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
Both forms accuse the Pharisees of abandoning God’s command for human tradition. The received text then repeats the vessel washings and says they do many similar things; the critical text omits that illustrative close.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The full rebuke, including “as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.”
Authorized Version
“Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” — Mark 7:8
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
The sentence ends after “ye hold the tradition of men,” omitting the examples and final generalization.
Translation or explanation
The sentence ends after “ye hold the tradition of men,” omitting the examples and final generalization.
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 likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion; 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 7:7–8
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
The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
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 7:8, 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 ends before that illustration. Because the same vessels appeared in verse 4, critics see an obvious expansion.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 7:8 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: The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
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 New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A copyist could carry the list forward to make Jesus’ rebuke more explicit. The narrator described the practice; Christ exposes its spiritual use. The repeated endings and familiar vocabulary also make accidental omission possible once a scribe reaches the complete phrase “tradition of men.”
Reception and ecclesiastical use
Principal competing reading: The sentence ends after “ye hold the tradition of men,” omitting the examples and final generalization. “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” — Mark 7:8 The heart of verse 8 is secure: “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.”
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 7:8. 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 ends before that illustration. Because the same vessels appeared in verse 4, critics see an obvious expansion.
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.
Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 10–11
Mark 7.8: It sets “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. (Mark 7:8 Authorised Version)” against “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. (Mark 7:8 New American Standard) [COMMENT: the Critical Text omits the last phrase: 'as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.'.” Its stated doctrinal argument is that Though both the Alexandrian and Byzantine Texts mention the Pharisees' washing of pots and cups in verses 3 and 4, only the Byzantine Text mentions Christ's specifically rebuking them for making the practice mandatory here. Thus, the Alexandrian Text deletes Christ's rebuke of them for obeying the commandments of men in washing pots and cups as though they were the commandments of God. The compilation appeals to The Nestle-Aland Text's omission of the phrase is supported by Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The inclusion of the words is universally found in the Byzantine Text going back to Codex Alexandrinus, and these very words are specifically cited by Tatian in his Diatessaron of the 2nd century A.D.xlv
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
The location of the longer clause should be preserved in apparatus notes. Material that appears before the main sentence in one family and after it in another often signals marginal movement. It can be a gloss, but it can also be a restoration placed where a corrector found space. Presence, absence, and position are three separate data fields, and reducing them to a binary checkbox throws away evidence.
The full received ending gives the rebuke its movement from concrete examples to a general diagnosis. Its relationship to verse 4 explains why copyists could add it, but also why Mark could intentionally repeat it. With broad ecclesiastical support and a coherent rhetorical role, it should remain—while the location variants are honestly noted as evidence requiring further collation.
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 7:8, the received text reads “The full rebuke, including “as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” — Mark 7:8”. The assessed critical reading is “The sentence ends after “ye hold the tradition of men,” omitting the examples and final generalization.”. 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 7:8, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “The full rebuke, including “as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” — Mark 7:8”. The assessed critical form is “The sentence ends after “ye hold the tradition of men,” omitting the examples and final generalization.”.
- 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 7:8, the received text reads “The full rebuke, including “as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” — Mark 7:8”. The assessed critical reading is “The sentence ends after “ye hold the tradition of men,” omitting the examples and final generalization.”. 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 7:8Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemisedsupplied PDF pp. 10–11 — Attributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
- 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 7:8
Received reading: The full rebuke, including “as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.”
Principal competing reading: The sentence ends after “ye hold the tradition of men,” omitting the examples and final generalization.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” — Mark 7:8
The heart of verse 8 is secure: “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” The Textus Receptus then adds the familiar examples—washings of pots and cups—and concludes, “many other such like things ye do.” The critical text ends before that illustration.
Because the same vessels appeared in verse 4, critics see an obvious expansion. A copyist could carry the list forward to make Jesus’ rebuke more explicit. The longer words also appear in different positions in parts of the tradition, a pattern often associated with a roaming gloss.
Repetition as accusation
Mark has just narrated the customs. Jesus now names them as examples of a larger exchange: divine command is released while human tradition is gripped. Repeating the pots and cups is therefore not idle duplication. The narrator described the practice; Christ exposes its spiritual use.
The last clause is especially important. “Many other such like things ye do” prevents readers from reducing the controversy to two vessels. Corban follows immediately as a graver example. The washings are the visible edge of a habit that can finally make God’s word ineffective.
The scattered position of the longer material weighs against careless certainty, but it can reflect attempts to restore words absent from one line of descent. A marginal recovery does not prove a marginal invention. The repeated endings and familiar vocabulary also make accidental omission possible once a scribe reaches the complete phrase “tradition of men.”
The passage must not be used to condemn tradition merely because it is old. Jesus himself participates in ordinary customs and appeals to Moses. The conflict concerns tradition made authoritative against God’s command. Church practice remains ministerial; it may serve Scripture but cannot repeal it.
The location of the longer clause should be preserved in apparatus notes. Material that appears before the main sentence in one family and after it in another often signals marginal movement. It can be a gloss, but it can also be a restoration placed where a corrector found space. Presence, absence, and position are three separate data fields, and reducing them to a binary checkbox throws away evidence.
The full received ending gives the rebuke its movement from concrete examples to a general diagnosis. Its relationship to verse 4 explains why copyists could add it, but also why Mark could intentionally repeat it. With broad ecclesiastical support and a coherent rhetorical role, it should remain—while the location variants are honestly noted as evidence requiring further collation.
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 29:13; Mark 7:1–13; Colossians 2:8.
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-2023
- 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
- The longer illustrative clause occurs at differing locations in parts of the manuscript tradition; a full record should collate its placement as well as its presence.
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 7:8 — “Laying Aside the Commandment of God”: Has the Rebuke Been Shortened?,” VAR-2023, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas