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 includes the field pair as verse 36. The principal critical text omits the whole verse, while Matthew contains the same comparison in his eschatological discourse.
Variant class
Spelling / name
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Two shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”
Authorized Version
“Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” — Luke 17:36
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
The verse is absent; Luke moves from two women grinding to the disciples’ question, “Where, Lord?”
Translation or explanation
The verse is absent; Luke moves from two women grinding to the disciples’ question, “Where, Lord?”
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; 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 17:36
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
The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
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 17:36, 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 critical text has the first two and omits the third.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 17:36 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 triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
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
Some witnesses place or mark the verse differently, evidence that it circulated with instability.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
The addition theory is powerful. A copyist familiar with Matthew can complete Luke’s series, and the repeated wording makes insertion nearly effortless. The omission theory is also visible.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The field belongs in the received text.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 17:36. 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 critical text has the first two and omits the third.
Conclusion
Whole-verse numbering can exaggerate the appearance of scale. Verse 36 is one compact parallel sentence, and the numerical label was added long after Luke. Still, an entire saying is at stake, not merely spelling.
The field belongs in the received text. Its presence carries the warning into ordinary outdoor labor: when the Son of man is revealed, proximity, partnership, and shared occupation cannot substitute for faithfulness.
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 17:36, the received text reads “Two shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” — Luke 17:36”. The assessed critical reading is “The verse is absent; Luke moves from two women grinding to the disciples’ question, “Where, Lord?”. 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 17:36, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Two shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” — Luke 17:36”. The assessed critical form is “The verse is absent; Luke moves from two women grinding to the disciples’ question, “Where, Lord?”.
- 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 17:36, the received text reads “Two shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” — Luke 17:36”. The assessed critical reading is “The verse is absent; Luke moves from two women grinding to the disciples’ question, “Where, Lord?”. 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: Luke 17:36
Received reading: “Two shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”
Principal competing reading: The verse is absent; Luke moves from two women grinding to the disciples’ question, “Where, Lord?”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” — Luke 17:36
Luke’s received sequence gives three scenes of sudden separation: two people in one bed, two women grinding together, and two men in the field. The critical text has the first two and omits the third. Matthew 24:40 contains the field saying.
The addition theory is powerful. A copyist familiar with Matthew can complete Luke’s series, and the repeated wording makes insertion nearly effortless. Some witnesses place or mark the verse differently, evidence that it circulated with instability.
The omission theory is also visible. The sayings repeat “one shall be taken, and the other left.” An eye moving between identical endings can skip a whole example. Repetition that facilitates harmonization also facilitates accidental loss.
Taken where?
The disciples ask, “Where, Lord?” Jesus answers with the image of a body and gathered eagles or vultures. Interpreters disagree whether the one “taken” is rescued or taken in judgment. Noah’s days, Lot’s escape, the warning not to turn back, and the corpse image must all be allowed to shape the answer. The textual presence of verse 36 does not settle which member of each pair is blessed.
The received field saying should be retained. Its omission can be accounted for by the repeated line endings, and a balanced three-scene pattern is characteristic of oral teaching. Agreement with Matthew is genuine evidence of possible assimilation but not proof that Jesus or Luke could not repeat the example.
The shorter Luke remains coherent with two pairs. This is not a case where removing the verse destroys the discourse. Its loss reduces the range from home and mill and field to home and mill, but the warning of sudden division stands.
Whole-verse numbering can exaggerate the appearance of scale. Verse 36 is one compact parallel sentence, and the numerical label was added long after Luke. Still, an entire saying is at stake, not merely spelling.
The field belongs in the received text. Its presence carries the warning into ordinary outdoor labor: when the Son of man is revealed, proximity, partnership, and shared occupation cannot substitute for faithfulness.
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-2107
- 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 verse agrees closely with Matthew 24:40 and has positional instability in parts of the tradition; those facts must remain attached to the inclusion judgment.
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 17:36 — “Two Men Shall Be in the Field”: Is the Entire Verse Authentic?,” VAR-2107, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas