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 Greek difference between “two” and “through” is small on the page and plain in English.
Variant class
Substitution or composite variation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples.” — Matthew 11:2
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 the variation unit. The note grounds the relevant decision in the weight and distribution of external attestation; 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., note on Matthew 11:2
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 11:2, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The critical text says he sent a message through his disciples. Why “through” has a strong case The critical reading διά has early support. A critic can therefore explain the received δύο as a copyist’s attempt to bring Matthew into line with Luke.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 11:2 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
Two messengers fit ordinary practice: Deuteronomy’s rule of two witnesses stands in the background of Jewish life, and two disciples can report both question and answer. The number is modest; the witness they carried back was great. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A critic can therefore explain the received δύο as a copyist’s attempt to bring Matthew into line with Luke. A damaged letter, a mistaken stroke, or a scribe expecting the common phrase “sent through” could turn one into the other without any plan to rewrite the story. Its strength should keep a defender from claiming that only a careless or malicious scribe could produce it.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Textus Receptus says John sent two of his disciples. The early evidence for διά deserves respect, but the wide ecclesiastical transmission, the easy letter change, and the natural agreement with the event as Luke records it favor δύο.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 11:2. 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 says he sent a message through his disciples. Why “through” has a strong case The critical reading διά has early support. A critic can therefore explain the received δύο as a copyist’s attempt to bring Matthew into line with Luke.
Conclusion
The critical “through” focuses agency instead: John, though imprisoned, sends by means of his disciples. That reading is meaningful and old. Its strength should keep a defender from claiming that only a careless or malicious scribe could produce it. Graphic similarity and ordinary phrasing are enough.
Luke’s clear number remains an important control. Harmonization is possible, but historical agreement is the first expectation when two writers narrate one embassy. The burden is to show that verbal contact better explains Matthew than the shared event itself.
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 Matthew 11:2, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples.” — Matthew 11:2”. The assessed critical reading is “The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.”. 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 11:2, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples.” — Matthew 11:2”. The assessed critical form is “The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.”.
- 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 11:2, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples.” — Matthew 11:2”. The assessed critical reading is “The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.”. 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
The Greek difference between “two” and “through” is small on the page and plain in English. The Textus Receptus says John sent two of his disciples. The critical text says he sent a message through his disciples. One reading gives the number; the other names the means.
“Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples.” — Matthew 11:2
Both agree that John acted from prison and that his disciples carried the question to Jesus. The dispute concerns what Matthew chose to tell us about them.
Why “through” has a strong case
The critical reading διά has early support. It also avoids agreement with Luke 7:19, where John explicitly calls two disciples and sends them to Jesus. A critic can therefore explain the received δύο as a copyist’s attempt to bring Matthew into line with Luke.
That is a clean argument, but it is not a proof. Matthew and Luke often report the same historical detail because it happened. Two messengers fit ordinary practice: Deuteronomy’s rule of two witnesses stands in the background of Jewish life, and two disciples can report both question and answer. Matthew’s wording is concise and needs no borrowing to make sense.
The forms were also easy to confuse in copying. In continuous script, DYO and DIA differ by little. A damaged letter, a mistaken stroke, or a scribe expecting the common phrase “sent through” could turn one into the other without any plan to rewrite the story.
John’s question remains the same
Neither reading makes John an unbeliever in the careless sense. He had confessed Christ and heard the voice from heaven. Imprisoned while the kingdom advanced in a form he may not have expected, he sent his disciples to ask, “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?” Jesus answered with works that fulfilled the prophets: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise, and the poor hear the gospel.
The received detail of two men gives the scene a firm shape. They hear the question, see the works, receive the answer, and return to the prisoner. Luke independently gives the same number. Agreement between Gospels should not be treated as guilt.
The early evidence for διά deserves respect, but the wide ecclesiastical transmission, the easy letter change, and the natural agreement with the event as Luke records it favor δύο. John sent two of his disciples. The number is modest; the witness they carried back was great.
Two messengers also fit the answer’s public character. They do not receive a private assurance that cannot be checked. They see works, hear Scripture-shaped words, and can return with a joined report. John’s disciples are being taught as well as used as couriers.
The critical “through” focuses agency instead: John, though imprisoned, sends by means of his disciples. That reading is meaningful and old. Its strength should keep a defender from claiming that only a careless or malicious scribe could produce it. Graphic similarity and ordinary phrasing are enough.
Luke’s clear number remains an important control. Harmonization is possible, but historical agreement is the first expectation when two writers narrate one embassy. The burden is to show that verbal contact better explains Matthew than the shared event itself.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 11:1–6; Luke 7:18–23; Deuteronomy 19:15.
- Frederick H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 11:2.
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-1046
- 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 11:2 — Did John Send “Two of His Disciples” or “through His Disciples”?,” VAR-1046, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas