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 mission charge ends with a comparison to Sodom and Gomorrah at judgment. The critical text omits the entire sentence, leaving the dust-shaking sign without Christ’s explicit interpretation.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
Authorized Version
“It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” — Mark 6:11
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
Omission of the full judgment comparison after the command to shake off the dust.
Translation or explanation
Omission of the full judgment comparison after the command to shake off the dust.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
No passage-specific Metzger synopsis has yet passed editorial verification for this record.
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
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
No doctrinal hostility has to be alleged.
Controlled source-list matches
Doctrinal significance and Westminster use
This passage is listed in one or both controlling research files. Their claims are reported with exact source identity and confessional use; list membership does not by itself establish the original reading or the Research Center’s final entailment.
Doctrinally significant variant listMark 6.11b
Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemised
Anonymous compilation — supplied source file pp. 9–10
Doctrine or doctrinal consequence identified by the source
This phrase is cited in both the Alexandrian and Byzantine Texts in the parallel passage Matthew 10.15, and thus, it cannot be said that the Alexandrian Text makes no reference to these words whatsoever. That said, deleting them here in this verse is simply not warranted, given the conspicuous corruption and demonstrable unreliability of the Egyptian Text. The universal witness of the Byzantine Text along with Tatian's explicit quote of the words of this verse warrants their inclusion here.
Source-reported readings and witness argument
Received reading reported
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Mark 6:11 Authorised Version)
Critical reading reported
[Omit]
Manuscript and patristic support reported by the source
The omission of these words is supported by Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi, and Codex Bezae. The inclusion of these words is supported universally by the Byzantine Text going back to Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century, and by Tatian's Diatessaron of the 2nd century.
Editorial qualification: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Mark 6:11, 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. Many modern editions omit the sentence.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 6:11 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: No doctrinal hostility has to be alleged.
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
— Mark 6:11 When a town refuses the apostolic witness, the Twelve are to shake the dust from their feet. The question is whether Mark’s transmission has enough support to treat the words as his record rather than a later import; the received breadth of witness answers yes. That severity should not be softened into spite: the same messengers who bear witness against rejection first arrive with power to heal and good news to proclaim.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Principal competing reading: Omission of the full judgment comparison after the command to shake off the dust. Harmonization is therefore the obvious explanation offered for its presence in Mark. Omission also has recognizable causes.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text then explains the sign: Sodom and Gomorrah will fare more tolerably in the day of judgment than that city. The shorter text retains a warning, but the received text lets Jesus define its gravity.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 6:11. 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. Many modern editions omit the sentence.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 2 passage-specific notes attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
The Revision RevisedPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon — supplied PDF pp. 185, 457
Burgon directly discusses Mark 6:11. The local discussion treats Greek manuscript evidence, ancient versions as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 9–10
Mark 6.11b: It sets “Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Mark 6:11 Authorised Version)” against “[Omit].” Its stated doctrinal argument is that This phrase is cited in both the Alexandrian and Byzantine Texts in the parallel passage Matthew 10.15, and thus, it cannot be said that the Alexandrian Text makes no reference to these words whatsoever. That said, deleting them here in this verse is simply not warranted, given the conspicuous corruption and demonstrable unreliability of the Egyptian Text. The universal witness of the Byzantine Text along with Tatian's explicit quote of the words of this verse warrants their inclusion here. The compilation appeals to The omission of these words is supported by Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi, and Codex Bezae. The inclusion of these words is supported universally by the Byzantine Text going back to Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century, and by Tatian's Diatessaron of the 2nd century.xliv
Editorial use: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Conclusion
Shaking dust is also a boundary act. The messengers will not carry even the town’s soil as though rejection made them debtors to it. Yet they leave judgment with God and move on to preach elsewhere. The full sentence about Sodom thus restrains personal retaliation: the day and comparative sentence belong to the Judge, while the apostles’ task is faithful testimony.
The full saying belongs after the dust. It converts a symbolic action into an announced verdict and prepares for the mission’s preaching of repentance. The shorter text retains a warning, but the received text lets Jesus define its gravity. That severity should not be softened into spite: the same messengers who bear witness against rejection first arrive with power to heal and good news to proclaim.
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 Mark 6:11, the received text reads “It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” — Mark 6:11”. The assessed critical reading is “Omission of the full judgment comparison after the command to shake off the dust.”. 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 6:11, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” — Mark 6:11”. The assessed critical form is “Omission of the full judgment comparison after the command to shake off the dust.”.
- 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 6:11, the received text reads “It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” — Mark 6:11”. The assessed critical reading is “Omission of the full judgment comparison after the command to shake off the dust.”. 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 6:11Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- The Revision Revisedsupplied PDF pp. 185, 457 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemisedsupplied PDF pp. 9–10 — Attributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Mark 6:11
Received reading: “It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
Principal competing reading: Omission of the full judgment comparison after the command to shake off the dust.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” — Mark 6:11
When a town refuses the apostolic witness, the Twelve are to shake the dust from their feet. The received text then explains the sign: Sodom and Gomorrah will fare more tolerably in the day of judgment than that city. Many modern editions omit the sentence.
Matthew 10:15 contains the same comparison, while Luke 10:12 has a closely related form. Harmonization is therefore the obvious explanation offered for its presence in Mark. A marginal note from the parallel could have entered the mission charge.
A sign with a stated meaning
Mark does not present dust-shaking as personal irritation. It is “a testimony against them.” The judgment sentence tells what that testimony means. Rejecting messengers who announce the near kingdom after Christ has authorized them is not a minor breach of hospitality; it carries covenantal responsibility.
Omission also has recognizable causes. The verse contains a long, self-contained saying after an already complete instruction. A copyist moving from the end of the dust command to the departure in verse 12 could leave it out without damaging grammar. Liturgical abbreviation could produce the same result. No doctrinal hostility has to be alleged.
The parallel does not prove borrowing. Jesus could use the same warning in the same commission recorded by more than one evangelist. Agreement is expected when Gospels recount a shared discourse. The question is whether Mark’s transmission has enough support to treat the words as his record rather than a later import; the received breadth of witness answers yes.
“More tolerable” implies measured judgment. All sin deserves condemnation, yet greater light brings greater accountability. Sodom’s wickedness was notorious, but an unrepentant town that hears Christ’s authorized gospel refuses a privilege Sodom did not receive in that form.
Shaking dust is also a boundary act. The messengers will not carry even the town’s soil as though rejection made them debtors to it. Yet they leave judgment with God and move on to preach elsewhere. The full sentence about Sodom thus restrains personal retaliation: the day and comparative sentence belong to the Judge, while the apostles’ task is faithful testimony.
The full saying belongs after the dust. It converts a symbolic action into an announced verdict and prepares for the mission’s preaching of repentance. The shorter text retains a warning, but the received text lets Jesus define its gravity. That severity should not be softened into spite: the same messengers who bear witness against rejection first arrive with power to heal and good news to proclaim.
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.
- Genesis 18–19; Matthew 10:5–15; Mark 6:7–13; Luke 10:1–16.
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-2018
- 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 6:11 — “More Tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha”: The Omitted Judgment Saying,” VAR-2018, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas