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
Three resurrection-scene variations concern a possessive before Father, the tense of sins forgiven, and Jesus’ direct use of Thomas’s name.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“My Father” in verse 17; sins “are remitted” in verse 23; “Thomas” named in verse 29.
Authorized Version
The Authorized Version rendering has not yet been entered in the structured field.
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 Father” at the first mention; sins “have been forgiven”; Thomas’s name omitted and the saying often punctuated as a question.
Translation or explanation
“The Father” at the first mention; sins “have been forgiven”; Thomas’s name omitted and the saying often punctuated as a question.
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 the weight and distribution of external attestation, the likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion; 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 John 20:17
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 John, 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 bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Doctrinal analysis
John 20 contains no single “resurrection text” opposed by one rival form. These readings should be kept without claiming that the alternatives undo resurrection faith.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At John 20:17, 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 perfect says they “have been forgiven.”
Inconsistency
The criteria used at John 20:17 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
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony: John 20 contains no single “resurrection text” opposed by one rival form. These readings should be kept without claiming that the alternatives undo resurrection faith.
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
Ancient punctuation does not force the question, and either form leads to the beatitude on those who have not seen and yet believed.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
The omission therefore does not erase Christ’s filial relation.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
At verse 29 the received text has Jesus say, “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed.”
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at John 20:17. 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 perfect says they “have been forgiven.”
Conclusion
At verse 29 the received text has Jesus say, “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed.” The SBLGNT omits the name and is commonly punctuated as a question: “Because you have seen me, have you believed?” Ancient punctuation does not force the question, and either form leads to the beatitude on those who have not seen and yet believed.
The received cluster is coherent. Mary hears the Son’s personal destination, the apostles receive an authoritative gospel commission, and Thomas is addressed by name after confessing “My Lord and my God.” These readings should be kept without claiming that the alternatives undo resurrection faith. The differences are precise, local, and worthy of separate explanation.
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 John 20:17, the received text reads “My Father” in verse 17; sins “are remitted” in verse 23; “Thomas” named in verse 29.” and its Authorized Version representation reads . The assessed critical reading is “The Father” at the first mention; sins “have been forgiven”; Thomas’s name omitted and the saying often punctuated as a question.”. 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 John 20:17, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “My Father” in verse 17; sins “are remitted” in verse 23; “Thomas” named in verse 29.”; the Authorized Version represents it as . The assessed critical form is “The Father” at the first mention; sins “have been forgiven”; Thomas’s name omitted and the saying often punctuated as a question.”.
- 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 John 20:17, the received text reads “My Father” in verse 17; sins “are remitted” in verse 23; “Thomas” named in verse 29.” and its Authorized Version representation reads . The assessed critical reading is “The Father” at the first mention; sins “have been forgiven”; Thomas’s name omitted and the saying often punctuated as a question.”. 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: John 20:17, 23, 29
Received reading: “My Father” in verse 17; sins “are remitted” in verse 23; “Thomas” named in verse 29.
Principal competing reading: “The Father” at the first mention; sins “have been forgiven”; Thomas’s name omitted and the saying often punctuated as a question.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
John 20 contains no single “resurrection text” opposed by one rival
form. Its variations are distributed through speech, commission, and
confession.
In verse 17, Scrivener reads, “I am not yet ascended to my Father.”
The SBLGNT omits the first “my,” though it retains the carefully
balanced message that follows: “my Father and your Father, and my God
and your God.” The omission therefore does not erase Christ’s filial
relation. The received possessive makes the immediate reason and the
announced destination verbally continuous.
Verse 23 differs in verbal aspect. The received present passive says
that the sins the apostles remit “are remitted.” The critical perfect
says they “have been forgiven.” Both place the declaration within
Christ’s Spirit-commissioned mission; neither turns human ministers into
an independent source of pardon. The perfect can stress an accomplished
divine reality, while the present states the corresponding remission.
The second clause, concerning retained sins, is perfect in both
principal forms.
At verse 29 the received text has Jesus say, “Thomas, because thou
hast seen me, thou hast believed.” The SBLGNT omits the name and is
commonly punctuated as a question: “Because you have seen me, have you
believed?” Ancient punctuation does not force the question, and either
form leads to the beatitude on those who have not seen and yet
believed.
The received cluster is coherent. Mary hears the Son’s personal
destination, the apostles receive an authoritative gospel commission,
and Thomas is addressed by name after confessing “My Lord and my God.”
These readings should be kept without claiming that the alternatives
undo resurrection faith. The differences are precise, local, and worthy
of separate explanation.
Sources and further reading
- John 20:11–31; Acts 2:37–39; 10:42–43.
- Scrivener, John 20:17, 23, 29.
- SBLGNT text and apparatus at the same verses.
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-2198
- 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 current 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, “John 20:17, 23, 29 — “My Father,” Remitted Sins, and the Naming of Thomas,” VAR-2198, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas