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 specifies sin “against thee” and ends the servant question with “I think not.” The critical text omits both phrases; the two omissions are separate variation units.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“If thy brother sin against thee …”; the master does not thank the servant—“I think not.”
Authorized Version
“If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. … I trow not.” — Luke 17:3, 9
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
“If thy brother sins …”; the rhetorical question ends without “I think not.”
Translation or explanation
“If thy brother sins …”; the rhetorical question ends without “I think not.”
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 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
Neither omission creates a contrary doctrine, because context supplies the relation in verse 3 and syntax supplies the answer in verse 9.
Controlled source-list matches
Doctrinal significance and Westminster use
This passage is listed in one or both controlling research files. Their claims are reported with exact source identity and confessional use; list membership does not by itself establish the original reading or the Research Center’s final entailment.
Westminster proof-text listLuke 17:3
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standards
Seth Stark — supplied source file pp. 45–46
Textual wording marked in the source
Received/NKJV side: against you
Westminster doctrines and propositions supported
WCF 15.6 — Of Repentance unto Life
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- so he that scandelizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended;
Editorial qualification: This establishes a confessional proof-text and reception connection. It does not by itself establish the original reading, and its English-version comparison must be checked against the Greek variation unit.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 17:3, 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. Critical editions generally omit “against thee” and the closing answer.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 17:3 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: Neither omission creates a contrary doctrine, because context supplies the relation in verse 3 and syntax supplies the answer in verse 9.
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
— Luke 17:3, 9 The first omission broadens the instruction. At verse 9 Greek grammar makes the master’s negative answer clear. It may be an explanatory addition, or it may have been dropped as redundant.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received reading and its ecclesiastical use require passage-specific documentation; the age of a witness and the age of a reading must not be confused.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 17:3. 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. Critical editions generally omit “against thee” and the closing answer.
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.
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster StandardsWestminster proof-text and translation comparison
Seth Stark — supplied PDF pp. 45–46
At Luke 17:3, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.”” with the ESV/critical-text wording “Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,”” and associates the passage with WCF 15.6.
Editorial use: This establishes a confessional proof-text and reception connection. It does not by itself establish the original reading, and its English-version comparison must be checked against the Greek variation unit.
Conclusion
Both received phrases should remain, while their independence is preserved in the data. “Against thee” defines the immediate relationship; “I think not” closes an argument in Jesus’ voice. Neither omission creates a contrary doctrine, because context supplies the relation in verse 3 and syntax supplies the answer in verse 9.
The juxtaposition is instructive. Disciples must forgive others without tallying debts, and they must obey God without imagining that he is their debtor. The received wording makes both directions explicit: personal sin is faced and forgiven; faithful service ends in humility rather than a claim upon the Master.
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 17:3, the received text reads “If thy brother sin against thee …”; the master does not thank the servant—“I think not.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. … I trow not.” — Luke 17:3, 9”. The assessed critical reading is “If thy brother sins …”; the rhetorical question ends without “I think not.”. 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 17:3, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “If thy brother sin against thee …”; the master does not thank the servant—“I think not.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. … I trow not.” — Luke 17:3, 9”. The assessed critical form is “If thy brother sins …”; the rhetorical question ends without “I think not.”.
- 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 17:3, the received text reads “If thy brother sin against thee …”; the master does not thank the servant—“I think not.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. … I trow not.” — Luke 17:3, 9”. The assessed critical reading is “If thy brother sins …”; the rhetorical question ends without “I think not.”. 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
- A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standardssupplied PDF pp. 45–46 — Westminster proof-text and translation comparison
- 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 17:3, 9
Received reading: “If thy brother sin against thee …”; the master does not thank the servant—“I think not.”
Principal competing reading: “If thy brother sins …”; the rhetorical question ends without “I think not.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
Two short received phrases occur six verses apart. Jesus says, “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him,” and later answers the question about thanking an obedient servant with “I trow not”—“I think not.” Critical editions generally omit “against thee” and the closing answer.
“If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. … I trow not.” — Luke 17:3, 9
The first omission broadens the instruction. “If your brother sins” may include wrongdoing known to the disciple even when not personally targeted. The received form concerns an interpersonal offense and agrees closely with Matthew 18:15. That parallel creates an assimilation argument, but it also shows that Jesus taught the same discipline elsewhere.
“Against thee” limits neither holiness nor public responsibility. Not every private observer possesses authority to prosecute every sin. Christ gives a direct path when one brother has wronged another: rebuke truthfully, and where repentance appears, forgive—even repeatedly.
At verse 9 Greek grammar makes the master’s negative answer clear. He does not owe special thanks because the servant carried out the command. The received “I think not” states what the rhetorical form already signals. It may be an explanatory addition, or it may have been dropped as redundant.
The servant comparison does not justify cruelty, deny divine reward, or make obedience worthless. Jesus exposes merit-thinking. When disciples have done all commanded, they cannot present God with a surplus that puts him in their debt.
Both received phrases should remain, while their independence is preserved in the data. “Against thee” defines the immediate relationship; “I think not” closes an argument in Jesus’ voice. Neither omission creates a contrary doctrine, because context supplies the relation in verse 3 and syntax supplies the answer in verse 9.
The juxtaposition is instructive. Disciples must forgive others without tallying debts, and they must obey God without imagining that he is their debtor. The received wording makes both directions explicit: personal sin is faced and forgiven; faithful service ends in humility rather than a claim upon the Master.
Sources and further reading
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-2106
- 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
- Luke 17:3 and 17:9 are separate variation units and should not receive one combined manuscript-confidence score.
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 17:3, 9 — “Rebuke Him,” “Forgive Him,” and “I Trow Not”,” VAR-2106, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas