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 says the withered hand was restored “whole as the other.” Critical editions end with “his hand was restored,” while intermediate witnesses preserve part of the fuller comparison.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“His hand was restored whole as the other.”
Authorized Version
“And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.” — Luke 6:10
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
“His hand was restored,” without “whole as the other.”
Translation or explanation
“His hand was restored,” without “whole as the other.”
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, scribal harmonization to a parallel passage; 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 6:10
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 doctrine of Christ’s healing power does not depend upon three disputed words.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 6:10, 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 says only that it “was restored.”
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 6:10 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 doctrine of Christ’s healing power does not depend upon three disputed words.
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 occupy a middle position, retaining “as the other” without the adjective “whole.”
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A scribe could build the phrase by clarification. Matthew’s parallel includes “whole, like as the other,” giving harmonization a plausible route into Luke.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text reports that the hand “was restored whole as the other.”
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 6:10. 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 says only that it “was restored.”
Conclusion
The Sabbath controversy sharpens around what everyone sees. Jesus has asked whether it is lawful to save life or destroy it. He then restores rather than destroys, while his opponents are filled with madness and discuss what to do to him. “Whole as the other” makes the contrast tactile: the man leaves with two sound hands, and the guardians of a distorted Sabbath leave planning harm.
Textual judgment should preserve that final comparison while keeping its scale in view. The doctrine of Christ’s healing power does not depend upon three disputed words. Their contribution is narrative exactness—the injured member was restored without remainder.
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 6:10, the received text reads “His hand was restored whole as the other.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.” — Luke 6:10”. The assessed critical reading is “His hand was restored,” without “whole as the other.”. 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 6:10, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “His hand was restored whole as the other.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.” — Luke 6:10”. The assessed critical form is “His hand was restored,” without “whole as the other.”.
- 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 6:10, the received text reads “His hand was restored whole as the other.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.” — Luke 6:10”. The assessed critical reading is “His hand was restored,” without “whole as the other.”. 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 6:10
Received reading: “His hand was restored whole as the other.”
Principal competing reading: “His hand was restored,” without “whole as the other.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.” — Luke 6:10
Jesus commands the man with the withered right hand to stretch it out. The received text reports that the hand “was restored whole as the other.” The critical text says only that it “was restored.” Some witnesses occupy a middle position, retaining “as the other” without the adjective “whole.”
That layered evidence matters. It suggests not merely two fixed editions but a phrase vulnerable in stages. “Restored” already implies wholeness; “whole” can be viewed as explanatory, and “as the other” supplies a natural measure of the cure. A scribe could build the phrase by clarification. Another could shorten it by treating the comparison as redundant.
The visibility of the sign
Luke alone identifies the right hand before the textual variation appears. The received close answers that precision: the damaged hand becomes as sound as the unaffected one. The miracle is neither partial improvement nor subjective relief. The hostile observers can compare the two hands.
Matthew’s parallel includes “whole, like as the other,” giving harmonization a plausible route into Luke. Mark simply says that the hand was restored. Luke’s forms could therefore drift toward either neighboring Gospel: fuller like Matthew, shorter like Mark. Synoptic influence does not decide which direction was earliest in Luke.
The received phrase should stand. Its staged transmission can as readily reflect erosion as expansion, and its detailed completion suits Luke’s medical and narrative interest without requiring that Luke practiced modern clinical description. The shorter form still records a complete restoration because the verb itself bears that sense; it does not turn the healing into an incomplete event.
The Sabbath controversy sharpens around what everyone sees. Jesus has asked whether it is lawful to save life or destroy it. He then restores rather than destroys, while his opponents are filled with madness and discuss what to do to him. “Whole as the other” makes the contrast tactile: the man leaves with two sound hands, and the guardians of a distorted Sabbath leave planning harm.
Textual judgment should preserve that final comparison while keeping its scale in view. The doctrine of Christ’s healing power does not depend upon three disputed words. Their contribution is narrative exactness—the injured member was restored without remainder.
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-2084
- 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
- 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 6:10 — “Restored Whole as the Other”: Does the Comparison Belong?,” VAR-2084, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas