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 Textus Receptus uses a present verb: as we forgive.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” — Matthew 6:12
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 weight and distribution of external attestation, scribal harmonization to a parallel passage. 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 6:12
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
A scribe could change either form to make the theology sound neater—completed forgiveness before prayer, or ongoing forgiveness after it.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 6:12, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The critical text uses an aorist that is often rendered as we have forgiven. The critical form has early support and a parallel in Luke’s prayer, where the wording also differs in tense and in “sins” versus “debts.” Critics may judge “we have forgiven” harder because it sounds bold: the petitioner comes after having released the debtors.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 6:12 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: A scribe could change either form to make the theology sound neater—completed forgiveness before prayer, or ongoing forgiveness after it.
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
A scribe could change either form to make the theology sound neater—completed forgiveness before prayer, or ongoing forgiveness after it.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Textus Receptus uses a present verb: as we forgive. The present reading has wide ecclesiastical use and the moral cadence of Matthew’s paragraph.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 6:12. 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 uses an aorist that is often rendered as we have forgiven. The critical form has early support and a parallel in Luke’s prayer, where the wording also differs in tense and in “sins” versus “debts.” Critics may judge “we have forgiven” harder because it sounds bold: the petitioner comes after having released the debtors.
Conclusion
This helps explain the present tense. The disciple is not announcing that every relationship has already been restored or every consequence removed. He confesses a present posture of release toward debtors. When memory presents the account again, mercy must again refuse vengeance.
The aorist rival can express the same settled commitment viewed as a whole, so the contrast should not be exaggerated. The received present is preferable because Matthew’s commentary in verses 14–15 continues the act. The prayer does not let a petitioner point to one completed moment of forgiveness while present bitterness grows unchecked.
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 6:12, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” — Matthew 6:12”. 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 6:12, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” — Matthew 6:12”. 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 6:12, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” — Matthew 6:12”. 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
- 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
The Textus Receptus uses a present verb: as we forgive. The critical text uses an aorist that is often rendered as we have forgiven. One presents a continuing practice; the other looks at an act treated as done.
“And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” — Matthew 6:12
Neither reading says human mercy earns divine pardon. The prayer begins with the Father’s name, kingdom, will, and gift. Forgiveness comes from grace. Yet a person who asks mercy while refusing it to others contradicts the request. Jesus makes that warning explicit in verses 14–15.
The critical form has early support and a parallel in Luke’s prayer, where the wording also differs in tense and in “sins” versus “debts.” Critics may judge “we have forgiven” harder because it sounds bold: the petitioner comes after having released the debtors.
The received present is not a weak softening. It confesses an active disposition: as we are forgiving those indebted to us. The action is not finished once for all. New offenses come, old wounds return to mind, and mercy must continue.
Greek aorist and present do not map mechanically onto English time. The aorist can view an action as a whole; the present can show it in progress. A scribe could change either form to make the theology sound neater—completed forgiveness before prayer, or ongoing forgiveness after it.
The received tense matches Matthew’s following explanation, “if ye forgive men their trespasses.” It also fits the daily character of the prayer. Daily bread, daily temptation, and repeated debts meet repeated mercy.
The verse does not command denial, instant trust, or the removal of lawful consequences. Forgiveness releases private vengeance and stands ready for restored fellowship where repentance makes it possible. Justice may still protect the weak.
The present reading has wide ecclesiastical use and the moral cadence of Matthew’s paragraph. Christians do not claim a perfect past record at the throne. They ask as people whose lives are being bent into the mercy they seek.
Debt is Matthew’s chosen image. Sin owes obedience and satisfaction to God that the sinner cannot provide. Human offenders also incur real obligations: truth, restitution, apology, or changed conduct. Forgiveness does not call those obligations imaginary; it renounces the creditor’s private claim to retaliatory payment.
This helps explain the present tense. The disciple is not announcing that every relationship has already been restored or every consequence removed. He confesses a present posture of release toward debtors. When memory presents the account again, mercy must again refuse vengeance.
The aorist rival can express the same settled commitment viewed as a whole, so the contrast should not be exaggerated. The received present is preferable because Matthew’s commentary in verses 14–15 continues the act. The prayer does not let a petitioner point to one completed moment of forgiveness while present bitterness grows unchecked.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 6:9–15; 18:21–35; Luke 11:1–4; Ephesians 4:32.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 6:12.
- Westminster Confession of Faith 15 and 21.
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-1026
- 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 6:12 — “As We Forgive” or “As We Have Forgiven”? The Petition Concerning Debts,” VAR-1026, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas