Complete textual-variant dossier
No adverse entailment · agrees with the received text
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
Two details in the closing charge to the Twelve are sometimes pulled into textual debates.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.” — Matthew 10:37
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
No distinct NA28 reading has been entered; the received and NA28 texts may agree at this unit.
Translation or explanation
The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of 2 variation units within this record's range. The notes ground the relevant decisions in a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, scribal harmonization to a parallel passage, the likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion; the printed confidence rating represented here is {C}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on Matthew 10:37, 10:42
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
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 Matthew 10:37–42, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Both the received and modern critical texts keep the full balance. The critical and received texts agree in omitting that noun. Conflating those two issues would produce bad criticism.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 10:37–42 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
The second clause is missing in a few witnesses, including the first writing of Vaticanus. Where “water” comes from Verse 42 reads in the Authorized Version, “a cup of cold water only.” In the Greek followed by the version, the noun water is understood rather than written: ποτήριον ψυχροῦ μόνον, “a cup of cold [drink] only.”
Internal and transcriptional evidence
The first is a real omission in some copies. A scribe’s eye could pass from the first ending to the second and leave the middle line behind. The original scribe of Vaticanus added the missing words at the foot of the page, a correction that tells its own story.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
— Matthew 10:37 A line that an eye could lose The received text balances two clauses: whoever loves father or mother more than Christ is not worthy of him; whoever loves son or daughter more than Christ is not worthy of him. The critical and received texts agree in omitting that noun.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 10:37–42. 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
Both the received and modern critical texts keep the full balance. The critical and received texts agree in omitting that noun. Conflating those two issues would produce bad criticism.
Conclusion
The supplied word at verse 42 displays another kind of human work. Translators must sometimes state what the source language leaves understood. The question is whether the supply gives the meaning demanded by grammar and context. A cup of “cold” in ordinary speech means a cup of cold water; Mark’s explicit noun confirms the idiom without needing to rewrite Matthew’s Greek.
Conflating those two issues would produce bad criticism. One concerns missing Greek words in a copy. The other concerns necessary English in a faithful translation. Both require comparison, but they do not belong in the same apparatus column.
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.
No adverse entailment: agrees with the received text.
Necessary reasoning chain
- The current critical main-text reading assessed at Matthew 10:37–42 agrees with the received Hebrew/Greek reading at the variation unit governed by this card.
- An adverse preservation entailment at this locus would require the current critical form to displace a different received reading.
- Because no such displacement occurs at the assessed locus, no adverse preservation consequence follows here.
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
Two details in the closing charge to the Twelve are sometimes pulled into textual debates. One is a full line about loving son or daughter more than Christ. The other is the “cup of cold water” in verse 42. The first is a real omission in some copies. The second is largely a question of translation.
“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.” — Matthew 10:37
A line that an eye could lose
The received text balances two clauses:
- whoever loves father or mother more than Christ is not worthy of him;
- whoever loves son or daughter more than Christ is not worthy of him.
The second clause is missing in a few witnesses, including the first writing of Vaticanus. The cause is unusually visible. Both clauses end with the same Greek words, “is not worthy of me.” A scribe’s eye could pass from the first ending to the second and leave the middle line behind. The original scribe of Vaticanus added the missing words at the foot of the page, a correction that tells its own story.
Both the received and modern critical texts keep the full balance. The command is severe because Christ’s claim is supreme. He does not teach contempt for parents or children. The One who upheld the fifth commandment forbids every family love from taking his throne.
Where “water” comes from
Verse 42 reads in the Authorized Version, “a cup of cold water only.” In the Greek followed by the version, the noun water is understood rather than written: ποτήριον ψυχροῦ μόνον, “a cup of cold [drink] only.” English needs the supplied word. Mark 9:41 writes “a cup of water” explicitly, which may have led some Matthew manuscripts to add the Greek noun for water.
The critical and received texts agree in omitting that noun. The Authorized Version is not translating a different Greek reading when it says “water”; it is completing an ordinary Greek ellipsis in natural English. The translators marked such supplied words typographically in their editions.
This distinction is important. A supplied English word can be faithful without pretending to have a separate Greek word behind it. Translation carries meaning between languages; it is not a row of one-for-one counters.
The two details therefore end differently. The son-and-daughter clause belongs, and even a famous early codex shows how it was lost and restored. “Water” is a sound English supply, not a hidden addition to Matthew. Together the verses press one claim: loyalty to Christ outranks the closest earthly bond, yet the smallest act done for one of his little ones will not lose its reward.
The correction in Vaticanus is a rare material window into transmission. The first hand skipped from one identical ending to the next; a correction restored the clause at the foot. We do not have to imagine the mechanism from abstract possibility. The page displays both the fault and the remedy.
The supplied word at verse 42 displays another kind of human work. Translators must sometimes state what the source language leaves understood. The question is whether the supply gives the meaning demanded by grammar and context. A cup of “cold” in ordinary speech means a cup of cold water; Mark’s explicit noun confirms the idiom without needing to rewrite Matthew’s Greek.
Conflating those two issues would produce bad criticism. One concerns missing Greek words in a copy. The other concerns necessary English in a faithful translation. Both require comparison, but they do not belong in the same apparatus column.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 10:34–42; Mark 9:41.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, notes on Matthew 10:37 and 10:42.
- “The Translators to the Reader,” prefixed to the 1611 Authorized Version.
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-1045
- 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 10:37–42 — Loving Family, Loving Christ, and the Cup of Cold Water: Two Related Variants,” VAR-1045, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas