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 words without a cause are absent from several important early witnesses.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The Textus Receptus keeps the Greek adverb εἰκῇ.
Authorized Version
“Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” — Matthew 5:22
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.
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; the printed confidence rating represented here is {C}. 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 5:22
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.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 5:22, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Modern critical editions omit it. Critics can say that scribes added “without a cause” to soften a hard command and excuse anger. Ancient rigorists who preferred the shorter reading remind us that the longer word can be abused.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 5:22 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 words without a cause are absent from several important early witnesses. The difference is ancient; some early Christian writers argued over the moral rigor of the two forms. The long reading has overwhelming Greek support and ancient versional and patristic use of its own.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Critics can say that scribes added “without a cause” to soften a hard command and excuse anger. The omission may reflect ascetic rigor, but motive cannot be assigned to a copyist we cannot question.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Textus Receptus keeps the Greek adverb εἰκῇ. A church that prints “without a cause” must preach the cause as God defines it, not as an angry person feels it.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 5:22. 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
Modern critical editions omit it. Critics can say that scribes added “without a cause” to soften a hard command and excuse anger. Ancient rigorists who preferred the shorter reading remind us that the longer word can be abused.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 4 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 GospelsPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon; edited by Edward Miller — supplied PDF pp. 190
Burgon directly discusses Matthew 5:22. The local discussion treats Greek manuscript evidence, ancient versions, patristic citation, internal and transcriptional considerations as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
The Revision RevisedPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon — supplied PDF pp. 406
Burgon directly discusses Matthew 5:22. The local discussion treats the local documentary and contextual evidence as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
Even when these Editors notice hostile evidence, they do so after a fashion which can satisfy no one but themselves. Take for example their note on the word efx} (‘without a cause’) in 8. Matthew v. 22 (‘But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause’). The Reader’s attention is specially invited to the treatment which this place has experienced at the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort :— (a) They unceremoniously eject the word from S. Mat- thew’s Gospel with their oracular sentence, ‘ Western and Syrian. —Aware that eix} is recognized by ‘ Iren. lat* ; Eus. D. EL.…
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
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. 6–8
At Matthew 5:22, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council.…” with the ESV/critical-text wording “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.”” and associates the passage with WLC 99.
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. 1
Matthew 5.22: It sets “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment… (Matthew 5:22 Authorised Version)” against “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment (Mat 5:22 NIV). [COMMENT: note that the Nestle-Aland Critical Text omits the all-important Greek word εἰκῆ, which means 'without cause'.….” Its stated doctrinal argument is that The Scripture tells us in Mark 3.5 that Christ Himself looked round about upon the rulers of the synagogue with anger, because they would have forbidden Him to heal the man with the withered hand on the Jewish Sabbath. But the Critical Text in this verse (Matthew 5.22) has Christ forbidding anyone to be angry with his brother at any time. The Critical Text accordingly makes Christ Himself to have sinned in Mark 3.5, where we find that He Himself was angry with His Jewish brethren, being grieved for their hardness of heart.… The compilation appeals to The Nestle-Aland Text, which omits the Greek word for 'without a cause' is supported by 𝔓64, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. The Byzantine Text, which includes the Greek word for εἰκῆ for 'without cause', is supported by Cyprian, an early 3rd century fatheri, and by Irenaeus, another 3rd century father.ii Moreover, 'without cause' is the universal reading of the Byzantine Text.
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
Righteous anger moves in the opposite direction. It grieves evil, protects the wronged, and remains willing to be reconciled when truth and repentance meet. It does not feed itself by rehearsing insult. The sacrifice interrupted in verses 23–24 shows how quickly Christ turns from inward emotion to concrete peace.
Ancient rigorists who preferred the shorter reading remind us that the longer word can be abused. Their moral concern deserves respect even when their textual judgment does not. A church that prints “without a cause” must preach the cause as God defines it, not as an angry person feels it.
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 5:22, the received text reads “The Textus Receptus keeps the Greek adverb εἰκῇ.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” — Matthew 5:22”. 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 5:22, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “The Textus Receptus keeps the Greek adverb εἰκῇ.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” — Matthew 5:22”. 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 5:22, the received text reads “The Textus Receptus keeps the Greek adverb εἰκῇ.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” — Matthew 5:22”. 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
- The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospelssupplied PDF pp. 190 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- The Revision Revisedsupplied PDF pp. 406 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standardssupplied PDF pp. 6–8 — Westminster proof-text and translation comparison
Read the full research essay and its sources
The words without a cause are absent from several important early witnesses. The Textus Receptus keeps the Greek adverb εἰκῇ. Modern critical editions omit it. The difference is ancient; some early Christian writers argued over the moral rigor of the two forms.
“Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” — Matthew 5:22
The shorter text sounds absolute: whoever is angry with his brother is liable to judgment. Critics can say that scribes added “without a cause” to soften a hard command and excuse anger.
That danger is real. The received phrase cannot become a pocket permit for resentment. Fallen people are quick to call wounded pride righteous.
Yet Scripture does not treat every anger as sin. Jesus looks on hard hearts with anger. God is angry with the wicked. Paul writes, “Be ye angry, and sin not.” The moral line therefore exists whether Matthew states it in this adverb or the wider canon supplies it.
The received wording names the line at the point of warning. Anger without cause is groundless, vain, rash, or empty. Righteous anger must answer a true wrong, seek God’s honor and the neighbor’s good, remain proportionate, and refuse private revenge.
The omission may reflect ascetic rigor, but motive cannot be assigned to a copyist we cannot question. The short adverb can fall mechanically, and the sentence becomes more memorable rather than less grammatical. The long reading has overwhelming Greek support and ancient versional and patristic use of its own.
Christ is exposing the murderous root beneath insults and contempt. “Without a cause” does not shrink that exposure. It prevents the command from condemning the holy anger Christ himself displays, while leaving ordinary human wrath under judgment.
The received word belongs. It is not a loophole but a measure, and the measure is far stricter than self-defense: truth, justice, love, and a heart ready for reconciliation.
The rest of the verse confirms that Christ is distinguishing kinds and degrees of sinful speech. Anger moves to “Raca,” then to “Thou fool,” with judgment, council, and hell fire before the hearer. The exact relation among those clauses has its own interpretive difficulties, but the moral descent is clear: inward contempt seeks a mouth and then a sentence against the neighbor.
Righteous anger moves in the opposite direction. It grieves evil, protects the wronged, and remains willing to be reconciled when truth and repentance meet. It does not feed itself by rehearsing insult. The sacrifice interrupted in verses 23–24 shows how quickly Christ turns from inward emotion to concrete peace.
Ancient rigorists who preferred the shorter reading remind us that the longer word can be abused. Their moral concern deserves respect even when their textual judgment does not. A church that prints “without a cause” must preach the cause as God defines it, not as an angry person feels it.
Sources and further reading
- Psalm 7:11; Matthew 5:21–26; Mark 3:5; Ephesians 4:26–32; James 1:19–20.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 5:22.
- John Cassian, Conferences, on the ancient debate over the phrase.
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-1017
- 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 5:22 — “Without a Cause”: Does Christ Condemn Every Form of Anger?,” VAR-1017, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas