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 thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell.”
Variant class
Addition / omission
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell.” — Matthew 11:23
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.
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 the weight and distribution of external attestation, a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, the comparative difficulty of the readings, authorial usage, grammar, or immediate context; the printed confidence ratings represented here are {B}, {D}. 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 11:23, 11:23
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
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
English versions may differ more sharply than the doctrine does.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 11:23, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The critical text asks, “Will you be exalted to heaven?” The critical reading adds μή and asks a sharp question: “You will not be exalted to heaven, will you?” The critical question states that it will not finally attain heaven; the received statement names the height from which judgment brings it down.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 11:23 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: English versions may differ more sharply than the doctrine does.
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
Its supporters point to early and diverse witnesses. English versions may differ more sharply than the doctrine does. A persuasive mechanism is evidence, not eyewitness testimony to the first copy.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
The preceding name Capernaum ends in the same letter with which μή begins, so a scribe could drop the first mu and then adjust the verb. Copyists could also have changed an affirmative saying that seemed to call an unbelieving city “exalted to heaven,” especially if they read exaltation as moral praise rather than covenant privilege.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text says the city is exalted to heaven. This is one of the stronger internal cases against the Textus Receptus. The received statement stands across the broad Greek transmission and agrees with the form preserved in Luke 10:15.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 11:23. 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
The critical text asks, “Will you be exalted to heaven?” The critical reading adds μή and asks a sharp question: “You will not be exalted to heaven, will you?” The critical question states that it will not finally attain heaven; the received statement names the height from which judgment brings it down.
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.
The Revision RevisedPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon — supplied PDF pp. 103
Burgon directly discusses Matthew 11:23. The local discussion treats Greek manuscript evidence, ancient versions as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
Conclusion
This makes the affirmative received form morally coherent. “Exalted” need not praise Capernaum’s virtue. A city can be lifted in opportunity while remaining hardened in response. The critical question states that it will not finally attain heaven; the received statement names the height from which judgment brings it down.
The lost initial mu theory remains one of modern criticism’s most exact accounts of change. It deserves to be printed as a possibility. The broader transmitted statement and its covenant logic still provide a stronger public reading. A persuasive mechanism is evidence, not eyewitness testimony to the first copy.
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 11:23, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell.” — Matthew 11:23”. 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 11:23, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell.” — Matthew 11:23”. 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 11:23, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell.” — Matthew 11:23”. 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
- The Revision Revisedsupplied PDF pp. 103 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- 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
Read the full research essay and its sources
“And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell.” — Matthew 11:23
Is Jesus describing Capernaum’s present height, or asking whether it expects to be raised? The received text says the city is exalted to heaven. The critical text asks, “Will you be exalted to heaven?” A single Greek letter helps turn the statement into a question.
Both forms end in the same fall to Hades. The disagreement lies in the road to that judgment.
Capernaum had seen mighty works. Jesus made it a center of his Galilean ministry, taught in its synagogue, healed the centurion’s servant, and raised up the sick. Its height was not pride alone. It was privilege: light had come to its streets.
The received reading suits that history. “Which art exalted unto heaven” is followed by “shalt be brought down to hell.” Present gift and coming ruin answer one another. The city had been lifted by Christ’s presence and would fall because it did not repent.
The critical reading adds μή and asks a sharp question: “You will not be exalted to heaven, will you?” Its supporters point to early and diverse witnesses. They also give a precise copying account. The preceding name Capernaum ends in the same letter with which μή begins, so a scribe could drop the first mu and then adjust the verb. This is one of the stronger internal cases against the Textus Receptus.
A strong theory is still a theory
The proposed eye-skip is possible. It does not tell us that it happened. The received statement stands across the broad Greek transmission and agrees with the form preserved in Luke 10:15. Its antithesis is direct and memorable. Copyists could also have changed an affirmative saying that seemed to call an unbelieving city “exalted to heaven,” especially if they read exaltation as moral praise rather than covenant privilege.
A second variation asks whether Capernaum “shall go down” or “shall be brought down.” Here too the sense is stable: its fall is certain and judicial. English versions may differ more sharply than the doctrine does.
The received text best joins the verse to the woes on Chorazin and Bethsaida. Greater light brings greater account. Capernaum was raised high by the works done in it, yet Sodom would find the judgment more tolerable. Privilege never shelters unbelief; it measures it.
Isaiah 14 supplies the downward language often heard behind the verse. A proud power seeks heaven and descends to the pit. Jesus applies that reversal to a town exalted not by imperial reach but by messianic presence. The greater the gift, the sharper the fall.
This makes the affirmative received form morally coherent. “Exalted” need not praise Capernaum’s virtue. A city can be lifted in opportunity while remaining hardened in response. The critical question states that it will not finally attain heaven; the received statement names the height from which judgment brings it down.
The lost initial mu theory remains one of modern criticism’s most exact accounts of change. It deserves to be printed as a possibility. The broader transmitted statement and its covenant logic still provide a stronger public reading. A persuasive mechanism is evidence, not eyewitness testimony to the first copy.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 4:13; 8:5–17; 11:20–24; Luke 10:13–16.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 11:23.
- 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-1048
- 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. 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; 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 11:23 — Shall Capernaum Be Exalted to Heaven or Has It Already Been Exalted?,” VAR-1048, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas