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 addresses the crucified Christ as “Lord.” The critical text has the vocative “Jesus” and no added “Lord,” with a further variation between coming “in” and coming “into” the kingdom.
Variant class
Transposition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Remember me, Lord, when thou comest in thy kingdom.”
Authorized Version
“And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” — Luke 23:42
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
“Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
Translation or explanation
“Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
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 {C}. 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 23:42
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.
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 23.42
Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemised
Anonymous compilation — supplied source file pp. 20–21
Doctrine or doctrinal consequence identified by the source
It is true that in both the Alexandrian and the Byzantine Text, the thief confesses that Christ is a king – "Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." This said, the omission of the word 'Lord' surely weakens the thief's confession of Christ as the Son of God. More significantly, there is no patristic witness which supports the Alexandrian reading. Likely, in the days of uncial handwriting, the word 'Lord' was early omitted by accident in the Alexandrian tradition, along with the Greek word τω for 'to': and thus, the reading was changed from 'And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me', to a shortened version: 'And he said, 'Jesus remember me'. Given the greater reliability of the Byzantine Text, and the patristic citations which its reading in this verse, we embrace the Byzantine Text's 'Lord, remember me' as the authentic reading of the original.
Source-reported readings and witness argument
Received reading reported
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. (Luke 23:42 Authorised Version)
Critical reading reported
And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" (Luke 23:42 New American Standard) (COMMENT: The Critical Text omits 'Lord' from the text, and instead of saying 'and he said to Jesus', it says, 'and he was saying, 'Jesus'… Thus, the Thief on the cross calls Jesus 'Lord' in the Byzantine Text, but in the Alexandrian Text, he is only reported as calling him 'Jesus'.)
Manuscript and patristic support reported by the source
The reading 'Jesus, remember me' is supported by 𝔓75, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi, and the Sahidic Coptic: in short, the Alexandrian tradition. The reading 'And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me' is supported by the universal witness of the Byzantine Text going back to Codex Alexandrinus, as well as by the Old Latin, the Latin Vulgate, and the Syriac translations. The thief's confession of Jesus as Lord, as recorded in the Byzantine Text, is also corroborated by early Church fathers. Tatian in the 2nd century reports the thief as calling Jesus 'Lord' in his Diatessaron. Cyril of Jerusalem cites the verse exactly as it is found in the Byzantine in his Catechetical Lectures on the Apostles' Creed on the words 'Crucified and Buried'. So also Augustine cites it exactly as found in the Byzantine Text in his Exposition of Psalm XL. There are no Church fathers who cite the text as recorded in the Alexandrian Text.
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 23:42, 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. The critical text reads “Jesus, remember me.” The critical vocative is strikingly personal.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 23:42 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
Greek witnesses show combinations and word orders that warn against treating the two English lines as indivisible packages. The critical “Jesus” is ancient and reverent, not a denial of lordship.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Copyists could replace the proper name with a devotional title or supply the title to clarify the confession. Narrative context can carry the confession even without the title.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text gives the appeal as “Lord, remember me.”
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 23:42. 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. The critical text reads “Jesus, remember me.” The critical vocative is strikingly personal.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 2 passage-specific notes 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. 120
Burgon directly discusses Luke 23:42. The local discussion treats the local documentary and contextual evidence as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
Calamitous to relate, they are fol- lowed herein by our Revisionists: who (misled by Dr. Hort) invite us henceforth to read,—‘ Now when the Centurion saw that He so gave wp the ghost.’ (.) In S. Luke xxiii. 42, by leaving out two little words (t and xe), the same blind guides, under the same blind guidance, effectually misrepresent the record concerning the repentant malefactor. Henceforth they would have us be- lieve that ‘he said, “ JESUS, remember me when thou comest in thy Kingdom.”’ (Dr.…
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.
Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 20–21
Luke 23.42: It sets “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. (Luke 23:42 Authorised Version)” against “And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" (Luke 23:42 New American Standard) (COMMENT: The Critical Text omits 'Lord' from the text, and instead of saying 'and he said to Jesus', it says, 'and he was saying, 'Jesus'… Thus, the Thief on the cross calls….” Its stated doctrinal argument is that It is true that in both the Alexandrian and the Byzantine Text, the thief confesses that Christ is a king – "Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." This said, the omission of the word 'Lord' surely weakens the thief's confession of Christ as the Son of God. More significantly, there is no patristic witness which supports the Alexandrian reading. Likely, in the days of uncial handwriting, the word 'Lord' was early omitted by accident in the Alexandrian tradition, along with the Greek word τω for 'to': and thus, the reading was changed from 'And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me', to a shortened version: 'And he said, 'Jesus remember me'.… The compilation appeals to The reading 'Jesus, remember me' is supported by 𝔓75, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi, and the Sahidic Coptic: in short, the Alexandrian tradition. The reading 'And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me' is supported by the universal witness of the Byzantine Text going back to Codex Alexandrinus, as well as by the Old Latin, the Latin Vulgate, and the Syriac translations.…
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
“When thou comest into thy kingdom” can suggest entry upon royal rule; “when thou comest in thy kingdom” can suggest arrival invested with it. Neither phrase implies that Christ presently lacks all authority. His answer exercises it immediately: paradise is promised by royal word.
The passage does not offer cheap grace. The criminal acknowledges just condemnation and turns to the innocent king. Grace is free to him because the cost is being borne within arm’s reach. The received address captures the paradox in one word: the man fixed to the neighboring cross is Lord.
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 23:42, the received text reads “Remember me, Lord, when thou comest in thy kingdom.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” — Luke 23:42”. The assessed critical reading is “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”. 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 23:42, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Remember me, Lord, when thou comest in thy kingdom.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” — Luke 23:42”. The assessed critical form is “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”.
- 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 23:42, the received text reads “Remember me, Lord, when thou comest in thy kingdom.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” — Luke 23:42”. The assessed critical reading is “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”. 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. 120 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemisedsupplied PDF pp. 20–21 — Attributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Luke 23:42
Received reading: “Remember me, Lord, when thou comest in thy kingdom.”
Principal competing reading: “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” — Luke 23:42
One criminal joins the mockery; the other confesses guilt, defends Jesus’ innocence, and asks for remembrance. The received text gives the appeal as “Lord, remember me.” The critical text reads “Jesus, remember me.” A connected prepositional variation distinguishes coming “in” the kingdom from coming “into” it.
The critical vocative is strikingly personal. Addressing the condemned man by name while others use titles in mockery can be read as a direct act of trust. The received “Lord” makes the confession explicit: the dying criminal recognizes royal authority in the one crucified beside him.
Greek witnesses show combinations and word orders that warn against treating the two English lines as indivisible packages. “Jesus” may stand at the opening in one form, while “Lord” appears later in another. Copyists could replace the proper name with a devotional title or supply the title to clarify the confession.
The remarkable fact is common to every form. Jesus appears to be leaving the world in defeat, yet the criminal speaks of his future kingdom. He has no works to repair his life, no opportunity for restitution, and no status to offer. He asks to be remembered.
The received “Lord” should remain. It fits the man’s rebuke of the other criminal, his fear of God, and his confidence in Christ’s kingly future. The critical “Jesus” is ancient and reverent, not a denial of lordship. Narrative context can carry the confession even without the title.
“When thou comest into thy kingdom” can suggest entry upon royal rule; “when thou comest in thy kingdom” can suggest arrival invested with it. Neither phrase implies that Christ presently lacks all authority. His answer exercises it immediately: paradise is promised by royal word.
The passage does not offer cheap grace. The criminal acknowledges just condemnation and turns to the innocent king. Grace is free to him because the cost is being borne within arm’s reach. The received address captures the paradox in one word: the man fixed to the neighboring cross is Lord.
Sources and further reading
- Luke 18:13–14; 22:69; 23:32–43; Acts 2:36.
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-2123
- 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
- The vocative and kingdom-preposition subvariants circulate in multiple combinations; they should remain individually searchable.
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 23:42 — “Lord, Remember Me” or “Jesus, Remember Me”?,” VAR-2123, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas