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 witnesses vary in the number and form of “grow,” in the order of the clauses, and in attempts to explain what lilies do not do.
Variant class
Transposition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
One field, several grammatical forms The Textus Receptus reads the lilies as a plural subject: consider how they grow.
Authorized Version
“Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin.” — Matthew 6:28
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, the likelihood that the competing form is a scribal correction or emendation. 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 6:28
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 6:28, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. An edition label or a CBGM output cannot substitute for the unstated argument that connects the evidence to the chosen reading.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 6:28 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 witnesses vary in the number and form of “grow,” in the order of the clauses, and in attempts to explain what lilies do not do. An Oxyrhynchus fragment preserves a related saying about not carding or spinning, but it is not a manuscript of Matthew. An ancient parallel can illuminate a saying without becoming another Gospel witness.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
The other forms show scribes making number and syntax agree, while the Oxyrhynchus parallel shows how a memorable saying can travel and expand outside the Gospel. The singular and plural forms may also arise from how a scribe pictures the scene.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
One field, several grammatical forms The Textus Receptus reads the lilies as a plural subject: consider how they grow. “How they grow” is plain, broad, and stable in the ecclesiastical text.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 6:28. 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 principal critical-text argument is answered in the full research essay; an edition-specific synopsis remains subject to independent review.
Conclusion
The singular and plural forms may also arise from how a scribe pictures the scene. “The lily” can stand for the kind; “the lilies” can spread across the field. Neither creates a different lesson, but the received plural agrees with the visible multitude Jesus tells the disciples to consider.
Classifying the Oxyrhynchus material correctly prevents two opposite errors. It should not be ignored because it is noncanonical, and it should not be counted as another Matthew manuscript because it is ancient. It witnesses to the circulation and expansion of Jesus-like sayings. That history helps explain variants while leaving the canonical witness distinct.
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 6:28, the received text reads “One field, several grammatical forms The Textus Receptus reads the lilies as a plural subject: consider how they grow.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin.” — Matthew 6:28”. 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 6:28, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “One field, several grammatical forms The Textus Receptus reads the lilies as a plural subject: consider how they grow.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin.” — Matthew 6:28”. 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 6:28, the received text reads “One field, several grammatical forms The Textus Receptus reads the lilies as a plural subject: consider how they grow.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin.” — Matthew 6:28”. 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 witnesses vary in the number and form of “grow,” in the order of the clauses, and in attempts to explain what lilies do not do. An Oxyrhynchus fragment preserves a related saying about not carding or spinning, but it is not a manuscript of Matthew.
“Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin.” — Matthew 6:28
That last distinction matters. An ancient parallel can illuminate a saying without becoming another Gospel witness.
One field, several grammatical forms
The Textus Receptus reads the lilies as a plural subject: consider how they grow. Some early forms use a singular verb with the collective image: consider the lily, how it grows. English translations may smooth either into a natural plural.
The following verbs are stable in sense: they do not toil and do not spin. Some copies adjust their order or number to match the first verb. These are common acts of grammatical agreement, not competing stories about botany.
The Oxyrhynchus saying adds an ancient textile action—lilies neither card nor spin. That form may preserve free oral teaching, a noncanonical collection, or an explanatory expansion. It cannot be placed in Matthew’s apparatus as though its papyrus carried the Gospel’s chapter and verse.
Christ is not praising idleness. Lilies grow by the life God gives; people receive hands, callings, and duties from the same Father. The contrast is between anxious toil aimed at self-securing glory and created dependence that receives its beauty.
Solomon’s clothing required fields, trade, dye, labor, and royal wealth. One flower surpasses him without a loom. The image cuts pride and fear at once.
The received plural form lets the disciples look across the field rather than isolate a specimen. “How they grow” is plain, broad, and stable in the ecclesiastical text. The other forms show scribes making number and syntax agree, while the Oxyrhynchus parallel shows how a memorable saying can travel and expand outside the Gospel.
Consider the lilies as Matthew wrote them. The point is not that they have no processes, but that their splendor comes without the anxious kingdom-building that consumes us.
Ancient hearers would know spinning as household labor that turned fiber into thread. Carding or combing belongs one step earlier. Adding that action makes the saying more complete as textile description, which is exactly why it sounds like explanation. Matthew needs only toil and spin to set field growth against human manufacture.
The singular and plural forms may also arise from how a scribe pictures the scene. “The lily” can stand for the kind; “the lilies” can spread across the field. Neither creates a different lesson, but the received plural agrees with the visible multitude Jesus tells the disciples to consider.
Classifying the Oxyrhynchus material correctly prevents two opposite errors. It should not be ignored because it is noncanonical, and it should not be counted as another Matthew manuscript because it is ancient. It witnesses to the circulation and expansion of Jesus-like sayings. That history helps explain variants while leaving the canonical witness distinct.
Sources and further reading
- 1 Kings 10:1–25; Matthew 6:25–34; Luke 12:27–28.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 6:28.
- The Oxyrhynchus parallel saying, classified separately from manuscripts of Matthew.
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-1030
- 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 6:28 — How the Lilies Grow: Competing Forms of Christ’s Illustration,” VAR-1030, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas