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 “your God” reproduces Jesus’ opponents’ claim in direct discourse, while the critical “our God” includes Jesus and his hearers in the grammatical confession.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“My Father … of whom ye say, that he is your God.”
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.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
“My Father … of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’”
Translation or explanation
“My Father … of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’”
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 8:54
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
The critical form is therefore theologically possible.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At John 8:54, 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. Because early copies did not use modern quotation marks, the editor must also decide whether the words are represented as direct or indirect speech. The critical form is therefore theologically possible.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at John 8:54 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: The critical form is therefore theologically possible.
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
Transcription could move either way. A scribe might assimilate the pronoun to the opponents addressed throughout the discourse, creating “your.” Context favors the received second-person form.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text has theos hymōn: the Father is the one “of whom ye say, that he is your God.”
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at John 8:54. 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. Because early copies did not use modern quotation marks, the editor must also decide whether the words are represented as direct or indirect speech. The critical form is therefore theologically possible.
Conclusion
Transcription could move either way. A scribe might assimilate the pronoun to the opponents addressed throughout the discourse, creating “your.” Another might replace a distancing expression with the familiar communal confession “our God.” The difference between the abbreviated plural pronouns in majuscule script also allowed ordinary copying confusion.
Context favors the received second-person form. Verse 55 immediately contrasts their ignorance with Christ’s knowledge: “Yet ye have not known him; but I know him.” “Your God” sharpens that rebuke without implying that the Father is not truly Christ’s Father and God according to his mediatorial speech. The received pronoun should be preserved, while punctuation must make clear that Jesus is reporting what his opponents claim.
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.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At John 8:54, the received text reads “My Father … of whom ye say, that he is your God.” and its Authorized Version representation reads . The assessed critical reading is “My Father … of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’”. 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 8:54, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “My Father … of whom ye say, that he is your God.”; the Authorized Version represents it as . The assessed critical form is “My Father … of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’”.
- 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 8:54, the received text reads “My Father … of whom ye say, that he is your God.” and its Authorized Version representation reads . The assessed critical reading is “My Father … of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’”. 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 8:54
Received reading: “My Father … of whom ye say, that he is your God.”
Principal competing reading: “My Father … of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
A single pronoun determines whose confession Jesus quotes. The
received text has theos hymōn: the Father is the one “of whom
ye say, that he is your God.” The SBLGNT and NA28 read theos
hēmōn, “our God.” Because early copies did not use modern quotation
marks, the editor must also decide whether the words are represented as
direct or indirect speech.
With “your,” Jesus reports the opponents’ own claim from a measured
distance. They say that the Father is their God, yet they do not know
him and dishonor the Son whom the Father glorifies. The wording fits the
repeated contrast between their asserted lineage and their demonstrated
unbelief.
With “our,” the clause can be punctuated as their direct statement:
“of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’” Jesus does not thereby deny sharing
the identity of Israel’s God; elsewhere he calls the Father “my God” and
joins himself to the worshiping people without surrendering his unique
sonship. The critical form is therefore theologically possible.
Transcription could move either way. A scribe might assimilate the
pronoun to the opponents addressed throughout the discourse, creating
“your.” Another might replace a distancing expression with the familiar
communal confession “our God.” The difference between the abbreviated
plural pronouns in majuscule script also allowed ordinary copying
confusion.
Context favors the received second-person form. Verse 55 immediately
contrasts their ignorance with Christ’s knowledge: “Yet ye have not
known him; but I know him.” “Your God” sharpens that rebuke without
implying that the Father is not truly Christ’s Father and God according
to his mediatorial speech. The received pronoun should be preserved,
while punctuation must make clear that Jesus is reporting what his
opponents claim.
Sources and further reading
- John 8:41–55; 20:17.
- Scrivener, John 8:54.
- SBLGNT text and apparatus at John 8:54.
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-2168
- 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 8:54 — Your God or Our God? Direct and Indirect Discourse in Jesus’ Answer,” VAR-2168, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas