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 begins Jesus’ reply with “Get thee behind me, Satan.” The critical text moves directly to “It is written,” leaving the command to depart in Matthew’s account.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written …”
Authorized Version
“Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God.” — Luke 4:8
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
“It is written …,” without the direct command and name.
Translation or explanation
“It is written …,” without the direct command and name.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
No passage-specific Metzger synopsis has yet passed editorial verification for this record.
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
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
It should be retained without pretending that the shorter answer is doctrinally deficient.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 4:8, 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. Modern critical editions generally omit that rebuke and begin, “It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God.” The critical text preserves the exclusive worship of God and the defeat of temptation by Scripture.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 4:8 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: It should be retained without pretending that the shorter answer is doctrinally deficient.
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
Matthew places “Get thee hence, Satan” in the corresponding temptation, and the parallel supplies a ready explanation for addition. The wording in Luke is not identical, but a harmonizer can adapt rather than copy letter for letter. Still, a scribe aware of Matthew might feel the absence and supply a command.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The fuller reading remains the received text and fits Luke’s scene.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 4:8. 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. Modern critical editions generally omit that rebuke and begin, “It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God.” The critical text preserves the exclusive worship of God and the defeat of temptation by Scripture.
Conclusion
The fuller reading remains the received text and fits Luke’s scene. It should be retained without pretending that the shorter answer is doctrinally deficient. The critical text preserves the exclusive worship of God and the defeat of temptation by Scripture. What it lacks is Christ’s direct naming and dismissal of the adversary.
The clause matters, but its meaning is not magical. Victory does not come from repeating Satan’s name. It comes from the obedient Son’s refusal to accept a crown by idolatry. His path to the kingdoms passes through suffering according to the Father’s will, not homage to the liar.
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 4:8, the received text reads “Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written …” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God.” — Luke 4:8”. The assessed critical reading is “It is written …,” without the direct command and name.”. 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 Luke 4:8, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written …”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God.” — Luke 4:8”. The assessed critical form is “It is written …,” without the direct command and name.”.
- 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 4:8, the received text reads “Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written …” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God.” — Luke 4:8”. The assessed critical reading is “It is written …,” without the direct command and name.”. 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
- 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 4:8
Received reading: “Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written …”
Principal competing reading: “It is written …,” without the direct command and name.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God.” — Luke 4:8
The devil offers Jesus the kingdoms of the world in exchange for worship. In the received Luke, Christ first orders him away: “Get thee behind me, Satan.” Modern critical editions generally omit that rebuke and begin, “It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God.”
Matthew places “Get thee hence, Satan” in the corresponding temptation, and the parallel supplies a ready explanation for addition. The wording in Luke is not identical, but a harmonizer can adapt rather than copy letter for letter. The phrase “get thee behind me” also appears in the rebuke to Peter, making it familiar in Gospel memory.
The narrative order complicates the comparison. Matthew and Luke arrange the final two temptations differently. In Matthew, the kingdom offer is last, so an order to depart closes the encounter. In Luke, the temple temptation follows. “Get thee behind me” need not end all speech; it can reject Satan’s demand and place the adversary where he belongs before the final assault. Still, a scribe aware of Matthew might feel the absence and supply a command.
Rebuke and Scripture belong together
The received sentence joins royal authority to obedient appeal. Jesus does not negotiate with the devil, and he does not wield authority independently of the written word. He dismisses the claimant and then cites Deuteronomy: worship and service belong to God alone.
Omission is easy to imagine at the level of a short, familiar formula. A copyist comparing Luke’s sequence to Matthew’s could remove the command because Satan does not yet leave. Liturgical reading might also begin the response at the formula “it is written.” Neither explanation proves the matter, but both prevent harmonization from becoming the only possible history.
The fuller reading remains the received text and fits Luke’s scene. It should be retained without pretending that the shorter answer is doctrinally deficient. The critical text preserves the exclusive worship of God and the defeat of temptation by Scripture. What it lacks is Christ’s direct naming and dismissal of the adversary.
The clause matters, but its meaning is not magical. Victory does not come from repeating Satan’s name. It comes from the obedient Son’s refusal to accept a crown by idolatry. His path to the kingdoms passes through suffering according to the Father’s will, not homage to the liar.
Sources and further reading
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-2076
- 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 4:8 — “Get Thee behind Me, Satan”: Does Christ’s Rebuke Belong?,” VAR-2076, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas