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 Supper text includes “eat” after “take” and calls the cup Christ’s blood of the new covenant/testament. The critical form omits both “eat” and “new.”
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Take, eat” and “This is my blood of the new testament.”
Authorized Version
“Take, eat: this is my body… This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.” — Mark 14:22, 24
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
“Take” and “This is my blood of the covenant,” omitting “eat” and “new.”
Translation or explanation
“Take” and “This is my blood of the covenant,” omitting “eat” and “new.”
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 scribal harmonization to a parallel passage, 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 Mark 14:24
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
No UBS6 / intended NA29 main-text change is recorded for this passage in the controlled 169-change ledger.
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
No meaningful doctrinal effect
Exact proposition affected
The saving and atoning work of Jesus Christ.
Doctrinal analysis
That doctrinal stability should prevent exaggerated accusations while leaving the wording worth recovering.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Mark 14:22–24, 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 received bread command is “Take, eat,” while the critical text has “Take.” The received cup saying names “my blood of the new testament,” while the critical form says “my blood of the covenant.”
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 14:22–24 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
No meaningful doctrinal effect: That doctrinal stability should prevent exaggerated accusations while leaving the wording worth recovering.
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 full form is deeply embedded in Greek, versional, and ecclesiastical transmission. , The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Critics therefore see both words as liturgical harmonization. Harmonization is plausible, but shared wording can come from Christ’s repeated institution rather than from a copyist. Omission is also possible in a compact recital where the action itself supplies “eat” and where a reader accustomed to Exodus may reproduce “the covenant” without its Christian adjective.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
A church hearing the four accounts together could fill out Mark from the familiar formula used at the table. The full form is deeply embedded in Greek, versional, and ecclesiastical transmission. The church did not make the covenant new by adding an adjective.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 14:22–24. 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 received bread command is “Take, eat,” while the critical text has “Take.” The received cup saying names “my blood of the new testament,” while the critical form says “my blood of the covenant.”
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.
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster StandardsWestminster proof-text and translation comparison
Seth Stark — supplied PDF pp. 37–38, 38–39
At Mark 14:22, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”” with the ESV/critical-text wording “And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’” 36” and associates the passage with WCF 29.3, WLC 169. At Mark 14:24, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “And He said to them, ‘This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.’”” with the ESV/critical-text wording “And he said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’”” and associates the passage with WCF 29.3, WLC 169.
Editorial use: This establishes a confessional proof-text and reception connection. It does not by itself establish the original reading, and its English-version comparison must be checked against the Greek variation unit.
Conclusion
The adjective “new” should be heard against Jeremiah rather than as contempt for everything old. The promised covenant writes God’s law on the heart, forgives iniquity, and belongs to the same redemptive purpose announced beforehand. Jesus’ blood does not correct a failed divine plan. It accomplishes the covenant toward which earlier sacrifices pointed, making the Supper both memorial and proclamation.
Retain both received words. They give Mark’s concise account its full sacramental movement: take and eat the appointed sign; drink together; hear that the blood belongs to the new covenant and is shed for many. The church did not make the covenant new by adding an adjective. It received the adjective because Christ’s death fulfills the promise.
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 Mark 14:22–24, the received text reads “Take, eat” and “This is my blood of the new testament.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Take, eat: this is my body… This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.” — Mark 14:22, 24”. The assessed critical reading is “Take” and “This is my blood of the covenant,” omitting “eat” and “new.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Mark 14:22–24, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Take, eat” and “This is my blood of the new testament.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Take, eat: this is my body… This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.” — Mark 14:22, 24”. The assessed critical form is “Take” and “This is my blood of the covenant,” omitting “eat” and “new.”.
- 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 Mark 14:22–24, the received text reads “Take, eat” and “This is my blood of the new testament.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Take, eat: this is my body… This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.” — Mark 14:22, 24”. The assessed critical reading is “Take” and “This is my blood of the covenant,” omitting “eat” and “new.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
- 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
- Digital ECM — Mark 14:22–24Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standardssupplied PDF pp. 37–38, 38–39 — Westminster proof-text and translation comparison
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Mark 14:22–24
Received reading: “Take, eat” and “This is my blood of the new testament.”
Principal competing reading: “Take” and “This is my blood of the covenant,” omitting “eat” and “new.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“Take, eat: this is my body… This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.” — Mark 14:22, 24
Mark’s Supper account has two disputed words. The received bread command is “Take, eat,” while the critical text has “Take.” The received cup saying names “my blood of the new testament,” while the critical form says “my blood of the covenant.”
Matthew 26:26 supplies “eat,” and Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25 supply “new covenant.” Critics therefore see both words as liturgical harmonization. A church hearing the four accounts together could fill out Mark from the familiar formula used at the table.
Commands and covenant fulfillment
“Take” can imply eating, especially because Mark immediately says the disciples all drank from the cup. Yet “eat” makes participation explicit. The bread is not handed out for inspection. Christ commands reception before he interprets the sign.
“Testament” and “covenant” translate the same Greek noun, diathēkē. The textual variant is new, not the English choice between those two words. The adjective connects the Supper with Jeremiah 31 and with the Mosaic words of institution in Exodus 24: “Behold the blood of the covenant.” Jesus announces both continuity and fulfillment: covenant blood, now his own, poured out for many.
Harmonization is plausible, but shared wording can come from Christ’s repeated institution rather than from a copyist. The full form is deeply embedded in Greek, versional, and ecclesiastical transmission. Omission is also possible in a compact recital where the action itself supplies “eat” and where a reader accustomed to Exodus may reproduce “the covenant” without its Christian adjective.
Neither shorter reading destroys the Supper. Taking bread in this context entails eating; Christ’s blood inaugurates the promised covenant even without the word “new.” That doctrinal stability should prevent exaggerated accusations while leaving the wording worth recovering.
The adjective “new” should be heard against Jeremiah rather than as contempt for everything old. The promised covenant writes God’s law on the heart, forgives iniquity, and belongs to the same redemptive purpose announced beforehand. Jesus’ blood does not correct a failed divine plan. It accomplishes the covenant toward which earlier sacrifices pointed, making the Supper both memorial and proclamation.
Retain both received words. They give Mark’s concise account its full sacramental movement: take and eat the appointed sign; drink together; hear that the blood belongs to the new covenant and is shed for many. The church did not make the covenant new by adding an adjective. It received the adjective because Christ’s death fulfills the promise.
Sources and further reading
- F. H. A. Scrivener, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
- Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010), text and apparatus.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on the stated passage.
- Exodus 24:3–8; Jeremiah 31:31–34; Matthew 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:14–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26.
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-2045
- 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 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, “Mark 14:22–24 — “Take, Eat” and “My Blood of the New Testament”: The Supper Text,” VAR-2045, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas