore keep the familiar title while the article body explains the material object. Textual criticism loses credibility when an apparent difficulty is merely an unexamined change in English usage.
The fuller received wording reads as coherent Markan explanation, not random accumulation. It may share language with the parallels because Jesus’ saying was transmitted in all three Gospels. Where the shorter forms leave dangling grammar or only one ruined object, the full text completes both halves of the picture: wine and skins are preserved only when the vessel suits what it carries.
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.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Mark 2:22, the received text reads “The full received sequence: the new wine bursts the skins, the wine is spilled, the skins are marred, and new wine must be put into new skins.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “New wine must be put into new bottles.” — Mark 2:22”. The assessed critical reading is “Shorter and differently arranged forms, including “the wine is destroyed, and the skins,” followed by “but new wine into fresh skins.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Mark 2:22, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “The full received sequence: the new wine bursts the skins, the wine is spilled, the skins are marred, and new wine must be put into new skins.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “New wine must be put into new bottles.” — Mark 2:22”. The assessed critical form is “Shorter and differently arranged forms, including “the wine is destroyed, and the skins,” followed by “but new wine into fresh skins.”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Mark 2:22, the received text reads “The full received sequence: the new wine bursts the skins, the wine is spilled, the skins are marred, and new wine must be put into new skins.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “New wine must be put into new bottles.” — Mark 2:22”. The assessed critical reading is “Shorter and differently arranged forms, including “the wine is destroyed, and the skins,” followed by “but new wine into fresh skins.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized VersionReceived Greek reading
- Digital ECM — Mark 2:22Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- 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
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Mark 2:22
Received reading: The full received sequence: the new wine bursts the skins, the wine is spilled, the skins are marred, and new wine must be put into new skins.
Principal competing reading: Shorter and differently arranged forms, including “the wine is destroyed, and the skins,” followed by “but new wine into fresh skins.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“New wine must be put into new bottles.” — Mark 2:22
The familiar English sentence conceals a crowded Greek apparatus. In the received form, new wine breaks old skins, the wine is spilled, the skins are marred, and new wine must be put into new skins. Other witnesses change the verb, rearrange its subject, omit a supplied verb in the final clause, or shorten the ending.
“Bottles” in the Authorized Version means leather wineskins, not glass vessels. Fermenting wine expands. A brittle skin cannot yield, so both container and contents are lost.
A sentence copyists tried to repair
Some critical forms are abrupt: one verb may govern “the wine and the skins,” while the final “but new wine into fresh skins” depends on a verb carried over from earlier. That economy can be original, and scribes often add verbs to clarify ellipsis. Matthew 9:17 and Luke 5:37–38 also offer smooth wording that could influence a copyist.
Yet Mark’s transmission does not show one simple expansion. It shows several attempts to make sense of a compact comparison. Verbs move because readers disagree over what is destroyed: the wine, the skins, or both. “Spilled” is naturally used of wine; “ruined” fits the skins. The received text gives each consequence its fitting expression before stating the rule.
The parable’s logic needs both losses. The problem is not only wasted wine or only damaged leather. An unsuitable form destroys the contents and the vessel. The received clauses make that double warning explicit, then close with the positive command.
No doctrine should be built from whether the last verb is expressed or understood. Jesus is answering a question about fasting and the arrival of the bridegroom. His presence cannot be confined within practices treated as though nothing decisive has happened. That does not make the Old Testament defective; it says the promised fulfillment cannot be handled as a patch on an unchanged situation.
The English history of “bottles” can mislead a modern reader into imagining shattered glass. Early English Bibles used the word for containers more generally, including skins. Importer metadata and excerpts should therefore keep the familiar title while the article body explains the material object. Textual criticism loses credibility when an apparent difficulty is merely an unexamined change in English usage.
The fuller received wording reads as coherent Markan explanation, not random accumulation. It may share language with the parallels because Jesus’ saying was transmitted in all three Gospels. Where the shorter forms leave dangling grammar or only one ruined object, the full text completes both halves of the picture: wine and skins are preserved only when the vessel suits what it carries.
Sources and further reading
- F. H. A. Scrivener, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
- Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010), text and apparatus.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on the stated passage.
- Matthew 9:14–17; Mark 2:18–22; Luke 5:33–39.
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-2008
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 1st century · Date Range
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Passage, principal readings, and stated editorial comparison checked against Scrivener’s received Greek text and the SBLGNT apparatus; exhaustive manuscript collation remains open. 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. Biblical readings are short scholarly quotations; cited editions and digital witnesses retain their stated rights and access conditions.
- Known limitations
- This staging record summarizes the principal variation unit and representative evidence. It is not a fresh collation of every extant manuscript, version, lectionary, or patristic citation.
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, “Mark 2:22 — New Wine and New Bottles: Which Clauses Complete the Parable?,” VAR-2008, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas