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
After healing the blind man, the received text gives two prohibitions: do not enter the village and do not report the healing there. The critical text keeps only the first command in a compressed form.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.”
Authorized Version
“Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.” — Mark 8:26
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
“Do not even enter the village,” omitting the command not to tell anyone there.
Translation or explanation
“Do not even enter the village,” omitting the command not to tell anyone there.
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; the printed confidence rating represented here is {B}. 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 Mark 8:26
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
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The record does not establish that the variant by itself removes an entire Christian doctrine; explicit wording, exegesis, and cumulative testimony must be distinguished.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Mark 8:26, 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. The critical text reads only, “Do not even enter the village.” Critics can explain the longer form as expansion.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 8:26 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
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
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 rearrange the command or add a direction to go home. , The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A scribe familiar with Mark’s secrecy commands might add “tell no one.” The resulting sentence is polished and emphatic, so no later copyist would necessarily suspect a gap.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
— Mark 8:26 The two-stage healing at Bethsaida ends with a two-part charge in the received text: do not enter the town, and do not tell anyone in the town.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 8:26. 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. The critical text reads only, “Do not even enter the village.” Critics can explain the longer form as expansion.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 1 passage-specific note attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
The Revision RevisedPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon — supplied PDF pp. 307
Burgon directly discusses Mark 8:26. The local discussion treats Greek manuscript evidence, ancient versions, patristic citation as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
Of Confusion there is plenty. ‘Conflation’—as the Reader sees—there is none. [2nd] In 8. Mark viii. 26, our Saviour (after restoring sight to the blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said, —(a) ‘ Neither enter into the village’—(B) ‘nor tell it to any one—(y) in the village’ (And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way of exhibiting the text is vouched for by A oN A and 12 other uncials; by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and ARthiopic Versions: and by the only Father who quotes the place—Victor of Antioch.” But it is found that the ‘ two…
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
Conclusion
Bethsaida later receives a severe woe in Matthew and Luke for failing to repent despite mighty works. Mark’s restriction may belong to that judicial backdrop, though he does not state it here. The command is therefore best left in its narrative form rather than filled with conjectured motive. Textual confidence and interpretive restraint can coexist: retain both prohibitions while admitting that Jesus does not explain why this town is denied publicity.
The received pair should be preserved. Its second half is not a useless restatement but a restriction on communication. It also fits the chapter’s concern with perception: seeing clearly is more than possessing an impressive report. Jesus decides where the man goes and how the work is spoken of, because the healer—not the crowd—governs the meaning of the miracle.
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 8:26, the received text reads “Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.” — Mark 8:26”. The assessed critical reading is “Do not even enter the village,” omitting the command not to tell anyone there.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Mark 8:26, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.” — Mark 8:26”. The assessed critical form is “Do not even enter the village,” omitting the command not to tell anyone there.”.
- 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 8:26, the received text reads “Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.” — Mark 8:26”. The assessed critical reading is “Do not even enter the village,” omitting the command not to tell anyone there.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
- 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 8:26Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- The Revision Revisedsupplied PDF pp. 307 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Mark 8:26
Received reading: “Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.”
Principal competing reading: “Do not even enter the village,” omitting the command not to tell anyone there.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.” — Mark 8:26
The two-stage healing at Bethsaida ends with a two-part charge in the received text: do not enter the town, and do not tell anyone in the town. The critical text reads only, “Do not even enter the village.” Other witnesses rearrange the command or add a direction to go home.
The full instruction may look redundant. If the man does not enter Bethsaida, how could he tell people there? He could meet residents outside, return later, or send the news through others. The second prohibition addresses publicity, not merely location.
A double boundary after a double healing
Mark often records specific commands to healed people. Some are told to testify; others are charged to silence. Here Jesus leads the man outside the village before healing him, then prevents the sign from being turned into a Bethsaida spectacle. The two commands answer those two movements: stay outside; do not send the story back in.
Critics can explain the longer form as expansion. A scribe familiar with Mark’s secrecy commands might add “tell no one.” The repeated phrase “into/in the village” could also generate a clarifying second clause.
The same repetition makes loss especially plausible. In continuous text, the eye can move from the first occurrence of kōmēn to the second and omit the intervening words. The resulting sentence is polished and emphatic, so no later copyist would necessarily suspect a gap.
The command does not imply that Christ fears truthful testimony. Mark has just shown repeated misunderstanding of his signs. A miracle detached from his identity and cross can feed excitement without faith. The man receives sight; the town is not yet granted control of the sign.
Bethsaida later receives a severe woe in Matthew and Luke for failing to repent despite mighty works. Mark’s restriction may belong to that judicial backdrop, though he does not state it here. The command is therefore best left in its narrative form rather than filled with conjectured motive. Textual confidence and interpretive restraint can coexist: retain both prohibitions while admitting that Jesus does not explain why this town is denied publicity.
The received pair should be preserved. Its second half is not a useless restatement but a restriction on communication. It also fits the chapter’s concern with perception: seeing clearly is more than possessing an impressive report. Jesus decides where the man goes and how the work is spoken of, because the healer—not the crowd—governs the meaning of the miracle.
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.
- Mark 1:40–45; 5:18–20; 7:31–37; 8:22–26.
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-2028
- 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. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
- 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 8:26 — “Neither Go into the Town, nor Tell It to Any in the Town”,” VAR-2028, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas