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
> “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.”
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” — Matthew 25:13
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 the variation unit. The note grounds the relevant decision in 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., note on Matthew 25:13
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
The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
Doctrinal analysis
The chapter’s doctrine survives every omission. In Scripture the angels who attend Christ’s judgment are plainly holy, so no doctrine rests on the adjective.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 25:13, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Critical editions shorten each place. The critical text ends verse 13 after “ye know neither the day nor the hour.” Critics call it a natural explanatory addition.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 25:13 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: The chapter’s doctrine survives every omission. In Scripture the angels who attend Christ’s judgment are plainly holy, so no doctrine rests on the adjective.
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
The chapter’s doctrine survives every omission. Critics call it a natural explanatory addition. A copyist may omit what the context supplies.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Textus Receptus says the Son of man comes in verse 13, calls the angels holy in verse 31, and says the condemned answer him in verse 44. The Textus Receptus says they answer him; the shorter text says “they also will answer.”
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 25:13. 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 shorten each place. The critical text ends verse 13 after “ye know neither the day nor the hour.” Critics call it a natural explanatory addition.
Conclusion
“Holy” at verse 31 also distinguishes the attending host from the fallen angels whose judgment Scripture names elsewhere. The context makes that distinction certain even without the adjective. The received word lets the sentence state what the canonical context supplies.
At verse 44, the small pronoun keeps the condemned in direct address. They do not answer a principle or an anonymous court. They answer the King whose presence was hidden under hungry, sick, imprisoned, and stranger brethren. The variants are small because Matthew’s whole scene is strong; their authentic fullness makes its personal judgment stronger still.
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 25:13, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” — Matthew 25:13”. 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. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Matthew 25:13, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” — Matthew 25:13”. 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 25:13, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” — Matthew 25:13”. 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. 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
- 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
“Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” — Matthew 25:13
Three small clauses in Matthew 25 name Christ and his court. The Textus Receptus says the Son of man comes in verse 13, calls the angels holy in verse 31, and says the condemned answer him in verse 44. Critical editions shorten each place.
The chapter’s doctrine survives every omission. The question is whether Matthew’s final judgment scene should be read in its full received form.
The critical text ends verse 13 after “ye know neither the day nor the hour.” The received clause “wherein the Son of man cometh” echoes Matthew 24:44. Critics call it a natural explanatory addition.
The explanation is possible, yet the parable itself expects a named coming. The bridegroom arrives after delay, the ready enter, and the door shuts. Matthew’s clause identifies that arrival with the coming announced throughout the discourse. It does not turn the parable into an alien topic; it gives the key already hanging beside it.
Holy angels
Verse 31 says the Son of man comes in glory “and all the holy angels with him.” The shorter reading has simply “all the angels.” In Scripture the angels who attend Christ’s judgment are plainly holy, so no doctrine rests on the adjective.
That same obviousness can explain loss. A copyist may omit what the context supplies. It can also explain addition. The broad received use and the solemn cadence support keeping the word. The court is morally as well as numerically complete: the holy angels attend the Holy One.
Answering him
At verse 44 the wicked ask when they failed to serve Christ. The Textus Receptus says they answer him; the shorter text says “they also will answer.” The person addressed remains obvious from the quotation that follows.
An explicit object often looks like clarification. It also helps Matthew hold the courtroom exchange before the reader: the King speaks to them, and they answer him. Omitting the short pronoun leaves smooth Greek and is easy to overlook.
The three received clauses do not create the Second Coming. They trace its personal line. The Son of man comes; his holy angels come with him; those at his left answer him. Judgment is not an impersonal process. It is the verdict of the King whom men served or refused in the least of his brethren.
The shorter verse 13 may seem cleaner because the bridegroom has already carried the parable. Yet Matthew’s discourse repeatedly moves from image to identification. Naming the Son of man prevents the warning from being detached into generic readiness for death or crisis. It is readiness for him.
“Holy” at verse 31 also distinguishes the attending host from the fallen angels whose judgment Scripture names elsewhere. The context makes that distinction certain even without the adjective. The received word lets the sentence state what the canonical context supplies.
At verse 44, the small pronoun keeps the condemned in direct address. They do not answer a principle or an anonymous court. They answer the King whose presence was hidden under hungry, sick, imprisoned, and stranger brethren. The variants are small because Matthew’s whole scene is strong; their authentic fullness makes its personal judgment stronger still.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 24:36–44; 25:1–46; 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, notes on Matthew 25:13, 25:31, and 25:44.
- 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-1072
- 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 25:13, 31, 44 — The Son of Man’s Coming and the Final Judgment: Three Disputed Clauses,” VAR-1072, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas