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 rich young man calls Jesus “Good Master” and asks what good thing he must do to have eternal life.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” — Matthew 19:17
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 reads, “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?
Translation or explanation
The critical text reads, “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?
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. 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 19:17
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
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony
Exact proposition affected
The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
Doctrinal analysis
The question opens toward Christ’s deity even as it breaks the man’s shallow measure of goodness. The answer also resists a common misuse by opponents of Christ’s deity.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 19:17, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The critical text reads, “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? The critical form The critical wording stands in important early witnesses and differs from Mark and Luke, which read “Why callest thou me good?” Editors take that difference as a sign of originality.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 19:17 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
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony: The question opens toward Christ’s deity even as it breaks the man’s shallow measure of goodness. The answer also resists a common misuse by opponents of Christ’s deity.
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 critical form The critical wording stands in important early witnesses and differs from Mark and Luke, which read “Why callest thou me good?”
Internal and transcriptional evidence
On their account, copyists harmonized Matthew to the other Gospels. Its question is not an embarrassment later scribes borrowed to make the Gospels match. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, on using the whole canonical context.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Textus Receptus answers, “Why callest thou me good?” The Textus Receptus should stand.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 19:17. 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 reads, “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? The critical form The critical wording stands in important early witnesses and differs from Mark and Luke, which read “Why callest thou me good?” Editors take that difference as a sign of originality.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 3 passage-specific notes attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
The Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsDedicated appendix on Matthew 19:17
John William Burgon; edited by Edward Miller — supplied PDF Appendix III, scan pp. 287–307
Burgon’s appendix addresses the critical alteration from “Why callest thou me good?” to “Why askest thou me concerning the good?” He compares the synoptic parallels, manuscripts, versions, fathers, and the dialogue’s Christological force, arguing that the received wording is coherent and genuine.
Editorial use: Burgon’s Christological and textual case is presented as his source argument; the doctrinal effect must still be stated without claiming that the rival form formally denies Christ’s deity.
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster StandardsWestminster proof-text and translation comparison
Seth Stark — supplied PDF pp. 18–19
At Matthew 19:17, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “So He said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.’”” with the ESV/critical-text wording “And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.’”” and associates the passage with WSC 17.
Editorial use: This establishes a confessional proof-text and reception connection. It does not by itself establish the original reading, and its English-version comparison must be checked against the Greek variation unit.
Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 6–7
Matthew 19.17: It sets “And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Matthew 19:17 Authorised Version)” against “And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." (Mat 19:17 NAU).” Its stated doctrinal argument is that The doctrinal difference here is blatantly manifest. Christ, as faithfully cited by the Byzantine Text and the overwhelming majority of the early Fathers, is telling the rich young ruler that man is totally depraved, that there is none good, no, not one – no, none but God alone. (And therefore, Christ, the God-man was the only good Man upon the earth.) The corruption here in the Alexandrian text appears to be deliberate. There are no orthographic similarities whatsoever between Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; ('Why callest me good?') and τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; ('Why askest me concerning good?').… The compilation appeals to The Alexandrian reading 'why are you asking me about what is good' is supported by Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, with other later Alexandrian allies. The 'why callest thou me good' reading of the Byzantine Text is supported by Tatian's Diatessaron of the 2nd century,xxvi Justin Martyr of the 2nd century,xxvii Clement of Alexandria of the 2nd century,xxviii Chrysostom of the 4th century,xxix and even Origen of…
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 command to sell all was fitted to the ruler’s exposed idol. Jesus does not impose identical liquidation upon every disciple, but he imposes the first commandment upon all. Whatever cannot be surrendered at his word functions as a rival god.
The critical form still reaches that moral issue through “the good.” It does not deny Christ’s goodness. Textual defense is strongest when it refuses caricature and then asks which wording best accounts for the Synoptic event, the received transmission, and the direct reply to “Good Master.”
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 19:17, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” — Matthew 19:17”. The assessed critical reading is “The critical text reads, “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Matthew 19:17, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” — Matthew 19:17”. The assessed critical form is “The critical text reads, “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?”.
- 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 19:17, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” — Matthew 19:17”. The assessed critical reading is “The critical text reads, “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
- 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
- The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospelssupplied PDF Appendix III, scan pp. 287–307 — Dedicated appendix on Matthew 19:17
- A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standardssupplied PDF pp. 18–19 — Westminster proof-text and translation comparison
- Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemisedsupplied PDF pp. 6–7 — Attributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Read the full research essay and its sources
The rich young man calls Jesus “Good Master” and asks what good thing he must do to have eternal life. The Textus Receptus answers, “Why callest thou me good?” The critical text reads, “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One is the good.”
“Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” — Matthew 19:17
This is not a spelling change. It reshapes the opening exchange, though both forms lead to the commandments and expose the man’s heart.
The critical form
The critical wording stands in important early witnesses and differs from Mark and Luke, which read “Why callest thou me good?” Editors take that difference as a sign of originality. On their account, copyists harmonized Matthew to the other Gospels.
The received answer has far broader later use and agrees with the spoken scene. The man has called Jesus good. Jesus takes up that address and presses it toward God. The reply is pointed, personal, and memorable.
Agreement with Mark and Luke need not be scribal. All three report the same encounter. Matthew may abbreviate other parts while preserving the same first reply. Once a different form entered an early line, its distance from the parallels could make it look more original simply because it was more difficult.
Jesus does not deny his goodness
Christ does not say, “I am not good.” He asks the ruler to reckon with his words. If only God is good in the absolute sense, what does it mean to call Jesus good? The question opens toward Christ’s deity even as it breaks the man’s shallow measure of goodness.
The ruler thinks eternal life can be secured by one more deed. Jesus names God’s commandments, then commands him to sell, give, and follow. The man’s sorrow shows that his possessions hold the place of God. His claim to have kept the law collapses at the first commandment.
The critical reading also guards divine goodness, but it turns attention from the address “Good Master” to the subject “good thing.” That is possible sense; it is not the best account of the conversation as received across the three Synoptics.
The Textus Receptus should stand. Its question is not an embarrassment later scribes borrowed to make the Gospels match. It is the Lord’s probe. The ruler used a great word lightly, and Jesus made him face the God whose goodness he claimed to seek.
The answer also resists a common misuse by opponents of Christ’s deity. Jesus does not contrast himself with God as a sinner contrasts with holiness. He makes the ruler account for the title he has spoken. If the man means ordinary courtesy, his word is too large; if he means absolute goodness, he must reckon with who stands before him.
The command to sell all was fitted to the ruler’s exposed idol. Jesus does not impose identical liquidation upon every disciple, but he imposes the first commandment upon all. Whatever cannot be surrendered at his word functions as a rival god.
The critical form still reaches that moral issue through “the good.” It does not deny Christ’s goodness. Textual defense is strongest when it refuses caricature and then asks which wording best accounts for the Synoptic event, the received transmission, and the direct reply to “Good Master.”
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 19:16–30; Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 19:17.
- William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, on using the whole canonical context.
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-1065
- 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 19:17 — “Why Callest Thou Me Good?” The Rich Young Ruler and the Goodness of God,” VAR-1065, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas