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 destination names both Tyre and Sidon. The critical text names only Tyre, although verse 31 later describes Jesus traveling through Sidon on the return toward Galilee.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“He went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon.”
Authorized Version
“From thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon.” — Mark 7:24
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.
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
“He went into the borders of Tyre,” omitting “and Sidon.”
Translation or explanation
“He went into the borders of Tyre,” omitting “and Sidon.”
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 balance of external and internal evidence described in the entry; the printed confidence rating represented here is {A}. 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 7:24
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
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 7:24, 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 critical form mentions only Tyre. Critics explain “and Sidon” as assimilation to Matthew 15:21 or as anticipation of Mark 7:31.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 7:24 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
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
They were ancient coastal centers with territories, roads, and a long biblical memory. Geography becomes a textual argument only after ancient regional usage, not contemporary driving distance, is established. , The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Verse 31 then describes the route by which he left it. A copyist could add the familiar partner, but an author could also use the established regional pair without borrowing Matthew. Omission has its own narrative attraction.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
— Mark 7:24 Jesus leaves Galilee for “the borders of Tyre and Sidon” in the received text.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 7:24. 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 critical form mentions only Tyre. Critics explain “and Sidon” as assimilation to Matthew 15:21 or as anticipation of Mark 7:31.
Conclusion
Tyre and Sidon were not interchangeable dots. They were ancient coastal centers with territories, roads, and a long biblical memory. The journey described in verse 31 is circuitous if mapped as modern direct travel, but withdrawal narratives need not trace the shortest route. Geography becomes a textual argument only after ancient regional usage, not contemporary driving distance, is established.
The received pair should remain because it names the recognized district and harmonizes with the route without duplicating it. “Tyre and Sidon” in verse 24 gives the broad region; “through Sidon” in verse 31 traces movement within and away from that region. The critical reading is geographically possible, but its brevity is not a correction Mark needed.
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 7:24, the received text reads “He went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “From thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon.” — Mark 7:24”. The assessed critical reading is “He went into the borders of Tyre,” omitting “and Sidon.”. 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 7:24, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “He went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “From thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon.” — Mark 7:24”. The assessed critical form is “He went into the borders of Tyre,” omitting “and Sidon.”.
- 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 7:24, the received text reads “He went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “From thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon.” — Mark 7:24”. The assessed critical reading is “He went into the borders of Tyre,” omitting “and Sidon.”. 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 7:24Current 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 7:24
Received reading: “He went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon.”
Principal competing reading: “He went into the borders of Tyre,” omitting “and Sidon.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“From thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon.” — Mark 7:24
Jesus leaves Galilee for “the borders of Tyre and Sidon” in the received text. The critical form mentions only Tyre. A few verses later, all principal texts say that he departed from the region of Tyre and came through Sidon toward the Sea of Galilee.
The shorter reading has diverse early support. Critics explain “and Sidon” as assimilation to Matthew 15:21 or as anticipation of Mark 7:31. Both passages place the second city close at hand.
A region, not a travel timetable
“Borders” can denote a wider Phoenician district associated with the two famous coastal cities. Verse 24 need not mean that Jesus entered both city centers before meeting the Syrophoenician woman. It identifies the region into which he withdrew. Verse 31 then describes the route by which he left it.
The two-city expression is natural in biblical geography. Tyre and Sidon occur as a pair in the prophets and in Jesus’ earlier judgment sayings. A copyist could add the familiar partner, but an author could also use the established regional pair without borrowing Matthew.
Omission has its own narrative attraction. If a reader sees Sidon first named in verse 31, retaining Tyre alone in verse 24 gives a tidier sequence: arrival near Tyre, departure through Sidon. A scribe could shorten the initial destination to make the itinerary appear progressive. Similar endings also allow two short words to fall unnoticed.
The woman’s identity does not depend on the variant. Mark calls her Greek and Syrophoenician by nation. The scene demonstrates that Israel’s Messiah can answer faith beyond Israel’s boundaries while preserving the historical order, “Let the children first be filled.”
Tyre and Sidon were not interchangeable dots. They were ancient coastal centers with territories, roads, and a long biblical memory. The journey described in verse 31 is circuitous if mapped as modern direct travel, but withdrawal narratives need not trace the shortest route. Geography becomes a textual argument only after ancient regional usage, not contemporary driving distance, is established.
The received pair should remain because it names the recognized district and harmonizes with the route without duplicating it. “Tyre and Sidon” in verse 24 gives the broad region; “through Sidon” in verse 31 traces movement within and away from that region. The critical reading is geographically possible, but its brevity is not a correction Mark needed.
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.
- Isaiah 23; Matthew 11:21–22; 15:21–28; Mark 7:24–31.
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-2026
- 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 7:24 — The Borders of Tyre and Sidon: Does “Sidon” Belong?,” VAR-2026, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas