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 specifies that the stone was removed from the place where the dead man lay; the critical text says simply that they removed the stone.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid.”
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
“So they took away the stone.”
Translation or explanation
“So they took away the stone.”
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
No passage-specific Metzger synopsis has yet passed editorial verification for this record.
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
Nothing doctrinal depends on the addition. The received words have broad support and do not sound like a doctrinal gloss designed to win a later controversy. The clause heightens the physical setting: this is not a symbolic stone or inward resurrection.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At John 11:41, 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.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at John 11:41 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: Nothing doctrinal depends on the addition. The received words have broad support and do not sound like a doctrinal gloss designed to win a later controversy. The clause heightens the physical setting: this is not a symbolic stone or inward resurrection.
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 singular “the dead” is older English for the dead man, Lazarus. The received clause is coherent, ancient within the tradition, and worth preserving as part of the sign’s concrete narration.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Nothing doctrinal depends on the addition. Verse 38 has already described the cave and stone, and the reader knows where Lazarus lies. That redundancy is the chief internal argument against the longer form: a copyist might make the action explicit or import familiar burial language.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text adds a locative explanation: it was taken “from the place where the dead was laid.” The received clause is coherent, ancient within the tradition, and worth preserving as part of the sign’s concrete narration.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at John 11:41. 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.
Conclusion
The Authorized Version’s singular “the dead” is older English for the dead man, Lazarus. It does not suggest an impersonal corpse or uncertainty about identity. The clause heightens the physical setting: this is not a symbolic stone or inward resurrection. Men remove a real barrier from a burial place, Christ thanks the Father publicly, and a man four days dead comes out bound in graveclothes.
The shorter form retains all essential facts, which should temper rhetoric about what is “removed.” Still, lack of doctrinal necessity is not a reason to discard transmitted detail. The received clause is coherent, ancient within the tradition, and worth preserving as part of the sign’s concrete narration.
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 11:41, the received text reads “Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid.” and its Authorized Version representation reads . The assessed critical reading is “So they took away the stone.”. 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 11:41, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid.”; the Authorized Version represents it as . The assessed critical form is “So they took away the stone.”.
- 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 11:41, the received text reads “Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid.” and its Authorized Version representation reads . The assessed critical reading is “So they took away the stone.”. 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 11:41
Received reading: “Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid.”
Principal competing reading: “So they took away the stone.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
At Jesus’ command, the people remove the tomb’s stone. The received
text adds a locative explanation: it was taken “from the place where the
dead was laid.” The SBLGNT and NA28 omit the phrase and proceed
immediately to Jesus lifting his eyes in prayer.
Nothing doctrinal depends on the addition. Verse 38 has already
described the cave and stone, and the reader knows where Lazarus lies.
That redundancy is the chief internal argument against the longer form:
a copyist might make the action explicit or import familiar burial
language. Yet redundancy is common in narrative, especially at the
decisive reversal of an earlier action. The stone placed before the dead
man is now removed from that very place.
Omission also has ordinary causes. The phrase ends with a verb of
laying and stands before another clause beginning with Jesus; a reader
or copyist who considered the location self-evident could pass over it.
The received words have broad support and do not sound like a doctrinal
gloss designed to win a later controversy.
The Authorized Version’s singular “the dead” is older English for the
dead man, Lazarus. It does not suggest an impersonal corpse or
uncertainty about identity. The clause heightens the physical setting:
this is not a symbolic stone or inward resurrection. Men remove a real
barrier from a burial place, Christ thanks the Father publicly, and a
man four days dead comes out bound in graveclothes.
The shorter form retains all essential facts, which should temper
rhetoric about what is “removed.” Still, lack of doctrinal necessity is
not a reason to discard transmitted detail. The received clause is
coherent, ancient within the tradition, and worth preserving as part of
the sign’s concrete narration.
Sources and further reading
- John 11:17–44; 19:38–42; 20:1–8.
- Scrivener, John 11:41.
- SBLGNT apparatus at John 11:41.
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-2177
- 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 11:41 — “From the Place Where the Dead Was Laid”: Has the Clause Been Removed?,” VAR-2177, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas