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 variation concerns the grammatical shape of David’s actions. The received text uses finite verbs and an added conjunction—he took and ate, and also gave—where the critical form makes “taking” subordinate before “he ate and gave.”
Variant class
Substitution or composite variation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
David “took and ate” the bread and “also gave” it to his companions.
Authorized Version
“He went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him.” — Luke 6:4
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
David entered and, “taking” the loaves, “ate and gave” them to his companions.
Translation or explanation
David entered and, “taking” the loaves, “ate and gave” them to his companions.
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 a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, scribal harmonization to a parallel passage, the likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion; 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 6:4
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
Its doctrinal yield comes from what both forms preserve: Scripture records David’s action, the law’s restriction, and Christ’s authoritative conclusion that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 6:4, 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 form uses a participle, “having taken,” followed by “he ate and gave.” The critical construction is therefore stylistically natural.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 6:4 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: Its doctrinal yield comes from what both forms preserve: Scripture records David’s action, the law’s restriction, and Christ’s authoritative conclusion that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.
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
The received syntax should be retained as the form underlying the Authorized Version. David’s exceptional reception of the bread becomes a witness against the Pharisees’ rigid charge.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A scribe could regularize the grammar in either direction—subordinating the first action for smoother Greek or turning all three into equal events.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The extra “and” before “gave” in the received text creates a measured recital: entered, took, ate, and gave.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 6:4. 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 form uses a participle, “having taken,” followed by “he ate and gave.” The critical construction is therefore stylistically natural.
Conclusion
Jesus’ use of the episode also resists careless application. He does not abolish holiness or teach that need excuses every violation. He exposes an interpretation of Sabbath that condemns the hungry while failing to understand Scripture’s own ordering of ceremonial service and mercy. David’s exceptional reception of the bread becomes a witness against the Pharisees’ rigid charge.
This variation matters mainly for reconstructing Luke’s sentence. Its doctrinal yield comes from what both forms preserve: Scripture records David’s action, the law’s restriction, and Christ’s authoritative conclusion that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.
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 6:4, the received text reads “David “took and ate” the bread and “also gave” it to his companions.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “He went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him.” — Luke 6:4”. The assessed critical reading is “David entered and, “taking” the loaves, “ate and gave” them to his companions.”. 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 6:4, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “David “took and ate” the bread and “also gave” it to his companions.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “He went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him.” — Luke 6:4”. The assessed critical form is “David entered and, “taking” the loaves, “ate and gave” them to his companions.”.
- 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 6:4, the received text reads “David “took and ate” the bread and “also gave” it to his companions.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “He went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him.” — Luke 6:4”. The assessed critical reading is “David entered and, “taking” the loaves, “ate and gave” them to his companions.”. 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 6:4
Received reading: David “took and ate” the bread and “also gave” it to his companions.
Principal competing reading: David entered and, “taking” the loaves, “ate and gave” them to his companions.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“He went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him.” — Luke 6:4
The substance of Jesus’ appeal is stable: David entered God’s house, ate the consecrated bread, and shared it with those accompanying him. The variation lies in how Luke coordinates the actions. The received form gives “he took and ate … and gave also.” The critical form uses a participle, “having taken,” followed by “he ate and gave.”
English can make both forms sound almost identical. That makes this an important control against judging significance by the number of Greek words that differ. No action is lost. David takes, eats, and gives in either text; the priestly restriction is also present in both.
Luke often places a participle before a main verb. The critical construction is therefore stylistically natural. The received finite sequence is more expansive and resembles the step-by-step narration a reader may remember from the Synoptic parallels or from the account in Samuel. A scribe could regularize the grammar in either direction—subordinating the first action for smoother Greek or turning all three into equal events.
The extra “and” before “gave” in the received text creates a measured recital: entered, took, ate, and gave. That cadence suits oral reading. The shorter critical arrangement is tighter. Neither offers a decisive internal fingerprint, and the external transmission must carry more than usual weight.
The received syntax should be retained as the form underlying the Authorized Version. Its conjunction is not pointless; it marks the distribution to David’s companions as a further act. Yet a database conclusion should not say that the critical text removes David’s taking or giving. It changes subordination, not content.
Jesus’ use of the episode also resists careless application. He does not abolish holiness or teach that need excuses every violation. He exposes an interpretation of Sabbath that condemns the hungry while failing to understand Scripture’s own ordering of ceremonial service and mercy. David’s exceptional reception of the bread becomes a witness against the Pharisees’ rigid charge.
This variation matters mainly for reconstructing Luke’s sentence. Its doctrinal yield comes from what both forms preserve: Scripture records David’s action, the law’s restriction, and Christ’s authoritative conclusion that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.
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-2082
- 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 rival forms differ chiefly in verbal syntax and conjunctions; both preserve all three actions.
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 6:4 — David Ate and Gave: Has the Parallel Been Assimilated or Shortened?,” VAR-2082, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas