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 says simply, “one thing is needful.” A strongly supported critical form reads, “few things are needed—or one,” which may begin with a reference to the meal before reaching Mary’s choice.
Variant class
Substitution or composite variation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Thou art troubled about many things: but one thing is needful.”
Authorized Version
“Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing is needful.” — Luke 10:41–42
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
“You are troubled about many things, but few things are needed—or one.”
Translation or explanation
“You are troubled about many things, but few things are needed—or one.”
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, a proposed mechanism of accidental omission. 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 10:41–42
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 10:41–42, 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. One critical form reads, “few things are needed—or one.” Modern editions have differed, and the evidence includes intermediate arrangements.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 10:41–42 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
Because the “few things—or one” form is ancient and impressive, it deserves a full note rather than dismissal.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Conversely, a scribe could simplify an awkward phrase to the memorable antithesis of many and one.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
Service corrected, not despised The received text does not condemn hospitality.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 10:41–42. 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. One critical form reads, “few things are needed—or one.” Modern editions have differed, and the evidence includes intermediate arrangements.
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 Revision RevisedPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon — supplied PDF pp. 164
Burgon directly discusses Luke 10:41. The local discussion treats ancient versions as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
For, on the other hand, of what possible use can it be to encumber the margin of 8. Luke x. 41, 42 (for example), with the announcement that ‘A few ancient authorities read Martha, Martha, thou art troubled: Mary hath chosen &e.’ (the fact being, that D alone of MSS. omits ‘careful and’... ‘about many things.» But one thing is needful, and’ . . .)? With the record of this circumstance, is it reasonable (we ask) to choke up our English margin,—to create perplexity and to insinuate doubt? The author of the foregoing 1 “Vox illa Patris, que super baptizatum facta est Hgo hodie genwi te,” (Enchirid. c. 49 [Opp. vi.…
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 repetition “Martha, Martha” is tender. Christ does not reduce her to a caricature of activity. He names the anxiety that has divided her attention and protects Mary’s place as a disciple. Textual debate should not restore the very busyness the saying resists by multiplying ingenious options beyond what the scene can bear.
One thing is needful: the word of the Lord must be received. From that portion, hospitality can become peaceful service rather than a measure of superiority.
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 Luke 10:41–42, the received text reads “Thou art troubled about many things: but one thing is needful.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing is needful.” — Luke 10:41–42”. The assessed critical reading is “You are troubled about many things, but few things are needed—or one.”. 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 Luke 10:41–42, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Thou art troubled about many things: but one thing is needful.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing is needful.” — Luke 10:41–42”. The assessed critical form is “You are troubled about many things, but few things are needed—or one.”.
- 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 Luke 10:41–42, the received text reads “Thou art troubled about many things: but one thing is needful.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing is needful.” — Luke 10:41–42”. The assessed critical reading is “You are troubled about many things, but few things are needed—or one.”. 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
- The Revision Revisedsupplied PDF pp. 164 — 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: Luke 10:41–42
Received reading: “Thou art troubled about many things: but one thing is needful.”
Principal competing reading: “You are troubled about many things, but few things are needed—or one.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing is needful.” — Luke 10:41–42
Martha is distracted by much serving while Mary sits at Jesus’ feet. The received answer contrasts “many things” with “one thing … needful.” One critical form reads, “few things are needed—or one.” Modern editions have differed, and the evidence includes intermediate arrangements.
The longer critical wording can begin at the supper table. Martha is anxious over many dishes; few would suffice, even one. Jesus then turns from a modest meal to Mary’s good portion. That gentle double meaning is attractive and difficult, which gives it a serious claim to originality.
It is also easy to imagine the line as an explanatory gloss. A reader who heard “one thing” only spiritually might note that few dishes—or one—were actually necessary. Once copied into the text, the gloss produces the very layered saying now admired. Conversely, a scribe could simplify an awkward phrase to the memorable antithesis of many and one.
Service corrected, not despised
The received text does not condemn hospitality. Jesus has just praised the active mercy of the Samaritan, and Martha’s service is real service. Her trouble is distraction: good work has become agitation severe enough to accuse her sister and direct the Lord.
“One thing” has been identified as listening to Jesus, communion with him, the kingdom, or salvation. In the immediate scene it is the good portion Mary has chosen—receiving the Lord’s word before attempting to manage everything around him. That priority orders service rather than abolishing it.
The concise received reading should remain. Its many/one contrast carries the episode without the uncertain culinary preface, and the rival can be explained as an early interpretive expansion. Because the “few things—or one” form is ancient and impressive, it deserves a full note rather than dismissal.
The repetition “Martha, Martha” is tender. Christ does not reduce her to a caricature of activity. He names the anxiety that has divided her attention and protects Mary’s place as a disciple. Textual debate should not restore the very busyness the saying resists by multiplying ingenious options beyond what the scene can bear.
One thing is needful: the word of the Lord must be received. From that portion, hospitality can become peaceful service rather than a measure of superiority.
Sources and further reading
- Luke 8:19–21; 10:25–42; John 11:1–44; 12:1–8.
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-2096
- 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. 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
- Several manuscripts preserve intermediate word orders and combinations; “few things—or one” is a major form, not the only alternative.
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 10:41–42 — “One Thing Is Needful”: The Text of Christ’s Answer to Martha,” VAR-2096, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas