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 gives Jesus broiled fish and a piece of honeycomb. The critical text retains the fish but omits the honeycomb.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“A piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.”
Authorized Version
“They gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.” — Luke 24:42
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.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
“A piece of broiled fish,” without the honeycomb.
Translation or explanation
“A piece of broiled fish,” without the honeycomb.
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, the likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion; 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 24:42
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
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony
Exact proposition affected
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Doctrinal analysis
The action is already complete with fish, and Jesus’ eating demonstrates bodily resurrection. The risen Christ does not eat because resurrection life depends upon ordinary nutrition. It has substantial ecclesiastical support and the quality of an incidental memory unlikely to be invented for doctrinal necessity.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 24:42, 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 mentions only the fish.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 24:42 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
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony: The action is already complete with fish, and Jesus’ eating demonstrates bodily resurrection. The risen Christ does not eat because resurrection life depends upon ordinary nutrition. It has substantial ecclesiastical support and the quality of an incidental memory unlikely to be invented for doctrinal necessity.
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
Fish and comb are recognizable food handled and consumed in the witnesses’ presence.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Copyists often omit a second element after a list has already satisfied the sentence.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text says they give him broiled fish and a piece of honeycomb. It has substantial ecclesiastical support and the quality of an incidental memory unlikely to be invented for doctrinal necessity.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 24:42. 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 mentions only the fish.
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 Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsDedicated appendix on Luke 24:42
John William Burgon; edited by Edward Miller — supplied PDF Appendix I, scan pp. 265–278
Burgon’s “Honeycomb” appendix treats the omission of “and of an honeycomb” from Luke 24:42. He argues from the resurrection narrative, manuscript and versional evidence, patristic use, and a proposed early harmonizing process that the longer received wording is genuine.
I propose next to call attention to the omission from St. Luke xxiv. 42 of a precious incident in the history of our Lord’s Resurrection.
Editorial use: The proposed history of the omission is Burgon’s reconstruction and must be distinguished from the raw witness data.
Conclusion
The shorter form loses no bodily-resurrection doctrine. It retains the request, fish, taking, and eating. Proportion matters when describing the variant: the dispute is over one food item, not whether Jesus ate.
The scene answers the disciples’ mistaken category with several converging evidences—voice, hands and feet, touch, food, fulfilled Scripture. Honeycomb belongs to that accumulation without carrying it alone. Luke’s received detail lets the final meal taste like an actual meal rather than a schematic proof.
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.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Luke 24:42, the received text reads “A piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “They gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.” — Luke 24:42”. The assessed critical reading is “A piece of broiled fish,” without the honeycomb.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Luke 24:42, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “A piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “They gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.” — Luke 24:42”. The assessed critical form is “A piece of broiled fish,” without the honeycomb.”.
- 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 24:42, the received text reads “A piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “They gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.” — Luke 24:42”. The assessed critical reading is “A piece of broiled fish,” without the honeycomb.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
- 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 Traditional Text of the Holy Gospelssupplied PDF Appendix I, scan pp. 265–278 — Dedicated appendix on Luke 24:42
- 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 24:42
Received reading: “A piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.”
Principal competing reading: “A piece of broiled fish,” without the honeycomb.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“They gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.” — Luke 24:42
The disciples remain incredulous for joy, so Jesus asks for food. The received text says they give him broiled fish and a piece of honeycomb. The critical text mentions only the fish.
Honeycomb is an expendable-looking detail. The action is already complete with fish, and Jesus’ eating demonstrates bodily resurrection. That can make honeycomb a picturesque expansion drawn from local diet, preaching, or a marginal note.
It can also make it the first item lost. Copyists often omit a second element after a list has already satisfied the sentence. The Greek phrase is short, and the transition from fish to the verb “having taken” remains smooth without any trace of grammatical damage.
The risen Christ does not eat because resurrection life depends upon ordinary nutrition. He eats “before them” as a sign addressed to their fear. The one standing among them is not a phantom and not another person inhabiting an abandoned identity.
Honey carried biblical associations of promised-land abundance and ordinary nourishment, but Luke does not interpret the item symbolically. Allegory should not displace the narrative purpose. Fish and comb are recognizable food handled and consumed in the witnesses’ presence.
The received honeycomb should be retained. It has substantial ecclesiastical support and the quality of an incidental memory unlikely to be invented for doctrinal necessity. Precisely because fish alone proves the point, the second item may preserve the concrete texture of the meal.
The shorter form loses no bodily-resurrection doctrine. It retains the request, fish, taking, and eating. Proportion matters when describing the variant: the dispute is over one food item, not whether Jesus ate.
The scene answers the disciples’ mistaken category with several converging evidences—voice, hands and feet, touch, food, fulfilled Scripture. Honeycomb belongs to that accumulation without carrying it alone. Luke’s received detail lets the final meal taste like an actual meal rather than a schematic proof.
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-2129
- 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 24:42 — “A Piece of a Broiled Fish, and of an Honeycomb”,” VAR-2129, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas