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 Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief.”
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The received reading has its own contextual strength.
Authorized Version
“And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief.” — Matthew 17:20
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 balance of external and internal evidence described in the entry; 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 17:20
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 bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
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 17:20, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The critical text answers little faith. Critics also note “faithless generation” in verse 17 and argue that a copyist changed little faith to unbelief under its influence.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 17:20 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: The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
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 source-level external-evidence synopsis remains open; consult the full essay and cited apparatus.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Critics also note “faithless generation” in verse 17 and argue that a copyist changed little faith to unbelief under its influence. The received reading has its own contextual strength.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
When they ask why, the received text answers unbelief. The received “unbelief” nevertheless fits the immediate “faithless generation,” the mustard-seed contrast, and the church’s continuous text. John William Burgon and Edward Miller, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 17:20. 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 answers little faith. Critics also note “faithless generation” in verse 17 and argue that a copyist changed little faith to unbelief under its influence.
Conclusion
Mark’s account includes the father’s cry, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” That mixed confession shows how Scripture can use unbelief of a real believer’s remaining failure. The received Matthew reading therefore need not declare the apostles unregenerate.
The variant also warns against diagnosing every failed prayer. The disciples had received a particular commission and asked about a particular exorcism. Christ’s answer trains them; it does not grant observers a universal right to blame the sufferer or petitioner whenever a desired act does not occur.
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 17:20, the received text reads “The received reading has its own contextual strength.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief.” — Matthew 17:20”. 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 17:20, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “The received reading has its own contextual strength.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief.” — Matthew 17:20”. 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 17:20, the received text reads “The received reading has its own contextual strength.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief.” — Matthew 17:20”. 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
“And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief.” — Matthew 17:20
The disciples had tried and failed to cast out a devil. When they ask why, the received text answers unbelief. The critical text answers little faith. The difference is one Greek word: ἀπιστία against ὀλιγοπιστία.
Both rebuke defective trust. They do not, however, sound the same. Little faith is weak; unbelief is a refusal or failure to believe.
“Little faith” is a favorite Matthean expression. Jesus uses related forms when the disciples fear the storm, worry about clothing, and misunderstand the leaven. The rarer noun here may therefore look like Matthew’s own word. Critics also note “faithless generation” in verse 17 and argue that a copyist changed little faith to unbelief under its influence.
The received reading has its own contextual strength. The disciples did not merely bring a small amount of trust to a task that required more spiritual force. At the decisive point they failed to rely on Christ’s granted authority. Their unbelief need not mean that they possessed no saving faith. Scripture can rebuke belief mixed with unbelief: “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”
The following image supports the sharper word. Faith as a grain of mustard seed moves a mountain. Jesus does not measure a large faith against a small one as though power rose from spiritual quantity. Even tiny true faith lays hold of a mighty God. Their failure lay in unbelief, not in the physical size of an inner substance.
Faith is not a lever
“Nothing shall be impossible unto you” is not a blank check for private ambition. It belongs to the apostolic work Christ assigned and to dependence on his power. The mountain figure names an obstacle no human strength can move.
This keeps the received reading from becoming a weapon against troubled Christians. Christ is not saying that every unanswered prayer proves a person unconverted. He is training appointed servants whose act had become detached from prayer, fasting, and present trust.
The early support for “little faith” and Matthew’s fondness for the term make it a serious rival. The received “unbelief” nevertheless fits the immediate “faithless generation,” the mustard-seed contrast, and the church’s continuous text. It also prevents a common mistake: the answer to weak ministry is not to admire the size of our faith but to turn from unbelief to the Lord who acts.
Mustard seed is small, but living. Christ’s image does not invite disciples to measure spiritual confidence until it reaches mountain-moving volume. It contrasts genuine reliance upon God with the unbelief that attempts ministry from remembered authority while neglecting present dependence.
Mark’s account includes the father’s cry, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” That mixed confession shows how Scripture can use unbelief of a real believer’s remaining failure. The received Matthew reading therefore need not declare the apostles unregenerate.
The variant also warns against diagnosing every failed prayer. The disciples had received a particular commission and asked about a particular exorcism. Christ’s answer trains them; it does not grant observers a universal right to blame the sufferer or petitioner whenever a desired act does not occur.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:14–21; Mark 9:14–29.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 17:20.
- John William Burgon and Edward Miller, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.
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-1060
- 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 17:20 — Unbelief or Little Faith? Why the Disciples Could Not Cast It Out,” VAR-1060, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas

