Complete textual-variant dossier
No adverse entailment · agrees with the received text
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 principal Greek texts agree on the verb ἀπελπίζοντες. The dispute is lexical: it has traditionally been rendered “hoping for nothing again,” while some argue for “never despairing” or related senses.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Lend, hoping for nothing in return.”
Authorized Version
“Lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great.” — Luke 6:35
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
Alternative lexical construals such as “lend, despairing of no one” or “never despairing”; no principal manuscript replacement of the verb.
Translation or explanation
Alternative lexical construals such as “lend, despairing of no one” or “never despairing”; no principal manuscript replacement of the verb.
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 authorial usage, grammar, or immediate context; 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., note on Luke 6:35
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
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 Luke 6:35, 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. Claims that a critical edition has “removed nothing” or changed the Greek verb are false.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 6:35 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
Principal competing reading: Alternative lexical construals such as “lend, despairing of no one” or “never despairing”; no principal manuscript replacement of the verb. The Authorized Version reads “lend, hoping for nothing again.” Early usage and patristic interpretations have been cited for more than one shade of meaning.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
This record should therefore classify the unit as translation and lexicography, not manuscript omission.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
Luke 6:35 is not chiefly a contest between the Textus Receptus and NA28. — Luke 6:35 The traditional sense fits the prefix naturally: to expect something back or to expect in return.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 6:35. 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. Claims that a critical edition has “removed nothing” or changed the Greek verb are false.
Conclusion
This record should therefore classify the unit as translation and lexicography, not manuscript omission. Claims that a critical edition has “removed nothing” or changed the Greek verb are false. The pastoral difference arises from how the same letters are construed.
Christ’s command is deliberately searching. Ordinary prudence can disguise refusal to love anyone who cannot improve our position. Kingdom mercy gives because the Father is merciful. It may still distinguish gift, loan, stewardship, and exploitation, but it cannot make reciprocity the boundary of neighbor-love.
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.
No adverse entailment: agrees with the received text.
Necessary reasoning chain
- The current critical main-text reading assessed at Luke 6:35 agrees with the received Hebrew/Greek reading at the variation unit governed by this card.
- An adverse preservation entailment at this locus would require the current critical form to displace a different received reading.
- Because no such displacement occurs at the assessed locus, no adverse preservation consequence follows here.
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 6:35
Received reading: “Lend, hoping for nothing in return.”
Principal competing reading: Alternative lexical construals such as “lend, despairing of no one” or “never despairing”; no principal manuscript replacement of the verb.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
Luke 6:35 is not chiefly a contest between the Textus Receptus and NA28. Both contain the participle apelpizontes. The question is what that rare verb means in this setting. The Authorized Version reads “lend, hoping for nothing again.”
“Lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great.” — Luke 6:35
The traditional sense fits the prefix naturally: to expect something back or to expect in return. Jesus has just asked what credit belongs to sinners who lend to sinners in order to receive the equivalent. He then commands love of enemies, doing good, and lending without making repayment the condition of mercy.
Some interpreters take the verb as “despairing” or “giving up hope,” producing a line such as “lend, never despairing.” Early usage and patristic interpretations have been cited for more than one shade of meaning. Because the word is uncommon, dictionary glosses can conceal the real argument rather than settle it.
“Hoping for nothing again” does not abolish every loan agreement, forbid repayment, or make civil justice sinful. Christ addresses the disposition of disciples toward needy persons and enemies. They must not imitate a closed circle of exchange in which generosity reaches only those likely to return it.
The following promise clarifies the economy: “your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest.” The disciple relinquishes calculation of human return because the Father is kind to the unthankful and evil. Divine reward does not turn mercy into a commercial purchase; it locates confidence in God rather than the borrower.
The alternative “never despairing” can yield a true exhortation, but it connects less directly with verse 34’s expectation of receiving as much again. The Authorized Version follows the local argument: lend without making recovery the ruling hope.
This record should therefore classify the unit as translation and lexicography, not manuscript omission. Claims that a critical edition has “removed nothing” or changed the Greek verb are false. The pastoral difference arises from how the same letters are construed.
Christ’s command is deliberately searching. Ordinary prudence can disguise refusal to love anyone who cannot improve our position. Kingdom mercy gives because the Father is merciful. It may still distinguish gift, loan, stewardship, and exploitation, but it cannot make reciprocity the boundary of neighbor-love.
Sources and further reading
- Luke 6:27–36; 14:12–14; Deuteronomy 15:7–11.
- A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, entry ἀπελπίζω.
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-2085
- 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
- The manuscript text is stable; the competing readings arise from lexical interpretation of an uncommon verb.
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 6:35 — “Hoping for Nothing Again”: What Did Christ Command in Lending?,” VAR-2085, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas