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 gives Judas’ patronymic and future betrayal in a full identification; the critical form omits Simon’s name and calls him one of the disciples.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him.”
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
“Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, who was about to betray him.”
Translation or explanation
“Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, who was about to betray him.”
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. 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 12:4
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
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The record does not establish that the variant by itself removes an entire Christian doctrine; explicit wording, exegesis, and cumulative testimony must be distinguished.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At John 12:4, 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 received text uses the patronymic also found in the supper narrative; the critical form substitutes his place within the disciple group.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at John 12:4 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
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
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
Apparatuses should still record how ancient copies reordered and abbreviated a sequence unusually vulnerable to harmonization.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A scribe familiar with John 6:71 and 13:2, 26 could supply “Simon’s son” at the first mention in this scene. Apparatuses should still record how ancient copies reordered and abbreviated a sequence unusually vulnerable to harmonization.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text identifies the speaker as “Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him.” The received text uses the patronymic also found in the supper narrative; the critical form substitutes his place within the disciple group. “Iscariot” is attached in the tradition either to Judas or to Simon, and the position of the words varies.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at John 12:4. 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 received text uses the patronymic also found in the supper narrative; the critical form substitutes his place within the disciple group.
Conclusion
The ethical contrast is stable. Mary gives costly honor; Judas calculates value while stealing from the common purse. John’s retrospective note explains that concern for the poor was a pretext. The variation affects the narrator’s introduction, not the exposure itself.
The received wording should stand because it is coherent across the Gospel and fully identifies the betrayer at the moment his character enters the Bethany scene. Apparatuses should still record how ancient copies reordered and abbreviated a sequence unusually vulnerable to harmonization.
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 12:4, the received text reads “Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him.” and its Authorized Version representation reads . The assessed critical reading is “Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, who was about to betray him.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. 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 John 12:4, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him.”; the Authorized Version represents it as . The assessed critical form is “Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, who was about to betray him.”.
- 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 12:4, the received text reads “Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him.” and its Authorized Version representation reads . The assessed critical reading is “Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, who was about to betray him.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. 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
- 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 12:4
Received reading: “Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him.”
Principal competing reading: “Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, who was about to betray him.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
Mary has anointed Jesus’ feet when one voice objects to the supposed
waste. The received text identifies the speaker as “Judas Iscariot,
Simon’s son, which should betray him.” The SBLGNT names “Judas the
Iscariot, one of his disciples, the one about to betray him.”
Both forms prevent the reader from mistaking Judas for another
disciple. The received text uses the patronymic also found in the supper
narrative; the critical form substitutes his place within the disciple
group. The betrayal description remains in each, so neither conceals his
motive or future act.
Expansion is a plausible account of the longer name. A scribe
familiar with John 6:71 and 13:2, 26 could supply “Simon’s son” at the
first mention in this scene. Yet substitution in the other direction is
equally intelligible: the uncommon chain of name, patronymic, and
betrayal note could be streamlined, with “one of his disciples” borrowed
from the immediate narrative role.
The full form contributes to John’s careful identification of Judas.
“Iscariot” is attached in the tradition either to Judas or to Simon, and
the position of the words varies. Preserving the received syntax avoids
pretending that the patronymic is a late historical fact with no
Johannine support elsewhere.
The ethical contrast is stable. Mary gives costly honor; Judas
calculates value while stealing from the common purse. John’s
retrospective note explains that concern for the poor was a pretext. The
variation affects the narrator’s introduction, not the exposure
itself.
The received wording should stand because it is coherent across the
Gospel and fully identifies the betrayer at the moment his character
enters the Bethany scene. Apparatuses should still record how ancient
copies reordered and abbreviated a sequence unusually vulnerable to
harmonization.
Sources and further reading
- John 6:70–71; 12:1–8; 13:2, 26–30.
- Scrivener, John 12:4.
- SBLGNT apparatus at John 12:4.
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-2179
- 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 12:4 — “Judas Iscariot, Simon’s Son, Which Should Betray Him”: The Full Identification,” VAR-2179, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas