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 includes the bread-and-stone comparison before fish and serpent. The shorter critical form begins with a son asking for a fish, leaving the bread pair to Matthew’s parallel.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
A son asks bread and is not given a stone; he asks fish and is not given a serpent.
Authorized Version
“If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” — Luke 11:11
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 example begins with a son asking for fish; bread and stone are absent.
Translation or explanation
The example begins with a son asking for fish; bread and stone are absent.
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 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., notes on Luke 11:11, 11:11
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
No meaningful doctrinal effect
Exact proposition affected
The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
Doctrinal analysis
The shorter form loses no doctrine. That proportional judgment is important: defending a clause does not require describing every omission as theological vandalism.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 11:11, 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 form begins with fish and serpent. The shorter critical Luke therefore has two examples of its own, while the received text gives three and agrees more fully with Matthew.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 11:11 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
No meaningful doctrinal effect: The shorter form loses no doctrine. That proportional judgment is important: defending a clause does not require describing every omission as theological vandalism.
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
That pattern makes harmonization an obvious explanation for the bread clause. Its omission is readily possible in a chain of parallel questions where the eye moves from one “will he give” construction to another. That proportional judgment is important: defending a clause does not require describing every omission as theological vandalism.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The shorter critical Luke therefore has two examples of its own, while the received text gives three and agrees more fully with Matthew.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 11:11. 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 form begins with fish and serpent. The shorter critical Luke therefore has two examples of its own, while the received text gives three and agrees more fully with Matthew.
Conclusion
The shorter form loses no doctrine. Fish, egg, serpent, and scorpion carry the same paternal logic, and the Holy Spirit remains the climactic gift. That proportional judgment is important: defending a clause does not require describing every omission as theological vandalism.
With all three pairs, Luke’s form becomes especially concrete. Bread, fish, and egg form an ordinary meal. The Father’s answer is not counterfeit nourishment or hidden harm. Disciples may ask boldly because the One addressed as Father is wiser and kinder than the best parent among them.
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 11:11, the received text reads “A son asks bread and is not given a stone; he asks fish and is not given a serpent.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” — Luke 11:11”. The assessed critical reading is “The example begins with a son asking for fish; bread and stone are absent.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Luke 11:11, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “A son asks bread and is not given a stone; he asks fish and is not given a serpent.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” — Luke 11:11”. The assessed critical form is “The example begins with a son asking for fish; bread and stone are absent.”.
- 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 11:11, the received text reads “A son asks bread and is not given a stone; he asks fish and is not given a serpent.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” — Luke 11:11”. The assessed critical reading is “The example begins with a son asking for fish; bread and stone are absent.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
- 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 11:11
Received reading: A son asks bread and is not given a stone; he asks fish and is not given a serpent.
Principal competing reading: The example begins with a son asking for fish; bread and stone are absent.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” — Luke 11:11
Jesus moves from the friend at midnight to the willingness of earthly fathers. The received Luke asks whether a father whose son requests bread will give a stone, then whether a request for fish will be answered with a serpent. The critical form begins with fish and serpent.
Matthew contains bread/stone and fish/serpent in the Sermon on the Mount. Luke adds a third pair, egg/scorpion. The shorter critical Luke therefore has two examples of its own, while the received text gives three and agrees more fully with Matthew.
That pattern makes harmonization an obvious explanation for the bread clause. A reader trained by Matthew can supply the missing first pair without conscious intent. The clause’s wording also circulates in more than one arrangement, which may reflect adaptation to different sentence structures.
Requests are answered according to their kind
All three images turn on deceptive resemblance. A rounded stone can look like a loaf, a serpent like certain fish, and a curled scorpion like an egg. A good father does not answer hunger with a dangerous imitation.
The argument is from lesser to greater. Fallen parents still know how to give useful gifts; the heavenly Father gives the Holy Spirit to those who ask. Jesus is not promising that every desired object will be granted. He promises the Father’s goodness, which includes refusing gifts that only resemble good from the child’s limited view.
The received bread-and-stone comparison should remain. Its triadic form is rhetorically strong, and shared wording with Matthew can reflect Jesus’ repeated teaching rather than only scribal assimilation. Its omission is readily possible in a chain of parallel questions where the eye moves from one “will he give” construction to another.
The shorter form loses no doctrine. Fish, egg, serpent, and scorpion carry the same paternal logic, and the Holy Spirit remains the climactic gift. That proportional judgment is important: defending a clause does not require describing every omission as theological vandalism.
With all three pairs, Luke’s form becomes especially concrete. Bread, fish, and egg form an ordinary meal. The Father’s answer is not counterfeit nourishment or hidden harm. Disciples may ask boldly because the One addressed as Father is wiser and kinder than the best parent among them.
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-2101
- 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 11:11 — Bread or a Stone, Fish or a Serpent: The Full Father-and-Son Comparison,” VAR-2101, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas