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
> “Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not.”
Variant class
Transposition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not.” — Matthew 13:13
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 scribal harmonization to a parallel passage. 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 13:13
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
The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
Doctrinal analysis
A scribe who remembered the parallels could make all three Gospels sound alike without changing the broad theology. The accounts are complementary rather than doctrinal rivals.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 13:13, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The received and leading modern critical texts agree on the word translated because. The main critical text agrees.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 13:13 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: A scribe who remembered the parallels could make all three Gospels sound alike without changing the broad theology. The accounts are complementary rather than doctrinal rivals.
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
Some manuscripts alter the second link so that the parables sound more directly designed “in order that” the hearers should not perceive. Witnesses that replace “because” with ἵνα, “in order that,” may preserve assimilation to Mark and Luke. The ancient purpose reading belongs to the history of harmonization, not to the settled wording of this Gospel.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A scribe who remembered the parallels could make all three Gospels sound alike without changing the broad theology. The ancient purpose reading belongs to the history of harmonization, not to the settled wording of this Gospel. Matthew first describes people who see and do not see; the Isaiah quotation then speaks of a heart grown gross and eyes closed.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received reading and its ecclesiastical use require passage-specific documentation; the age of a witness and the age of a reading must not be confused.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 13:13. 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 received and leading modern critical texts agree on the word translated because. The main critical text agrees.
Conclusion
“Because” does not make Christ a passive observer of unbelief. He chooses the parabolic form, gives understanding to the disciples, and fulfills the prophetic word. Divine sovereignty and human guilt meet without being reduced to one conjunction.
The variant is therefore a good check on harmonization language. The purpose form is authentic in the parallels. Its truth elsewhere makes its entry here easier, not less significant. A copied word can be sound Scripture in Mark and still be secondary in Matthew.
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 13:13 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
“Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not.” — Matthew 13:13
Matthew gives both a result and a reason. Jesus speaks in parables therefore, because the crowds see without truly seeing and hear without understanding. Some manuscripts alter the second link so that the parables sound more directly designed “in order that” the hearers should not perceive.
The received and leading modern critical texts agree on the word translated because. This article is therefore another control case, not a KJV-versus-modern deletion.
Mark 4:12 and Luke 8:10 use the purpose form: “that seeing they may see, and not perceive.” Matthew’s because sets the saying within his own account. The dullness of the people has already appeared; the parables both answer it and carry out Isaiah’s judgment.
Witnesses that replace “because” with ἵνα, “in order that,” may preserve assimilation to Mark and Luke. The change is easy because the following quotation from Isaiah uses purpose language. A scribe who remembered the parallels could make all three Gospels sound alike without changing the broad theology.
Matthew, however, writes a careful sequence. The disciples are given knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom. The resistant hearer loses even what he seems to have. “Therefore” Jesus speaks in parables—“because” the crowd’s seeing is blind and its hearing is deaf. Then Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them.
Judgment and mercy in one form
A parable is not merely a friendly illustration. It reveals truth to the disciple who comes near and asks; it also leaves the careless hearer with a story he will not seek to understand. That double action does not make God the author of sinful unbelief. The people close their eyes in verse 15. Their hardness is culpable, and Christ’s teaching judges it.
At the same time, the parable is mercy. Jesus continues to speak. The seed is scattered widely. Even the public explanation of why he uses parables warns the hearer not to remain outside.
The received conjunction keeps the order clear: human hardness is not manufactured by a grammatical particle, and divine judgment is not denied. The people refuse the light; Christ answers them in a form that exposes and confirms their state while still calling those with ears to hear.
Matthew wrote “because.” The main critical text agrees. The ancient purpose reading belongs to the history of harmonization, not to the settled wording of this Gospel.
The difference also matters for the order of responsibility. Matthew first describes people who see and do not see; the Isaiah quotation then speaks of a heart grown gross and eyes closed. The parables answer an existing refusal. Mark and Luke emphasize the judicial purpose produced by that refusal. The accounts are complementary rather than doctrinal rivals.
“Because” does not make Christ a passive observer of unbelief. He chooses the parabolic form, gives understanding to the disciples, and fulfills the prophetic word. Divine sovereignty and human guilt meet without being reduced to one conjunction.
The variant is therefore a good check on harmonization language. The purpose form is authentic in the parallels. Its truth elsewhere makes its entry here easier, not less significant. A copied word can be sound Scripture in Mark and still be secondary in Matthew.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 13:10–17; Mark 4:10–12; Luke 8:9–10; Isaiah 6:9–10.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 13:13.
- Frederick H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised 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-1051
- 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 13:13 — “Because” or “Therefore”? Why Jesus Spoke in Parables,” VAR-1051, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas