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 Cana exchange is textually stable in substance; the principal difference is a connective before Jesus’ reply, not a rival request from Mary.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
Mary says, “They have no wine”; Jesus’ reply begins directly, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”
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
Several critical editions add “and” before “Jesus saith unto her.”
Translation or explanation
Several critical editions add “and” before “Jesus saith unto her.”
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
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
A complete textual survey must identify small conjunctions without promoting them into theological crises.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At John 2:3–4, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Principal competing reading: Several critical editions add “and” before “Jesus saith unto her.” Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. Those words stand in both the received and principal critical forms.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at John 2:3–4 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: A complete textual survey must identify small conjunctions without promoting them into theological crises.
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 “when they wanted wine” uses wanted in the older sense of “lacked,” not “desired.”
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Its omission makes the reply more immediate.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
Several critical texts read, “and Jesus saith unto her,” while the received text moves directly to the verb.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at John 2:3–4. 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
Principal competing reading: Several critical editions add “and” before “Jesus saith unto her.” Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. Those words stand in both the received and principal critical forms.
Conclusion
The added “and” makes the narrative slightly more continuous. Its omission makes the reply more immediate. Neither form changes the substance, and neither justifies turning the passage into a polemic detached from John’s purpose. The servants heed Mary’s sound instruction—“Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it”—and the sign manifests Christ’s glory.
This article therefore belongs in the series as a control. A complete textual survey must identify small conjunctions without promoting them into theological crises. The received wording is coherent and should be retained. The central interpretive boundary rests not on the presence of καί but on the actual dialogue: Mary presents the lack, Christ governs the hour, and the disciples believe on him.
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 2:3–4, the received text reads “Mary says, “They have no wine”; Jesus’ reply begins directly, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” and its Authorized Version representation reads . The assessed critical reading is “Several critical editions add “and” before “Jesus saith unto her.”. 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 2:3–4, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Mary says, “They have no wine”; Jesus’ reply begins directly, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”; the Authorized Version represents it as . The assessed critical form is “Several critical editions add “and” before “Jesus saith unto her.”.
- 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 2:3–4, the received text reads “Mary says, “They have no wine”; Jesus’ reply begins directly, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” and its Authorized Version representation reads . The assessed critical reading is “Several critical editions add “and” before “Jesus saith unto her.”. 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 2:3–4
Received reading: Mary says, “They have no wine”; Jesus’ reply begins directly, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”
Principal competing reading: Several critical editions add “and” before “Jesus saith unto her.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
Cana has accumulated interpretations far larger than its textual
variation. Mary says, “They have no wine.” Jesus answers, “Woman, what
have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.” Those words stand in
both the received and principal critical forms.
The notable edition-level difference is the conjunction before Jesus’
answer. Several critical texts read, “and Jesus saith unto her,” while
the received text moves directly to the verb. English word order also
varies because John uses a genitive absolute: literally, “the wine
having failed.” The Authorized Version’s “when they wanted wine” uses
wanted in the older sense of “lacked,” not “desired.”
What the exchange
does—and does not—say
Mary reports the need; the Greek does not preserve an explicit
command that Jesus perform a miracle. His answer marks authority and
timing. “Woman” is respectful in its Johannine setting, as the cross
confirms, while “what to me and to thee?” establishes distance between
her concern and his messianic hour. The ensuing sign is performed by the
Son’s will.
The added “and” makes the narrative slightly more continuous. Its
omission makes the reply more immediate. Neither form changes the
substance, and neither justifies turning the passage into a polemic
detached from John’s purpose. The servants heed Mary’s sound
instruction—“Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it”—and the sign manifests
Christ’s glory.
This article therefore belongs in the series as a control. A complete
textual survey must identify small conjunctions without promoting them
into theological crises. The received wording is coherent and should be
retained. The central interpretive boundary rests not on the presence of
καί but on the actual dialogue: Mary presents the lack, Christ
governs the hour, and the disciples believe on him.
Sources and further reading
- John 2:1–11; 12:23; 13:1; 19:26.
- Scrivener and SBLGNT at John 2:3–4.
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-2137
- 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 2:3–4 — When the Wine Failed: Word Order, Mary’s Request, and Jesus’ Reply,” VAR-2137, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas