Complete textual-variant dossier
No adverse entailment · agrees with the received text
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
Every known Greek manuscript names Mary as the speaker of the Magnificat. “Elisabeth” is an Old Latin minority reading and a useful warning against turning every ancient variant into a balanced contest.
Variant class
Substitution or composite variation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“And Mary said,” introducing the Magnificat.
Authorized Version
“And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord.” — Luke 1:46
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
“And Elisabeth said,” in a small Old Latin stream; conjecture that the earliest text named no speaker.
Translation or explanation
“And Elisabeth said,” in a small Old Latin stream; conjecture that the earliest text named no speaker.
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, possible theological pressure in transmission; the printed confidence rating represented here is {B}. 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 Luke 1:46
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 Luke, 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 Luke 1:46, 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 Magnificat belongs to Mary in the received text, the modern critical text, and the entire known Greek manuscript tradition.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 1:46 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
The Magnificat belongs to Mary in the received text, the modern critical text, and the entire known Greek manuscript tradition. A few Old Latin witnesses name Elisabeth instead. A few Latin patristic references travel with the same attribution.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A translator or copyist could let the preceding speaker continue.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Magnificat belongs to Mary in the received text, the modern critical text, and the entire known Greek manuscript tradition. Some scholars have proposed that Luke originally wrote simply “and she said,” after which rival names entered different traditions.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 1:46. 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 Magnificat belongs to Mary in the received text, the modern critical text, and the entire known Greek manuscript tradition.
Conclusion
The methodological point is as important as the textual result. Age matters, but an old reading can still be local, translational, and secondary. “Elisabeth” deserves cataloging because the Research Center should not erase unusual evidence. It does not deserve elevation into a coequal form of Luke.
Mary spoke the Magnificat. The received attribution is geographically and linguistically broad, narratively natural, and unopposed in Greek transmission. Elisabeth’s true inspired words remain in verses 42–45; Mary’s answer begins in verse 46.
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.
No adverse entailment: agrees with the received text.
Necessary reasoning chain
- The current critical main-text reading assessed at Luke 1:46 agrees with the received Hebrew/Greek reading at the variation unit governed by this card.
- An adverse preservation entailment at this locus would require the current critical form to displace a different received reading.
- Because no such displacement occurs at the assessed locus, no adverse preservation consequence follows here.
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: Luke 1:46
Received reading: “And Mary said,” introducing the Magnificat.
Principal competing reading: “And Elisabeth said,” in a small Old Latin stream; conjecture that the earliest text named no speaker.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
The Magnificat belongs to Mary in the received text, the modern critical text, and the entire known Greek manuscript tradition. A few Old Latin witnesses name Elisabeth instead. Their antiquity makes the variant historically interesting; their isolation keeps it from becoming a genuine tie.
“And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord.” — Luke 1:46
The Latin codices commonly identified in this discussion are Vercellensis, Veronensis, and Rehdigeranus. A few Latin patristic references travel with the same attribution. No Greek exemplar has yet been found that reads “Elisabeth” at verse 46. The principal Syriac and other ancient versions also support Mary.
Why Elisabeth could appear
Elisabeth has just spoken, and nothing in ancient manuscripts resembles modern quotation marks. A translator or copyist could let the preceding speaker continue. Her late-in-life conception also resembles Hannah’s situation, and the Magnificat draws deeply from Hannah’s song. Those narrative associations make the Latin substitution intelligible.
Mary nevertheless fits the canticle’s first-person claims. She calls herself the Lord’s lowly handmaid, the same self-description she used when accepting Gabriel’s word. She says that all generations will call her blessed, directly answering Elisabeth’s declaration, “Blessed is she that believed.” The song then widens from Mary’s personal mercy to God’s covenant remembrance toward Abraham and his seed. That movement matches Luke’s presentation of her as the mother of the promised Davidic Son.
Some scholars have proposed that Luke originally wrote simply “and she said,” after which rival names entered different traditions. Conjecture is unnecessary. Mary is supported by the documentary record at the point where the text must be decided. A hypothetical nameless archetype cannot outrank every surviving Greek witness.
The methodological point is as important as the textual result. Age matters, but an old reading can still be local, translational, and secondary. “Elisabeth” deserves cataloging because the Research Center should not erase unusual evidence. It does not deserve elevation into a coequal form of Luke.
Mary spoke the Magnificat. The received attribution is geographically and linguistically broad, narratively natural, and unopposed in Greek transmission. Elisabeth’s true inspired words remain in verses 42–45; Mary’s answer begins in verse 46.
Sources and further reading
- 1 Samuel 2:1–10; Luke 1:38–56.
- Old Latin Codices Vercellensis, Veronensis, and Rehdigeranus at Luke 1:46.
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-2064
- 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 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
- The competing attribution is versional rather than a surviving Greek reading.
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, “Luke 1:46 — Mary or Elisabeth? Who Spoke the Magnificat?,” VAR-2064, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas