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
Jesus either challenges the father’s ability to believe or takes up the father’s own words, “If thou canst.” Both lead to the declaration that all things are possible to the believer.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.”
Authorized Version
“If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.” — Mark 9:23
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
“The ‘if thou canst’—all things are possible to him that believeth.”
Translation or explanation
“The ‘if thou canst’—all things are possible to him that believeth.”
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 9:23
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
It gives the exchange a transparent personal address without changing its theological center.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Mark 9:23, 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 reads to ei dynē —roughly, “As for your ‘if you can’” or “The ‘if you can’!” A pointed answer in two forms The critical wording is terse and difficult.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 9:23 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: It gives the exchange a transparent personal address without changing its theological center.
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
Internal arguments therefore depend heavily on how one punctuates a spoken retort that no manuscript recorded with quotation marks. , The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Scribes could add “believe” from the next clause to complete the grammar and make the challenge explicit. A scribe may omit pisteusai after seeing the same root in pisteuonti later in the sentence; another may supply it because the initial phrase seemed suspended.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text has its own rhetorical strength.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 9:23. 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 reads to ei dynē —roughly, “As for your ‘if you can’” or “The ‘if you can’!” A pointed answer in two forms The critical wording is terse and difficult.
Conclusion
The father’s answer also functions as an internal translation of the debate. Whatever punctuation is chosen in verse 23, he understands Jesus to demand believing reliance and to expose unbelief. That response limits speculative renderings of the compressed critical phrase. A textual form should explain the next speech, and the received challenge does so without requiring English quotation marks around an echo of “if.”
The fuller reply should stand. It gives the exchange a transparent personal address without changing its theological center. The critical form may preserve an abrupt idiom, but the received balance is not a dull correction; it is a memorable answer that explains the confession Mark records in the next breath.
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 9:23, the received text reads “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.” — Mark 9:23”. The assessed critical reading is “The ‘if thou canst’—all things are possible to him that believeth.”. 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 9:23, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.” — Mark 9:23”. The assessed critical form is “The ‘if thou canst’—all things are possible to him that believeth.”.
- 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 9:23, the received text reads “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.” — Mark 9:23”. The assessed critical reading is “The ‘if thou canst’—all things are possible to him that believeth.”. 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 9:23Current 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 9:23
Received reading: “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.”
Principal competing reading: “The ‘if thou canst’—all things are possible to him that believeth.”
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.” — Mark 9:23
The desperate father says to Jesus, “If thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us.” The received reply turns the condition toward him: “If thou canst believe.” The critical text reads to ei dynē—roughly, “As for your ‘if you can’” or “The ‘if you can’!”
In either form Jesus refuses the suggestion that his power is the uncertain element. The question is faith, and the father immediately cries, “I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”
A pointed answer in two forms
The critical wording is terse and difficult. Jesus echoes the man’s phrase with astonishment before declaring possibility to the believer. Scribes could add “believe” from the next clause to complete the grammar and make the challenge explicit.
The received text has its own rhetorical strength. The repeated verb produces a balanced exchange: “If thou canst do”—“If thou canst believe.” It is not a claim that faith contains independent power. The second half places possibility within believing reliance on the one who can act.
The words are close enough for loss or supplementation during transmission. A scribe may omit pisteusai after seeing the same root in pisteuonti later in the sentence; another may supply it because the initial phrase seemed suspended. Internal arguments therefore depend heavily on how one punctuates a spoken retort that no manuscript recorded with quotation marks.
The received reading also matches the father’s answer exactly. He does not defend the propriety of his earlier “if.” He confesses belief and asks for help with unbelief—the two realities named by Christ’s direct challenge.
“All things are possible” must remain attached to God’s will and promise. Biblical faith is not an instrument for making every desire inevitable. Here it rests on Christ’s mercy and authority over an evil spirit that the disciples could not cast out.
The father’s answer also functions as an internal translation of the debate. Whatever punctuation is chosen in verse 23, he understands Jesus to demand believing reliance and to expose unbelief. That response limits speculative renderings of the compressed critical phrase. A textual form should explain the next speech, and the received challenge does so without requiring English quotation marks around an echo of “if.”
The fuller reply should stand. It gives the exchange a transparent personal address without changing its theological center. The critical form may preserve an abrupt idiom, but the received balance is not a dull correction; it is a memorable answer that explains the confession Mark records in the next breath.
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 9:14–29; Matthew 17:14–21; Luke 9:37–43.
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-2030
- 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 9:23 — “If Thou Canst Believe” or “If Thou Canst”? Who Is Being Challenged?,” VAR-2030, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas