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
> “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”
Variant class
Transposition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The received text should be read: “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”
Authorized Version
“Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” — Matthew 16:13
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
The critical text usually omits it: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
Translation or explanation
The critical text usually omits it: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
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, scribal harmonization to a parallel passage; 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 16:13
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
No meaningful doctrinal effect
Exact proposition affected
The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
Doctrinal analysis
No Christological doctrine disappears from the shorter reading. Yet doctrinal stability is not proof that a word was never there.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 16:13, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The critical text usually omits it: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” Critics read that pattern as an addition: copyists imported the pronoun from the other Gospels, and its moving position betrays its secondary place.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 16:13 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
No meaningful doctrinal effect: No Christological doctrine disappears from the shorter reading. Yet doctrinal stability is not proof that a word was never there.
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
A pronoun with company The word με appears in different positions in some witnesses. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Critics read that pattern as an addition: copyists imported the pronoun from the other Gospels, and its moving position betrays its secondary place. Moving words can point to a marginal addition. They can also point to restoration after an omission.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
— Matthew 16:13 The Textus Receptus includes the pronoun me: “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” The received text should be read: “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 16:13. 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 critical text usually omits it: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” Critics read that pattern as an addition: copyists imported the pronoun from the other Gospels, and its moving position betrays its secondary place.
Conclusion
Popular answers are honorable but insufficient. John, Elijah, and Jeremiah were servants of God. Calling Jesus one of them can sound reverent while refusing his unique identity. The pronoun keeps the question from becoming an academic survey of titles; men are deciding who this speaker is.
Textual harmonization remains possible because the parallels are close. Yet the moving positions of me may mark attempts to restore a tiny omitted word within flexible Greek syntax. Instability around placement is not equivalent to absence from the original.
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 16:13, the received text reads “The received text should be read: “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” — Matthew 16:13”. The assessed critical reading is “The critical text usually omits it: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Matthew 16:13, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “The received text should be read: “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” — Matthew 16:13”. The assessed critical form is “The critical text usually omits it: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”.
- 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 16:13, the received text reads “The received text should be read: “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” — Matthew 16:13”. The assessed critical reading is “The critical text usually omits it: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
- 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
“Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” — Matthew 16:13
The Textus Receptus includes the pronoun me: “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” The critical text usually omits it: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” Both questions plainly concern Jesus. The received form makes the identification explicit before Peter makes it glorious.
A pronoun with company
The word με appears in different positions in some witnesses. It also stands firmly in the parallels at Mark 8:27 and Luke 9:18. Critics read that pattern as an addition: copyists imported the pronoun from the other Gospels, and its moving position betrays its secondary place.
Moving words can point to a marginal addition. They can also point to restoration after an omission. Greek word order is flexible, so a remembered or marginal me can return at more than one place. The main received position is grammatical and emphatic: “Who do men say me, the Son of man, to be?”
The title “Son of man” is not a detached third person. Jesus regularly uses it of himself. The pronoun prevents even a momentary reading in which he asks about someone else bearing the title.
The question turns
Popular answers place Jesus among the prophets: John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or another. Then he narrows the field: “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter answers, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
The two questions hinge on pronouns—men, ye, I. The received me in verse 13 belongs to that personal exchange. Public report is not enough. The disciples must confess the person before them.
No Christological doctrine disappears from the shorter reading. “The Son of man” still refers to Jesus, and Peter’s confession remains. That fact should keep the discussion honest. Yet doctrinal stability is not proof that a word was never there.
The pronoun has broad support, explains the syntax directly, and strengthens Matthew’s contrast without adding foreign content. Its occurrence in Mark and Luke may reflect the Lord’s actual question, not three rounds of harmonizing. The received text should be read: “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” The right answer still comes only by the Father’s revelation.
The construction also binds Jesus’ favorite self-designation to the confession that follows. The Son of man is not a lesser figure whom Peter replaces with “Son of the living God.” The same person bears both titles: the human and eschatological figure of Daniel’s vision is the divine Messiah standing before the disciples.
Popular answers are honorable but insufficient. John, Elijah, and Jeremiah were servants of God. Calling Jesus one of them can sound reverent while refusing his unique identity. The pronoun keeps the question from becoming an academic survey of titles; men are deciding who this speaker is.
Textual harmonization remains possible because the parallels are close. Yet the moving positions of me may mark attempts to restore a tiny omitted word within flexible Greek syntax. Instability around placement is not equivalent to absence from the original.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 16:13–20; Mark 8:27–30; Luke 9:18–21.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 16:13.
- 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-1059
- 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 16:13 — “Whom Do Men Say That I the Son of Man Am?”,” VAR-1059, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas