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 mountain beside Galilee becomes a field hospital.
Variant class
Transposition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“They saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see.” — Matthew 15:31
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, 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., note on Matthew 15:31
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 15:31, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. — Matthew 15:31 The usual critical text retains the maimed and their wholeness. Once again, the central received phrase is not a reading modern editors uniformly reject. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 15:31 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 manuscripts vary in the order of the list, and some drop “the maimed to be whole.” The phrase has ancient and broad support, though its position shifts. Other orders tell the same wonders, but the settled text need not be rebuilt around every ancient rearrangement.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A scribe may line the healings up with the order in which the sick were named in verse 30. The Greek endings also repeat, so one item can fall between neighboring items without leaving broken grammar. It can describe a damaged or missing limb.
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 15:31. 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
— Matthew 15:31 The usual critical text retains the maimed and their wholeness. Once again, the central received phrase is not a reading modern editors uniformly reject. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Conclusion
Matthew says the crowds cast the afflicted at Jesus’ feet. The verb pictures urgency and helplessness, not contempt. The people can bring bodies into his presence; they cannot perform the restoration. His healing then leads them to glorify the God of Israel.
This Gentile-region praise anticipates the Gospel’s widening horizon. Israel’s Messiah makes the nations marvel at Israel’s God. The full list shows the breadth of mercy before the bread is multiplied for the waiting multitude.
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 15:31, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “They saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see.” — Matthew 15:31”. 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 15:31, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “They saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see.” — Matthew 15:31”. 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 15:31, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “They saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see.” — Matthew 15:31”. 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 mountain beside Galilee becomes a field hospital. People lay the lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others at Jesus’ feet. Matthew then names the change in each body. The manuscripts vary in the order of the list, and some drop “the maimed to be whole.”
“They saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see.” — Matthew 15:31
The usual critical text retains the maimed and their wholeness. Once again, the central received phrase is not a reading modern editors uniformly reject.
Lists invite rearrangement. A scribe may line the healings up with the order in which the sick were named in verse 30. Another may group speech and sight, or move a phrase to make the clauses sound alike. The Greek endings also repeat, so one item can fall between neighboring items without leaving broken grammar.
“The maimed to be whole” is especially exposed. A lame person walking and a maimed person made whole may seem to say nearly the same thing. But maimed points beyond weak legs. It can describe a damaged or missing limb. Whole answers that ruin. Matthew is not piling synonyms; he is widening the scene.
The phrase has ancient and broad support, though its position shifts. Variation of position sometimes raises suspicion that words entered from a margin. It can just as readily show that a lost line was restored at different points. When a clause is both difficult to omit intentionally and easy to lose mechanically, restoration explains the scattered positions well.
Israel’s God on the mountain
The crowd “glorified the God of Israel.” That close matters. Jesus does works tied to the prophetic hope: blind eyes open, deaf ears hear, the lame walk, and ruined bodies are restored. Gentiles in the region see Israel’s Messiah display Israel’s God.
The line does not teach that every believer will receive bodily healing now. It records the King’s sign and gives a pledge of the final restoration. The same Jesus soon feeds the multitude, joining created strength to created food.
The received order lets the report gather speed: dumb speak, maimed become whole, lame walk, blind see. Other orders tell the same wonders, but the settled text need not be rebuilt around every ancient rearrangement. Keep the full list. No broken body lay beyond the reach of the man at whose feet they were cast.
The phrase “maimed made whole” may imply restoration beyond ordinary healing. A damaged limb is not merely strengthened; wholeness answers loss. That helps explain why a scribe could find the line startling or why a reader might treat it as a redundant expansion. The very specificity that raises doubt also gives the report its distinct witness.
Matthew says the crowds cast the afflicted at Jesus’ feet. The verb pictures urgency and helplessness, not contempt. The people can bring bodies into his presence; they cannot perform the restoration. His healing then leads them to glorify the God of Israel.
This Gentile-region praise anticipates the Gospel’s widening horizon. Israel’s Messiah makes the nations marvel at Israel’s God. The full list shows the breadth of mercy before the bread is multiplied for the waiting multitude.
Sources and further reading
- Isaiah 29:18–19; 35:5–6; Matthew 15:29–39.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 15:31.
- 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-1057
- 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 15:31 — The Maimed Made Whole: The Order and Extent of the Healing List,” VAR-1057, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas