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 uses a plural pronoun, “to heal them.” The critical form uses a singular, “to heal him,” pointing ahead to the paralytic who is about to be lowered through the roof.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The Lord’s power was present “to heal them.”
Authorized Version
“And the power of the Lord was present to heal them.” — Luke 5:17
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
The Lord’s power was present “for him to heal,” or “to heal him,” depending on how the singular form is construed.
Translation or explanation
The Lord’s power was present “for him to heal,” or “to heal him,” depending on how the singular form is construed.
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, the comparative difficulty of the readings; the printed confidence ratings represented here are {C}, {B}. 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 Luke 5:17, 5:17
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
The theological center is public and uncontested—the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins, and the healed man walks home carrying the evidence.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 5:17, 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 has a singular form, which can be understood as “for him to heal” or, with reference to the coming patient, “to heal him.” With a one-letter difference in many forms and a fluid referent, accidental and editorial changes are both credible.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 5:17 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: The theological center is public and uncontested—the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins, and the healed man walks home carrying the evidence.
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
The Authorized Version’s plural does not mean that every Pharisee was sick or that all present were cured.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
In context the power is active in Jesus.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Textus Receptus ends with the plural “them.”
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 5:17. 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 has a singular form, which can be understood as “for him to heal” or, with reference to the coming patient, “to heal him.” With a one-letter difference in many forms and a fluid referent, accidental and editorial changes are both credible.
Conclusion
The received plural deserves retention. It fits the broader gathering and avoids making the narrator refer to a paralytic not yet introduced. Its scope should remain modest: the verse declares readiness and presence, not that every spectator received a miracle.
Either reading leads to the same roof opening and the same command: “Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.” The textual choice concerns how Luke prepares the scene. The theological center is public and uncontested—the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins, and the healed man walks home carrying the evidence.
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 Luke 5:17, the received text reads “The Lord’s power was present “to heal them.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “And the power of the Lord was present to heal them.” — Luke 5:17”. The assessed critical reading is “The Lord’s power was present “for him to heal,” or “to heal him,” depending on how the singular form is construed.”. 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 5:17, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “The Lord’s power was present “to heal them.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “And the power of the Lord was present to heal them.” — Luke 5:17”. The assessed critical form is “The Lord’s power was present “for him to heal,” or “to heal him,” depending on how the singular form is construed.”.
- 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 5:17, the received text reads “The Lord’s power was present “to heal them.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “And the power of the Lord was present to heal them.” — Luke 5:17”. The assessed critical reading is “The Lord’s power was present “for him to heal,” or “to heal him,” depending on how the singular form is construed.”. 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 5:17
Received reading: The Lord’s power was present “to heal them.”
Principal competing reading: The Lord’s power was present “for him to heal,” or “to heal him,” depending on how the singular form is construed.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“And the power of the Lord was present to heal them.” — Luke 5:17
Pharisees and teachers of the law have gathered from many villages. Luke then says that the Lord’s power was present for healing. The Textus Receptus ends with the plural “them.” The critical text has a singular form, which can be understood as “for him to heal” or, with reference to the coming patient, “to heal him.”
The Authorized Version’s plural does not mean that every Pharisee was sick or that all present were cured. Greek object pronouns can refer generally to people in the scene or to those who came seeking healing. Luke has just summarized a widening ministry in which multitudes assemble to hear and be healed.
The singular is narratively pointed. Before the paralytic appears in the room, the narrator signals that divine power is present for Jesus to heal. If construed as referring to the man, it anticipates the case that will occupy the rest of the episode. That very neatness could be original or could be a grammatical clarification.
The subject of the power
More important than the number of the pronoun is Luke’s expression “the power of the Lord.” In context the power is active in Jesus. His authority to heal becomes the visible confirmation of his authority to forgive sins. The narrative does not set divine power beside Jesus as an external force reluctantly granted to him; it manifests the Lord’s saving action through the Son.
The plural may have been altered because no plural group of invalids is explicit in the immediate sentence. The singular may have been changed to plural under the influence of Luke’s preceding healing summaries. With a one-letter difference in many forms and a fluid referent, accidental and editorial changes are both credible.
The received plural deserves retention. It fits the broader gathering and avoids making the narrator refer to a paralytic not yet introduced. Its scope should remain modest: the verse declares readiness and presence, not that every spectator received a miracle.
Either reading leads to the same roof opening and the same command: “Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.” The textual choice concerns how Luke prepares the scene. The theological center is public and uncontested—the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins, and the healed man walks home carrying the evidence.
Sources and further reading
- Luke 4:14, 36; 5:12–26; 6:17–19.
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-2079
- 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 5:17 — Was the Power of the Lord Present “to Heal Them” or “to Heal Him”?,” VAR-2079, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas