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
> “Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” — Matthew 20:22
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
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 2 variation units within this record's range. The notes ground the relevant decisions in the weight and distribution of external attestation, scribal harmonization to a parallel passage, the likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on Matthew 20:22, 20:23
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
That distinction keeps the full reading from feeding a false doctrine of co-redemption.
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 20.22
Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemised
Anonymous compilation — supplied source file pp. 8–9
Doctrine or doctrinal consequence identified by the source
It is true that both the Alexandrian and Byzantine Texts include the omitted words in the parallel passage found in Mark 10.38. This said, we would defer to the time-proven more reliable Byzantine Text, and keep the words, rather than delete them on the ground that they are not found in the unreliable Egyptian Text.
Source-reported readings and witness argument
Received reading reported
... Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Authorised Version)
Critical reading reported
Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" (Matthew 20:22 NASB) [COMMENT: note that the Critical Text omits the words 'and to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with.'
Manuscript and patristic support reported by the source
The omission of the words 'and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with' is supported by Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Bezae. The inclusion of the words is supported universally by the Byzantine Text, by Chrysostom (who cites the whole passage verbatim in his sermon on the passage), by Basil of Caesarea and by Epiphanius.
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 20:22–23, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Critical editions omit the baptism clauses in verses 22 and 23 because Mark 10:38–39 contains them and several strong early Matthew witnesses do not. The critical case is strong and simple. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 20:22–23 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: That distinction keeps the full reading from feeding a false doctrine of co-redemption.
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
Critical editions omit the baptism clauses in verses 22 and 23 because Mark 10:38–39 contains them and several strong early Matthew witnesses do not. Matthew’s shorter early witnesses can be read as original, with later copyists importing Mark’s richer wording. His suffering redeems; theirs witnesses.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Matthew’s shorter early witnesses can be read as original, with later copyists importing Mark’s richer wording. A scribe who saw the repeated “and be baptized with the baptism” could omit the longer parallel member to make the answer move faster. The cup alone leaves complete grammar, so no scar exposes the loss.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
Jesus answers with a cup and, in the received text, a baptism. The church need not cut Matthew down to avoid agreement.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 20:22–23. 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
Critical editions omit the baptism clauses in verses 22 and 23 because Mark 10:38–39 contains them and several strong early Matthew witnesses do not. The critical case is strong and simple. 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. 8–9
Matthew 20.22: It sets “... Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Authorised Version)” against “Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" (Matthew 20:22 NASB) [COMMENT: note that the Critical Text omits the words 'and to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with.'.” Its stated doctrinal argument is that It is true that both the Alexandrian and Byzantine Texts include the omitted words in the parallel passage found in Mark 10.38. This said, we would defer to the time-proven more reliable Byzantine Text, and keep the words, rather than delete them on the ground that they are not found in the unreliable Egyptian Text. The compilation appeals to The omission of the words 'and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with' is supported by Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Bezae. The inclusion of the words is supported universally by the Byzantine Text, by Chrysostom (who cites the whole passage verbatim in his sermon on the passage)xxxvii, by Basil of Caesareaxxxviii and by Epiphanius.xxxix
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 baptism image has deep biblical roots in overwhelming waters. Psalms use floods for mortal distress; Jesus later speaks of a baptism he must undergo. The metaphor is therefore at home in his speech and not a decorative duplicate of the cup.
The clause’s omission may also follow rhetorical compression. Once the cup is retained, the question and answer are complete. A copyist who remembers Matthew’s shorter style beside Mark can allow one image to carry the whole. Smoothness again explains survival without proving priority.
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 20:22–23, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” — Matthew 20:22”. 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 20:22–23, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” — Matthew 20:22”. 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 20:22–23, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” — Matthew 20:22”. 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
- Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemisedsupplied PDF pp. 8–9 — 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
“Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” — Matthew 20:22
The mother of James and John asks for thrones. Jesus answers with a cup and, in the received text, a baptism. Critical editions omit the baptism clauses in verses 22 and 23 because Mark 10:38–39 contains them and several strong early Matthew witnesses do not.
The cup remains in every form. The dispute is whether Matthew also recorded the second image.
Two images of one suffering
The cup is the portion appointed by the Father. In Gethsemane Jesus will pray, “Let this cup pass from me,” and then drink it in obedience. Baptism pictures overwhelming waters: suffering into which a person is plunged.
Together the images are not needless doubles. The cup is received and drunk; the baptism surrounds and covers. The sons of Zebedee answer too quickly, “We are able.” Jesus promises that they will share his sufferings, though the seats of glory remain the Father’s gift.
The critical case is strong and simple. Mark has the full cup-and-baptism form. Matthew’s shorter early witnesses can be read as original, with later copyists importing Mark’s richer wording. The varied exact forms of the added clauses support that suspicion.
Yet Matthew often preserves paired images, and Jesus may have spoken both once. A scribe who saw the repeated “and be baptized with the baptism” could omit the longer parallel member to make the answer move faster. The cup alone leaves complete grammar, so no scar exposes the loss.
Sharing is not atoning
James and John can drink Christ’s cup and receive his baptism only as disciples. They cannot bear sin as substitutes or add to his finished ransom, which Jesus names in verse 28. His suffering redeems; theirs witnesses.
That distinction keeps the full reading from feeding a false doctrine of co-redemption. Christ’s people are united to him and may suffer for him, but the Son of man alone gives his life a ransom for many.
The received double image has broad use, matches Mark’s historical report, and gives a balanced answer in both verses. Harmonization is possible; shared apostolic memory is also possible. The church need not cut Matthew down to avoid agreement. Christ named both the cup and the baptism, then walked ahead to endure what the ambitious disciples did not yet understand.
James and John answer “We are able” before the Gospel has shown Gethsemane. Their confidence measures suffering by ambition. Jesus does not praise the boast, but he prophesies costly discipleship: James will die by Herod’s sword, and John will endure his own long witness.
The baptism image has deep biblical roots in overwhelming waters. Psalms use floods for mortal distress; Jesus later speaks of a baptism he must undergo. The metaphor is therefore at home in his speech and not a decorative duplicate of the cup.
The clause’s omission may also follow rhetorical compression. Once the cup is retained, the question and answer are complete. A copyist who remembers Matthew’s shorter style beside Mark can allow one image to carry the whole. Smoothness again explains survival without proving priority.
Sources and further reading
- Psalm 69:1–2; Matthew 20:17–28; 26:36–46; Mark 10:32–45.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 20:22–23.
- 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-1067
- 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 20:22–23 — The Cup and the Baptism: Has Christ’s Saying Been Shortened?,” VAR-1067, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas