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
Jesus names Simon as the son of Jona in the received text and as the son of John in the principal critical editions.
Variant class
Addition / omission
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
Simon son of Jona.
Authorized Version
“Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas.” — John 1:42
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
Simon son of John.
Translation or explanation
Simon son of John.
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 printed confidence rating represented here is {B}. 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 1:42
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
No meaningful doctrinal effect
Exact proposition affected
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Doctrinal analysis
No doctrine depends on whether Peter’s father was called Jonah or John.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At John 1:42, 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 principal critical editions read Ἰωάννου, “of John,” and repeat that form when the risen Christ addresses Peter in John 21.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at John 1:42 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: No doctrine depends on whether Peter’s father was called Jonah or John.
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
The Authorized Version’s “son of Jona” coheres with its Greek base and with Matthew’s form. It should remain, while apparatuses should continue to record the ancient “John” alternative without pretending that the variation changes who Peter is.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A copyist familiar with John as the evangelist’s name could normalize an uncommon patronymic to Ἰωάννου.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text calls Peter Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωνᾶ.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at John 1:42. 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 principal critical editions read Ἰωάννου, “of John,” and repeat that form when the risen Christ addresses Peter in John 21.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 1 passage-specific note attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
The Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon; edited by Edward Miller — supplied PDF pp. 101
Burgon directly discusses John 1:42. The local discussion treats Greek manuscript evidence, ancient versions as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. 97 in St. John i. 42, we are to read “John”? The plain fact evi- dently is that some second-century critic supposed that “Jonah” and “John” are identical: and of his weak imagination the only surviving witnesses at the end of 1700 years are three uncials and one cursive copy,—a few copies of the Old Latin (which fluctu- ate between “Johannis,” “Johanna,” and “Johna”),—the Bohairic Version, and Nonnus. And yet, on the strength of this slender minority, the Revisers exhibit in their text, “Simon the son of John,”—and in their margin volunteer the information that the Greek wo
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
Conclusion
A copyist familiar with John as the evangelist’s name could normalize an uncommon patronymic to Ἰωάννου. The reverse possibility exists as well: “Barjona” from Matthew 16:17 might influence a Johannine copy. Yet the repetition at the beginning and end of John argues that the patronymic is part of the Gospel’s literary framing, not an isolated accident.
No doctrine depends on whether Peter’s father was called Jonah or John. That does not make the letters disposable. Proper names identify real people, and fidelity includes historical particulars. The Authorized Version’s “son of Jona” coheres with its Greek base and with Matthew’s form. It should remain, while apparatuses should continue to record the ancient “John” alternative without pretending that the variation changes who Peter is.
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 1:42, the received text reads “Simon son of Jona.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas.” — John 1:42”. The assessed critical reading is “Simon son of John.”. 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 John 1:42, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Simon son of Jona.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas.” — John 1:42”. The assessed critical form is “Simon son of John.”.
- 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 1:42, the received text reads “Simon son of Jona.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas.” — John 1:42”. The assessed critical reading is “Simon son of John.”. 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
- The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospelssupplied PDF pp. 101 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- German Bible Society — The Sixth Edition of the Greek New TestamentCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: John 1:42
Received reading: Simon son of Jona.
Principal competing reading: Simon son of John.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas.” — John
1:42
The difference between Jona and John is small on the page but
persistent through the Gospel. The received text calls Peter Σίμων ὁ
υἱὸς Ἰωνᾶ. The principal critical editions read Ἰωάννου,
“of John,” and repeat that form when the risen Christ addresses Peter in
John 21.
Names do not always pass neatly from Semitic speech into Greek
writing. Jona may represent Jonah, while John represents Johanan;
abbreviated and assimilated forms complicate the discussion. It is
therefore unsafe to declare that one must be a meaningless scribal
blunder merely because the two look related. The synoptic Gospels also
preserve “Simon Barjona,” giving the received Johannine form an
independent canonical parallel.
A copyist familiar with John as the evangelist’s name could normalize
an uncommon patronymic to Ἰωάννου. The reverse possibility
exists as well: “Barjona” from Matthew 16:17 might influence a Johannine
copy. Yet the repetition at the beginning and end of John argues that
the patronymic is part of the Gospel’s literary framing, not an isolated
accident.
No doctrine depends on whether Peter’s father was called Jonah or
John. That does not make the letters disposable. Proper names identify
real people, and fidelity includes historical particulars. The
Authorized Version’s “son of Jona” coheres with its Greek base and with
Matthew’s form. It should remain, while apparatuses should continue to
record the ancient “John” alternative without pretending that the
variation changes who Peter is.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 16:17; John 1:40–42; 21:15–17.
- Scrivener, John 1:42 and 21:15–17.
- SBLGNT text and apparatus at the same passages.
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-2136
- 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. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
- 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 1:42 — Simon Son of Jona or Simon Son of John?,” VAR-2136, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas