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
> “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” — Matthew 1:25
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 critical text reads more briefly, “she bore a son.”
Translation or explanation
The critical text reads more briefly, “she bore a son.”
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 {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 Matthew 1:25
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
UBS6 retains the NA28 / UBS5 Greek main-text wording in Matthew, so no main-text change is shown for this passage. The separate project ledger covers Acts, Mark, and Revelation.
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
Nor does the verse support perpetual virginity.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 1:25, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The critical text reads more briefly, “she bore a son.” Luke 2:7 calls Jesus Mary’s firstborn son in almost the same words, so critics explain Matthew’s fuller text as harmonization from Luke. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 1:25 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: Nor does the verse support perpetual virginity.
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
Between those forms stand manuscripts that keep firstborn but lose her, or keep another part of the phrase. It should not be answered by pretending the early witnesses do not exist. The shorter witnesses remain important, but “harmonization” is not the only direction in which a parallel can work.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Luke 2:7 calls Jesus Mary’s firstborn son in almost the same words, so critics explain Matthew’s fuller text as harmonization from Luke. The sentence is complete without the phrase, and a scribe who remembered Christmas readings could easily supply it. Yet agreement between infancy narratives is expected when both describe the same mother and child.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
— Matthew 1:25 The Textus Receptus says Mary bore her firstborn son.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 1:25. 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
The critical text reads more briefly, “she bore a son.” Luke 2:7 calls Jesus Mary’s firstborn son in almost the same words, so critics explain Matthew’s fuller text as harmonization from Luke. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Conclusion
The intermediate readings deserve more weight than a two-column chart gives them. When some copies retain firstborn but omit her, while others lose a different part of the phrase, the evidence may preserve stages of erosion. A single late expansion normally enters as a stable unit; a phrase transmitted in broken combinations can point to an older whole from which pieces fell.
That pattern does not settle the verse by itself. It joins the full reading’s broad reception, legal fitness, and natural agreement with Luke. The shorter witnesses remain important, but “harmonization” is not the only direction in which a parallel can work. Familiar words can be supplied from another Gospel, and familiar words can be omitted because a copyist thinks he already knows the sentence.
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 Matthew 1:25, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” — Matthew 1:25”. The assessed critical reading is “The critical text reads more briefly, “she bore a son.”. 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 Matthew 1:25, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” — Matthew 1:25”. The assessed critical form is “The critical text reads more briefly, “she bore a son.”.
- 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 Matthew 1:25, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” — Matthew 1:25”. The assessed critical reading is “The critical text reads more briefly, “she bore a son.”. 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
- 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
- INTF — Online Tools for the ECMCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — Interview with Hugh HoughtonCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” — Matthew 1:25
The Textus Receptus says Mary bore her firstborn son. The critical text reads more briefly, “she bore a son.” Between those forms stand manuscripts that keep firstborn but lose her, or keep another part of the phrase. The variation looks like a full expression being worn down in stages.
The shorter form has strong early support. Luke 2:7 calls Jesus Mary’s firstborn son in almost the same words, so critics explain Matthew’s fuller text as harmonization from Luke. The sentence is complete without the phrase, and a scribe who remembered Christmas readings could easily supply it.
That is the best case against the received form. It should not be answered by pretending the early witnesses do not exist.
Yet agreement between infancy narratives is expected when both describe the same mother and child. Firstborn also carries legal and covenant meaning. The first male to open the womb was holy to the Lord, which Luke later develops in the presentation at the temple. Matthew need not narrate that rite to use the true title.
What “firstborn” means
The word does not, by itself, prove that Mary later bore other children. A firstborn is first in rank and birth even if no second child follows. Nor does the verse support perpetual virginity. Matthew’s “knew her not till” gives a natural limit to Joseph’s abstinence, and the Gospel later names Jesus’ brothers and sisters.
The textual decision should not be driven by either later debate. The full reading has broad transmission, meaningful place in the birth account, and intermediate forms that can be explained as partial loss. The shorter “a son” may also reflect a wish to avoid a phrase some readers thought raised questions about Mary’s later life, though motive cannot be proved.
Joseph does not name an abstract child. He receives Mary’s firstborn, the promised son, and calls him Jesus as the angel commanded. The received words give that moment its full familial and covenant form.
In Israel, firstborn was not merely a prediction that more children would follow. It marked the child who opened the womb and stood under a stated claim of the Lord. Luke makes that legal setting explicit when Joseph and Mary present Jesus. Matthew can use the title without repeating the ceremony, just as one Evangelist may state a fact another develops.
The intermediate readings deserve more weight than a two-column chart gives them. When some copies retain firstborn but omit her, while others lose a different part of the phrase, the evidence may preserve stages of erosion. A single late expansion normally enters as a stable unit; a phrase transmitted in broken combinations can point to an older whole from which pieces fell.
That pattern does not settle the verse by itself. It joins the full reading’s broad reception, legal fitness, and natural agreement with Luke. The shorter witnesses remain important, but “harmonization” is not the only direction in which a parallel can work. Familiar words can be supplied from another Gospel, and familiar words can be omitted because a copyist thinks he already knows the sentence.
Further reading
- Exodus 13:1–2; Matthew 1:18–25; 13:55–56; Luke 2:7, 22–24.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 1:25.
- Frederick H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
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-1007
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 2026-07-22 · Exact Day
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Recovered project data; bibliographic and source-level verification remains record-specific. 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; cited sources retain their stated rights.
- Known limitations
- Staging record; independent review remains open.
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, “Matthew 1:25 — “Her Firstborn Son” or Simply “a Son”?,” VAR-1007, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas