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 explicitly says the captors struck Jesus’ face before demanding that he identify the assailant. The critical text retains blindfolding, beating, and the taunt but omits the added face-striking clause within verse 64.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
They blindfolded him, “struck him on the face,” and asked who struck him.
Authorized Version
“When they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?” — Luke 22:64
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
They blindfolded him and questioned him, “Prophesy! Who struck you?”; the preceding verse already says they beat him.
Translation or explanation
They blindfolded him and questioned him, “Prophesy! Who struck you?”; the preceding verse already says they beat him.
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
The theological danger lies in consuming the detail as spectacle.
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.
Doctrinally significant variant listLuke 22.64
Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemised
Anonymous compilation — supplied source file pp. 18–19
Doctrine or doctrinal consequence identified by the source
As we mentioned above, this is the only text of the New Testament that tells us that Christ was struck upon the face. However, as we see above, there is an abundant patristic witness that the Scriptures testify that Jesus was smitten upon the face, and the Fathers can only be referring to this specific verse, which, in all their manuscripts, have to have had the words 'they struck him on the face'. Moreover, the universal witness of the Byzantine Text and of the Latin text testifies that the words 'and they struck him on the face' are those of the originals. The omission of these words in the Alexandrian Text is likely the result of a copyist error.
Source-reported readings and witness argument
Received reading reported
And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? (Luke 22:64 Authorised Version)
Critical reading reported
and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, "Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?" (Luk 22:64 New American Standard) (COMMENT: the Alexandrian Text omits the words 'they struck him on the face'.)
Manuscript and patristic support reported by the source
The Alexandrian omission of 'they struck him on the face' is supported by Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, and other Alexandrian witnesses. The inclusion of 'they struck him on the face' is supported by the universal witness of the Byzantine Text going back to Codex Alexandrinus, and the witness of the Latin text as well. This is the only verse which records Christ's having been struck upon the face. Patristic support for the inclusion of these words includes: Tatian's Diatessaron of the 2nd century (which says He was 'struck on the cheeks'), Cyprian of the 3rd century (who says he was 'smitten on the face'), the Apostolic Constitutions of the 4th century (which again says Christ was 'smitten on the face'), Rufinus of the 4th century, Ephraim the Syrian of the 4th century, and Augustine of Hippo of the 5th century.
Editorial qualification: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 22:64, 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 omits the face-striking clause, though verse 63 has already said they were beating him. The critical text does not spare Jesus from violence.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 22:64 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 theological danger lies in consuming the detail as spectacle.
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
He goes on bearing witness without answering violence in kind.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A scribe sees beating in verse 63 and moves from blindfolding directly to questioning in verse 64. The longer sequence clarifies that a specific hidden blow prompts the demand, while the earlier beating describes the abuse generally.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The next verse in the received text says that after blindfolding him “they struck him on the face” and demanded, “Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?” The received text names the blow, but Christ’s restraint—not the assailants’ cruelty—governs the scene.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 22:64. 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 omits the face-striking clause, though verse 63 has already said they were beating him. The critical text does not spare Jesus from violence.
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.
Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 18–19
Luke 22.64: It sets “And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? (Luke 22:64 Authorised Version)” against “and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, "Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?" (Luk 22:64 New American Standard) (COMMENT: the Alexandrian Text omits the words 'they struck him on the face'.).” Its stated doctrinal argument is that As we mentioned above, this is the only text of the New Testament that tells us that Christ was struck upon the face. However, as we see above, there is an abundant patristic witness that the Scriptures testify that Jesus was smitten upon the face, and the Fathers can only be referring to this specific verse, which, in all their manuscripts, have to have had the words 'they struck him on the face'. Moreover, the universal witness of the Byzantine Text and of the Latin text testifies that the words 'and they struck him on the face' are those of the originals. The omission of these words in the Alexandrian Text is likely the result of a copyist error. The compilation appeals to The Alexandrian omission of 'they struck him on the face' is supported by Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, and other Alexandrian witnesses. The inclusion of 'they struck him on the face' is supported by the universal witness of the Byzantine Text going back to Codex Alexandrinus, and the witness of the Latin text as well. This is the only verse which records Christ's having been struck upon the face.…
Editorial use: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Conclusion
The critical text does not spare Jesus from violence. “They were beating him” remains, and the question “Who struck you?” presupposes a blow. Claims that the shorter form removes the mistreatment entirely are therefore inaccurate.
The theological danger lies in consuming the detail as spectacle. Luke reports humiliation soberly. The face before which heaven will flee is covered; the Judge is struck by prisoners; the Prophet is ordered to perform for mockers. The received text names the blow, but Christ’s restraint—not the assailants’ cruelty—governs the scene. He goes on bearing witness without answering violence in kind.
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 22:64, the received text reads “They blindfolded him, “struck him on the face,” and asked who struck him.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “When they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?” — Luke 22:64”. The assessed critical reading is “They blindfolded him and questioned him, “Prophesy! Who struck you?”; the preceding verse already says they beat him.”. 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 22:64, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “They blindfolded him, “struck him on the face,” and asked who struck him.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “When they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?” — Luke 22:64”. The assessed critical form is “They blindfolded him and questioned him, “Prophesy! Who struck you?”; the preceding verse already says they beat him.”.
- 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 22:64, the received text reads “They blindfolded him, “struck him on the face,” and asked who struck him.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “When they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?” — Luke 22:64”. The assessed critical reading is “They blindfolded him and questioned him, “Prophesy! Who struck you?”; the preceding verse already says they beat him.”. 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
- Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemisedsupplied PDF pp. 18–19 — Attributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence 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 22:64
Received reading: They blindfolded him, “struck him on the face,” and asked who struck him.
Principal competing reading: They blindfolded him and questioned him, “Prophesy! Who struck you?”; the preceding verse already says they beat him.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“When they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?” — Luke 22:64
The men holding Jesus mock and beat him. The next verse in the received text says that after blindfolding him “they struck him on the face” and demanded, “Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?” The critical text omits the face-striking clause, though verse 63 has already said they were beating him.
The shorter form is compact and logical. Blindfolding makes the taunt possible: identify the unseen striker. Repeating a blow in verse 64 may look like an expansion drawn from Matthew and Mark, where the guards strike Jesus and demand prophecy.
The received detail can also be lost as apparent redundancy. A scribe sees beating in verse 63 and moves from blindfolding directly to questioning in verse 64. The longer sequence clarifies that a specific hidden blow prompts the demand, while the earlier beating describes the abuse generally.
The captors treat prophecy as a parlor test. If Jesus is a prophet, he should name a concealed attacker. Luke surrounds their mockery with evidence of far greater knowledge: Jesus predicted Peter’s denial, knows the purpose of his death, and will declare the Son of man’s future enthronement before the council.
The received phrase should remain. It makes the taunt’s immediate circumstance vivid and distinguishes the general assault from the individual blow he is challenged to identify. Its agreement with parallel passion details is not surprising in accounts of the same custody abuse.
The critical text does not spare Jesus from violence. “They were beating him” remains, and the question “Who struck you?” presupposes a blow. Claims that the shorter form removes the mistreatment entirely are therefore inaccurate.
The theological danger lies in consuming the detail as spectacle. Luke reports humiliation soberly. The face before which heaven will flee is covered; the Judge is struck by prisoners; the Prophet is ordered to perform for mockers. The received text names the blow, but Christ’s restraint—not the assailants’ cruelty—governs the scene. He goes on bearing witness without answering violence in kind.
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-2118
- 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
- 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, “Luke 22:64 — Blindfolded, Struck on the Face, and Commanded to Prophesy,” VAR-2118, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas