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 places Jesus’ familiar hearing summons between his public parable and its private explanation. The critical text omits the whole verse as an apparent echo of Mark 4.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”
Authorized Version
“If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” — Mark 7:16
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
Omission of the entire verse.
Translation or explanation
Omission of the entire verse.
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; 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 7:16
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
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The record does not establish that the variant by itself removes an entire Christian doctrine; explicit wording, exegesis, and cumulative testimony must be distinguished.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Mark 7:16, 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. Critics therefore regard verse 16 as a stock refrain copied into an appropriate place.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 7:16 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: No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
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
Several early witnesses pass directly from the public saying to the house where the disciples ask for an explanation. , The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Principal competing reading: Omission of the entire verse. Its perfect fit can be made the argument against it: a familiar saying was exactly what a scribe expected after “hearken unto me.” Omission is mechanically uncomplicated.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
— Mark 7:16 After Jesus calls the people to hear his teaching about defilement, the received text adds, “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” Jesus does not announce a slogan that can be detached from the dispute over human tradition and heart defilement. The received refrain has the broad continuity of ecclesiastical use and a precise structural place.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 7:16. 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. Critics therefore regard verse 16 as a stock refrain copied into an appropriate place.
Conclusion
The refrain’s distribution elsewhere gives both sides real internal arguments. Because Mark uses it repeatedly, addition from memory is credible; because it is characteristic of Mark, authorial use here is credible too. “Markan style” cannot decide a variant whenever the same characteristic is invoked to prove both interpolation and authenticity. The immediate public-to-private transition supplies the more discriminating literary evidence.
The received refrain has the broad continuity of ecclesiastical use and a precise structural place. Its resemblance to Mark 4 gives a source for scribal addition, but it also supplies Markan vocabulary and thematic coherence. The whole verse should stay. A warning about hearing is not made unauthentic simply because the church heard it often.
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 7:16, the received text reads “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” — Mark 7:16”. The assessed critical reading is “Omission of the entire verse.”. 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 Mark 7:16, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” — Mark 7:16”. The assessed critical form is “Omission of the entire verse.”.
- 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 7:16, the received text reads “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” — Mark 7:16”. The assessed critical reading is “Omission of the entire verse.”. 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
- Digital ECM — Mark 7:16Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- 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
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Mark 7:16
Received reading: “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”
Principal competing reading: Omission of the entire verse.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” — Mark 7:16
After Jesus calls the people to hear his teaching about defilement, the received text adds, “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” Several early witnesses pass directly from the public saying to the house where the disciples ask for an explanation.
The sentence appears elsewhere in Mark, especially 4:9 and 4:23. Critics therefore regard verse 16 as a stock refrain copied into an appropriate place. Its perfect fit can be made the argument against it: a familiar saying was exactly what a scribe expected after “hearken unto me.”
Public hearing and private misunderstanding
The refrain does real narrative work here. Jesus has summoned the entire crowd, declared that external food does not morally defile, and urged them to understand. Verse 16 closes that public appeal. Verse 17 then reveals that the disciples themselves have not understood. The ear saying becomes a hinge between universal invitation and private dullness.
Omission is mechanically uncomplicated. A self-contained proverb can disappear between two larger narrative units without leaving broken grammar. A lection may also move from the parable to its explanation. Once absent, nothing in verse 17 announces that words are missing.
Addition from chapter 4 remains possible, but repeated sayings are not automatically interpolations. Jesus used “he that hath ears” in more than one setting, and Mark uses repetition deliberately to bind his teaching about reception. In both chapters the issue is not possession of physical ears but moral readiness to receive the word.
The verse also guards against a casual reading of the food discussion. Jesus does not announce a slogan that can be detached from the dispute over human tradition and heart defilement. He demands attentive judgment. The disciples’ question shows that even close followers may hear the sound while missing the point.
The refrain’s distribution elsewhere gives both sides real internal arguments. Because Mark uses it repeatedly, addition from memory is credible; because it is characteristic of Mark, authorial use here is credible too. “Markan style” cannot decide a variant whenever the same characteristic is invoked to prove both interpolation and authenticity. The immediate public-to-private transition supplies the more discriminating literary evidence.
The received refrain has the broad continuity of ecclesiastical use and a precise structural place. Its resemblance to Mark 4 gives a source for scribal addition, but it also supplies Markan vocabulary and thematic coherence. The whole verse should stay. A warning about hearing is not made unauthentic simply because the church heard it often.
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.
- Mark 4:1–25; 7:14–23; Revelation 2–3.
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-2024
- 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.
- 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 7:16 — “If Any Man Have Ears to Hear, Let Him Hear”,” VAR-2024, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas