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 or what ye shall drink have uneven support.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink.” — Matthew 6:25
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 a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, 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 6:25
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 6:25, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Critics point to early omission and to the possibility that a scribe expanded the pair under the influence of Luke 12:29. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 6:25 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
Some witnesses omit the whole phrase; others keep drink but change the connector between eating and drinking. “Take no thought” In the Authorized Version, the phrase means “do not be anxious,” not “make no plans.”
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Critics point to early omission and to the possibility that a scribe expanded the pair under the influence of Luke 12:29. A copyist reciting the stock phrase can level the connector. Its omission leaves a balanced food/body and clothing/body saying, so no grammatical break calls it back.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Textus Receptus gives the full pair with or.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 6:25. 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
Critics point to early omission and to the possibility that a scribe expanded the pair under the influence of Luke 12:29. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Conclusion
Luke’s parallel does not make every agreement suspect. Jesus may have repeated this teaching, and both Evangelists may preserve a shared list. Where a whole phrase is omitted in one line, comparison can expose loss as readily as it can tempt addition. The direction must be argued rather than assumed.
Pastoral use should also respect material hardship. Telling a hungry person “take no thought” while withholding bread contradicts the Father whose care the verse proclaims. The same sermon that forbids anxious hoarding commands secret alms. Providence frees the disciple both to ask for daily bread and to become one means by which another receives 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 6:25, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink.” — Matthew 6:25”. 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 6:25, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink.” — Matthew 6:25”. 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 6:25, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink.” — Matthew 6:25”. 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 words or what ye shall drink have uneven support. Some witnesses omit the whole phrase; others keep drink but change the connector between eating and drinking. The Textus Receptus gives the full pair with or.
“Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink.” — Matthew 6:25
Christ names the daily necessities of life: food, drink, and clothing. He then moves to birds and lilies. The full list is ordinary, not inflated. A body needs more than bread, and a disciple tempted by anxiety can worry over each need separately.
Critics point to early omission and to the possibility that a scribe expanded the pair under the influence of Luke 12:29. They also note that “eat and drink” is a fixed biblical combination.
That familiar combination may explain why some copies replace or with and. The received or matches anxious alternatives: What will we eat? What will we drink? What will we wear? A copyist reciting the stock phrase can level the connector.
The whole drink clause can disappear between neighboring short questions. Its omission leaves a balanced food/body and clothing/body saying, so no grammatical break calls it back.
“Take no thought”
In the Authorized Version, the phrase means “do not be anxious,” not “make no plans.” Joseph stored grain. Paul planned journeys. Proverbs commends the ant. Christ forbids the divided mind that treats provision as though no Father knows or gives.
The verse does not promise equal comfort to every saint. Birds die and believers can hunger. It says life and body come from a Father greater than the means that sustain them, and anxious mastery cannot add a cubit or hour.
The full received wording gives the worry its everyday voice. Eat, drink, wear: the list is as near as the next meal. Its broad support, natural triad, and the ready loss or leveling of the connector favor retaining every member. Christ does not scold bodily need. He moves the needy child’s eye from the empty cup to the Father.
The connector or also matches the next question: “Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?” Needs are distinguished before they are gathered under the Father’s gift. Anxiety moves from one item to another; Christ answers the divided catalogue with one providence.
Luke’s parallel does not make every agreement suspect. Jesus may have repeated this teaching, and both Evangelists may preserve a shared list. Where a whole phrase is omitted in one line, comparison can expose loss as readily as it can tempt addition. The direction must be argued rather than assumed.
Pastoral use should also respect material hardship. Telling a hungry person “take no thought” while withholding bread contradicts the Father whose care the verse proclaims. The same sermon that forbids anxious hoarding commands secret alms. Providence frees the disciple both to ask for daily bread and to become one means by which another receives it.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 6:19–34; Luke 12:22–31; Philippians 4:6–13.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 6:25.
- 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-1029
- 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 6:25 — “What Ye Shall Eat, or What Ye Shall Drink”: The Full Saying on Anxiety,” VAR-1029, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas