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 parable of the laborers ends in the received text with two sayings: “the last shall be first, and the first last,” and “many be called, but few chosen.”
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“For many be called, but few chosen.” — Matthew 20:16
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 keeps the first and omits the second.
Translation or explanation
The critical text keeps the first and omits the second.
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. 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 20:16
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.
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 20.16
Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemised
Anonymous compilation — supplied source file pp. 7–8
Doctrine or doctrinal consequence identified by the source
A very definite doctrine is taught here – the doctrine of election. It is possible the omission was accidental. As Edward Yechezqel, the Hebrew scholar of HALOT (Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament) who also studied the Greek Septuagint and the Greek New Testament noted, the Egyptian copyists, like the Dead Sea Scroll copyists, were amateurs who hastily gave themselves to rapid but inaccurate copying of manuscripts, and were likewise not committed to exact copying, but instead freely took liberties with the text. Given the high number of patristic citations of this verse, we cannot but view its deletion in the Alexandrian Text as the result of carelessness. The omission of this text in the Alexandrian Text is accordingly a black mark against its reliability.
Source-reported readings and witness argument
Received reading reported
So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. (Matthew 20:16 Authorised Version)
Critical reading reported
So the last shall be first, and the first last." (Matthew 20:16 New American Standard – 'many shall be called and few chosen' is omitted)
Manuscript and patristic support reported by the source
The deletion of the words 'many be called, but few chosen' is supported by Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. On the other hand, the inclusion of the words as found in the Byzantine Text is supported by Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century A.D., Irenaeus of the 3rd century A. D., by Tatian in his Diatessaron of the 2nd century A.D., by the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas, by Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History (4th century), and by others. The included words are also the universal reading of the Byzantine Text.
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 20:16, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The critical text keeps the first and omits the second. The earliest witnesses behind the critical text often stop after “the first last.”
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 20:16 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 earliest witnesses behind the critical text often stop after “the first last.”
Internal and transcriptional evidence
— Matthew 20:16 The question is whether Matthew used the saying twice or whether a copyist carried it back from the wedding feast. Both are short, balanced sayings, and a copyist who knew the line from chapter 22 might even judge its earlier appearance a duplicate. Because the sentence remains at Matthew 22:14, its omission here would not erase election from Scripture.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The parable of the laborers ends in the received text with two sayings: “the last shall be first, and the first last,” and “many be called, but few chosen.” The phrase has continuous ecclesiastical use, matches the vocabulary of the parable, and closes Christ’s reversal with a second, deeper reversal.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 20:16. 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 keeps the first and omits the second. The earliest witnesses behind the critical text often stop after “the first last.”
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. 7–8
Matthew 20.16: It sets “So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. (Matthew 20:16 Authorised Version)” against “So the last shall be first, and the first last." (Matthew 20:16 New American Standard – 'many shall be called and few chosen' is omitted).” Its stated doctrinal argument is that A very definite doctrine is taught here – the doctrine of election. It is possible the omission was accidental. As Edward Yechezqel, the Hebrew scholar of HALOT (Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament) who also studied the Greek Septuagint and the Greek New Testament noted, the Egyptian copyists, like the Dead Sea Scroll copyists, were amateurs who hastily gave themselves to rapid but inaccurate copying of manuscripts, and were likewise not committed to exact copying, but instead freely took liberties with the text.xxxvi Given the high number of patristic citations of this verse, we cannot but view its deletion in the Alexandrian Text as the result of carelessness.… The compilation appeals to The deletion of the words 'many be called, but few chosen' is supported by Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. On the other hand, the inclusion of the words as found in the Byzantine Text is supported by Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century A.D.,xxxi Irenaeus of the 3rd century A.…
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 householder’s question—“Is thine eye evil, because I am good?”—places envy at the center. Election humiliates merit because God’s goodness is free. It never makes him unjust; every worker receives what was promised, and late mercy steals nothing from early grace.
The likely source for addition in chapter 22 remains a serious objection. Yet repeated sayings are common in Jesus’ teaching, and Matthew himself may use the maxim to join two parables of grace and judgment. Canonical repetition can be thematic architecture rather than scribal fatigue.
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 20:16, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “For many be called, but few chosen.” — Matthew 20:16”. The assessed critical reading is “The critical text keeps the first and omits the second.”. 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 20:16, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “For many be called, but few chosen.” — Matthew 20:16”. The assessed critical form is “The critical text keeps the first and omits the second.”.
- 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 20:16, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “For many be called, but few chosen.” — Matthew 20:16”. The assessed critical reading is “The critical text keeps the first and omits the second.”. 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
- Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemisedsupplied PDF pp. 7–8 — 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
The parable of the laborers ends in the received text with two sayings: “the last shall be first, and the first last,” and “many be called, but few chosen.” The critical text keeps the first and omits the second. Matthew 22:14 contains the same sentence without serious dispute.
“For many be called, but few chosen.” — Matthew 20:16
The question is whether Matthew used the saying twice or whether a copyist carried it back from the wedding feast.
The earliest witnesses behind the critical text often stop after “the first last.” The omitted sentence fits Matthew 22 more visibly, where many receive the wedding call and one is cast out for lacking a wedding garment. It can therefore look like a familiar maxim added to give the vineyard parable a stronger close.
But the laborers are also called. The householder goes out at several hours and summons workers into his vineyard. Many hear his terms; the parable ends by exposing the envy that resents sovereign generosity. “Many called, few chosen” does not float free of the story.
The repeated endings of the two clauses also make loss possible. Both are short, balanced sayings, and a copyist who knew the line from chapter 22 might even judge its earlier appearance a duplicate. Once omitted, the paragraph closes smoothly.
Grace is not wages owed
The parable does not teach unequal justification, as if early converts earned more acceptance than late ones. Every laborer receives the penny the master chose to give. The offense lies in his freedom to be good with his own.
Calling and choosing sharpen that lesson. The outward summons reaches many; God’s electing mercy creates no debt in him and no ground for boasting in us. Yet the verse does not invite idle speculation about who is chosen. It warns hearers against standing inside the field while charging the master with injustice.
Because the sentence remains at Matthew 22:14, its omission here would not erase election from Scripture. That fact lowers the heat but not the need for judgment. The phrase has continuous ecclesiastical use, matches the vocabulary of the parable, and closes Christ’s reversal with a second, deeper reversal.
Matthew used the saying where it belongs. The same Lord may strike the same bell twice, and the second sound is not proof that the first was forged.
The call in the vineyard reaches laborers at different hours, but the parable does not tell us that only a few of those workers finally receive the penny. The closing maxim widens the warning beyond an arithmetic key to every character. Call and choice are related scriptural realities, not a one-to-one code hidden in each object.
The householder’s question—“Is thine eye evil, because I am good?”—places envy at the center. Election humiliates merit because God’s goodness is free. It never makes him unjust; every worker receives what was promised, and late mercy steals nothing from early grace.
The likely source for addition in chapter 22 remains a serious objection. Yet repeated sayings are common in Jesus’ teaching, and Matthew himself may use the maxim to join two parables of grace and judgment. Canonical repetition can be thematic architecture rather than scribal fatigue.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 19:27–20:16; 22:1–14.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 20:16.
- Westminster Confession of Faith 3 and 10.
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-1066
- 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 20:16 — “Many Be Called, but Few Chosen”: Is the Conclusion Authentic?,” VAR-1066, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas