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 John sent two disciples “to Jesus.” The critical text reads “to the Lord.” A second variation distinguishes “another” from “a different one” in their question.
Variant class
Substitution or composite variation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
John sent the two “to Jesus,” asking whether they should look for another.
Authorized Version
“John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus.” — Luke 7:19
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
John sent them “to the Lord,” with a minor lexical variant in “another.”
Translation or explanation
John sent them “to the Lord,” with a minor lexical variant in “another.”
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 authorial usage, grammar, or immediate context; 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 7:19
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 title “Lord” is characteristic of Luke, especially when the narrator speaks of Jesus with post-resurrection understanding.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 7:19, 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 “to the Lord.” That makes the critical form plausible.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 7:19 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 title “Lord” is characteristic of Luke, especially when the narrator speaks of Jesus with post-resurrection understanding.
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 vary between two adjectives that can mean “another,” one sometimes emphasizing another of a different kind.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Both forms include two disciples and both describe a sending.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Textus Receptus says he sent them “to Jesus.”
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 7:19. 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 “to the Lord.” That makes the critical form plausible.
Conclusion
John’s question also need not imply final unbelief. Imprisonment, the apparent delay of judgment, and concern for his disciples all belong to the scene. Jesus answers not with a bare yes but with Isaiah-shaped works: blind people see, lame people walk, lepers are cleansed, the dead are raised, and the poor hear good news.
Whether the narrator writes “Jesus” or “the Lord,” the answer identifies him through messianic deed. The received wording gives the personal name; the surrounding works disclose why Luke can also call him 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.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Luke 7:19, the received text reads “John sent the two “to Jesus,” asking whether they should look for another.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus.” — Luke 7:19”. The assessed critical reading is “John sent them “to the Lord,” with a minor lexical variant in “another.”. 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 7:19, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “John sent the two “to Jesus,” asking whether they should look for another.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus.” — Luke 7:19”. The assessed critical form is “John sent them “to the Lord,” with a minor lexical variant in “another.”.
- 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 7:19, the received text reads “John sent the two “to Jesus,” asking whether they should look for another.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus.” — Luke 7:19”. The assessed critical reading is “John sent them “to the Lord,” with a minor lexical variant in “another.”. 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
- 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 7:19
Received reading: John sent the two “to Jesus,” asking whether they should look for another.
Principal competing reading: John sent them “to the Lord,” with a minor lexical variant in “another.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus.” — Luke 7:19
From prison, John hears reports of Jesus’ works and sends two disciples with a question. The Textus Receptus says he sent them “to Jesus.” The critical text says “to the Lord.” Both identify the same person; the variation concerns Luke’s narrative title, not whether the envoys reached Christ.
The title “Lord” is characteristic of Luke, especially when the narrator speaks of Jesus with post-resurrection understanding. That makes the critical form plausible. It can also invite scribal substitution: sacred titles tend to replace proper names in devotional copying. Conversely, “Jesus” could be supplied because the name is the more ordinary narrative identification.
The article’s assigned title can mislead if it suggests a contest between sending two disciples and sending them to Jesus. Both forms include two disciples and both describe a sending. The disputed destination word is “Lord” versus “Jesus.” Research data must preserve that exact unit rather than reproduce a loose English heading as if it were the apparatus.
The disciples ask, “Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?” Greek witnesses vary between two adjectives that can mean “another,” one sometimes emphasizing another of a different kind. The distinction should not be pressed into a claim that John expected a rival kind of Messiah. In Koine usage the terms can overlap.
The received “Jesus” should remain. It is clear, well transmitted, and narratively unforced. “The Lord” is neither a corruption of Christ’s identity nor an anachronistic confession; Luke repeatedly uses the title. Internal style alone cannot decide the proper noun.
John’s question also need not imply final unbelief. Imprisonment, the apparent delay of judgment, and concern for his disciples all belong to the scene. Jesus answers not with a bare yes but with Isaiah-shaped works: blind people see, lame people walk, lepers are cleansed, the dead are raised, and the poor hear good news.
Whether the narrator writes “Jesus” or “the Lord,” the answer identifies him through messianic deed. The received wording gives the personal name; the surrounding works disclose why Luke can also call him Lord.
Sources and further reading
- Isaiah 35:5–6; 61:1; Matthew 11:2–6; Luke 7:18–23.
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-2086
- 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 title’s wording is broader than the actual principal variant; the record identifies “Jesus” versus “Lord” explicitly.
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 7:19 — Did John Send Two Disciples, or Send Them “unto Jesus”?,” VAR-2086, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas