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
At Acts 16:12, UBS6/intended NA29 changes the NA28 main text from “πρώτη[ς] μερίδος τῆς” to “πρώτη τῆς μερίδος”; this dossier compares both forms with the TR, the Authorized Version, and the canonical context.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
ἐκειθέν τε εἰς Φιλίππους, ἥτις ἐστὶ πρώτη τὴς μερίδος τῆς Μακεδονίας πόλις, κολωνία· ἦμεν δὲ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ πόλει διατρίβοντες ἡμέρας τινάς.
Authorized Version
“And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.” — Acts 16:12, 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
NA29-044: πρώτη[ς] μερίδος τῆς
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 2 earlier UBS4 notes at Acts 16:12. The discussion invokes external attestation, possible accidental omission, harmonization, grammar, usage, or context. The entry displays confidence rating {D}. 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., notes at Acts 16:12
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 UBS6/intended-NA29 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| NA29-044 | πρώτη[ς] μερίδος τῆς | πρώτη τῆς μερίδος | A1 A1 §4 — Workbook-transcribed; printed NA29 collation pending. TR comparison: The UBS6/intended-NA29 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 NA29-044. 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 16:12, 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 UBS6/intended-NA29 form.
Inconsistency
The same canons must be applied at Acts 16:12 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 NA29-044. 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 16:12. 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 16:12, 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 16:12. 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 16:12, 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 16:12, the UBS6/intended-NA29 revision moves into agreement with the TR at every substantive unit on this card. The Authorized Version therefore continues to represent a canonically coherent received text, while the former NA28 difference is no longer the current critical reading. This convergence does not prove a global text theory, but it does remove this locus from the list of TR-versus-current-critical disagreements.
Canonical-coherence verdict
Authorized Version / TR coherent; the published UBS6 text now converges with it. The earlier NA28 difference no longer represents the current critical main text at Acts 16:12.
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 16:12, the current comparison is: 1 agrees with the TR in the UBS6/intended-NA29 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 16:12. The AV is correct at this locus because it faithfully represents the TR and that reading is coherent with the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. The published UBS6/intended-NA29 revision now agrees with the TR at the substantive unit on this card, so the current critical text is correct here precisely insofar as it has moved into that same coherent reading. The convergence should be acknowledged rather than treating NA28 as permanently synonymous with the critical text.
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 Acts 16:12 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
- INTF — Online Tools for the ECM (52 Acts changes and commentary)Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- Digital ECM — Acts 16:12Current 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 16:12
Received reading: Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony
Principal competing reading: Philippi, a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a colony
Issue class: Syntax / Conjectural Reading
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
The Greek wording around πρώτη and μερίς is notoriously difficult.
SBLGNT prints a form usually rendered ‘a leading city of the district’;
NA28 marks a conjectural genitive arrangement, while Scrivener supports
the Authorized Version’s ‘chief city of that part.’ All forms call
Philippi a Roman colony.
Scrivener’s received text underlies the reading “Philippi, which is
the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony.” The principal
competing form is “Philippi, a leading city of the district of Macedonia
and a colony.”
“And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of
Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.”
— Acts 16:12
For Acts 16:12, a textual conclusion cannot by itself settle every
English or syntactical choice: the Greek form and its possible
constructions must first be identified, and the eventual rendering must
be defended from grammar and context rather than counted as a manuscript
omission.
Luke does not leave Acts 16:12 isolated from its setting. Just
outside the selected unit, Acts 16:11 says, “Therefore loosing from
Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day
to Neapolis.” Acts 16:13 says, “And on the sabbath we went out of the
city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down,
and spake unto the women which resorted thither.”
Keep the received syntax, and flag the modern conjecture rather than
presenting it as direct manuscript certainty.
Sources and further reading
- The Holy Bible, Authorized Version, Acts 16:12.
- F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek
according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (1894),
Acts 16:12. - Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL
Edition, Acts 16:12 and apparatus.
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-2266
- 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 16:12 — Chief City, First District, or Roman Colony? The Description of Philippi,” VAR-2266, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.2-na29-complete.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas