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
Nazareth names four of Jesus’ brothers.
Variant class
Spelling / name
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The received reading also has a striking local fit.
Authorized Version
“Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” — Matthew 13:55
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
That gives critics a ready account of the received Matthew: a copyist remembered Mark and changed Joseph to Joses.
Translation or explanation
That gives critics a ready account of the received Matthew: a copyist remembered Mark and changed Joseph to Joses.
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 likelihood that the competing form is a scribal correction or emendation; the printed confidence rating represented here is {B}. 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 13:55
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
Neither Joses nor Joseph changes that doctrine. The perpetual-virginity debate should not determine the spelling, but the narrative setting should determine the ordinary force of the relations.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 13:55, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The second is Joses in the Textus Receptus and Joseph in the usual critical text. That gives critics a ready account of the received Matthew: a copyist remembered Mark and changed Joseph to Joses. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 13:55 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: Neither Joses nor Joseph changes that doctrine. The perpetual-virginity debate should not determine the spelling, but the narrative setting should determine the ordinary force of the relations.
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
Other witnesses offer John or mixed forms. The appearance of John in some witnesses shows the looseness that can enter a list once the first form is unsettled. Their familiarity should have made them careful witnesses; instead it became an excuse to despise him.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
That gives critics a ready account of the received Matthew: a copyist remembered Mark and changed Joseph to Joses. Joseph was the familiar name of Jesus’ legal father, and it was far more common to a copyist’s eye. A copyist tempted toward Joseph may be reaching for familiarity, not trying to merge identities.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The second is Joses in the Textus Receptus and Joseph in the usual critical text.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 13:55. 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 second is Joses in the Textus Receptus and Joseph in the usual critical text. That gives critics a ready account of the received Matthew: a copyist remembered Mark and changed Joseph to Joses. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Conclusion
Joses appears again as a name connected with another Mary near the crucifixion. Common names can identify different people in one Gospel, just as several Simons and Marys do. A copyist tempted toward Joseph may be reaching for familiarity, not trying to merge identities.
The town’s offense remains the tragic center. They possess correct family data and draw the wrong conclusion about the Son. Familiarity without faith can catalogue every human relation and still miss the Father who revealed him.
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 13:55, the received text reads “The received reading also has a striking local fit.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” — Matthew 13:55”. The assessed critical reading is “That gives critics a ready account of the received Matthew: a copyist remembered Mark and changed Joseph to Joses.”. 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 13:55, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “The received reading also has a striking local fit.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” — Matthew 13:55”. The assessed critical form is “That gives critics a ready account of the received Matthew: a copyist remembered Mark and changed Joseph to Joses.”.
- 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 13:55, the received text reads “The received reading also has a striking local fit.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” — Matthew 13:55”. The assessed critical reading is “That gives critics a ready account of the received Matthew: a copyist remembered Mark and changed Joseph to Joses.”. 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
Nazareth names four of Jesus’ brothers. The second is Joses in the Textus Receptus and Joseph in the usual critical text. Other witnesses offer John or mixed forms. The man is not made or unmade by one ending, but Matthew’s list still calls for a name.
“Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” — Matthew 13:55
Why the copies wandered
Joses is a shortened form related to Joseph. Both names were common, and the difference in Greek can be small. Mark 6:3 clearly reads Joses in the parallel list. That gives critics a ready account of the received Matthew: a copyist remembered Mark and changed Joseph to Joses.
The traffic need not run only that way. Joseph was the familiar name of Jesus’ legal father, and it was far more common to a copyist’s eye. A rare or shortened Joses could be expanded into Joseph. The appearance of John in some witnesses shows the looseness that can enter a list once the first form is unsettled.
The received reading also has a striking local fit. Matthew has already named Joseph in the infancy narrative and then ceased to mention him. Nazareth now distinguishes the brother Joses from the household’s former head. That does not prove the reading, but it removes any claim that the shorter name is senseless or artificial.
The point of the list
The townspeople are not honoring Jesus. They reduce him to what they think they know: a carpenter’s son, Mary’s child, the brother of familiar men, and kin to sisters still living among them. Their list is meant to close the question of his authority. “Whence then hath this man all these things?”
Matthew uses their knowledge to expose their unbelief. The incarnation was not a disguise. The Son truly entered a family, learned a trade in a known town, and lived among neighbors who could name his relations. Their familiarity should have made them careful witnesses; instead it became an excuse to despise him.
Neither Joses nor Joseph changes that doctrine. Yet the broad transmission of Joses, its agreement with Mark, and the ordinary pull toward the more familiar Joseph support the received form. Parallel agreement is not automatically scribal agreement. Two evangelists may name the same brother alike because that was his name.
The list also prevents the claim that “brothers” must mean distant spiritual kin. Sisters are mentioned immediately afterward, and the townspeople appeal to a known household. The perpetual-virginity debate should not determine the spelling, but the narrative setting should determine the ordinary force of the relations.
Joses appears again as a name connected with another Mary near the crucifixion. Common names can identify different people in one Gospel, just as several Simons and Marys do. A copyist tempted toward Joseph may be reaching for familiarity, not trying to merge identities.
The town’s offense remains the tragic center. They possess correct family data and draw the wrong conclusion about the Son. Familiarity without faith can catalogue every human relation and still miss the Father who revealed him.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 1:16–25; 13:53–58; Mark 6:1–6.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 13:55.
- 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-1053
- 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 13:55 — Joses or Joseph? The Name of Jesus’ Brother,” VAR-1053, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas