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
Four details in Matthew 26 have been shortened in the critical text: the scribes at Caiaphas’s palace, the new testament in Christ’s blood, the elders among those seeking false witness, and part of Matthew’s repeated report that they found none.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The received text names the parties, names the covenant, and makes the failed evidence accumulate.
Authorized Version
“Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.” — Matthew 26:3
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
Verse 59 again names chief priests, elders, and all the council, while the critical text omits the elders there.
Translation or explanation
Verse 59 again names chief priests, elders, and all the council, while the critical text omits the elders there.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
No passage-specific Metzger synopsis has yet passed editorial verification for this record.
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 saving and atoning work of Jesus Christ.
Doctrinal analysis
— Matthew 26:3 The passages differ in doctrinal weight, but the same question runs through them: is Matthew’s fullness a series of expansions, or has a compressed line of transmission shed names and repetitions?
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.
Westminster proof-text listMatthew 26:3
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standards
Seth Stark — supplied source file pp. 24–25
Textual wording marked in the source
Received/NKJV side: the scribes
Westminster doctrines and propositions supported
WCF 8.4 — Of Christ the Mediator
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- and most painful sufferings in His body;
Editorial qualification: 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.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 26:3, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Four details in Matthew 26 have been shortened in the critical text: the scribes at Caiaphas’s palace, the new testament in Christ’s blood, the elders among those seeking false witness, and part of Matthew’s repeated report that they found none. Verse 59 again names chief priests, elders, and all the council, while the critical text omits the elders there. The critical text reads “my blood of the covenant.”
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 26:3 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: — Matthew 26:3 The passages differ in doctrinal weight, but the same question runs through them: is Matthew’s fullness a series of expansions, or has a compressed line of transmission shed names and repetitions?
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
Four details in Matthew 26 have been shortened in the critical text: the scribes at Caiaphas’s palace, the new testament in Christ’s blood, the elders among those seeking false witness, and part of Matthew’s repeated report that they found none. Some early witnesses omit the scribes. Parallel agreement may come from the Lord’s institution, repeated by more than one witness.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Four details in Matthew 26 have been shortened in the critical text: the scribes at Caiaphas’s palace, the new testament in Christ’s blood, the elders among those seeking false witness, and part of Matthew’s repeated report that they found none. “Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.” The council gathers The received verse 3 names chief priests, scribes, and elders.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
“My blood of the new testament” The Textus Receptus includes new in verse 28. False witnesses who found nothing Verses 59–60 in the received text repeat the failure: they sought false witness and found none; though many false witnesses came, they found none; at last two false witnesses came. The received text names the parties, names the covenant, and makes the failed evidence accumulate.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 26:3. 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
Four details in Matthew 26 have been shortened in the critical text: the scribes at Caiaphas’s palace, the new testament in Christ’s blood, the elders among those seeking false witness, and part of Matthew’s repeated report that they found none. Verse 59 again names chief priests, elders, and all the council, while the critical text omits the elders there. The critical text reads “my blood of the covenant.”
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.
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. 24–25
At Matthew 26:3, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,”” with the ESV/critical-text wording “Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas,”” and associates the passage with WCF 8.4.
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.
Conclusion
The council lists should likewise not be used to evade collective responsibility. Whether scribes or elders are named in every verse, Matthew depicts the authorized body seeking a charge after deciding upon the death. The fuller lists show the breadth of participation, while “all the council” prevents a reader from treating the plot as two private officials.
The false-witness repetition slows the hearing at the right place. Many voices arrive; no usable testimony appears; at last two twist a saying about the temple. The narrative wants the reader to feel how hard the judges work to manufacture guilt.
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 26:3, the received text reads “The received text names the parties, names the covenant, and makes the failed evidence accumulate.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.” — Matthew 26:3”. The assessed critical reading is “Verse 59 again names chief priests, elders, and all the council, while the critical text omits the elders there.”. 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 26:3, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “The received text names the parties, names the covenant, and makes the failed evidence accumulate.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.” — Matthew 26:3”. The assessed critical form is “Verse 59 again names chief priests, elders, and all the council, while the critical text omits the elders there.”.
- 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 26:3, the received text reads “The received text names the parties, names the covenant, and makes the failed evidence accumulate.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.” — Matthew 26:3”. The assessed critical reading is “Verse 59 again names chief priests, elders, and all the council, while the critical text omits the elders there.”. 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
- A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standardssupplied PDF pp. 24–25 — Westminster proof-text and translation comparison
- 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
Four details in Matthew 26 have been shortened in the critical text: the scribes at Caiaphas’s palace, the new testament in Christ’s blood, the elders among those seeking false witness, and part of Matthew’s repeated report that they found none.
“Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.” — Matthew 26:3
The passages differ in doctrinal weight, but the same question runs through them: is Matthew’s fullness a series of expansions, or has a compressed line of transmission shed names and repetitions?
The council gathers
The received verse 3 names chief priests, scribes, and elders. Some early witnesses omit the scribes. Verse 59 again names chief priests, elders, and all the council, while the critical text omits the elders there.
Both groups belonged to the council, and their presence is expected. That fact makes addition easy to allege. It also makes omission easy to miss. Matthew’s paired lists frame the plot: the leaders gather to plan death, then gather evidence to justify it.
“My blood of the new testament”
The Textus Receptus includes new in verse 28. The critical text reads “my blood of the covenant.” Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25 clearly say “new covenant,” giving critics a source for harmonization.
But the word is not an explanatory luxury. Jesus sets his blood against the covenant inaugurated with sacrificial blood at Sinai and fulfills Jeremiah’s promise of a new covenant. Matthew’s wording is at home in that biblical arc. Parallel agreement may come from the Lord’s institution, repeated by more than one witness.
The Greek διαθήκη may be rendered covenant or testament according to context. The Authorized Version’s “new testament” does not name the second half of a printed Bible; it names a binding disposition established by Christ’s death.
False witnesses who found nothing
Verses 59–60 in the received text repeat the failure: they sought false witness and found none; though many false witnesses came, they found none; at last two false witnesses came. The critical text reduces the repetition and does not call the final two false witnesses in the same explicit form.
Critics can call the fuller line emphatic expansion. Matthew’s repetition can be the point. The council hunts for a lie, many liars speak, and still no charge can stand. Only after the failed search do two men twist Christ’s temple saying.
The repeated found none sounds like frustrated procedure. Cutting it makes cleaner prose and a weaker courtroom. The received text names the parties, names the covenant, and makes the failed evidence accumulate. Its fullness is not fog. Each word tightens the contrast between guilty judges and the innocent Lamb.
The omission of “new” has often been defended by noting that covenant alone can refer to Jeremiah’s promised covenant in context. That is true. The received adjective nevertheless makes the contrast explicit at the institution itself. The blood about to be shed does not merely renew Sinai; it establishes the promised covenant of forgiveness and inward law.
The council lists should likewise not be used to evade collective responsibility. Whether scribes or elders are named in every verse, Matthew depicts the authorized body seeking a charge after deciding upon the death. The fuller lists show the breadth of participation, while “all the council” prevents a reader from treating the plot as two private officials.
The false-witness repetition slows the hearing at the right place. Many voices arrive; no usable testimony appears; at last two twist a saying about the temple. The narrative wants the reader to feel how hard the judges work to manufacture guilt.
Sources and further reading
- Exodus 24:3–8; Jeremiah 31:31–34; Matthew 26:1–68; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, notes on Matthew 26:3, 26:28, and 26:59–60.
- Westminster Confession of Faith 7.6 and 29.
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-1073
- 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 26:3, 28, 59–60 — Caiaphas, the New Testament, and the False Witnesses,” VAR-1073, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas