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
The received text names “Joseph and his mother.” The critical text uses the ordinary family description “his parents,” a title Luke can employ without denying the virgin conception.
Variant class
Substitution or composite variation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Joseph and his mother did not know it.”
Authorized Version
“The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.” — Luke 2:43
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.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
“His parents did not know it.”
Translation or explanation
“His parents did not know it.”
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 possible theological pressure in transmission. 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 Luke 2:43
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 Luke, 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 virginal conception and birth of Jesus Christ.
Doctrinal analysis
In both places an ordinary family expression could be made more precise by naming Joseph, especially among readers alert to the virgin birth.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 2:43, 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 “his parents.” That is a real internal argument for the shorter critical wording: “parents” is the expression a reverential corrector might avoid.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 2:43 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: In both places an ordinary family expression could be made more precise by naming Joseph, especially among readers alert to the virgin birth.
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 source-level external-evidence synopsis remains open; consult the full essay and cited apparatus.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A scribe may replace the longer phrase with the economical “parents” after seeing that noun two verses earlier.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text names “Joseph and his mother.”
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 2:43. 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 “his parents.” That is a real internal argument for the shorter critical wording: “parents” is the expression a reverential corrector might avoid.
Conclusion
The received wording deserves retention, while the rival must not be accused of adoptionism. Luke’s narrative has already excluded Joseph from the conception, called the child holy, and named him the Son of God. No reader reaches verse 43 without those controls unless the verse has been detached from its book.
The point of the episode is ultimately Jesus’ own question: “wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” Whether Joseph and Mary are called his parents or named separately, the contrast remains. He honors the earthly household and returns to it in submission, but his unique sonship and mission are governed by the Father in heaven.
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.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Luke 2:43, the received text reads “Joseph and his mother did not know it.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.” — Luke 2:43”. The assessed critical reading is “His parents did not know it.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Luke 2:43, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Joseph and his mother did not know it.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.” — Luke 2:43”. The assessed critical form is “His parents did not know it.”.
- 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 Luke 2:43, the received text reads “Joseph and his mother did not know it.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.” — Luke 2:43”. The assessed critical reading is “His parents did not know it.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
- 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
- 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
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Luke 2:43
Received reading: “Joseph and his mother did not know it.”
Principal competing reading: “His parents did not know it.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.” — Luke 2:43
The twelve-year-old Jesus remains in Jerusalem after the feast, while the returning company assumes that he is among their relatives. Luke identifies the adults who do not know what has happened in two ways. The received text names “Joseph and his mother.” The critical text reads “his parents.”
This variation resembles Luke 2:33, where “Joseph and his mother” competes with “his father and mother.” In both places an ordinary family expression could be made more precise by naming Joseph, especially among readers alert to the virgin birth. That is a real internal argument for the shorter critical wording: “parents” is the expression a reverential corrector might avoid.
But Luke himself uses relational language flexibly. Verse 41 already calls them “his parents,” and Mary says in verse 48, “thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” Neither statement revises the conception narrated in chapter 1. Joseph was Jesus’ legal father and the head of the Nazareth household, though not his biological begetter.
Precision at the turn of the scene
The received identification also makes literary sense. “Joseph and his mother” prepares for the personal speech that follows and keeps Mary’s actual maternity distinct from Joseph’s office. Luke can alternate between a compact group label in verse 41 and fuller names in verse 43 without inconsistency.
Transmission offers routes in both directions. A scribe may replace the longer phrase with the economical “parents” after seeing that noun two verses earlier. Another may expand “parents” in order to guard the supernatural conception. The proximity of the two expressions makes unconscious assimilation especially plausible.
The received wording deserves retention, while the rival must not be accused of adoptionism. Luke’s narrative has already excluded Joseph from the conception, called the child holy, and named him the Son of God. No reader reaches verse 43 without those controls unless the verse has been detached from its book.
The point of the episode is ultimately Jesus’ own question: “wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” Whether Joseph and Mary are called his parents or named separately, the contrast remains. He honors the earthly household and returns to it in submission, but his unique sonship and mission are governed by the Father in heaven.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–38; 2:33, 41–52; 3:23.
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-2072
- 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 text and 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, “Luke 2:43 — Joseph and His Mother or His Parents?,” VAR-2072, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas