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 saying explains the second “little while” by Christ’s going to the Father; the critical form omits that clause and adds “no longer” to the first half.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.”
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
“A little while and you no longer see me, and again a little while and you will see me.”
Translation or explanation
“A little while and you no longer see me, and again a little while and you will see me.”
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 likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion. 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 16:16
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
In the received text, the saying includes its own christological direction: after a little while they will see him again, “because I go to the Father.” Jesus is about to be removed from their view by death; they will see him after resurrection, and his going to the Father governs the transformed relation described throughout the discourse. Its presence does not make the resurrection appearance identical with the ascension; rather, the entire departure-and-return complex is interpreted under the Son’s movement to the Father.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At John 16:16, 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 critical form requires that the explanatory phrase enter at verse 17 as part of their interpretation or from an earlier statement such as verse 10.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at John 16:16 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: In the received text, the saying includes its own christological direction: after a little while they will see him again, “because I go to the Father.” Jesus is about to be removed from their view by death; they will see him after resurrection, and his going to the Father governs the transformed relation described throughout the discourse. Its presence does not make the resurrection appearance identical with the ascension; rather, the entire departure-and-return complex is interpreted under the Son’s movement to the Father.
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
A source-level external-evidence synopsis remains open; consult the full essay and cited apparatus.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
That repetition creates opposing transcriptional arguments. A copyist could add the explanation to verse 16 from the disciples’ question. Jesus is about to be removed from their view by death; they will see him after resurrection, and his going to the Father governs the transformed relation described throughout the discourse.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
In the received text, the saying includes its own christological direction: after a little while they will see him again, “because I go to the Father.”
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at John 16:16. 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 critical form requires that the explanatory phrase enter at verse 17 as part of their interpretation or from an earlier statement such as verse 10.
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 Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon; edited by Edward Miller — supplied PDF pp. 89
Burgon directly discusses John 16:16. The local discussion treats Greek manuscript evidence, ancient versions, patristic citation, internal and transcriptional considerations as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
The little handful of well-known authorities ( BDL, with a few copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian Versions185), conspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the clause ὅτι ἐγὼ ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα: for which reason Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort omit those six words, and Lachmann puts them into brackets. And yet, let the context be considered. Our Saviour had said (ver. 16),—‘A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go to the Father; It follows (ver.…
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
The two verbs for seeing also matter. One can suggest observation and the other sight or encounter, though lexical distinctions should not be pressed mechanically. Jesus is about to be removed from their view by death; they will see him after resurrection, and his going to the Father governs the transformed relation described throughout the discourse.
The received clause has strong contextual integration and a simple route of accidental omission. It deserves retention. Its presence does not make the resurrection appearance identical with the ascension; rather, the entire departure-and-return complex is interpreted under the Son’s movement to the Father.
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 16:16, the received text reads “A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.” and its Authorized Version representation reads . The assessed critical reading is “A little while and you no longer see me, and again a little while and you will see me.”. 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 16:16, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.”; the Authorized Version represents it as . The assessed critical form is “A little while and you no longer see me, and again a little while and you will see me.”.
- 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 16:16, the received text reads “A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.” and its Authorized Version representation reads . The assessed critical reading is “A little while and you no longer see me, and again a little while and you will see me.”. 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
- The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospelssupplied PDF pp. 89 — 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 16:16
Received reading: “A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.”
Principal competing reading: “A little while and you no longer see me, and again a little while and you will see me.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
The disciples repeat Jesus’ words because they do not understand
them. In the received text, the saying includes its own christological
direction: after a little while they will see him again, “because I go
to the Father.” The SBLGNT omits the explanation and adds “no longer”
before the first “see.”
The omitted words appear nearby in verse 17, where the disciples
quote what troubles them: “and because I go to the Father.” That
repetition creates opposing transcriptional arguments. A copyist could
add the explanation to verse 16 from the disciples’ question. Another
could skip it in verse 16 because the eye moves to its second occurrence
or because the repeated clause seems unnecessary.
The received form allows the disciples to echo the saying they
actually heard. Their confusion concerns both the alternating periods
and the departure to the Father. The critical form requires that the
explanatory phrase enter at verse 17 as part of their interpretation or
from an earlier statement such as verse 10. That remains possible, but
it is less direct.
The two verbs for seeing also matter. One can suggest observation and
the other sight or encounter, though lexical distinctions should not be
pressed mechanically. Jesus is about to be removed from their view by
death; they will see him after resurrection, and his going to the Father
governs the transformed relation described throughout the discourse.
The received clause has strong contextual integration and a simple
route of accidental omission. It deserves retention. Its presence does
not make the resurrection appearance identical with the ascension;
rather, the entire departure-and-return complex is interpreted under the
Son’s movement to the Father.
Sources and further reading
- John 13:1, 33; 14:1–4, 18–28; 16:5–22.
- Scrivener, John 16:16–17.
- SBLGNT apparatus at John 16:16.
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-2192
- 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 16:16 — “Because I Go to the Father”: Does the Explanation Belong?,” VAR-2192, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas