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
At Acts 14:3, UBS6/intended NA29 changes the NA28 main text from “[ἐπί]” to “om.”; this dossier compares both forms with the TR, the Authorized Version, and the canonical context.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
ἱκανὸν μὲν οὖν χρόνον διέτριψαν παρρησιαζόμενοι ἐπὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ τῷ μαρτυροῦντι τῷ λόγῳ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, καὶ διδόντι σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα γίνεσθαι διὰ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν.
Authorized Version
“Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.” — Acts 14:3, Authorized Version
Edition note
The full verse is supplied from the project’s Scrivener 1894 received-text source. Each edition-change row separately records whether its exact unit agrees with NA28, UBS6/intended NA29, neither form, or requires address-level review.
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
NA29-039: [ἐπί]
Translation or explanation
The NA28 baseline contains 1 controlled unit at this verse. Square brackets and “om.” reproduce the project workbook; no bracket is silently converted into an unqualified printed reading.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger's second-edition commentary contains 1 earlier UBS4 note at Acts 14:3. The discussion invokes external attestation. Because Metzger predates the ECM/UBS6 revision, it supplies earlier committee context rather than the reason for the new decision.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., note at Acts 14:3
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
INTF states that all 52 Acts main-text changes are discussed in its online Text-Critical Commentary and linked through the digital ECM. H. A. G. Houghton's current UBS6 commentary also covers every UBS6 apparatus unit. This record links the exact passage and the current commentary, but it does not reproduce a passage-specific editorial synopsis that was not independently extracted. CBGM calculates coherence relationships from editorially defined data; human editors establish local stemmata and make the textual and philological decision.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
1 controlled main-text change row affects this verse. Relative to the TR: 1 agrees with the TR in the NA28 form. UBS6 is published as the intended NA29 main text; the complete NA29 volume and apparatus remain forthcoming.
| Unit | NA28 baseline | Published UBS6 / intended NA29 main text | Source and verification |
|---|---|---|---|
| NA29-039 | [ἐπί] | om. | A1 A1 §4 — Workbook-transcribed; printed NA29 collation pending. TR comparison: The NA28 form agrees with the TR at this unit. |
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 Christian doctrine stands or falls at this unit; the principal question is the verse’s grammar, reference, or narrative detail.
Doctrinal analysis
Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The change must be assessed at the exact clause represented by NA29-039. Neither edition label nor theological preference alone proves a reading, and the dossier does not claim that an entire doctrine disappears where the rest of Scripture states it securely.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Acts 14:3, the critical decision avoids arbitrariness only if the local witnesses, editorially proposed stemma, transcriptional account, intrinsic fit, and inferential step are made public. Naming the ECM or CBGM does not by itself supply that argument. The current controlled comparison is: 1 agrees with the TR in the NA28 form.
Inconsistency
The same canons must be applied at Acts 14:3 and at comparable units. A Byzantine or TR-aligned reading cannot be dismissed merely for being Byzantine when the ECM itself repeatedly adopts such readings, nor can “shorter,” “harder,” age, or coherence function as an unexplained trump only when convenient.
Consequences
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The change must be assessed at the exact clause represented by NA29-039. Neither edition label nor theological preference alone proves a reading, and the dossier does not claim that an entire doctrine disappears where the rest of Scripture states it securely. Canonical and doctrinal consequence is evidence to explain, not a shortcut that permits the desired theology to dictate the wording.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The analysis presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logic, transmissible evidence, and an identifiable canon capable of judging later reconstructions. A method that treats the text as indefinitely revisable must still explain how its appeals to authorial meaning, Scripture-wide coherence, and ecclesiastical use remain intelligible.
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
This package does not claim a fresh witness-by-witness collation for Acts 14:3. The ECM/digital ECM apparatus and commentary remain the controlling sources for the critical edition’s external evidence. The TR’s broad ecclesiastical reception is relevant evidence, but it is not used as a substitute for identifying manuscripts, versions, corrections, and genealogical relationships at the unit.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
At Acts 14:3, compare accidental loss, deliberate or liturgical expansion, harmonization, and the author’s immediate syntax. “Shorter” and “harder” are questions to test, not automatic verdicts.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Authorized Version publicly represents the received Greek text at Acts 14:3. Its long ecclesiastical use is relevant to reception and intelligibility, but this record does not turn reception into a bare majority-vote rule or exempt the verse from source-level examination.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is treated as the confessional context for an identifiable text received in the church, not as permission to ignore variants. At Acts 14:3, the TR/AV is evaluated against the controlled edition rows, the passage, the rest of Scripture, and the available historical evidence.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
At Acts 14:3, the TR agrees with the NA28 side of every substantive unit on this card, while UBS6/intended NA29 moves away. The Authorized Version’s representation remains grammatically and canonically coherent in context. The newer reading must therefore provide a passage-level reason strong enough to displace a received form that creates no demonstrated conflict with the rest of Scripture; an appeal to “the CBGM” by itself is not that reason.
Canonical-coherence verdict
Authorized Version / TR coherent; the UBS6 revision diverges without a demonstrated canonical gain in the evidence presently attached to this record. The critical reading must show an equal or better fit with the immediate passage and the rest of Scripture before displacing the received form.
Response to the principal critical argument
The editorial outcome is recorded exactly, but the argument is not allowed to collapse into an edition label or an unexplained coherence score. At Acts 14:3, the current comparison is: 1 agrees with the TR in the NA28 form. A complete critical case must disclose the local witnesses, the proposed local stemma, the transcriptional and intrinsic reasons, and the move from those premises to the selected reading. Where that passage-specific argument has not been extracted, the record says so instead of imputing a motive.
Conclusion
Retain the Authorized Version at Acts 14:3. The AV is correct at this locus because it faithfully represents the TR and that wording forms a coherent reading within the passage and the rest of Scripture. The newer critical revision moves away from that received form and, on the evidence presently attached to this record, does not demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit. The new form therefore should not displace the coherent received reading until its passage-specific external, internal, and canonical case is stated and answered.
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 Acts 14:3, the current critical revision is —: UBS6/intended NA29 “om.”; NA28 “[ἐπί]”; The NA28 form agrees with the TR at this unit.. At least one resulting unit does not agree with the received text. 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 Acts 14:3, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “ἱκανὸν μὲν οὖν χρόνον διέτριψαν παρρησιαζόμενοι ἐπὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ τῷ μαρτυροῦντι τῷ λόγῳ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, καὶ διδόντι σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα γίνεσθαι διὰ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.” — Acts 14:3, Authorized Version”. The assessed critical form is “—: UBS6/intended NA29 “om.”; NA28 “[ἐπί]”; The NA28 form agrees with the TR at this unit.”.
- 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 Acts 14:3, the current critical revision is —: UBS6/intended NA29 “om.”; NA28 “[ἐπί]”; The NA28 form agrees with the TR at this unit.. At least one resulting unit does not agree with the received text. 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
- INTF — Online Tools for the ECM (52 Acts changes and commentary)Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- Digital ECM — Acts 14:3Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Acts 14:3
Received reading: gave testimony unto the word of his grace
Principal competing reading: bore witness to the word of his grace; NA28 adds ‘upon’ before the phrase
Issue class: Edition Split / Preposition
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
The controlling question at Acts 14:3 is what the Greek editions
actually print.
“Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which
gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders
to be done by their hands.” — Acts 14:3
“Bearing
Witness unto the Word of His Grace”: Does the Preposition Belong
Scrivener, SBLGNT, Tregelles, and the Byzantine reconstruction use
the dative article alone. NA28 reads ἐπὶ τῷ, adding a preposition. The
Lord’s witness, the word of grace, and the signs and wonders are
otherwise the same.
Scrivener’s received text underlies the reading “gave testimony unto
the word of his grace.” The principal competing form is “bore witness to
the word of his grace; NA28 adds ‘upon’ before the phrase.”
Acts 14:3 shows why ‘the critical text’ can be an imprecise label:
SBLGNT, NA28, Tregelles, and Westcott–Hort may divide over the very
words at issue, so a claim about a modern critical reading must name the
edition meant.
The neighboring verses keep the Acts 14:3 question tied to the
episode: Acts 14:2 says, “But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the
Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.” Acts
14:4 says, “But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held
with the Jews, and part with the apostles.”
Preserve the received construction and identify NA28’s preposition as
an edition-specific grammatical adjustment.
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-2256
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.2-na29-complete
- 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
- All 169 edition-change rows were reconciled to the controlled workbook and grouped into 154 canonical verse cards. TR and Authorized Version full-verse texts were attached from the project’s Scrivener/KJV sources. Row-level TR alignment is machine-assisted and manually overridden where the unit was known to require address-level judgment; printed NA29-apparatus review and independent witness collation remain open. Metzger notes are exact-verse matches to his earlier UBS4 commentary and are not represented as explanations of later ECM decisions.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis; short biblical and edition readings are cited for scholarly comparison. Source editions, photographs, and linked resources retain their stated rights.
- Known limitations
- Staging synthesis. The package records all edition changes, but it is not a new collation of every witness. A passage-specific ECM rationale is stated only when an identified official explanation was extracted; otherwise the linked commentary/apparatus remains the source to consult. Canonical coherence is asserted proportionately and no doctrinal conflict is manufactured for orthographic or equivalent forms.
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, “Acts 14:3 — “Bearing Witness unto the Word of His Grace”: Does the Preposition Belong?,” VAR-2256, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.2-na29-complete.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas