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
This sentence stands between Christ’s warning not to despise his little ones and the parable of the wandering sheep.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The Textus Receptus keeps it.
Authorized Version
“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” — Matthew 18:11
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.
Historical annotation witness
Erasmus’s Annotationes
Erasmus’s printed Greek text, his Latin annotation, and the Research Center’s evaluation are distinct evidence. Each edition remains separately identified because Erasmus revised the Annotationes across his five editions.
Not yet assessed. No inference about Erasmus’s silence has been made. A Latin annotation and translation will appear here only after an edition and exact locus have been verified.
The Erasmus annotation audit has not yet been completed for this locus. Do not infer from this status that Erasmus was silent.
Westminster and Dutch annotation witnesses
Westminster Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
Dutch Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
The critical text omits it, chiefly on strong early evidence and because Luke 19:10 contains nearly the same saying.
Translation or explanation
The critical text omits it, chiefly on strong early evidence and because Luke 19:10 contains nearly the same saying.
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; 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 18:11
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
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
— Matthew 18:11 No doctrine of Christ’s saving mission depends on this one location. A copyist does not need to oppose the doctrine.
Controlled source-list matches
Doctrinal significance and Westminster use
This passage is listed in one or both controlling research files. Their claims are reported with exact source identity and confessional use; list membership does not by itself establish the original reading or the Research Center’s final entailment.
Doctrinally significant variant listMatthew 18.11
Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemised
Anonymous compilation — supplied source file pp. 5–6
Doctrine or doctrinal consequence identified by the source
Quite obviously, the deletion of this text greatly weakens the emphasis of the originals in this passage upon the mission of Christ, and His resolve to save sinners. This verse, faithfully included in the Byzantine Text, much strengthens the doctrine of Christ's resolve as the Great Shepherd of the Sheep to save the one sheep straying from the fold of the ninety-nine. On what ground can we justify this text's deletion? Do we justify it on the ground of a supposed 'reliability of the Alexandrian tradition', by which there are 3,060 differences in the Four Gospels alone between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, as listed in detail by Herman Hoskier? And what of the fact that the text of Vaticanus is now known not to have existed in Alexandria in Clement's time in 190 A.D., but, to the contrary, was only a later development, as demonstrated by Carl Cosaert's intensive research study, supervised by Bart Ehrman, of the Scripture citations of Clement of Alexandria of the late 2nd century in his written works? Similarly, does not the doctrinal infidelity of the Egyptian Church, which entirely went apostate in the 5th century A.D. , factor into our judgment as concerning this deletion of this precious text which tells us that Jesus is come to save the one lost sheep that has strayed from the fold of the ninety and nine? Would it rather not behove us to rather embrace the inclusion of this precious text, on the ground of its being cited in the 2nd century A.D. by Tatian, on the ground of its being cited by Chrysostom in the 4th century, and on the ground of its being universally attested to in the reliable and faithful Byzantine Text? We affirm that the answer is self-evident. Let us then hold fast to that which is good and not let it go. Though there is a parallel verse in Luke 19.10 which includes these words even in the Alexandrian Text, we see no warrant for their exclusion here, given their universal attestation in the more reliable Byzantine Text, by the Diatessaron of the 2nd century, and Chrysostom in the 4th century.
Source-reported readings and witness argument
Received reading reported
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. (Matthew 18:11 Authorised Version)
Critical reading reported
[Omit]
Manuscript and patristic support reported by the source
The deletion of this verse by the Nestle-Aland Critical Text is supported by Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. On the other hand, the inclusion of these words by the Byzantine Text is supported by Tatian's Diatessaron of the 2nd century; by Chrysostom of the 4th century who quotes this verse in full in his homily on Matthew 18, and by the universal reading of all the Byzantine manuscripts.
Editorial qualification: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 18:11, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The critical text omits it, chiefly on strong early evidence and because Luke 19:10 contains nearly the same saying. The critical explanation is plain. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 18:11 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: — Matthew 18:11 No doctrine of Christ’s saving mission depends on this one location. A copyist does not need to oppose the doctrine.
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 agreement is close, and the earliest surviving witnesses against the verse are weighty.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A copyist remembered Luke and inserted a loved saying where it fit. The broad received transmission also cannot be dismissed as though one harmonizer independently controlled every line in which the verse appears. The omission leaves a smooth transition from angels to sheep, which is both the shorter form’s strength and a route for loss.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Textus Receptus keeps it. The received text gives the paragraph its center in Christ before it gives the church its duty. Keep the verse, and let its order govern the church: Christ saves the lost, so his people may not despise or abandon them.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 18:11. 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 omits it, chiefly on strong early evidence and because Luke 19:10 contains nearly the same saying. The critical explanation is plain. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 1 passage-specific note attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 5–6
Matthew 18.11: It sets “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. (Matthew 18:11 Authorised Version)” against “[Omit].” Its stated doctrinal argument is that Quite obviously, the deletion of this text greatly weakens the emphasis of the originals in this passage upon the mission of Christ, and His resolve to save sinners. This verse, faithfully included in the Byzantine Text, much strengthens the doctrine of Christ's resolve as the Great Shepherd of the Sheep to save the one sheep straying from the fold of the ninety-nine. On what ground can we justify this text's deletion?… The compilation appeals to The deletion of this verse by the Nestle-Aland Critical Text is supported by Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. On the other hand, the inclusion of these words by the Byzantine Text is supported by Tatian's Diatessaron of the 2nd century;xxi by Chrysostom of the 4th century who quotes this verse in full in his homily on Matthew 18,xxii and by the universal reading of all the Byzantine manuscripts.
Editorial use: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Conclusion
The omission leaves a smooth transition from angels to sheep, which is both the shorter form’s strength and a route for loss. A copyist does not need to oppose the doctrine. He may skip a familiar line or suspect it because he knows Luke. Once the verse is absent, nothing in grammar forces its return.
The saying also defines greatness in the chapter. The Son of man does not preserve status by staying distant from the lost. He comes. Any church authority that despises small people has moved away from the pattern of its Lord.
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.
Canonical-status rule: Physical printing is not canonical inclusion. If an edition prints a passage in double brackets while judging it secondary or non-original, it disagrees with the received text concerning the identity and extent of inspired Scripture.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Matthew 18:11, the received text reads “The Textus Receptus keeps it.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” — Matthew 18:11”. The assessed critical reading is “The critical text omits it, chiefly on strong early evidence and because Luke 19:10 contains nearly the same saying.”. 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 18:11, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “The Textus Receptus keeps it.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” — Matthew 18:11”. The assessed critical form is “The critical text omits it, chiefly on strong early evidence and because Luke 19:10 contains nearly the same saying.”.
- 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 18:11, the received text reads “The Textus Receptus keeps it.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” — Matthew 18:11”. The assessed critical reading is “The critical text omits it, chiefly on strong early evidence and because Luke 19:10 contains nearly the same saying.”. 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
- Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemisedsupplied PDF pp. 5–6 — Attributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
- 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
Read the full research essay and its sources
This sentence stands between Christ’s warning not to despise his little ones and the parable of the wandering sheep. The Textus Receptus keeps it. The critical text omits it, chiefly on strong early evidence and because Luke 19:10 contains nearly the same saying.
“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” — Matthew 18:11
No doctrine of Christ’s saving mission depends on this one location. The words remain in Luke even in the shortest modern text. The question is whether Matthew placed them here as the hinge of his argument.
The hinge in the chapter
Verse 10 says the angels of the little ones behold the Father’s face. Verse 12 asks what a shepherd does when one sheep strays. Verse 11 gives the reason the little one must not be despised: the Son of man came to save the lost.
Without it, the parable still follows. With it, Christ’s own mission stands between heavenly care and pastoral pursuit. The sentence turns a general warning into gospel logic. Seek the wandering brother because the Son sought the lost.
The critical explanation is plain. A copyist remembered Luke and inserted a loved saying where it fit. The agreement is close, and the earliest surviving witnesses against the verse are weighty.
But fitting words are not therefore borrowed words. Jesus used “Son of man” and spoke often of seeking and saving. Matthew can preserve a shorter form of a saying that Luke later records in the Zacchaeus story. The broad received transmission also cannot be dismissed as though one harmonizer independently controlled every line in which the verse appears.
What kind of loss?
The sheep in the following parable belongs to the flock and wanders. Luke 15 sets a similar sheep beside a lost coin and lost son in an evangelistic setting. Matthew 18 applies the image to the care of “little ones” and, soon after, to a brother who sins. The same Shepherd rescues sinners from death and restores straying disciples.
The verse therefore should not be used to flatten every warning into automatic security. Christ seeks; the shepherd goes; the wanderer must be gained. Grace creates the pursuit that the chapter commands.
The received text gives the paragraph its center in Christ before it gives the church its duty. That is not a late pious flourish. It is Matthew’s way of grounding care for the least in the mission of the Son of man. Keep the verse, and let its order govern the church: Christ saves the lost, so his people may not despise or abandon them.
Matthew’s placement differs meaningfully from Luke’s. Zacchaeus stands before Jesus when Luke records the saving mission. Here a child or humble disciple stands in the teaching, and the wandering sheep follows. The same sentence serves a distinct pastoral setting. That difference is what repeated teaching often looks like.
The omission leaves a smooth transition from angels to sheep, which is both the shorter form’s strength and a route for loss. A copyist does not need to oppose the doctrine. He may skip a familiar line or suspect it because he knows Luke. Once the verse is absent, nothing in grammar forces its return.
The saying also defines greatness in the chapter. The Son of man does not preserve status by staying distant from the lost. He comes. Any church authority that despises small people has moved away from the pattern of its Lord.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 18:1–20; Luke 15:1–7; 19:1–10.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 18:11.
- 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-1062
- 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. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
- 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 18:11 — “The Son of Man Is Come to Save That Which Was Lost”,” VAR-1062, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas