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
> “Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.”
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.” — Matthew 8:8
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
Both the Textus Receptus and the current critical text omit it from Matthew.
Translation or explanation
Both the Textus Receptus and the current critical text omit it from Matthew.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of 3 variation units within this record's range. The notes ground the relevant decisions in the weight and distribution of external attestation, a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, scribal harmonization to a parallel passage; 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., notes on Matthew 8:8, 8:9, 8:10
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
The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
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 8:8–10, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Both the Textus Receptus and the current critical text omit it from Matthew. Famous old codices can therefore preserve a form that modern critical editors themselves judge harmonized. The critical form says, “with no one in Israel.”
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 8:8–10 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: The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
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 early witnesses add “being placed” under authority in verse 9. The Authorized Version’s “servant” fits the military household and the centurion’s own comparison with servants under command. Ancient narrative can attribute an envoy’s speech to the sender.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
An early harmonization Sinaiticus and Vaticanus add a participle at verse 9: a man being placed under authority. Famous old codices can therefore preserve a form that modern critical editors themselves judge harmonized. The received wording matches Luke closely, which creates a harmonization argument; it also carries the sharper rhetorical surprise.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
Both the Textus Receptus and the current critical text omit it from Matthew.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 8:8–10. 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
Both the Textus Receptus and the current critical text omit it from Matthew. Famous old codices can therefore preserve a form that modern critical editors themselves judge harmonized. The critical form says, “with no one in Israel.”
Conclusion
Luke’s messengers also help explain the English scene. Matthew can say the centurion came because the elders and friends act in his name. Scripture uses the same representative speech when a ruler’s envoys carry his command. The difference is narrative focus, not a hidden manuscript variant.
The added “being placed” demonstrates that early harmonization is not a theory reserved for Byzantine copies. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus can agree in a reading that critical editors reject because Luke explains it better than Matthew. That fact should produce humility on every side: codices are valuable witnesses, never self-interpreting judges.
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 8:8–10, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.” — Matthew 8:8”. The assessed critical reading is “Both the Textus Receptus and the current critical text omit it from Matthew.”. 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 8:8–10, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.” — Matthew 8:8”. The assessed critical form is “Both the Textus Receptus and the current critical text omit it from Matthew.”.
- 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 8:8–10, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.” — Matthew 8:8”. The assessed critical reading is “Both the Textus Receptus and the current critical text omit it from Matthew.”. 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
“Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.” — Matthew 8:8
Three details surround the centurion’s confession. The Greek noun παῖς can mean servant or child. Some early witnesses add “being placed” under authority in verse 9. Verse 10 varies between “not even in Israel” and “with no one in Israel” have I found such faith.
“Servant” and “child” are translation choices for the same Greek word, not necessarily rival readings. Luke’s fuller account calls the sick man a valued servant and also uses παῖς. The Authorized Version’s “servant” fits the military household and the centurion’s own comparison with servants under command.
A small stream omits “my servant” after “shall be healed.” The full clause states the object of the centurion’s confidence and has the broader support.
An early harmonization
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus add a participle at verse 9: a man being placed under authority. Luke 7:8 has that word firmly. Both the Textus Receptus and the current critical text omit it from Matthew. Famous old codices can therefore preserve a form that modern critical editors themselves judge harmonized.
At verse 10 the received form reads, “not even in Israel have I found so great faith.” The critical form says, “with no one in Israel.” Both contrast Gentile trust with Israel’s response. The received wording matches Luke closely, which creates a harmonization argument; it also carries the sharper rhetorical surprise.
Authority recognized
The centurion does not treat Jesus as one healer among many. He knows what a command can do when backed by authority. His own word moves soldiers; Christ’s word can cross distance and reverse disease.
Matthew presents the officer as speaking directly, while Luke describes Jewish elders carrying his request. Ancient narrative can attribute an envoy’s speech to the sender. The accounts are complementary, not contradictory.
The received cluster should be read with distinctions intact: servant is sound translation; “being placed” is an early addition rightly rejected by received and critical editions; “not even in Israel” is the fuller rhetorical form. Textual care serves the centurion’s central confession: Christ needs no presence, touch, or ritual support. Speak the word only.
The centurion’s use of authority is analogical, not equal. He stands under Caesar and over soldiers. Jesus does not need a higher officer to authorize the healing in the same creaturely way. The man reasons from lesser to greater: if a delegated word moves troops, how much more can Christ’s word command disease?
Luke’s messengers also help explain the English scene. Matthew can say the centurion came because the elders and friends act in his name. Scripture uses the same representative speech when a ruler’s envoys carry his command. The difference is narrative focus, not a hidden manuscript variant.
The added “being placed” demonstrates that early harmonization is not a theory reserved for Byzantine copies. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus can agree in a reading that critical editors reject because Luke explains it better than Matthew. That fact should produce humility on every side: codices are valuable witnesses, never self-interpreting judges.
Further reading
- Matthew 8:5–13; Luke 7:1–10.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, notes on Matthew 8:8–10.
- 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-1035
- 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 8:8–10 — Servant or Child? Authority and Faith in the Centurion’s Confession,” VAR-1035, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas