Textual Commentary - John PDF
Textual Commentary - John PDF
Textual Commentary - John PDF
on the
Greek Gospels
Vol. 4
John
BY
WIELAND WILLKER
3. Tertiary, mixed Byzantine: Y, [0141/821], 397, 579, 597, 1241, 2786 all weak
579 has a Byz block from about 6:52 - 9:4
1241 is Byz from ch. 16-21, somewhat better in ch. 1-15 (62% Byz). My data
are limited, probably it's even better. T&T get 50% Byzantinity for Jo 1-10
based on 153 readings.
4. Western: 01, D
The almost complete analysis of the minuscules by T&T revealed the following
interesting minuscules with good text: "2" readings are txt readings against Byz.
"2" "Special"
849 58% 20% (excellent, but fragmentary)
397 41% 16% (similar to 33 in quality)
597 31% 12% (slightly worse than 33 in quality)
Pair 0141/821:
0141 30% 13%
821 33% 13% (95% agreement, very close! )
Group X/033:
033 35% 18% (similar to 33 in quality)
865 31% 18%
213 29% 15%
(799 25% 8%)
These four manuscripts form a group:
Agreement:
033 865 213 799
033 93% 89% 81%
865 93% 82% 79%
213 89% 82% 82%
799 81% 79% 82%
N/Y:
Additionally T&T found that N and Y are quite close in John: They agree 81%.
1241:
The only manuscript for which the evaluation in T&T gave significantly different
results compared to mine, was 1241. In my analysis it was about 62% Byz in Jo 1-
15 (afterwards it is pure Byz). In T&T it is only about 50% Byz. This is probably
due to the fact that my data for 1241 are incomplete. I do not have the
complete text of 1241, but only the Lake collation and the notations from NA.
So, whenever 1241 does not show up, it is counted as Byz in my commentary,
which is probably not correct in every case. I think T&T is therefore probably
nearer to the truth here.
397 is a 10/11th manuscript in Rome (Bibl. Vallicell. E40). Contains John only.
Text with catena. Scrivener 397, Soden Ci10. It omits the PA.
597 is a 13th CE manuscript in Venice (Bibl. Naz. Marc., Gr. I, 59, 1277). It's
written on parchment and contains the Gospels. Gregory: "has good readings".
Scrivener 464, Soden: e340. It's rather close to group X, (73% agreement with
X).
0141 is a 10th CE codex in Paris (Bib. Nat. Gr 209), Contains John only. Text with
catena. Gregory 314 (p. 178, he notes: "compare with X") Soden Ci13 (I-text, p.
1506)
821 is a 16th CE manuscript again written on paper! Contains John only. Text
with catena, at the beginning a catena on Genesis. It rests in the National
Library of Madrid (4673, fol. 262-542). Soden Ci60 (I-text). It omits the PA. Is
it a direct copy?
P45 extant:
4:51, 54 10:7-25 11:18-36
5:21, 24 10:30-11:10 11:42-57
P66 lacunae:
6:12-34 14:31-15:1 16:5, 8-9 21:10-end
14:27-28 15:27-16:1 20:21.24
P75 lacunae:
11:46-47 11:58-12:2 13:11-14:7 15:11-end
A lacuna:
6:50-8:52
C lacunae:
1:1-3 5:17-6:38 9:11-11:7 14:8-16:21
1:41-3:33 7:3-8:34 11:47-13:7 18:36-20:25
D lacuna:
1:16-3:26
L lacuna:
21:15-end
N lacunae:
1:1-21 5:3-10 9:33-14:2 20:23-25
1:39-2:6 5:19-26 14:11-15:14 20:28-30
3:30-4:5 6:49-57 15:22-16:15 21:20-end
T extant:
1:24-32 4:52-5:7 7:6-8:31
3:10-17 6:28-67
X/033 is extant:
1:1-3:8 7:1-13:5 13:20-15:25 16:23-end
(plus a late suppl. 4:6-5:42)
070 extant:
3:23-26 7:3-12 11:50-56 16:33-17:1
5:22-31 8:13-22 12:33-34
5:38-39 8:33-9:39 12:46-13:4
565 lacunae:
11:26-48 13:2-23
579 lacuna:
20:15-end
892 lacunae:
10:6-12:18 14:23-end Byz supplement
Sy-S lacunae:
1:1-25 4:38-5:6 14:10-11
1:47-2:15 5:25-46 18:31-19:40
Sy-C lacunae:
1:42-3:5 14:12-15 14:24-26
8:19-14:10 14:19-21 14:29-end
124 of the 273 variants (45%) are difficult to evaluate (Rating either "-" or
"1?").
Jo has 878 verses. This means that we have
- one significant variant every 3rd verse, and
- one difficult variant every 9th verse.
About 28 variants (10%) should be reconsidered in NA (Mt: 20, Mk: 13, Lk: 20).
Of the variants noted only 22 (8%) have an umlaut in B. There are 49 umlauts
overall in Jo. This means that 27 of the 49 umlauts indicate rather minor (or
unknown!) stuff.
TVU 1
1. Difficult variant
NA27 John 1:3-1:4 pa,nta diV auvtou/ evge,neto( kai. cwri.j auvtou/ evge,neto
ouvde. e[n
o] ge,gonen 4 evn auvtw/| zwh. h=n( kai. h` zwh. h=n to. fw/j tw/n avnqrw,pwn\
BYZ John 1:3-1:4 pa,nta diV auvtou/ evge,neto kai. cwri.j auvtou/ evge,neto
ouvde. e[n o] ge,gonen
4 evn auvtw/| zwh. h=n kai. h` zwh. h=n to. fw/j tw/n avnqrw,pwn\
A question of punctuation:
ouvde. e[n o] ge,gonen 01C, Q?, 050C, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Cyp
NA25, WHmg, Weiss, Tis, Bal
kai. cwri.j auvtou/ evge,neto ouvde. e[n o] ge,gonen 4 evn auvtw/| zwh. h=n( kai.
h` zwh. h=n to. fw/j tw/n avnqrw,pwn\
by Epiph (4th CE) and Greg Nys ( 4th CE)
Note also for ouvde. e[n: ouvde.n P66, 01*, D, f1, pc, Cl, HeracleonOr (170 CE!)
B: no umlaut
3 All things came into being through him, and without him happened not even one thing that has
happened.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of all people.
3 All things came into being through him, and without him happened not even one thing.
What has happened 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.
That which has come into being 4 in him was life ...
The Byzantine punctuation is called by Ps. Ambrosius (4th CE) "that by the
Alexandrians and Egyptians". Hort: "[the Byz punctuation] has high claims to
acceptance on internal grounds."
Compare:
F.C. Burkitt "The Syriac interpretation of S. John 1:3, 4" JTS 4 (1903)
436-38
Theodor Zahn, Commentary on John, Excursus 1. (argues for Byz)
E. Nestle "Zur Interpunktion von Joh 1:3-4" ZNW 10 (1909) 262-4
K. Aland "Eine Untersuchung zu Joh 1:3,4 ber die Bedeutung eines
Punktes" ZNW 59 (1968) 174-209
E.L. Miller "P66 and P75 on John 1:3,4" TZ 41 (1985) 440-43
G. Korting "Joh 1:3" BZ 33 (1989) 97-104
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 2
Minority reading:
NA27 John 1:4 evn auvtw/| zwh. h=n( kai. h` zwh. h=n to. fw/j tw/n avnqrw,pwn\
T&T #1
evstin 01, D, it(all), vgmss, IrLat, Clpt, Orpt, Aug, HeracleonOr, Tis, Bal
est Heracleon: Rome, ca. 170 CE!
vg reads txt ("erat")
omit: WS
Normally Origen uses h=n (13 times), but twice he uses evstin in his commentary
on John (labeled "adaptions" in Ehrman, which means "a quotation that has been
somewhat modified"):
1. ei ge zwh esti to fwj twn anqrwpwn (Com. Jo 2, 19, 130)
2. tina mentoi ge twn antigrafwn ecei( kai taca ouk apiqanwj\
o gegonen en autw zwh estin (Com. Jo 2, 19, 132)
Clement uses twice evstin (Paed. 1.27.1, Exc. 19.2) and once h=n (Paed. 2.79.3).
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 1:1 VEn avrch/| h=n o` lo,goj( kai. o` lo,goj h=n pro.j to.n qeo,n( kai.
qeo.j h=n o` lo,goj 2 ou-toj h=n evn avrch/| pro.j to.n qeo,n
Probably a correction to express clearly, that there still IS life in him. If the
preceding o] ge,gonen is taken with the following, evstin is required here. But
the second h=n in the kai. h` zwh. h=n to. fw/j seems to require the first.
Origen regarded it with some favor: ta,ca ouvk avpiqa,nwj = "perhaps not
implausible".
It is possible that the evstin has been conformed to immediate context: the
directly following h=n and 4 times in verses 1-2.
Lacuna: Sy-S
B: no umlaut
Minor variants:
evgennh,qhsan genna,w indicative aorist passive 3rd person plural
C2 sup S
01, B , C, D , L, W , Y, f1, f13, 33, Maj
In this reading the o]j is not referring to o[soi de. e;labon auvto,n as does oi],
but to Jesus.
Tertullian, who has this reading, wrote that the Valentinians have made the
change (de carne Christi, 19 + 24). Irenaeus: Adv. Haer. III, 16:2, 19:2
B. Ehrman: "what we have here is not a heretical tampering with the text, but an
orthodox one. The corruption serves to locate the orthodox notion of Jesus'
birth in a passage that otherwise lacked it."
The following eminent scholars have argued for the singular: Blass, Boismard,
Burney, (Harnack), Loisy, Menge1st ed., Resch, Zahn and others.
It is also possible that the singular arose from the influence of the immediately
preceding auvtou/. There is no real explanation as to why somebody should have
changed the singular to the plural.
Harnack thinks that the complete verse 13 is secondary, probably an early gloss
on kai. o` lo,goj sa.rx evge,neto from the Johannine community. He notes:
1. The otherwise rather succinct prolog is here quite detailed. There is no real
need to elaborate any further about the o[soi de. e;labon auvto,n.
2. It is not clear to what the oi] refers: pisteu,ousin or te,kna qeou/ ? The
addition is uncertain and awkward.
3. the Aorist evgennh,qhsan is problematic. Expected is either Present or
Perfect. Isn't the sentence almost without sense: " he gave them power to
become children of God, who were born not of blood but of God."
4. The meaning is unclear (Harnack: "dark"). Why the polemics? Who pretends
that children of God are born of blood and flesh? There is even a tautology
here: "Children of God are born of God."
5. the following kai. (kai. o` lo,goj sa.rx evge,neto) is strange, because is
takes for granted that immediately before the lo,goj has been mentioned.
6. A peculiar problem arises from the contrast in verse 13 of those evk qeou/
evgennh,qhsan and in verse 14 of the one monogenou/j para. patro,j.
Harnack thinks that all the problems with this sentence can only be solved by
declaring it secondary. It has a Johannine flavor, but it does not fit into the
text. Thus it must have come into existence in the Johannine circle, probably as
an early marginal gloss, either to create conformity with Mt/Lk or to explain the
short term sa.rx evge,neto. Harnack thinks that this original gloss was without
relativum (see D* and b) and with the Singular.
J. Schmid agrees with Harnack that the words are a secondary insertion by the
author into an original early Hymn.
A. Pallis (Notes, 1926) writes: "The true position is represented by o]j ...
evgennh,qh, by which in accordance with sense it is to Jesus alone that an
immaculate birth is attributed. The relative o]j refers to to. o;noma auvtou/,
which is a periphrastic equivalent of auvto.n; cf. 2:23 evpi,steusan eivj to.
o;noma auvtou/ = eivj auvto.n, etc."
Compare:
Theodor Zahn, Commentary on John, Excursus 2.
Harnack "Zur NT Textkritik", 1931, p. 155 ff.
J. Schmid "Joh 1:13" BZ 1 (1957) 118-25
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 4
3. Difficult variant
Minority reading:
NA27 John 1:15 VIwa,nnhj marturei/ peri. auvtou/ kai. ke,kragen le,gwn\
ou-toj h=n o]n ei=pon\ o` ovpi,sw mou evrco,menoj e;mprosqe,n mou ge,gonen(
o[ti prw/to,j mou h=n
No txt in NA!
txt o]n ei=pon P66, P75, 01C2, A, BC2, D*, L, X, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13,
33, 579, 850, Maj, WHmg
o]n e;legon CC3
o]n ei=pon u`mi/n DC, WS, X
ei=pon 0211
An interesting variant.
The B* reading is the more difficult reading, a parenthetical explanation about
the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ.
On the other hand it is possible that the rather unusual o]n ei=pon caused
confusion (one would have expected u`pe.r ou- evgw. ei=pon). This is supported by
the fact that some witnesses added a u`mi/n for clarity.
So argues also Metzger in his commentary: "The awkwardness of the reading ...
as well as the absence of a previous mention of John's testimony, prompted
more than one copyist to make adjustments in the text. ... Several other
witnesses (01C1, B*, C*, Or) [were] less successful in their adjustment of the
text."
The idea that the extremely curious B* reading caused the confusion is not
noted or considered by Metzger.
T&T #2
Byz A, CC3, WS, X, D, Q, Y, W, 063, 0141, f1, f13, 157, 579, 700, 1071, 1424,
Maj, Lat, Sy-C, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, arm, geo, Tert, Hipp, Clpt, Chrys,
Bois, Tis, Bal
eiv mh. o` monogenh.j ui`o,j W
unicus filius solus a (but Jlicher: "suus?")
monogenh.j ui`o,j 111, 2479, 2528
o` monogenh.j o` ui`o,j 2546
o` monogenh.j ga.r ui`o,j 1116
txt P66, P75, 01*, B, C*, L, 33, 850, Sy-P, Sy-Hmg, bo, IrLat, Or
add o` P75, 01C1, 33, 850, Clpt, Or
no o` P66, 01*, B, C*, L
Ephrem (McCarthy): "No one has ever seen God. The Only-Bgotten One, who is
from the bossom of the father "
Preuschen has for the Arabic Diatessaron: "der eingeborene Gott" (=txt)
NA27 1 John 4:9 evn tou,tw| evfanerw,qh h` avga,ph tou/ qeou/ evn h`mi/n( o[ti
to.n ui`o.n auvtou/ to.n monogenh/ avpe,stalken o` qeo.j eivj to.n ko,smon i[na
zh,swmen diV auvtou/
Note also:
NA27 John 1:34 kavgw. e`w,raka kai. memartu,rhka o[ti ou-to,j evstin o` ui`o.j
tou/ qeou/
o` monogenh.j ui`o,j Sy-Palms
NA27 John 5:44 pw/j du,nasqe u`mei/j pisteu/sai do,xan para. avllh,lwn
lamba,nontej( kai. th.n do,xan th.n para. tou/ mo,nou qeou/ ouv zhtei/te
tou/ monogenou/j qeou/ N, 1071 (not in NA and SQE!)
Ehrman argues in his "Orthodox Corruption" (1993, p. 78-82) that "the variant
reading of the Alexandrian tradition, which substitutes 'God' for 'Son',
represents an orthodox corruption of the text in which the complete deity of
Christ is affirmed" (so also Boismard). Ehrman argues further that the main
interest in creating the qeo.j variant was to create a "high Christology" against
the adoptionists.
Note also the curious reading of Sy-S in 3:18 of which Burkitt comments
(Evangelion Intro, p. 311): "not improbable that Sy-S has preserved the true
reading of this passage". But Pete Williams notes (private communication): "This
could be a case of inner-Syriac corruption: 'one and only' yHyd'; 'approved'
'bHyr': d and r are only distinguished by a dot (and this is not used consistently
in the earliest writing, which leaves only a b and y to be confused (H = heth)."
It is also clear that the missing article was a problem. The Byzantine tradition
added it unanimously. In the txt reading P75, 01C1, 33 added it, too.
See:
"Two dissertations" by F.J.A. Hort, Cambridge 1877, p. 1-72
Theodor Zahn, Commentary on John, Excursus 3.
Boismard RB 59 (1952) 23 -39
"Joh 1:18 in Textual Variation ..." by P.R. McReynolds in "NT TC - Essays in
Honour of B.M. Metzger, 1981, p. 105 ff. (good collection of the evidence)
"John 1:18 ..." by D.A. Fennema NTS 31 (1985) 124-35
Rating: - (indecisive)
omit: P66*, P75, 01, CC3, L, WS, 0141, f1, 565, 892*, Maj, Or, Gre, SBL
txt position 1: B, C*, 33, 892C, 1071, al, it(a, aur, b, c), Sy-C, Sy-P, Co
position 2: 1424
position 3: P66Cvid, A, X, Q, P, Y, f13, 157, 579, al,
Lat(e, f, ff2, l, q, r1, vg), Sy-H
In P66 there is an insertion mark ( < or ./.) after Leuei,taj above the line. The
addition itself is not visible, but was probably in the left margin, which is broken
off.
Lacuna: D, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
No parallel.
Compare:
NA27 Mark 3:31 Kai. e;rcetai h` mh,thr auvtou/ kai. oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ kai.
e;xw sth,kontej avpe,steilan pro.j auvto.n kalou/ntej auvto,n
NA27 John 5:33 u`mei/j avpesta,lkate pro.j VIwa,nnhn( kai. memartu,rhken th/|
avlhqei,a\|
NA27 John 7:32 h;kousan oi` Farisai/oi tou/ o;clou goggu,zontoj peri.
auvtou/ tau/ta( kai. avpe,steilan oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi
u`phre,taj i[na pia,swsin auvto,n
NA27 John 11:3 avpe,steilan ou=n ai` avdelfai. pro.j auvto.n le,gousai\
Byz A, CC3, X, D, Q, f1, f13, 157, 565, 579, 700, 1424, Maj,
Lat, Sy-H, NA25, Gre
A question of punctuation and word-order. The meaning is basically the same for
all. Impossible to judge internally.
Weiss (Textkritik, p. 138) notes for the B reading: The su has been omitted,
because it seemed not to fit to the ti, or it has been connected with the
VHli,aj. The origin of the B reading is just inexplicable.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 8
NA27 John 1:24 Kai. avpestalme,noi h=san evk tw/n Farisai,wn
BYZ John 1:24 Kai. oi` avpestalme,noi h=san evk tw/n Farisai,wn
Byz 01C2, AC, CC3, WS, X, D, Q, 0141, 0234, f1, f13, 33, 565, 579, 1071, Maj,
Latt, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, boms, arm, Weissearlier
txt P66, P75, 01*, A*, B, C*, L, T, Y, 086, 850, pc, Sy-C, Co, Or, Weisslater
Weiss: In his John-Com. (1893) he opts for the Byzantine reading, but in his NT
edition (1905) he has the txt reading.
Lacuna: D, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 3:1 +Hn de. a;nqrwpoj evk tw/n Farisai,wn( Niko,dhmoj
NA27 John 7:48 mh, tij evk tw/n avrco,ntwn evpi,steusen eivj auvto.n
h' evk tw/n Farisai,wn
NA John 9:16 e;legon ou=n evk tw/n Farisai,wn tine,j\
27
NA27 John 9:40 h;kousan evk tw/n Farisai,wn tau/ta oi` metV auvtou/ o;ntej
NA27 John 18:3 o` ou=n VIou,daj labw.n th.n spei/ran kai. evk tw/n
avrciere,wn kai. evk tw/n Farisai,wn u`phre,taj
The question here is if those sent are themselves Pharisees or if they are only
sent by the Pharisees. The txt reading is more equivocal in this respect. It could
mean: "And they were sent by the Pharisees."
The Johannine usage is clear: evk tw/n Farisai,wn means "a Pharisee".
It is possible that the Byzantine reading is a correction to make this explicit:
"And those sent where Pharisees."
The versional evidence is not of much value here, because the translation
depends on the interpretation.
Weiss in his Jo Com. thinks that the oi` has probably been omitted accidentally.
He notes the possibility that it could have been omitted because scribes
assumed a second legation, different from that mentioned in 1:19.
txt P66, A, C, Tvid, Wsup, X, Q, Y, 0211, f13, 33, Maj, Orpt, Trgmg
083: Tischendorf and NA have it for sth,kei, IGNTP has it for e[sthken.
Heracleon: Rome, ca. 170 CE!
Lacuna: D
B: no umlaut
Compare context:
NA27 John 1:35 Th/| evpau,rion pa,lin ei`sth,kei o` VIwa,nnhj kai. evk tw/n
maqhtw/n auvtou/ du,o
Compare also:
NA27 Mark 3:31 Kai. e;rcetai h` mh,thr auvtou/ kai. oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ kai.
e;xw sth,kontej avpe,steilan pro.j auvto.n kalou/ntej auvto,n
sth,kontej B, C*, D, 28
sta,ntej 01
e`stw/tej A, D, W, Q, 565, f13, 33, Maj
e`sthko,tej CC2, G, L, f1, 124, 700, 892, 2542, pc
NA27 Mark 11:25 Kai. o[tan sth,kete proseuco,menoi( avfi,ete ei; ti e;cete
kata, tinoj( i[na kai. o` path.r u`mw/n o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j avfh/| u`mi/n ta.
paraptw,mata u`mw/n
sth,kete A, B, C, D, W, Q, Y, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj
sth,te 01
e`sth,kete L, D, 892
John uses ei`sth,kei 5 times, all safe. He uses e;sthken one more time in Jo 8:44
also safe. He uses i[sthmi (or sth,kw) 8 times in the perfect tense, 7 times in
the pluperfect tense and 4 times in the aorist, but never in the present tense.
Since those readings are all safe, it is difficult to understand why it caused such
a variation here.
A present tense form appears only twice in the Gospels, both in Mark. In both
cases there is a variation to the perfect tense. Is it thus possible that the
unusual present form is original and has been changed to the more commonly
used perfect tense.
It is possible that the variation is in part accidental. For example the reading of
01 e`sth,kei could be interpreted by changing one letter as ei`sth,kei or
e[sthken. It is also possible that i`sth,kei (P75) has been accidentally changed
into sth,kei (B).
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 10
NA27 John 1:27 o` ovpi,sw mou evrco,menoj(
ou- ouvk eivmi. evgw. a;xioj i[na lu,sw auvtou/
to.n i`ma,nta tou/ u`podh,matoj
BYZ John 1:27 auvto,j evstin o` ovpi,sw mou evrco,menoj
o]j e;mprosqe,n mou ge,gonen\ ou- evgw. ouvk eivmi. a;xioj i[na lu,sw auvtou/
to.n i`ma,nta tou/ u`podh,matoj
T&T #3
a) auvto,j evstin o`
Byz A, CC3, N, X, D, Y, f13, 565, Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H
ou-to,j... G, Y, pc20
txt P5vid(3rd CE), P66, P75, P119vid(3rd CE), P120(4th CE), 01C2, C*, L, T, WS,
Q, 083, 0141, f1, 22, 33, 579, 1071, 1241, pc19, a, Sy-S, Sy-C, Co
P119 (POxy 4803): same as with P5, from space considerations almost certain:
egw men baptizw umas e]n udati[ mesos de
umwn esthken on umeis o]uk oidat[e o opisw
0141: T&T have it for txt. IGNTP have it for the 01*, B reading.
Lacuna: D
B: no umlaut
txt P5(3rd CE), P66, P75, P119vid(3rd CE), P120vid(4th CE), 01, B, C*, L, N*, T,
WS, Y, 083, 0141, f1, 22, 33, 579, 1071, 1241, al, b, l, Sy-S, Sy-C, Co, Or
o]j 063
Lacuna: D
B: no umlaut
Parallels:
NA27 Matthew 3:11 VEgw. me.n u`ma/j bapti,zw evn u[dati eivj meta,noian( o` de.
ovpi,sw mou evrco,menoj ivscuro,tero,j mou, evstin( ou- ouvk eivmi. i`kano.j ta.
u`podh,mata basta,sai\
NA27 Luke 3:16 evgw. me.n u[dati bapti,zw u`ma/j\ e;rcetai de. o` ivscuro,tero,j
mou( ou- ouvk eivmi. i`kano.j lu/sai to.n i`ma,nta tw/n u`podhma,twn auvtou/\
Compare context:
NA27 John 1:15 VIwa,nnhj marturei/ peri. auvtou/ kai. ke,kragen le,gwn\ ou-
toj h=n o]n ei=pon\ o` ovpi,sw mou evrco,menoj e;mprosqe,n mou ge,gonen( o[ti
prw/to,j mou h=n
NA27 John 1:30 ou-to,j evstin u`pe.r ou- evgw. ei=pon\ ovpi,sw mou e;rcetai
avnh.r o]j e;mprosqe,n mou ge,gonen( o[ti prw/to,j mou h=n
Clearly a harmonization to immediate context. There is no reason for an
omission.
The omission of the o` by 01*, B is probably accidental (OOPISW).
T&T #4
omit evgw.: P66*, P75, P120(4th CE), 01, C, L, 063, 346, 826, 983, 33,
565, 1071, al145, aur*, q, Orciting Heracleon, SBL
ouvk eivmi. evgw. P66C, P119vid(3rd CE), B, N, Tvid, WS, X, Y, 083, 0141, 118, 205,
209, f13, 579, 1010, 2786, pc25, Or
evgw. ouvk eivmi. A, D, Q, f1, 124, 157, 892, 1241, Maj
P5: is cited for omitting egw in NA25 and IGNTP. But the word is within a large
lacuna and space considerations are ambiguous.
P119: The line in question reads in the ed. pr.:
mou ercomenos ou ouk ei]mi egw a[xios ina lu
On the published image nothing can be seen of the a, since some fibres
obscure it at the broken edge. The editor writes: "The Alpha in the
papyrus is damaged, but the remains of a curve rule out Iota."
P120: The line in question reads in the ed. pr.:
mou ercomenos ou ouk ei]mi axios ina
Parallels:
NA27 Matthew 3:11 VEgw. me.n u`ma/j bapti,zw evn u[dati eivj meta,noian( o` de.
ovpi,sw mou evrco,menoj ivscuro,tero,j mou, evstin( ou- ouvk eivmi. i`kano.j ta.
u`podh,mata basta,sai\
NA27 Mark 1:7 Kai. evkh,russen le,gwn\ e;rcetai o` ivscuro,tero,j mou ovpi,sw
mou( ou- ouvk eivmi. i`kano.j ku,yaj lu/sai to.n i`ma,nta tw/n u`podhma,twn
auvtou/
NA27 Luke 3:16 evgw. me.n u[dati bapti,zw u`ma/j\ e;rcetai de. o` ivscuro,tero,j
mou( ou- ouvk eivmi. i`kano.j lu/sai to.n i`ma,nta tw/n u`podhma,twn auvtou/\
Compare:
NA27 Acts 13:25 avllV ivdou. e;rcetai metV evme. ou- ouvk eivmi. a;xioj to.
u`po,dhma tw/n podw/n lu/sai i`kano.j Y, pc7
The omission of the evgw. is probably at least in part due to harmonization, too.
T&T #5
Lacuna: D
B: umlaut! (1350 B 18 R)
27 ... tou/ u`podh,matoj 28 tau/ta evn Bhqani,a|
It is not clear if this umlaut indicates this variant or the next one (Bhqani,a)| .
Parallels:
NA27 Matthew 3:11 o` de. ovpi,sw mou evrco,menoj ivscuro,tero,j mou, evstin( ou-
ouvk eivmi. i`kano.j ta. u`podh,mata basta,sai\ auvto.j u`ma/j bapti,sei evn
pneu,mati a`gi,w| kai. puri,\
NA27 Mark 1:8 evgw. evba,ptisa u`ma/j u[dati( auvto.j de. bapti,sei u`ma/j evn
pneu,mati a`gi,w| add kai. puri,: P, 1241, pc, Sy-H**, samss
NA27 Luke 3:16 e;rcetai de. o` ivscuro,tero,j mou( ou- ouvk eivmi. i`kano.j
lu/sai to.n i`ma,nta tw/n u`podhma,twn auvtou/\ auvto.j u`ma/j bapti,sei evn
pneu,mati a`gi,w| kai. puri,\
Bhqani,a| P66, P75, 01*, A, B, C*, L, N, X, D, Q, Y*, WS, 047, 0211, 2*, 28,
118, 124, 157, 565, 579, 700, 892*, 1071, 1241, 1424,
Maj-part[E, F, G, H, M, S, V, Y, D, W, Robinson],
Latt, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Palmss, bo, Ortxt, Eus, HeracleonOr
evge,neto evn Bhqani,a| P66, 01*, HC
Bhqabara/ CC2, K, P, T, YC, 083, 0141, f1, f13, 2C, 33, 850,
Maj-part[U, G, L],
Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-Palms, sa, arm, geo, Oremend., EusOnom,
Madaba-map, KJV
Lacuna: D
T: NA has T correctly for Bhqabara/, Amelineau (ed.pr.) has it wrongly for
Bhqani,a.| U. Schmid (IGNTP John) confirms the reading BHQABAR[A].
B: umlaut! (1350 B 18 R)
27 ... tou/ u`podh,matoj 28 tau/ta evn Bhqani,a|
It is not clear if this umlaut indicates this variant or the previous one (insertion
after u`podh,matoj).
Bhqabara/ appears on the Madaba mosaic map (ca. 560 CE), which is located on
the floor of the Greek Orthodox church in Madaba near Amman. It mentions the
St. John monastery to. tou/ avgi,ou VIwa,nnou tou/ bapti,smatoj and above it
(next to the Western bank of the Jordan) in smaller letters: Bhqabara/.
It is noteworthy that the excellent manuscripts 029 and 083 support
Bhqabara/.
Chrysostom notes that Bhqabara/ is found in "the more accurate of the copies"
(in Ioann Hom XVIII, 1).
Compare:
LXX Judges 7:24 kai. avgge,louj avpe,steilen Gedewn evn panti. o;rei
Efraim le,gwn kata,bhte eivj suna,nthsin Madiam kai. katala,bete
e`autoi/j to. u[dwr e[wj Baiqhra kai. to.n Iorda,nhn kai. evbo,hsen pa/j
avnh.r Efraim kai. prokatela,bonto to. u[dwr e[wj Baiqhra kai. to.n
Iorda,nhn
LXX Joshua 13:27 kai. evn Emek Baiqaram kai. Baiqanabra kai. Sokcwqa
kai. Safan kai. th.n loiph.n basilei,an Shwn basile,wj Esebwn kai. o`
Iorda,nhj o`riei/ e[wj me,rouj th/j qala,sshj Cenereq pe,ran tou/
Iorda,nou avpV avnatolw/n
LXX Joshua 15:6 evpibai,nei ta. o[ria evpi. Baiqagla kai. paraporeu,etai
avpo. borra/ evpi. Baiqaraba kai. prosanabai,nei ta. o[ria evpi. li,qon
Baiwn ui`ou/ Roubhn
LXX Joshua (A) 15:61 Baddargij kai. Bhqaraba kai. Madwn kai. Sococa
LXX Joshua 18:18 kai. dieleu,setai kata. nw,tou Baiqaraba avpo. borra/
kai. katabh,setai
LXX Joshua 18:22 kai. Baiqabara kai. Sara kai. Bhsana
LXX Joshua 19:11 Gwla o[ria auvtw/n h` qa,lassa kai. Maragella kai.
suna,yei evpi. Baiqaraba eivj th.n fa,ragga h[ evstin kata. pro,swpon
Iekman
Compare also:
NA27 John 3:23 +Hn de. kai. o` VIwa,nnhj bapti,zwn evn Aivnw.n evggu.j tou/
Salei,m( o[ti u[data polla. h=n evkei/( kai. paregi,nonto kai. evbapti,zonto\
NA27 John 10:40 Kai. avph/lqen pa,lin pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou eivj to.n to,pon
o[pou h=n VIwa,nnhj to. prw/ton bapti,zwn kai. e;meinen evkei/
Origen (Jo Comm. book 6), who was under the probably mistaken notion that the
only Bethany was that near Jerusalem (he couldn't find a Bethany near the
Jordan in his travels), opted for Bhqabara/ which he apparently found in some
copies (Bhqani,a| is found in "nearly all the manuscripts"). He explained it
(wrongly) allegorically as oi=koj kataskeuh/j ("house of the preparation"), but it
actually means "house of passing over". It has been suggested that Origen
actually created this reading, but this is not clear. Note that Origen once writes
the curious ta. Bhqabara/. He writes:
"These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing." We are
aware of the reading which is found in almost all the copies, "These things were done in
Bethany." This appears, moreover, to have been the reading at an earlier time; and in
Heracleon we read "Bethany." We are convinced, however, that we should not read "Bethany,"
but "Bethabara." We have visited the places to enquire as to the footsteps of Jesus and His
disciples, and of the prophets. Now, Bethany, as the same evangelist tells us, was the town of
Lazarus, and of Martha and Mary; it is fifteen stadia from Jerusalem, anti the river Jordan is
about a hundred and eighty stadia distant from it. Nor is there any other place of the same name
in the neighborhood of the Jordan, but they say that Bethabara (ta. Bhqabara/) is pointed out
on the banks of the Jordan, and that John is said to have baptized there.
The etymology of the name, too, corresponds with the baptism of him who made ready for the
Lord a people prepared for Him; for it yields the meaning "House of preparation," (oi=koj
kataskeuh/j) while Bethany means "House of obedience" (oi=koj u`pakoh/j). Where else
was it fitting that he should baptize, who was sent as a messenger before the face of the Christ,
to pre pare His way before Him, but at the House of preparation (kataskeua,sai)? And what
more fitting home for Mary, who chose the good part, which was not taken away from her, and
for Martha, who was cumbered for the reception of Jesus, and for their brother, who is called the
friend of the Saviour, than Bethany, the House of obedience? Thus we see that he who aims at
a complete understanding of the Holy Scriptures must not neglect the careful examination of the
proper names in it. In the matter of proper names the Greek copies are often incorrect, and in
the Gospels one might be misled by their authority."
It is interesting though that nowhere in the early sources and also not in any of
the pilgrims reports a Bethany "beyond the Jordan" is mentioned. On the other
hand there is no reason to consider Bethany simply a corruption. It is explicitly
labeled as the Bethany "beyond the Jordan", to distinguish it from the Bethany
near Jerusalem. John is quite exact regarding John the Baptist's places,
compare Jo 3:23 and 10:40.
External arguments: More, more better and more diverse manuscripts support
Bethany, Bethabara also has some good and diverse support, but not as much as
Bethany.
Internal arguments: Bethany is clearly the harder reading and was a stumbling
block, not only for Origen, but also for other church fathers.
If Bhqabara/ was original, there would have been no reason for a change. It is
not clear if Origen made this reading up, it is possible. The "but they say" seems
to point to a local tradition, which Origen ascertains.
It should be noted that Origen based his solution to the Bethany problem on
hearsay only. It should also be noted that the Bhqabara/ on the Madaba map is
west of the Jordan.
It is also interesting to note that Livias, the place of Herod Antipas' summer
residence, which is across the Jordan, has originally been called Bhqaramaqa,
(Josephus, Bell II 59, Ant XVII 277, XVIII 27).
Weiss (Lk Com.) suggests Judges 7:24 (Baiqhra) as a possible reference, but
marks it with a question-mark. Note that in the manuscripts of Origen's
commentary the spelling varies and Bhqara/| and Baqara/| are also found.
Burkitt thinks that because both Sy-S and Origen have Bhqabara/, this
indicates a common source: "This source seems to have been not documentary
evidence, but local identification. [] We cannot doubt that the author of the
Fourth Gospel wrote 'Bethany beyond Jordan.' On the other hand we have the
cult of 'Bethabara', developed before the time of Origen, perhaps at a pre-
Christian holy place. The cult led to the identification of 'Bethany' with
'Bethabara' and finally it influenced some texts of the Gospels." (Evangelion
Intro, p. 308-9).
Pierson Parker suggests that pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou does not refer to
Bhqani,a,| but to o[pou h=n o` VIwa,nnhj bapti,zwn and gives the translation:
"These things took place in Bethany, which is across from the point of the
Jordan where John had been baptizing." (This has already been suggested by
E.G. Paulus in 1828!) It is quite unlikely that John would have described Bethany
this way though.
R. Riesner suggests that the place "beyt abarah" originally indicated the crossing
of the Jordan by the Israelites and also the crossing of the Jordan by Eliah and
Elisah, so two crossings have been remembered here. This could explain Origen's
plural ta. Bhqabara, a place of several fords.
Rainer Riesner argues for Bhqani,a| = Batane,a( Batanai,a (the region
Batanaea). This identification is as early as J. Lightfoot (1658). There are two
places that are relevant. One, called Bhqabara/, is the place of Jesus' baptism,
which is at the traditional place. The other is the place where John is questioned
by the Pharisees in Jo 1:19-28. This is the Batanaea in the north. Here John
worked, too. The problem arose (according to Riesner) due to the
misunderstanding that in the following verses Jesus' baptism is reported. This is
not the case, John only gives an account of what happened at an unknown time
earlier. The time table and circumstances in Jo 1 fit much better if everything
happens in the north (compare Riesner, Bethanien, p. 73ff.). It also fits good to
the time table of Jo 11 (p. 71 ff.).
Furthermore the region of Batanaea is known in Arabic as el-Betheneyeh, which
comes nearest to the Evangelist's Bethania (compare Brownlee).
Against this view is the fact that representatives of the Pharisees and others
from Jerusalem came to investigate John's baptizing, apparently in great
numbers. Although it would have been possible for them to find John in Batanaea
in the north, a location closer to Jerusalem seems more likely.
S.G. Brown notes that the most common position today is Wadi Kharrar/Gharrar
(Tell el-Kharrar), "a site in Jordan across from Jericho, where four springs
merge into a stream that flows into the Jordan river." [...] "a site opposite (and
just over 1 km south of) Jericho, 7.3 km north of the Dead Sea and 1.5 km east
of the river. It is between the two fords across from Jericho, a little closer to
the Makhadat Hajla ford. The ongoing excavation of the site has 'uncovered a
1st CE settlement with plastered pools and water systems that were used almost
certainly for baptism, and a 5th-6th CE late Byzantine settlement with churches,
a monastery, and other structures probably catering to religious pilgrims.' This
site has been the traditional location of Jesus' baptism since at least the early
4th CE (the pilgrim of Bordeaux, 333 CE)."
Starting 1997, excavations took place for several years in the region of the
Jordan north of the Dead Sea. The Jordanian team has identified nearly 20
related sites within an area stretching some four kilometers east of the Jordan
River, mostly along the south bank of Wadi el-Kharrar, including the above
mentioned 1st CE settlement. More sites remain to be discovered through
systematic surveying. The excavators believe that the village of Bethany beyond
the Jordan was located at or around the natural hill at Tell el-Kharrar. The main
complex, still being excavated and investigated, comprises structures on and
around a small natural hill located two kilometers east of the Jordan River,
adjacent to the spring and small oasis at the head of the Wadi Kharrar. The
recent excavations have identified a settlement that was inhabited from the
time of Christ and John the Baptist (early Roman era), throughout most of the
Byzantine period, into the early Islamic era, and again in Ottoman centuries.
"Bethany/Bethabara may also have referred to a region, rather than only a specific settlement.
Western travelers to the region at the turn of the century reported that the Greek Orthodox
clerics and monks who lived in the south Jordan Valley, and the native valley residents
themselves, referred to the whole area around the river and east along the Wadi el-Kharrar as
Bethabara. Thus the original settlement was known as Bethany beyond the Jordan during and
immediately following the days of Jesus and John the Baptist in the 1st Century AD; after the
3rd Century AD it was more commonly known as Bethabara, and by the 6th Century AD it had
become known as Aenon and Safsafa. The general area from the river eastwards associated with
the ministry of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus is known as el-Maghtas today in
Arabic." (Jordanian Department of Antiquities)
In the end there are several good arguments, but none is so far completely
convincing. A settlement and baptism site has been found beyond the Jordan,
and it makes perfectly good sense that this was the main area where John was
baptizing, but we don't know (from external sources) if this site was named
"Bethany".
Wherever Bethany was located, both external arguments and internal arguments
favor the reading Bethany at Jo 1:28.
Compare also Jo 5:2, where a similar confusion occurred over a place name.
Literature:
Pierson Parker "Bethany beyond Jordan" JBL 74 (1955) 257-61
W. Wiefel "Bethabara jenseits des Jordan (Jo 1:28)" ZDPV 83 (1967) 72-81
[who also notes the spelling differences for Bethabara.]
W.H. Brownlee "Whence the gospel according to John?" in John and Qumran
(ed. J.H. Charlesworth, London 1972), p. 166-94
J. Carl Laney "The Identification of Bethany Beyond the Jordan", from
"Selective Geographical Problems in the Life of Christ", doctoral dissertation
(Dallas Theological Seminary, 1977)
R. Riesner "Bethany beyond the Jordan (John 1:28): Topography, theology
and History in the fourth Gospel" Tyndale Bulletin 38 (1987) 34-43
B. Byron "Bethany across the Jordan or simply Across the Jordan" Australian
Biblical Review 46 (1998) 36-54
book: R. Riesner "Bethanien jenseits des Jordan" Brunnen, Giessen, 2002
S.G. Brown "Bethany beyond the Jordan: John 1:28 and the Longer Gospel of
Mark" RB 110 (2003) 497-516 [analyzes the references in Secret Mark].
J.M. Hutton "Bethany beyond the Jordan in Text, Tradition, and Historical
Geography" Biblica 89 (2008) 305-328 [accepts Bethany as original reading,
but dismisses both Bethany and Bethabara as historical on redaction-critical
grounds]
D.S. Earl "(Bethany) beyond the Jordan: The Significance of a Johannine
Motif" NTS 55 (2009) 279-294 [argues for Batanaea, like Riesner]
link: http://www.bibleplaces.com/bethanybeyondjordan.htm
link: http://www.asor.org/outreach/Features/bethany.htm
Compare:
NA27 John 10:40 Kai. avph/lqen pa,lin pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou eivj to.n to,pon
o[pou h=n VIwa,nnhj to. prw/ton bapti,zwn kai. e;meinen evkei/
T&T #7
o` evklekto,j tou/ qeou/ P106vid(3rd CE), 01*, 187, 218, 228, 1784,
electus Dei b*, e, 11A, ff2*, Sy-S, Sy-C,
Ambrose(4th CE), Aug, Bois, Blass, SBL
01* is corrected by 01C2
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
P106 (POxy 4445) has more value. The editor W.E.H. Cockle reconstructs:
eanidhstopna katabainon
kaimenonepau tonoutosestin
obaptizwn en pni agiwkagw
eor a k akai memar turhkaoti
ou tosestinoeklektostouqu
thepau r ion
The (online) image is not very good. Nevertheless one can say that the above
reconstruction is probably correct, but rather optimistic. Whenever there are
the slightest remains of ink, they are given as letters (with a dot). Judging from
the image alone, only the following can be made out:
anidhstopna katabainon
kaimen u tonoutosestin
obapti en pni agiw kagw
or a k a memar tur kaoti
tosestin e e tostouqu
t epau r ion
Of evklekto,j in the second last line only an e can be seen. It is pretty clearly
visible, but I have placed a dot under it, because it could be a q also (of qu).
But it looks more like an e. Compare with the q 10 lines above. With a q,
theoretically the line could also be reconstructed as:
tosestinoustouqu
But, clearly, this line is too short, and ustou is slightly too long to fit the
space. So, the reconstruction with evklekto,j fits best. It is not completely sure
though. It could be possible that the line ended short, because a new pericope
begins. B. Aland accepts the evklekto,j reading.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
P75: An unidentifiable correction appears here. The reading was first noted in
the online "NT transcripts" from Mnster (Nov. 2008). They note that P75* had
o` ui`o.j o` evklekto,j for o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/. Timo Flink mentions it in his article
(see below). This is very doubtful though. After discussion, Klaus Wachtel
confirmed that it is too unsecure and that they will simply indicate the number
of letters [4-5] for P75*.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Parallels:
NA27 Matthew 3:17 ou-to,j evstin o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j( evn w-| euvdo,khsa
NA27 Mark 1:11 su. ei= o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j( evn soi. euvdo,khsa
NA27 Luke 3:22 su. ei= o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j( evn soi. euvdo,khsa
o` ui`o,j mou ei= su. evgw. sh,meron gege,nnhka, se
D, it, Justin, (Cl), Meth, Hil, Aug
NA27 Luke 9:35 ou-to,j evstin o` ui`o,j mou o` evklelegme,noj( auvtou/ avkou,ete
BYZ Luke 9:35 Ou-to,j evstin o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto.j( auvtou/ avkou,ete
Byz A, C, D, R, W, Y, f13, 33, 157, 565, 700, 1424, Maj,
it, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, MarcionT, E
txt P45, P75, 01, B, L, Q, X, f1, 579, 892, 1241, pc,
some Lat, Sy-S, Sy-Hmg, Co
o` evklekto,j Q, f1, 22*, pc
NA27 Luke 23:35 Kai. ei`sth,kei o` lao.j qewrw/n evxemukth,rizon de. kai. oi`
a;rcontej le,gontej\ a;llouj e;swsen( swsa,tw e`auto,n( eiv ou-to,j evstin o`
cristo.j tou/ qeou/ o` evklekto,j
omit o` evklekto,j: 047, e
The support is rather diverse, but limited. The reading is certainly the more
difficult reading. It is possible that it has been changed to standard Johannine
usage to avoid adoptionistic thoughts. Blass and Boismard have o` evklekto,j in
their texts! Barrett, Boismard, R. Brown, Fee, Harnack, Lagrange, Nestle, D.
Wallace and Zahn argue in favor of it. The NET Bible and TNIV have the variant
in their English translations.
o` evklekto,j appears nowhere else in the NT, except in Lk 9:35 and 23:35.
It is interesting that the T&T analyses found four Byzantine minuscules (18791%,
21892%, 22887%, 178487%), which read o` evklekto,j, too. 187 and 218 form a group,
they agree 91%.
187 is a 12th CE manuscript in Florence, 218 is a 13th CE manuscript in Vienna,
Gregory notes: "unusual readings, probably written in Italy".
Perhaps some Byzantine scribes, through a subconscious slip, changed the word.
The combination of (P106, 01) and (187, 218, 228, 1784) is incoherent support.
Compare:
B. Aland "Der textkritische und textgeschichtliche Nutzen frher Papyri,
demonstriert am Johannesevangelium", in: Recent Developments in Textual
Criticism. hrsg. von W. Weren und D.-A. Koch, Assen 2003, 19-38.
Timo Flink "Son and Chosen. A text-critical study of John 1:34." Filologia
Neotestamentaria 18 (2005) 87-111. He actually argues for o` ui`o.j o`
evklekto,j without tou/ qeou/ as the original reading.
T.-M. Quek "A text-critical study of Jo 1:34" NTS 55 (2009) 22-34
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 16
9. Difficult variant:
Minority reading:
NA27 John 1:35 Th/| evpau,rion pa,lin ei`sth,kei o` VIwa,nnhj kai. evk tw/n
maqhtw/n auvtou/ du,o
No txt in NA and SQE!
NA27 John 3:23 +Hn de. kai. o` VIwa,nnhj bapti,zwn evn Aivnw.n evggu.j tou/
Salei,m
omit P75, 01, A, L, Y, 086, 0141, f1, f13, 28, 33, 579, Maj, NA25, Weiss, Trg
txt P66, B, N, WS, Q, pc, [WH]
D, 070 have lacunae.
NA27 John 3:24 ou;pw ga.r h=n beblhme,noj eivj th.n fulakh.n o` VIwa,nnhj
omit 01*, B, 070, pc, NA25, WH, Weiss
txt P66, P75, 01C2, A, L, Wsup, Q, Y, 086, 0141, f1, f13, 33, Maj, [Trg]
Lacuna: D, X
(the best witnesses are labeled)
B: no umlaut
There is no clear preference in the usage with or without the article in John.
P75, B are known to omit articles and pronouns at times.
The support is divided in all three cases. The strong support for the omission of
the article in 3:23 is noteworthy, especially the support from the Byzantine
text.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 17
Minority reading:
NA27 John 1:36 kai. evmble,yaj tw/| VIhsou/ peripatou/nti le,gei\ i;de 1 o`
avmno.j tou/ qeou/ 2
1 o` Cristo.j G, L, f13b, pc, Sy-C, sa, arm, Epiph (not in NA, but in SQE!)
T&T #8
T&T #9
auvtou/ oi` du,o maqhtai. A, CC3, N, P, D, Q, f1, f13, 565, 1241, Maj,
Lat, Sy-H, Trg
oi` du,o maqhtai. auvtou/ P55(6th CE), 01, B, 397, 1071, 2718, pc21,
b, WH, NA25
oi` du,o auvtou/ maqhtai. P66, P75, C*, L, WS, X, Y, 083, 0141, 33, 213, 579,
597, 821, 865, pc4, WHmg, Trgmg
P5(3rd CE): NA does not list P5. The reading is in part within a lacuna, but space
considerations make it quite probable that it omits auvtou/. So also IGNTP and
Comfort in his book. Reconstruction:
paurioneisthkeioiwann hskaiek
twnmaqhtwnautoud uokaiem
bleyastwihuperipato untilegei
ideoamnostouqukaihko usanoiduo
maqhtailalountoskaih kolouqh
santwihustrafeisd eoihskaiqe
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
P55(6th CE): only the tou of auvtou/ is visible, but this is enough to make the
reading basically certain.
hkousano[iduomaqhtaiau
toulaloun[toskaihkolou
P120(4th CE) reads:
[t]es oi duo m[aqhtai
It is not clear though if the last letter is really a m. It looks more like an a to
me. Unfortunately the position is superimposed by a small, broken-off fragment.
At least one can say that P120 does not read the majority reading.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Lacuna: D
B: no umlaut
Compare also:
NA27 Mark 14:58 o[ti h`mei/j hvkou,samen auvtou/ le,gontoj
NA27 John 7:32 h;kousan oi` Farisai/oi tou/ o;clou goggu,zontoj
NA27 John 8:30 Tau/ta auvtou/ lalou/ntoj polloi. evpi,steusan eivj auvto,n
NA27 John 9:27 mh. kai. u`mei/j qe,lete auvtou/ maqhtai. gene,sqai
Difficult.
Rating: - (indecisive)
Byz 01*, K, L, WS, D, 0141, 124, 157, 565, 579, 700, 1071, 1241, Maj, Tis, Bal
txt P66, P75, 01C2, A, B, M, X, Q, P, Y, 083, 0211, 0233, f1, f13, 22, 892, al,
Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co, Or
prwi< b, e, j, r1
mane
Lacuna: C, D, 33
B: no umlaut
The prw/ton makes good sense with respect to verse 43. First he finds Simon,
the other day Philip.
On the other hand the Byzantine reading "this, the first (nominated apostle)"
also makes sense and could be seen as the harder reading (so Zahn). But it is
also quite probable that the prw/toj has been adjusted to the case of the
ou-toj (so Weiss).
prwi< is probably a misreading of prw/ton or prw/toj. Note that we have a
possible h.t. case here: prw/ton to.n. If one ton has been omitted, prwi< would
be a possible reconstruction. It makes very good sense.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 20
NA27 John 1:42 h;gagen auvto.n pro.j to.n VIhsou/n evmble,yaj auvtw/| o`
VIhsou/j ei=pen\ su. ei= Si,mwn o` ui`o.j VIwa,nnou( su. klhqh,sh| Khfa/j( o]
e`rmhneu,etai Pe,troj
BYZ John 1:42 kai. h;gagen auvto.n pro.j to.n VIhsou/n evmble,yaj auvtw/| o`
VIhsou/j ei=pen Su. ei= Si,mwn o` ui`o.j VIwna/\ su. klhqh,sh| Khfa/j o]
e`rmhneu,etai Pe,troj
T&T #11
Byz A, BC2, X, D, Y, f1, f13, 579, Maj, (aur), c, q, 11A, vgmss, Sy, Trgmg
1241 reads VIwa,na. This has been confirmed by Klaus Witte from Muenster
from the film: T&T has 1241 for VIwna/. NA has it for VIwa,nna. Lake's collation
has correctly Iwana. Witte writes: "The first a is very blurred and should be
given with an underdot."
Lacuna: C, D
B: umlaut! (1351 A 6 R) VIwa,nou( su. klhqh,sh|
The A and the OU in VIwa,nou are not enhanced and a (minuscule) A is written on
top of the O, giving VIwna/.
Note that B always writes VIwa,nou with one Nu only.
Compare:
NA27 Matthew 16:17 avpokriqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtw/\| maka,rioj ei=(
Si,mwn Bariwna/( o[ti sa.rx kai. ai-ma ouvk avpeka,luye,n soi avllV o`
path,r mou o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j
Compare ch. 21:
NA27 John 21:15 {Ote ou=n hvri,sthsan le,gei tw/| Si,mwni Pe,trw| o`
VIhsou/j\ Si,mwn VIwa,nnou( avgapa/|j me ple,on tou,twn
BYZ John 21:15 {Ote ou=n hvri,sthsan le,gei tw/| Si,mwni Pe,trw| o` VIhsou/j
Si,mwn VIwna/( avgapa/|j me plei/o,n tou,twn
same in verses 16 and 17. In verse 17: VIwa,na 69, 1071
The reading VIwa,nna is interesting. Note that it's also the reading of the
Vulgate! VIwa,nna appears only twice in Lk:
NA27 Luke 8:3 kai. VIwa,nna gunh. Couza/
NA27 Luke 24:10 h=san de. h` Magdalhnh. Mari,a kai. VIwa,nna kai.
VIwa,nna is possibly also a scribal error by scribes reading the rare VIwna/ and
changing it to VIwa,nna.
NA27 John 21:17 le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ bo,ske ta. pro,bata, mou
omit B, C, WH, NA25, [Trg]
txt A, X, Q, Y, f13, Maj
omit o` VIhsou/j 01, D, W, f1, 33, 565, 1071, al, Lat, Sy-S, pbo, bo, [Trg] , Bal
(The omission of o` VIhsou/j is probably a conformation to immediate context.)
Compare also:
NA27 John 11:44 le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\
omit o`: P75, B, C*, [WH]
3:5
add o` B, L, N, U, f13, 33, 579, 1071, 1424, al
txt P66, P75, 01, A, WS, Q, Y, f1, Maj
12:12
omit o` 01, A, D, L, W, Y, f1, 33, 1241, Maj, L844
txt P66, P75, B, G, Q, f13, 579, 892S, 1424, al
13:21
omit o` P66*, 01, B, L
txt P66C, A, C, D, W, Q, Y, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Or
14:6
omit o` P66, 01, C*, L
txt A, B, CC3, D, W, Q, Y, f1, f13, 33, Maj
16:19
omit o` P5, B, L, W, pc
txt 01, D, f1, 33, 565, pc
ou=n A, Q, Y, f13, 579, Maj, L844
In the NA27 text of John the phrase o` VIhsou/j appears 115 times, whereas it
appears in Robinson's Majority text 153 times!
VIhsou/j without the article appears 76 times in NA27 (= 40%), but only 44 times
in the Majority text (= 22%).
In 01 o` VIhsou/j appears 109 times and VIhsou/j without the article 74 times
(40%).
In B o` VIhsou/j appears 80 times and VIhsou/j without the article 106 times
(57%).
In the Synoptics the ratio is only about 27% (VIhsou/j without the article).
On the one hand it is a well known phenomenon that the article is easily left out.
It is well known that B is rather unreliable with regard to articles and pronouns.
On the other hand it is also a well known phenomenon that the article has been
added to indicate the special importance of a person, i.e. it would be only natural
to add an article to VIhsou/j.
There are no clear internal rules to follow, except that later scribes probably
rather added the article.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 22
Minority reading:
NA27 John 1:50 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtw/\| o[ti ei=po,n soi o[ti
ei=do,n se u`poka,tw th/j sukh/j( pisteu,eij mei,zw tou,twn o;yh|
mei,zwn P75, M, X, Y, D, 063, 0211, 0233, f13pt, 2*, 28, 579, 1071, 1424,
al, L2211
mei,zona P66, 01, 0141, pc, Epiph, Chrys (D lacuna)
mei,zon PCvid, pc, c, vg ("maius")
Compare:
NA27 John 5:20 kai. mei,zona tou,twn dei,xei auvtw/| e;rga(
safe!
NA27 John 5:36 VEgw. de. e;cw th.n marturi,an mei,zw tou/ VIwa,nnou\
mei,zwn P66, A, B, E, G, M, N, W, L, Y, 063, f13, 33, 157, 579, 1071, 1241, al
mei,zon 69
mei,zona D, 1424, pc
txt mei,zw 01, L, K, P, Q, f1, 124, 565, Maj, WH
here: mei,zw accusative feminine singular !
It is quite probable that the rare form mei,zw has been changed in various ways.
T&T #13
txt P66, P75, 01, B, L, WS, 0141, 397, 579, 821, 1819, 2129, pc5,
Lat, Co, arm, Or
Compare:
avpV a;rti o;yesqe to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pou kaqh,menon
NA27 Matthew 26:64
evk dexiw/n th/j duna,mewj kai. evrco,menon evpi. tw/n nefelw/n tou/
ouvranou/
It is possible that the term has been omitted, because what is said did not
really happen "from now on".
The only reason for an addition is as a harmonization to Mt 26:64.
Rating: - (indecisive)
kai. oi=non ouvk ei=con o[ti sunetele,sqh o` oi=noj tou/ ga,mou\ ei=ta
01*, it(a, b, ff2, j, r1), Sy-Hmg, aeth, Tis
01 corrected by 01C1.
Lacuna: C, D, Sy-S and Sy-C
B: no umlaut
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 25
15. Difficult variant
Minority reading:
NA27 John 2:12 Meta. tou/to kate,bh eivj Kafarnaou.m auvto.j kai. h` mh,thr
auvtou/ kai. oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ kai. evkei/ e;meinan
ouv polla.j h`me,raj
B: no umlaut
T&T #15
1 kai. h` mh,thr auvtou/ kai. oi` avdelfoi. kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/
2 kai. h` mh,thr auvtou/ kai. oi` avdelfoi. kai. oi` maqhtai.
3 kai. h` mh,thr auvtou/ kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/
4 kai. h` mh,thr auvtou/ kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ kai. oi` avdelfoi.
5 kai. h` mh,thr auvtou/ kai. oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/
6 kai. h` mh,thr auvtou/ kai. oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/
7 kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ kai. h` mh,thr kai. oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/
8 kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ kai. oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/
1241 reads 8. This has been confirmed by Klaus Witte from Muenster from the
film. T&T have 1241 wrongly for Byz. NA does not list it. Lake's collation
correctly notes the omission of kai. h` mh,thr auvtou/.
083: According to Tischendorf it reads 2, IGNTP has it for 1.
IGNTP: ]
[ ]
[ ]
Not sure. T&T: "unleserlich" (unreadable).
avdelfoi. auvtou/ P66C, 01, A, WS, Q, f1, f13, 33, 565, 892, 1241, Maj, Lat, Sy
avdelfoi. P66*, P75, B, K, P, L, Y, 083, 0141, 0162, f13, 28, 821, 1071,
2718, al49, a, c, Or
Compare also:
NA27 John 20:17 poreu,ou de. pro.j tou.j avdelfou,j mou kai. eivpe. auvtoi/j\
omit mou: 01*, D, W, pc, e, bomss, IrLat
Rating: - (indecisive)
(retain the brackets)
TVU 26
16. Difficult variant
Minority reading:
NA27 John 2:15 kai. poih,saj frage,llion evk scoini,wn pa,ntaj evxe,balen
evk tou/ i`erou/ ta, te pro,bata kai. tou.j bo,aj( kai. tw/n kollubistw/n
evxe,ceen to. ke,rma kai. ta.j trape,zaj avne,treyen(
T&T #16
w`j frage,llion P66, P75, G, L, N, WS, X, 083?, 0141, 0162, f1, 22, 33, 397,
565, 821, 865, 892, 1010, 1241, 1293, 1819, 2129, al25,
Lat, Sy-Hmg, Sy-Pal, Oronce
quasi flagellum de sparto Olat 11A(ca. 800 CE), Chromatius of Aquileia(late 4th CE)
("broom, besom")
txt 01, A, B, D, Q, Y, f13, 579, 1071, Maj, l, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co, Or9 times
083: [
[ ] acc. to IGNTP.
staskaqhmenous
kaipoihsaswsfra
gellionekscoiniwn
This reconstruction makes a w`j quite probable.
But T&T have it for txt, without note! 083 is not noted in NA.
Metzger argues that some scribes would consider it inappropriate for Jesus to
use a real whip, thus "like a whip". It is on the other hand also possible that it is
an idiom.
An interesting mixture of witnesses.
The "de sparto" reading is interesting. Where did this originate? Bishop
Chromatius notes it in one of his sermons:
"Cum ingressus fuisset in templo Iudaeorum Dominus et Salvator noster ut uidisset
negotiationem illicitam exerceri, id est uendentes oues et boues et columbas et nummularios
sedentes, ut audiuit in praesenti lectione dilectio uestra, flagellum fecit quasi de sparto et
eiecit eos omnes, et cathedras uendentium euertit, dicens as eos: Domus mea domus orationis
uocabitur; uos autem fecistis illam domum negotiationis. Iudaei immemores " (IV, 1-9)
Compare:
N. Clayton Croy, "The Messianic Whippersnapper: Did Jesus Use a Whip on
People in the Temple (John 2:15)?", JBL 128 (2009) 55568
(He is not discussing the textcritical question, but the general one, if Jesus
used a whip and for what.)
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 27
17. Difficult variant:
Minority reading:
NA27 John 2:15 kai. poih,saj frage,llion evk scoini,wn pa,ntaj evxe,balen
evk tou/ i`erou/ ta, te pro,bata kai. tou.j bo,aj( kai. tw/n kollubistw/n
evxe,ceen to. ke,rma kai. ta.j trape,zaj avne,treyen(
T&T #17
ta, ke,rmata
P66C, P75, B, L, Wsup, X, 083, 0141, 0162, 33, 213, 397, 579, 821, 865, pc,
NA25, WH, Weiss, Trg, SBL
txt P66*, 01, A, N, Q, Y, (f1), f13, (565), 892, 1071, 1241, Maj, Gre
Lacuna: C, D
B: no umlaut
Either "collective singular" to. ke,rma or plural ta, ke,rmata (like English "the
money" or "the coins"). The word appears only here in the Greek Bible.
Internally it appears more probable that the singular has been changed into the
plural as a conformation to immediate context.
Externally the plural is clearly to be preferred.
Rating: - (indecisive)
Byz P66, 01C2, AC, P, WS, X, D, Q, Y, 050, 083, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 565, Maj,
Lat(aur, c, f, ff2, l, vg), Sy, Orpt, Weiss
e`auto.n e`autoi/j 33
txt 01*, A*, B, L, Y*, W*, 700, 1071, al, it(a, b, e, j, q, r1), Orpt
e`auto.n is more clear than auvto.n (note WH: au`to.n). There is no reason for a
change from e`auto.n to auvto.n.
The omission is probably due to a presumed dittography or a misunderstanding
as "he did not believe them".
Zahn (Comm. Jo) notes: "pisteu,ein already, with dative of person and
accusative of case, is rare (Lk 16:11), but pisteu,ein e`auto.n tini is almost
never heard of."
T&T #22
01 corrected by 01C2.
Lacuna: C, D
B: no umlaut
Compare verse 3:
NA27 John 3:3 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtw/|\ avmh.n avmh.n le,gw soi(
eva.n mh, tij gennhqh/| a;nwqen( ouv du,natai ivdei/n th.n basilei,an tou/
qeou/
Probably derived from the baptismal liturgy. basilei,an tw/n ouvranw/n seems
to be the earlier form. Probably John modified his source.
1 o[ti evk th/j sarko.j evgennh,qh 161*, it(a, b, e, ff2, j, l, r1, 11A),
quia de carne natum est vgmss, Sy-C, Tert
quoniam (b, r1)
Lacuna: C, D
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 4:24 pneu/ma o` qeo,j( kai. tou.j proskunou/ntaj auvto.n evn
pneu,mati kai. avlhqei,a| dei/ proskunei/n
NA27 John 1:13 oi] ouvk evx ai`ma,twn ouvde. evk qelh,matoj sarko.j ouvde. evk
qelh,matoj avndro.j avllV evk qeou/ evgennh,qhsan
A Western variation.
Perhaps these additions were inspired from Jo 4:24 and 1:13.
Ambrose (4th CE, de Spir. 3:11) accused the Arians of having cut out the phrase
"quia Deus spiritus est".
tou/ u[datoj kai. 01, it(a, aur, b, e, ff2, r1, 9A, 11A), vgms, Sy-S, Sy-C
Compare:
NA27 John 3:5 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j\ avmh.n avmh.n le,gw soi( eva.n mh, tij
gennhqh/| evx u[datoj kai. pneu,matoj( ouv du,natai eivselqei/n eivj th.n
basilei,an tou/ qeou/
T&T #23
txt P66, P75, 01, B, L, T, WS, 083, 086, 33, 1010, 1241, 1293, pc5, Co, Eus
omit w;n: A*
Lacuna: C, D, X
B: no umlaut
eivj auvto.n mh. avpo,lhtai avllV e;cei D, Y, f13, 1071, 1241, Maj,
Lat, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H
eivj auvto.n mh. avpo,lhtai avllV e;ch| P63(c.500), G, K, P, U, D, Q
evp auvto.n mh. avpo,lhtai avllV e;ch| A, 1459
auvtw/| mh. avpo,lhtai avllV e;cei 579
P36 reads: ] e;ch| zwh.n. Space considerations make it impossible to read the
long text.
Lacuna: C, D, X
B: no umlaut
It is probable that the text has been changed to conform it to the next verse
(so also Weiss).
John uses pisteu,w + eivj 34 times, but never evn elsewhere. In the Gospels it
only appears in Mk 1:15:
NA27 Mark 1:15 kai. le,gwn o[ti peplh,rwtai o` kairo.j kai. h;ggiken h`
basilei,a tou/ qeou/\ metanoei/te kai. pisteu,ete evn tw/| euvaggeli,w|
There is no reason for an omission, except possibly a change to avoid repetition.
It is possible that the use of evn here also changes the meaning, that it does not
mean "who believes in him, has eternal life", but "who believes, in him has eternal
life".
Compare context.
NA27 John 3:17 ouv ga.r avpe,steilen o` qeo.j to.n ui`o.n eivj to.n ko,smon i[na
kri,nh| to.n ko,smon( avllV i[na swqh/| o` ko,smoj diV auvtou/
NA27 John 3:19 au[th de, evstin h` kri,sij o[ti to. fw/j evlh,luqen eivj to.n
ko,smon kai. hvga,phsan oi` a;nqrwpoi ma/llon to. sko,toj h' to. fw/j\ h=n
ga.r auvtw/n ponhra. ta. e;rga
txt P36(6th CE), P63(c. 500), P66, P75, A, L, Q, Y, 083, 086, 0141, f1, f13, 33,
Maj, Lat, [Trg]
vero b
enim aur
autem a, c, d, f, q, r1, vg
Lacuna: C, D, X
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Luke 12:47-48 VEkei/noj de. o` dou/loj o` gnou.j to. qe,lhma tou/ kuri,ou
auvtou/ 48 o` de. mh. gnou,j( poih,saj de. a;xia plhgw/n darh,setai ovli,gaj
safe!
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 36
Minority reading:
NA27 John 3:20 pa/j ga.r o` fau/la pra,sswn misei/ to. fw/j kai. ouvk
e;rcetai pro.j to. fw/j( i[na mh. evlegcqh/| ta. e;rga auvtou/ \
T&T #26
o[ti ponhra, evstin P66, L, N, Q, L, Y, f13a, 33, 213, 397, 597, 892C,
"quoniam mala sunt" 1010, 1071, 1241, 1293, al100, r1, 35, 47, 48, Co
f13b,c omit!
Lacuna: C, D, X
B: no umlaut
Compare also:
ouv du,natai o` ko,smoj misei/n u`ma/j( evme. de. misei/( o[ti evgw.
NA27 John 7:7
marturw/ peri. auvtou/ o[ti ta. e;rga auvtou/ ponhra, evstin
There is no reason for an omission. The addition is only natural from the
previous verse.
T&T #27
txt P75, 01C2, A, B, L, N, WS, D, Y, 070, 086, 33, 157, 213, 397, 579, 799,
892, 1010, 1241, 1293, 1424, 1819, 2129, 2561, 2718, 2786, Maj,
Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, sapt, arm, WH, NA25
VIoudai,ouj 0211
VIoudai,wn P66, 01*, F, G, Y, Q, LC, 0141, f1, f13, 565, 597, 821, 1071, al200,
Latt(incl. d), Sy-C, sapt, bo, Or, WHmg
D has a lacuna here, but d is present and reads "IUDAEOS" = plural, same as 01.
So it is quite probable that D reads so, too.
083 reads meta. VIoulac. in IGNTP, but T&T have it for txt.
Sy-S: Burkitt writes (Evangelion Intro, p. 311): "The plural points are not legible
in Sy-S, so that it is impossible to discover whether Sy-S reads meta.
VIoudai,wn with Sy-C or meta. VIoudai,ou with Sy-vg and the majority of Greek
manuscripts."
Lacuna: C, D, X
B: no umlaut
The whole sentence is not really connected with the preceding or the following.
Possibly a left-over from a source? One should note that after the speech of
John (3:27-36), the narrative continuous equally awkward with 4:1
(VIhsou/j/Ku,rioj).
The singular VIoudai,ou is very unusual and does not appear in the other Gospels.
It would be only natural to change it to the plural. Weiss thinks that VIoudai,wn
is a conformation to the plural of tw/n maqhtw/n.
The conjectures make good sense. That an error arose accidentally is very
unlikely. The explanation goes like this:
1. original reading: metai_ou(problem: this nomen sacrum is unknown)
2. dittography: metaiouiou
3. correction: metaioudaiou
This scenario is quite improbable.
It has been suggested by the commentators that VIhsou/ was the original
reading, but that its intended meaning (= tw/n VIhsou/) was not understood. A
dispute between the disciples of John and Jesus was considered 'insolent' and
the change has been made to VIoudai,ou or VIoudai,wn.
Pryor suggests that the sources of the evangelist "did refer to Jesus, and that
for his own theological reasons he decided to change VIhsou/ to VIoudai,ou. [...]
the evangelist wanted to avoid the merest hint of controversy between even the
disciples of John and (disciples) of Jesus. [... There is] similarity between our
verse and the synoptic tradition found in Mk 2:18 and Mt 9:14 [the question
about fasting]. Lindlars drew our attention to the fact that in both the synoptic
(Mk 2:19/Mt 9:15) and the Johannine narratives (3:29) the answer includes the
bridal imagery. All of this makes it tempting to believe that we are dealing here
with some common tradition."
T. Nicklas asks the interesting question, why, if tou//tw/n VIhsou/ was original,
the article has been omitted in the modification (= txt). He has no explanation.
In John "the Jews" is the normal term and appears 65 times, always with the
article! Pryor writes: "Returning to the question of whether the evangelist had
before him VIhsou/ or tw/n VIhsou/, what possibly tips the balance in favor of
VIhsou/ is the likelihood that if he had found tw/n VIhsou/ in the inherited
tradition, the evangelist would have inserted his favorite tw/n VIoudai,wn in its
place."
Nicklas also notes the geographical problem. Jesus is baptizing eivj th.n
VIoudai,an gh/n, whereas John is evn Aivnw.n evggu.j tou/ Salei,m.
Compare:
W. Bowyer "Critical Conjectures", 1782, p. 165-66
O. Holtzmann "Das Johannesevangelium", 1887, p. 210
C. Bouquet "St. John 3:25 A suggestion" JTS 27 (1926) 181-2
J.W. Pryor "John the Baptist and Jesus: Tradition and Text in John 3:25"
JSNT 66 (1997) 15-26
T. Nicklas "Notiz zu Jo 3:25" ETL 76 (2000) 133-35
BYZ John 3:27 avpekri,qh VIwa,nnhj kai. ei=pen Ouv du,natai a;nqrwpoj
lamba,nein ouvde.n eva.n mh. h=| dedome,non auvtw/| evk tou/ ouvranou/
Byz 01, N, A, D, WS, D, Y, 083, 0141, f1, 565, 579, 597, 799, 821, 892, 1010,
1241, 1293, 1424, 1819, 2129, 2718, Maj, NA25, WH, Trg, Tis, Bal
083 reads: ]
[ ] acc. to IGNTP.
Lacuna: C, X
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 5:19 ouv du,natai o` ui`o.j poiei/n avfV e`autou/ ouvde.n eva.n mh, ti
ble,ph| to.n pate,ra poiou/nta\
avfV e`autou/ ouvde. e]n P66, f1, 124, 565
NA27 John 5:30 Ouv du,namai evgw. poiei/n avpV evmautou/ ouvde,n\
ouvde. e]n P66, G, pc
NA27 John 15:5 o[ti cwri.j evmou/ ouv du,nasqe poiei/n ouvde,n
ouvde. e]n P75, B (P66 lacuna! Space slightly in favor of ouvde,n)
NA27 John 21:3 kai. evn evkei,nh| th/| nukti. evpi,asan ouvde,n
ouvde. e]n C*, W
avfV e`autou/ ouvde.n is certainly a conformation to 5:19 (or 5:30 and 8:28). It is
interesting that at most occurrences of ouvde,n in John, there is a variant ouvde.
e]n. The question, if this stylistic feature is original to John or has been
introduced later is difficult to decide.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 39
NA27 John 3:28 auvtoi. u`mei/j moi marturei/te o[ti ei=pon o[ti ouvk eivmi.
evgw. o` Cristo,j( avllV o[ti avpestalme,noj eivmi. e;mprosqen evkei,nou
BYZ John 3:28 auvtoi. u`mei/j marturei/te o[ti ei=pon Ouvk eivmi. evgw. o`
Cristo,j avll o[ti VApestalme,noj eivmi. e;mprosqen evkei,nou
Byz P75, 01, 788, 828, 2, 28, 1342, 1424, Maj-part[E, F, H, M, V, G, W, 047],
pc, aur, sapt
txt P66, A, B, D, K, P, L, N, WS, D, Q, Y, 083, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 157, 565, 579,
700, 892, 1071, (1241), Maj-part[G, S, U, Y, L], Lat, Sy, sapt, bo
auvtoi. u`mei/j evmoi. f1, 124, 565
auvtoi. de. u`mei/j moi 1241
Metzger suggests that the omission might be accidental, "arising perhaps from
the succession of syllables beginning with the same letter."
The question is if it makes any difference, if the disciples are witnesses
especially for him or just in general.
omit: 01, A, D, L, WS, D, Q, Y, 086, 0141, f1, 33, 565, 579, 1071, Maj,
Lat, NA25, Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal, SBL
o[ti P66, P75, 700, pc, it(aur, (e), f, ff2, l), Sy-S, Sy-C, Bois
evgw. B, (sic! no omission of the second evgw.), [WH]
u`mi/n f13, pc, a
083:
o[ti evgw. ei=pon ouvk eivmi evgw. 083vid (acc. to Tis)
martureite oti e
ipon 3-5 ouk ei 083 (reconstruction by IGNTP)
mi egw o cC all oti I think this is a bit unusual, to have the Iota on the new line.
Lacuna: C, X
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 1:50 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtw/\| o[ti ei=po,n soi o[ti
ei=do,n se u`poka,tw th/j sukh/j( pisteu,eij mei,zw tou,twn o;yh|
NA27 John 3:7 mh. qauma,sh|j o[ti ei=po,n soi\ dei/ u`ma/j gennhqh/nai
a;nwqen o[ti 2, 579
NA27 John 6:41 VEgo,gguzon ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi peri. auvtou/ o[ti ei=pen\
evgw, eivmi o` a;rtoj o` kataba.j evk tou/ ouvranou/( o[ti 2
NA27 John 7:36 ti,j evstin o` lo,goj ou-toj o]n ei=pen \ zhth,sete, me kai.
ouvc eu`rh,sete, me( o[ti P66
NA27 John 8:22 e;legon ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi\ mh,ti avpoktenei/ e`auto,n( o[ti
le,gei\ o[pou evgw. u`pa,gw u`mei/j ouv du,nasqe evlqei/n
o[ti U, 2, 157
NA27 John 10:36 o]n o` path.r h`gi,asen kai. avpe,steilen eivj to.n ko,smon
u`mei/j le,gete o[ti blasfhmei/j( o[ti ei=pon\ ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ eivmi
It is possible that the word has been added to make the sentence structure
more clear. The combination of very good (P66, P75, B) with almost Byzantine
witnesses (f13, 700) is strange.
The B reading arose probably from an attempt to move the evgw. directly after
ei=pon but then the scribe forgot to delete it after eivmi. (so Weiss).
Royse (Scribal Habits, 2008, p. 506) sees the addition of o[ti "as an example of
the scribal avoidance of asyndeton". P66 similarly adds o[ti after ei=pen at Jo
7:36. 700 adds o[ti after ge,graptai in Mt 4:4 and after le,gontej in Mk 5:12.
So this may be a scribal tendency.
T&T #30
txt P36(6th CE), P66, 01C2, A, B, L, WS, D, Q, Y, 083, 086, 0141, f13, 33, 157,
213, 397, (579), 799, 821, 1071, 1241, Maj,
Lat(aur, c, f, q, vg), Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, bo, Or, Aug, WH, NA25
579: omits due to h.t. evstin (2) - evstin (3). So, implicitly, 579 can be counted
for txt. Checked at the film.
Lacuna: C, X, 865
B: no umlaut
Western non-interpolation
On the other hand it is equally possible that the words have been deleted to
avoid repetition (so Aland). Since a repetitive style is typical for John, the txt
reading is slightly more probable.
Weiss (Textkritik, p. 185) thinks that the words have been omitted to create
with the remaining words a subject for the next verse. Note that the Byzantine
text adds a kai. then in verse 32! This has already noted by Tischendorf. Only
with a kai. the longer reading is tolerable (so Zahn).
Rating: 2? (NA probably original)
(brackets ok)
TVU 42
22. Difficult variant
NA27 John 3:34 o]n ga.r avpe,steilen o` qeo.j ta. r`h,mata tou/ qeou/ lalei/( ouv
ga.r evk me,trou di,dwsin to. pneu/ma
BYZ John 3:34 o]n ga.r avpe,steilen o` qeo.j ta. r`h,mata tou/ qeou/ lalei/ ouv
ga.r evk me,trou di,dwsin o` qeo.j to. pneu/ma
txt P36vid(6th CE), P66, P75, 01, BC2, C*, L, WS, 083, 0141, f1, 33, 565, 579,
1241, pc, it(b, e, f, l)
di,dwsin B*, pc
In B (p. 1353 B 40) the words to. pneu/ma were originally omitted. They have
been added in uncial in the left margin and an insertion sign (./.) notes the point
after di,dwsin. It is not clear when the words have been added, the letters are
not faded and no original ink can be seen. Tischendorf assigns this correction to
B2 (= before enhancement).
NA notes Origen for the txt reading. Ehrman writes: "remove Or". According to
him, the only evidence for this shorter reading derives from unreliable materials
(catenae and Latin references). Compare also Zahn (Comm. Jo).
P36: The reconstruction is difficult. IGNTP gives:
oqstarhmatatou]qu
laleiougarekmetrou]didw
sintopnaophragapa]to
uionkaipantaded]wken
enthceiriautouop]iste
The red letters are doubtful (underdots).
Lacuna: X
B: no umlaut
Normally to. pneu/ma is taken here as accusative object, given by God. It has
also been argued that it is Jesus who gives the Spirit. On the other hand Zahn
thinks (Einfuehrung II, 1907, p. 567) that the main reason for a change here
was that the scribes did not recognize to. pneu/ma as subject.
to. pneu/ma as subject appears several times in John, but always in the first
position of a sentence or phrase. On the other hand forms of di,dwmi are
followed by the subject in John (4:5, 5:36, 6:37, 11:22, 11:57, 13:3, 18:11).
It is also possible to think of ouv as ou-: "whose spirit gives by measure" (to.
pneu/ma = nominative). But from context one should prefer the negation:
34 "for he gives the Spirit without measure.
35 ... and has placed all things in his hands."
This is more an exegetical question, because the early copies didn't have
accents.
When one comes to lalei/ one would expect lalei/n at first, but no such
variant is recorded:
o]n ga.r avpe,steilen o` qeo.j ta. r`h,mata tou/ qeou/ lalei/n
"for whom God has sent to speak the words of God"
Carl W. Conrad on the b-greek mailing list translates (Dec 29, 1999):
"The One whom God has sent speaks God's words, since he does not give the
Spirit in measured amounts."
Rating: - (indecisive)
T&T #32
Byz P66C, P75, A, B, C, L, WS, Y, D, 083, 0141, f13, 33, 157, 213, 397, 579,
799, 821, 1071, 1424, Maj1250, f, q, 27, 33, Sy-S, Sy-Hmg, sa, boms,
NA25, WH, Gre, Weiss, Trg, Bal, Scrivener
047: This is already in von Soden and is confirmed by Ulrich Schmid from the
IGNTP collations.
Lacuna: X, 865
B: no umlaut
Preliminary remark: The verses 1-3 look awkward. Many commentators see here
an unskillful editing of a source text. JH Bernhard (1928): "on purely linguistic
grounds verses 1-3 are a monstrosity."
On the other hand "Lord" could have been changed to "Jesus" to avoid two
different subjects. It is also possible that the more unusual term "Lord" has
been changed into the common "Jesus".
WH: "The Western change is doubtless due to the apparent awkwardness of the
combination of o` ku,rioj o` VIhsou/j: but the difficulty lies rather in the
absence of any perceptible force in the double naming; the most probable
explanation being that o[ti is 'recitative' and that VIhsou/j VIwa,nnhj are in
oratio recta as the very words of the report." "On the whole the text of the
verse cannot be accepted as certainly free from doubt."
The awkwardness of the double subject is removed if one considers the o[ti-
phrase as direct speech, as WH suggest:
"Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, 'Jesus is making and
baptizing more disciples than John' "
It has been also conjectured that originally no direct subject was expressed and
that scribes subsequently added either "Jesus" or "Lord". The last speaker from
3:27-36 was John. It is also possible that some early editor inserted or changed
something in verses 1-3 and this resulted in the clumsy style.
Compare:
G. van Belle "Ku,rioj or VIhsou/j in John 4:1?" in Festschrift Delobel, 2002, p.
159 174 [who argues for ku,rioj on contextual, stylistic and theological
grounds.]
Rating: 1? (NA probably wrong)
T&T #33
omit: A, B*, G, L, WS, G, Y, 0211, 397, 579, 892, 1071, 1424*, al, Trgmg
txt P66, P75, 01, BC1, C, D, D, Q, 083, 086, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 157, 213, 565,
799, 821, 1424C, Maj, Latt, Sy, Co, NA25
WH have h' in brackets.
In B (p. 1353 C 9) the H is added above the line. It is not clear when the letter
was added. Tischendorf assigns it to B2. But B1 cannot be excluded.
1424: H is squeezed in between the two words.
Lacuna: X, 865
B: no umlaut
Hort writes: "It remains no easy matter however to explain either how the verse
as it stands can be reasonably understood without h', or how such a mere slip as
the loss of h after ei should have so much excellent Greek authority, more
especially as the absence of h' increases the obvious no less than the real
difficulty of the verse. The dissent of the versions may easily have a connection
with their prevailing support of the Western reading; that is o` VIhsou/j and h'
may have come in together: the authority of the combination of o` ku,rioj with
h' consists of [actualized:] P66, P75, BC, C, f13, 33, 157, Maj, a group of mainly
Syrian complexion [not correct anymore today]. On the whole the text of the
verse cannot be accepted as certainly free from doubt."
T&T #34
txt P66, P75, 01, BC2, C, D, L, M, WS, Q, 083, 086, 0211, f1, f13, 33, 213, 397,
565, 892, 1071, al120, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, Co, arm
In B (p. 1353 C 14) the word has been added in the right margin and an insertion
sign (./.) after avph/lqen indicates the point. Tischendorf assigns the addition to
B2.
Lacuna: X, 865
B: no umlaut
Parallels:
NA27 Matthew 4:12 VAkou,saj de. o[ti VIwa,nnhj paredo,qh avnecw,rhsen eivj
th.n Galilai,an
NA27 Mark 1:14 Meta. de. to. paradoqh/nai to.n VIwa,nnhn h=lqen o` VIhsou/j
eivj th.n Galilai,an khru,sswn to. euvagge,lion tou/ qeou/
NA27 Luke 4:14 Kai. u`pe,streyen o` VIhsou/j evn th/| duna,mei tou/ pneu,matoj
eivj th.n Galilai,an kai. fh,mh evxh/lqen kaqV o[lhj th/j pericw,rou peri.
auvtou/
u`postre,fw "return, turn back"
The variant is difficult to explain. There is no reason for an omission. The word
could have been added, because in ch. 1-2 Jesus was already in Galilea (so
Weiss).
Zahn (Comm. Jo) thinks that the pa,lin does not refer to a second journey, but
simply says that it is a return to his home after leaving it for Passah.
Rating: - (indecisive)
Western non-interpolation
T&T #36
txt P66, 01C2, A, C, D, L, N, WS, XS, Q, Y, 050, 083, 086, 0141, f1, f13, 33,
213, 397, 565, 579, 799, 821, 865, 1071, Maj,
Latt, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, sa, bo, Or, WHmg
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 49
NA27 John 4:15 le,geipro.j auvto.n h` gunh,\ ku,rie( do,j moi tou/to to. u[dwr(
i[na mh. diyw/ mhde. die,rcwmai evnqa,de avntlei/n
BYZ John 4:15 le,gei pro.j auvto.n h` gunh, Ku,rie do,j moi tou/to to. u[dwr
i[na mh. diyw/ mhde. e;rcomai evnqa,de avntlei/n
Byz 01C2, A, C, D, L, N, WS, XS, D, Q, Y, 086, 0141, f1, f13, 565, 579, 892,
1241, Maj, Trg
Compare:
NA27 John 4:4 :Edei de. auvto.n die,rcesqai dia. th/j Samarei,aj
WH (304, p. 226):
"die,rcwmai is here used in its idiomatic sense "come all the way", which
expresses the woman's sense of her often repeated toil. Being commonly used in
other senses, the word was easily misunderstood and assumed to be
inappropriate; and the change would be helped by the facility with which one of
two similar consecutive syllables drops out."
To the contrary Burgon suggests that die,rcwmai is accounted for by the final
syllable de of mhde..
The word appears nowhere else in Jo, except 4:4. The support is very limited.
txt P66, P75, 01, A, C, D, L, WS, XS, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj, Orpt
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 4:18
pe,nte ga.r a;ndraj e;scej kai. nu/n o]n e;ceij ouvk e;stin sou avnh,r\ safe!
The B reading is the more unusual (emphasis?) and agrees with the order in 4:18.
On the other hand this does not really explain the universal support for the txt
reading.
Weiss (Com. John) thinks that the B reading is a conformation to 4:18.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 51
Minority reading:
NA27 John 4:25 le,gei auvtw/| h` gunh,\ oi=da o[ti Messi,aj e;rcetai o`
lego,menoj cristo,j\ o[tan e;lqh| evkei/noj( avnaggelei/ h`mi/n a[panta
ivdou. Sy-S
txt P66*, P75, 01*, A, B, C, D, WS, XS, D, Q, Y, 086, 0141, f1, 565, 579,
Maj, Lat, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, pbo, Orpt
Compare context:
NA27 John 4:22 u`mei/jproskunei/te o] ouvk oi;date\ h`mei/j proskunou/men o]
oi;damen( o[ti h` swthri,a evk tw/n VIoudai,wn evsti,n
Compare:
NA27 John 5:32 a;lloj evsti.n o` marturw/n peri. evmou/( kai. oi=da o[ti avlhqh,j
evstin h` marturi,a h]n marturei/ peri. evmou/
oi;date 01*, D, 124, pc, L547, L1016, a, aur, d, e, q, Sy-C, arm, geo1
oi;damen 1424, pc
The full support is in Bois only! The Q reading is in SQE, Swanson, Vogels and
von Soden. Tatian and Sy-S are also in Merck.
L253 is given in the IGNTP Byzantine text of John.
Lacuna: X
B: no umlaut
tre,cw (aor. e;dramon, ptc. dramw,n) "run, speed on, make progress"
Compare:
NA27 Matthew 28:8 Kai. avpelqou/sai tacu. avpo. tou/ mnhmei,ou meta. fo,bou
kai. cara/j mega,lhj e;dramon avpaggei/lai toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/
NA27 Mark 5:6 kai. ivdw.n to.n VIhsou/n avpo. makro,qen e;dramen kai.
proseku,nhsen auvtw/|
NA27 Luke 24:12 ~O de. Pe,troj avnasta.j e;dramen evpi. to. mnhmei/on
NA27 John 20:2 tre,cei ou=n kai. e;rcetai pro.j Si,mwna Pe,tron
NA27 John 20:4 e;trecon de. oi` du,o o`mou/\
A Tatianism?
Romanos Melodos is said to have used the Diatessaron (Petersen).
The Q reading is interesting, because such an almost singular support by Q is
rare. Possibly the versions are representing this Greek form. But since this is
quite a self suggesting variant, it is probable that the versions independently
invented this reading.
T&T #40
T&T #42
a] evpoi,hsa
01, B, C*, (579), Orpt, NA25, WH, Weiss, Trgmg, Tis, Bal
o[sa a] 579, 2437
txt P66, P75, A, CC3, D, L, Wsup, XS, Q, Y, 086, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 213, 397,
565, 821, 865, 1071, 1241, Maj, Orpt
B: no umlaut
Following context:
NA27 John 4:39 VEk de. th/j po,lewj evkei,nhj polloi. evpi,steusan eivj auvto.n
tw/n Samaritw/n dia. to.n lo,gon th/j gunaiko.j marturou,shj o[ti ei=pe,n
moi pa,nta a] evpoi,hsa
a] evpoi,hsa P75, 01, B, C*, L, 083, 2786, pc
o[sa evpoi,hsa P66, A, CC3, D, WS, XS, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 213, 397, 579,
799, 821, 865, 1071, 1241, Maj
NA27 John 4:45 o[te ou=n h=lqen eivj th.n Galilai,an( evde,xanto auvto.n oi`
Galilai/oi pa,nta e`wrako,tej o[sa evpoi,hsen evn ~Ierosolu,moij evn th/|
e`orth/|( kai. auvtoi. ga.r h=lqon eivj th.n e`orth,n
a] evpoi,hsen 01*, D, 083, Maj
o[sa evpoi,hsen P66, P75, 01C2, A, B, C, L, N, WS, Q, Y, 086, 0141, f1, f13, 33,
565, 579, 892, 1071, 1241, al
It is possible that a] has been changed into o[sa to avoid the double a: pa,nta a].
It can cause confusion in copying and in reading out. But in several of the
examples above a double a appears without variation.
Strange.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 54
Minority reading:
NA27 John 4:35 ouvc u`mei/j le,gete o[ti e;ti tetra,mhno,j evstin kai. o`
qerismo.j e;rcetai
omit: P75, D, L, S, XS, P, W, 047, 086vid, 118, f13, 28, 1241, L844*, pm,
d, Sy-C, Orpt
o[ti to. K*
txt P66, 01, A, B, C, KC, Ws, D, Q, Y, 083, 0141, f1, 33, 157, 565, 579,
700, 1071, 1424, Maj, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, Co, arm, Orpt
Lacuna: X
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Mark 8:17 kai. gnou.j le,gei auvtoi/j\ ti, dialogi,zesqe o[ti a;rtouj ouvk
e;cete ou;pw noei/te ouvde. suni,ete pepwrwme,nhn e;cete th.n kardi,an
u`mw/n
BYZ Mark 8:17 kai. gnou.j o` VIhsou/j le,gei auvtoi/j Ti, dialogi,zesqe o[ti
a;rtouj ouvk e;cete ou;pw noei/te ouvde. suni,ete e;ti pepwrwme,nhn e;cete
th.n kardi,an u`mw/n
Byz A, K, P, 157, 700, 1071, Maj, f, l, vg, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H
txt P45vid, 01, B, C, D, L, N, W, D, (Q), 0143vid, f1, f13, 28, 33, (565), 579,
892*, 1241, pc, it, Co
NA27 Luke 22:37 le,gw ga.r u`mi/n o[ti tou/to to. gegramme,non dei/
telesqh/nai evn evmoi,( to,\ kai. meta. avno,mwn evlogi,sqh\ kai. ga.r to. peri.
evmou/ te,loj e;cei
BYZ Luke 22:37 le,gw ga.r u`mi/n o[ti e;ti tou/to to. gegramme,non dei/
telesqh/nai evn evmoi, to. Kai. meta. avno,mwn evlogi,sqh\ kai. ga.r ta. peri.
evmou/ te,loj e;cei
Byz K, P, N, Q, Y, f13, 565, 700, 1071, 1342, 1424, Maj, Lat, Sy
txt 01, A, B, D, H, L, Q, T, W, X, f1, 157, 579, 892, 1241, 2542C, L844, pc8,
b, d, f, r1, Co
NA27 Romans 5:8 suni,sthsin de. th.n e`autou/ avga,phn eivj h`ma/j o` qeo,j(
o[ti e;ti a`martwlw/n o;ntwn h`mw/n Cristo.j u`pe.r h`mw/n avpe,qanen
omit: 131, 460, 618, 1836*, 2147
Difficult.
The support for the omission is not coherent. It appears probable that the
omission is an attempt to avoid the awkward o[ti e;ti.
A. Pallis (Notes, 1926) writes: "Read a;rti for e;ti. Now is the fourth month of
the year (counting from springtime), and the harvest therefore is at hand. No
satisfactory sense can be elicited with e;ti."
A question of punctuation:
"look around you, and see how the fields are ripe for harvesting.
36 The reaper is already receiving wages ..."
"look around you, and see how the fields are ripe for harvesting already.
36 The reaper is receiving wages ..."
plhqu.j Q
Compare context:
NA27 John 4:39 VEk de. th/j po,lewj evkei,nhj polloi. evpi,steusan eivj
auvto.n tw/n Samaritw/n dia. to.n lo,gon th/j gunaiko.j marturou,shj o[ti
ei=pe,n moi pa,nta a] evpoi,hsa
Compare also:
LXX 4 Maccabees 2:6 kai,toi o[te mh. evpiqumei/n ei;rhken h`ma/j o` no,moj
polu. ple,on pei,saimV a'n u`ma/j o[ti tw/n evpiqumiw/n kratei/n du,natai o`
logismo,j w[sper kai. tw/n kwlutikw/n th/j dikaiosu,nhj paqw/n
In fact, since the law has told us not to covet, I could prove to you all the more that reason is able to
control desires. Just so it is with the emotions that hinder one from justice.
Interesting variation.
The text reading is a progression from verse 39. "Many" believed the woman,
but "many more" believed Jesus. The Latin readings may be best explained as
mistranslations of the complex pollw/| plei,ouj. The P75 reading can be either
a subconscious slip or a deliberate change. There is no reason why the whole
tradition should have changed this reading.
The German literal translation "Mnchener Neues Testament" has this reading:
"Und (um) vieles mehr glaubten sie"
For the Q reading compare:
Mark 3:7-8 kai. polu. plh/qoj h=lqon pro.j auvto,n
Luke 23:27 VHkolou,qei de. auvtw/| polu. plh/qoj
Byz A, CC3, D, L, XS, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 565, 579, 1071, Maj,
d, e, f, q, 27, 33, Sy-P, Sy-H, bopt
txt P66, P75, 01, B, C*, WS, 083?, pc, Lat, Sy-C, sa, bopt, ac2, arm, Or
083 reads: [ ]
43 [ acc. to IGNTP
IGNTP list it for txt without reservation. Probable, but not sure.
Lacuna: X, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Luke 2:11 o[ti evte,cqh u`mi/n sh,meron swth.r o[j evstin cristo.j
ku,rioj evn po,lei Daui,d
Compare context:
NA27 John 4:25 le,gei auvtw/| h` gunh,\ oi=da o[ti Messi,aj e;rcetai o`
lego,menoj cristo,j\
NA27 John 4:29 deu/te i;dete a;nqrwpon o]j ei=pe,n moi pa,nta o[sa evpoi,hsa(
mh,ti ou-to,j evstin o` cristo,j
A natural addition.
There is no reason for an omission.
T&T #43
Byz A, N, XS, D, Q, Y, f1, 124, 33, 397, 799, 821, 865, Maj,
aur, c, vg, Sy-P, Sy-Hmg, Vogels
omit evkei/qen: S, Q, al38
txt P66, P75, 01, B, C, D, WS, 083, 0141, f13, 892, 1241, pc20, it, Sy-C, Co, Or
Compare:
NA27 Mark 1:35 Kai. prwi> e;nnuca li,an avnasta.j evxh/lqen kai. avph/lqen
eivj e;rhmon to,pon kavkei/ proshu,ceto
evxh/lqen B, 28*, 565, pc20, samss, bopt
avph/lqen W, pc3, it, Sy-P
The words could have been omitted as being redundant, note the similar omission
at Mk 1:35!
On the other hand they could have been added to create a more clear sentence
structure. It is possible that the words have been added from 4:3.
Weiss (Jo Com.) notes that the addition removes the terseness of the
connection of evxh/lqen with eivj.
Rating: 2? (NA probably original)
T&T #44
P45: T.C Skeat makes a reconstruction of the fragments (Hermathena, 1991) and
from space calculations it clearly must have some longer addition after
u`ph,nthsan auvtw/.| IGNTP agrees.
Lacuna: X (but suppl.), Sy-S
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 20:18 e;rcetai Maria.m h` Magdalhnh. avgge,llousa
BYZ John 20:18 e;rcetai Mari,a h` Magdalhnh. avpagge,llousa
Byz P66C, 01C2, D, L, Q, f1, f13, Maj
avnh,g. W, D, Y, 33, al
txt P66*, 01*, A, B, 078, 0250, pc
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 60
30. Difficult variant
NA27 John 4:51 h;dh de. auvtou/ katabai,nontoj oi` dou/loi auvtou/ u`ph,nthsan
auvtw/| le,gontej o[ti o` pai/j auvtou/ zh/|
BYZ John 4:51 h;dh de. auvtou/ katabai,nontoj oi` dou/loi auvtou/ avph,nthsan
auvtw/| kai. avph,ggeilan le,gontej o[ti o` pai/j sou zh/|
T&T #45
Byz pai/j sou D, Q, Y, f1, 157, 565, 597, 799, 1010, 1293, 1424, 2786,
Maj1250, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, Orpt, HeracleonOr
txt pai/j auvtou/ P66*, P75, 01, A, B, C, WS, 0211, pc9, arm, Orpt
Parallel:
NA27 Matthew 8:6 kai. le,gwn\ ku,rie( o` pai/j mou be,blhtai ...
NA27 Matthew 8:8 avlla. mo,non eivpe. lo,gw|( kai. ivaqh,setai o` pai/j mou
NA27 Matthew 8:13 kai. iva,qh o` pai/j auvtou/ evn th/| w[ra| evkei,nh|
NA27 Luke 7:2 ~Ekatonta,rcou de, tinoj dou/loj kakw/j e;cwn ...
NA27 Luke 7:7 avlla. eivpe. lo,gw|( kai. ivaqh,tw o` pai/j mou
NA27 Luke 7:10 ... eu-ron to.n dou/lon u`giai,nonta
Compare immediate context:
NA27 John 4:46 Kai. h=n tij basiliko.j ou- o` ui`o.j hvsqe,nei
NA27 John 4:47 ... kai. iva,shtai auvtou/ to.n ui`o,n(
NA27 John 4:49 ku,rie( kata,bhqi pri.n avpoqanei/n to. paidi,on mou
NA27 John 4:50 le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ poreu,ou( o` ui`o,j sou zh/|
NA27 John 4:53 ei=pen auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ o` ui`o,j sou zh/|(
A very difficult question. paidi,on appears twice elsewhere in John (16:21, 21:5).
pai/j appears nowhere else in Jo.
Basically it could be a harmonization to immediate context (ui`o.j) or to the
parallels (pai/j).
Rating: - (indecisive)
Compare:
NA27 John 5:9 +Hn de. sa,bbaton evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra|
NA27 John 14:20 evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra|
omit evn: W
NA27 John 21:3 kai. evn evkei,nh| th/| nukti. evpi,asan ouvde,n
omit evn: L
evn evkei,nh| is the normal usage. It would thus be natural to add the preposition.
On the other hand the omission of evn happens in 3 out of 5 cases by some
witnesses.
Externally the shorter reading is clearly preferable.
Weiss (Com. John) thinks that the evn is a conformation to the immediately
following evn h-|.
Byz 01, C, L, XS, D, P, Y, 0141, f1, 828, f13c, 33, 157, 892, 1071, 1342, 1424,
Maj-part[E, F, H, M], Co, Tis, Bal
txt P66, P75, A, B, D, K, N, T, WS, Q, f13a,b, 2, 28, 565, 579, 700, 1241,
Maj-part[G, S, U, V, Y, G, L, W], Sy-C, arm, geo, Or
Note also:
h=n e`orth. tw/n avzu,mwn kai. ... L
h=n e`orth. tw/n VIoudai,wn h[ skhnophgi,a 131
Lacuna: X, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Luke 22:1 :Hggizen de. h` e`orth. tw/n avzu,mwn h` legome,nh pa,sca
NA27 John 6:4 h=n de. evggu.j to. pa,sca( h` e`orth. tw/n VIoudai,wn
NA27 John 7:2 +Hn de. evggu.j h` e`orth. tw/n VIoudai,wn h` skhnophgi,a
Context:
NA27 John 2:23 ~Wj de. h=n evn toi/j ~Ierosolu,moij evn tw/| pa,sca evn th/|
e`orth/|( ...
NA27 John 4:45 evde,xanto auvto.n oi` Galilai/oi pa,nta e`wrako,tej o[sa
evpoi,hsen evn ~Ierosolu,moij evn th/| e`orth/|( kai. auvtoi. ga.r h=lqon eivj th.n
e`orth,n
It is possible that there was a tendency of the scribes to identify the otherwise
indeterminate feast. The addition of h[ probably means then the Passover.
Although Hort writes: "If it [h[] were genuine, the reference would be to the
Feast of Tabernacles (h[ skhnophgi,a), emphatically 'the Feast of the Jews'
and not to the Passover." - This is also the view of Zahn.
It is also possible that some kind of accidental error is involved: h[ e`...
It has often been suggested that the order of chapters 5 and 6 should be
interchanged. In that case 5:1 stands after 6:4 "Now the Passover, the festival
of the Jews, was near."
T&T #47
Byz Bhqesda A, C, N, XS, DGr, Q, 0141, f1, f13, 213, 397, 565, 579, 597,
865, 881*, 892, 1071, 1241, 2129, 2718, 2786, Maj,
f, q, vgmss, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-Hmg, Sy-Pal, arm, geo, Weiss, Trg, SBL
Bhqseda 582
txt Bhqzaqa 01, 0211, L, 33, 713, it(b, e, ff2, l), EusOnomast., Cyr, WH, NA25
omit evpi. th/:| 01*, aur, e, vgCl, Eus
Betzetha: b, ff2*, 11A, 33 Betzatha: e, l
Belzeqa D, a, d, r1, vgmss
P45: In the IGNTP volume on the papyri of John a tiny scrap of P45 is noted
that contains part of this verse. Unfortunately the condition is very bad and one
cannot make out a single letter in the published photo. The editors note an
Epsilon on the last line, which may belong to either Bethesda or Belzetha, but
this is very uncertain.
Reconstruction: (green = identified letters)
autouolhtoutodepalindeuteronshmeionepoihsenoihel
qwnekthsioudaiaseisthngalilaian metatautahneorth
twnioudaiwnkaianebhoiheisierosoluma estindeentois
ierosolumoisepithprobatikhkolumbhqrahepilegomenhebra
istibhqesdapentestoasecousa.
Bezetha is attested by Josephus as the name of a quarter of the city near the
northeast corner of the temple area. He reports that the Syrian Legate Cestius
burned this suburb in his attack on Jerusalem in October A.D. 68.
He mentions the name Bezeqa, 5 times in his History of the Jewish War (2:328
= II 15:5, 2:530 = II 19:4, 5:149 = V 4:2, 5:151 = V 4:2, 5:246 = V 5:8). The name
occurs in several spellings (Bezeqa,, Bezaqa.). He explains the name in 5:151:
"This newly built part of the city was called 'Bezetha' in our language, which, if
interpreted in the Greek language, may be called 'the New City'." This area is
north of the tower Antonia.
The location of the pool was for a long time not clear:
1. Prior to archeological digs, the pool of Bethesda was identified with the Pool
of Israel, close to the northern temple wall. This was the dominant tradition
of the late middle ages.
2. Others identified it with the Siloah spring, which is the one true spring in
Jerusalem. It seems to be an intermittend spring, which could explain the
moving water. But compare Jo 9:7, where John explicitly mentions the Siloah
pool, why then not in 5:2 also?
3. In digs conducted in the late 19th century, a large cistern situated about 100
feet north-west of St. Anne's church was discovered (between the Pool of
Israel and the northern wall, in the Bezetha valley). Most of the associated
building has disappeared, but it would seem to have been a church of perhaps
the fourth or fifth century. In addition to the testimony of the ruins to the
sacredness of the site, various objects were found among the rubbish, indicating
that this was a place where cures had been supposed to occur. Especially
noticeable was the marble model of a foot with a Greek inscription which had
been placed there by one Pompeia Lucilia in thankfulness for the cure of some
disease (ca. 120-140 CE!). In later digs (ca. 1914-38), archaeologists unearthed a
rectangular pool with a portico on each side and a fifth one dividing the pool into
2 separate compartments. The pool was about 90 m long and 50/65 m wide. The
dividing portico was about 6,5 m wide. The pillars were about 7 m high and the
complete building about 8.5 m. The above mentioned cistern was located next to
this portico and was probably part of a church. Also found were faded frescoes
of the miracle of Christ's healing. This pool is matching Cyrill's description.
Lying in the Bezetha valley, it was well suited to collect the rainwater. Its
position next to the temple suggests a cultic function. It is possible that it had
been built under Herod the Great during the temple expansion. Perhaps at the
position of an earlier pool, which was called sheep-pool?
Compare:
E. W. G. Masterman "The Pool of Bethesda" The Biblical World 25 (1905) 88-
102 [prior to the latest finds]
J. Jeremias "Die Wiederentdeckung von Bethesda" Forschungen zur Religion
und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 59 = N.F. 41, Gttingen,
1949, 26 pages
L. Devillers "Une piscine peut en cacher une autre. A propos de Jn 5:1-9a" RB
106 (1999) 175-205
U. von Wahlde "The 'upper pool', its 'conduit' and 'the road of the Fuller's
field' in the eights century BC Jerusalem and their significance for the
pools of Bethesda and Siloam" RB 113 (2006) 242-262
D. Brizemeure et al. "Le Rouleau de cuivre de la grotte 3 de Qumrn (3Q15).
Expertise Restauration Epigraphie I", STDJ 55.1, Leiden, 2006, page 203
(comment) and 215 (translation) [no Bethesda in the Copper Scroll]
Reinhart Ceulemans "The Name of the Pool in Joh 5,2. A Text-Critical Note
Concerning 3Q15" ZNW 99 (2008) 112-15 [discussion of above article]
BYZ John 5:3 evn tau,taij kate,keito plh/qoj polu. tw/n avsqenou,ntwn
tuflw/n cwlw/n xhrw/n evkdecome,nwn th.n tou/ u[datoj ki,nhsin
BYZ John 5:4 a;ggeloj ga.r kata. kairo.n kate,bainen evn th/| kolumbh,qra|(
kai. evta,rassen to. u[dwr\ o` ou=n prw/toj evmba.j meta. th.n tarach.n tou/
u[datoj( u`gih.j evgi,neto( w-| dh,pote kateiceto nosh,mati
T&T #48
T&T #49
a) verse 3b:
Byz AC, CC3, D, WS, XS, D, Q, Y, f1, f13, 33, 213, 397, 565, 579, 799, 865,
892, 1071, 1241, Maj,
Lat, Sy-Pal, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, bopt, arm, geo, Chrys, Bois
paralutiko.n( evkdecome,nwn th.n tou/ u[datoj ki,nhsin
D, it, vgms (Book of Kells)
txt P66, P75, 01, A*, B, C*, L, T, 0141, 157, 821, q, Sy-C, Co
b) verse 4:
Byz A, CC3, L, XS, D, Q, Y, f1, f13, 28, 213, 397, 565, 579, 799, 865, 892,
1071, 1241, 1424, Maj, it, vgCl, Sy-P, Sy-H**, Sy-Pal, bopt, Chrys, Tert, Bois
txt P66, P75, 01, B, C*, D, T, WS, 0141, 33, 157, 821, 2718,
d, f, l, q, 11A, vgSt, pc, Sy-C, Co, arm, geo
G. Fee writes: "It is often asserted that Didymus (d. 398) also knew the reading,
but this is not quite accurate. It is clear from de Trinitate 2.14 that Didymus
knew the tradition about the angel. But it seems equally clear that he was not
acquainted with the actual text of the tradition, for there is not a single verbal
correspondence to John 5:4 in his sentence. Furthermore, he says the water was
stirred by the angel once a year! That is a far cry from the kata. kairo.n of the
text." (Evangelical Quarterly 54 (1982) 207-218)
In his transcription B.H. Cowper writes (London 1860, post Woide): "Videtur olim
scriptum fuisse, cwlwn xhrwn aggeloj gar kuriou, quae erasit antiqua vel.
1 m., et ad finem lineae praecedentis posuit quaedam, quaedam ad finem huius
lineae, caetera rescripsit."
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Have 3b, but not 4: D, WS, 33, 2718, Lat, arm, geo
Have not 3b, but 4: A*, L
omit all: P66, P75, 01, B, C*, T, 0141, 157, 821, q, Sy-C, Co
Very certainly this is not an original part of John's Gospel.
It is interesting that the two parts 3b and 4 don't have identical support. This
might simply be some copying error, but it is also possible that it indicates
independent origin. So actually Tregelles (Account.., 1854, p. 245): "the words
added to verse 3 seem to have been one scholion, and verse 4 another. [] These
scholia belonged at first to different manuscripts (whether in margin or text);"
It is generally held that it probably was an early marginal comment which made
it into the text.
th.n tou/ u[datoj ki,nhsin: enclosed genitive, very un-Johannine style. John
would probably have written th.n tarach.n tou/ u[datoj.
kate,bainen evn: the use of evn with forms of bainw is un-Johannine. John uses
ei;j nowhere evn.
evmba.j: is reserved for getting into boats. For people entering water
katabai,nousin and avnabai,nousin is used, also in Jo 5:7!
Already Tertullian (de bapt. 5) knew verse 4 and interpreted kata. kairo.n =
"once per year".
The words also probably stood in the Diatessaron, because Ephrem writes: "If
they believe that the Angel by the water of Shiloah was healing the sick, how
much rather should they believe that the Lord of the Angels purifies by baptism
from all stain?" Only in the interpolated version there is any mention of an
angel. The words are also in the Arabic Diatessaron.
A. Pallis (Notes, 1926) writes: "In this passage we have to deal with two
corruptions. The first corruption is ki,nhsin, a misreading of ke,nwsin, pouring
out. The afflicted were lying about in the shed waiting for fresh water to be
poured out into the bath, for the water of the previous day, being contaminated
by leprous and other diseased bathers, would be renewed every morning. ... The
second corruption is taracqh/,| a misreading of paraxuqh/.| ... So that o[tan
paraxuqh/| to. u[dwr means when the water is poured out into the bath,
paraxuqh/| being thus a synonym of kenwqh/.| Now, when these two corruptions
were committed, a miracle was imagined, and so the legend about an angel
agitating the water was formed and interpolated into the text. ... Some
manuscripts omit also the words evkdecome,nwn th.n tou/ u[datoj ki,nhsin, but
these are indispensable, first because some reason had to be assigned for the
presence of the diseased crowd at the bath and secondly because the word
ki,nhsin formed the foundation of the legend. On the other hand, the clause evn
w-| de. e;rcomai evgw,( a;lloj pro. evmou/ katabai,nei evidently belongs to the
legend."
The added explanation is very catchy. Once heard you will never forget it. It
appears very improbable that it was omitted deliberately. I think that what we
have here are "remains of this evangelic tradition which were rescued from
oblivion by the scribes of the second century" (WH).
It has been suggested that 5:3b-4 have been added together with the PA to
John. Both stories are catchy and make the impression of oral tradition.
Compare:
Z. Hodges "The Angel at Bethesda - John 5:4" Bibliotheca Sacra
136 (1979) 25-39
Gordon D. Fee "On the Inauthenticity of John 5:3b-4." The
Evangelical Quarterly 54 (1982) 207-218
Sy-C omits kai. h=ren to.n kra,batton auvtou/ (h.t.? kai. - kai.)
Lacuna: X
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Matthew 8:15 kai. h[yato th/j ceiro.j auvth/j( kai. avfh/ken auvth.n o`
pureto,j( kai. hvge,rqh kai. dihko,nei auvtw/|
NA27 Matthew 9:25 o[te de. evxeblh,qh o` o;cloj eivselqw.n evkra,thsen th/j
ceiro.j auvth/j( kai. hvge,rqh to. kora,sion
NA27 Mark 2:12 kai. hvge,rqh kai. euvqu.j a;raj to.n kra,batton evxh/lqen
e;mprosqen pa,ntwn
Byz A, B, CC3, K, XS, D, 0141, f1, 124, 2, 28, 157, 565, 700, Maj,
e, 27, NA25, WH, Gre, Weiss, Tis, Trg, Bal, SBL
txt P66, P75, 01, C*, D, L, N, WS, Q, L, P, Y, 0211, 0233, f13, 579, 892, 1071,
1241, al, Lat, Sy, Co, arm
Lacuna: X, 33
B: no umlaut
Compare also:
NA27 Mark 2:9 a=ron to.n kra,batto,n sou kai. peripa,tei
NA27 Mark 2:11 e;geire a=ron to.n kra,batto,n sou kai. u[page
Rating: - (indecisive)
txt P66, 01, C*, L, Wsup, XS, Q, 0141, f13, 579, 892, 1071, 1241,
al[G, K, P, N, Y, D, L]
o` definite article
o]j relative pronoun
Compare:
NA27 Matthew 22:5 oi` de. avmelh,santej avph/lqon( o]j me.n eivj to.n i;dion
avgro,n( o]j de. evpi. th.n evmpori,an auvtou/\
txt B, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 700, 1424, pc
o` de. 01, C, 579, Maj
NA27 Mark 15:23 kai. evdi,doun auvtw/| evsmurnisme,non oi=non\ o]j de. ouvk
e;laben txt 01, B, G*, 33, 579, 1424*
o` de. A, C, L, P, Q, Y, 700, f13, 28, 157, Maj
It is possible that the complete omission was original and the other readings are
attempts to add a subject. On the other hand it is also possible that the unusual
use of o]j here lead to the other readings. o]j must be taken as a demonstrative
"this one".
The support for o]j is incoherent. The support for the omission is bad.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 68
35. Difficult variant
NA27 John 5:12 hvrw,thsan auvto,n\ ti,j evstin o` a;nqrwpoj o` eivpw,n soi\
a=ron kai. peripa,tei
BYZ John 5:12 hvrw,thsan ou=n auvto,n Ti,j evstin o` a;nqrwpoj o` eivpw,n soi
a=ron to.n kra,bbaton sou kai. peripa,tei
Byz AC, CC3, D, XS, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Latt, Sy, sams, bo, arm, [Trg]
sou to.n kra,bbaton 579
Lacuna: X
B: no umlaut
NA27 John 19:15 evkrau,gasan ou=n evkei/noi\ a=ron a=ron( stau,rwson auvto,n
Rating: - (indecisive)
le,gei 579
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 4:25 le,gei auvtw/| h` gunh,\ oi=da o[ti Messi,aj e;rcetai o`
lego,menoj cristo,j\ o[tan e;lqh| evkei/noj( avnaggelei/ h`mi/n a[panta
T&T #51
Byz A, N, XS, D, Q, Y, f13, 213, 865, 1071, Maj, e, f, q, r1, 27, Sy-P, Sy-H, bopt
txt P66, P75, 01, B, C, D, L, W, 0141, f1, 69, 33, 397, 565, 579, 597, 821,
892, 1010, 1241, 2718, 2786, pc20,
Lat(a, aur, b, c, d, ff2, l, vg), Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, bopt, ac2
Compare also:
NA27 Mark 14:1 kai. evzh,toun oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` grammatei/j pw/j auvto.n
evn do,lw| krath,santej avpoktei,nwsin\
NA27 John 7:1 o[ti evzh,toun auvto.n oi` VIoudai/oi avpoktei/nai
txt P66, A, D, L, XS, Q, Y, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj, Latt, Sy-S, Co
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
The addition of the subject is only natural here, because it is not clear from
preceding context who is speaking here.
Metzger notes that the absence of the name is possibly "an Alexandrian deletion
prompted by stylistic considerations".
Lacuna: C, X
B: no umlaut
T&T #52
The 070 reading is not in NA, but in the ed. pr. and in T&T.
Lacuna: C, X
B: umlaut! (1356 B 24 L) th/j fwnh/j tou/ ui`ou/ tou/ qeou/ kai.
Compare:
NA27 John 9:35 su. pisteu,eij eivj to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pou
BYZ John 9:35 su. pisteu,eij eivj to.n ui`o.n tou/ Qeou/
Byz A, L, Q, Y, 070, 0250, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, bo
txt P66, P75, 01, B, D, W, pc, Sy-S, Co
oi` de. ta. P75, 01, A, (D), L, XS, Q, Y, 070, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj,
WHmg, [Trg]
oi` de. D
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
There would have been no reason to omit de. here, except for symmetry reasons.
It appears probable that oi` ta. is original and that the additions of kai. or de.
are attempts to smooth the abrupt change.
Irritating is only the support of P75 for de..
Byz XS, Q, 1C, 1852C, f13, 2, 28, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 1424,
Maj[E, G, H, M, S, U, V, Y, G, W, 047, 063, 0211], it(b, c, ff2, l, r1, 33), bopt
txt P66, P75, 01, A, B, C, D, L, W, Y, D, 070, 0141, f1, 69, 33, 157, 565, 579,
al, Lat(a, d, e, f, q, vg), Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, bopt, ac2, Or
Lacuna: C, X, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 4:34 le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\ evmo.n brw/ma, evstin i[na poih,sw
to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j me kai. teleiw,sw auvtou/ to. e;rgon
add patro,j: 1424
NA27 John 6:38 o[ti katabe,bhka avpo. tou/ ouvranou/ ouvc i[na poiw/ to.
qe,lhma to. evmo.n avlla. to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j me
add patro,j: D, 047, 700, 118C, 892, 1424, al, it, Sy-S, Sy-C
NA27 John 6:39 tou/to de, evstin to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j me(
BYZ John 6:39 tou/to de, evstin to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j me patro,j(
Byz K, P, M, U, G, Q, f13, 33, 579, 1071, Maj, Lat, Sy-H
txt P66, P75, 01, A, B, C, D, L, T, W, Y, f1, 157, 565, 700, 892, al,
Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P
NA27 John 8:16 kai. eva.n kri,nw de. evgw,( h` kri,sij h` evmh. avlhqinh, evstin(
o[ti mo,noj ouvk eivmi,( avllV evgw. kai. o` pe,myaj me path,r
omit path.r: 01*, D, Sy-S, Sy-C, NA25, WH [path,r in brackets]
NA27 John 8:18 evgw, eivmi o` marturw/n peri. evmautou/ kai. marturei/ peri.
evmou/ o` pe,myaj me path,r safe!
NA27 John 8:26 polla. e;cw peri. u`mw/n lalei/n kai. kri,nein( avllV o`
pe,myaj me avlhqh,j evstin(
add path,r: 01
NA27 John 12:49 o[ti evgw. evx evmautou/ ouvk evla,lhsa( avllV o` pe,myaj me
path.r auvto,j moi evntolh.n de,dwken ti, ei;pw kai. ti, lalh,sw
NA27 John 14:24 o` mh. avgapw/n me tou.j lo,gouj mou ouv threi/\ kai. o`
lo,goj o]n avkou,ete ouvk e;stin evmo.j avlla. tou/ pe,myanto,j me patro,j
omit patro,j: f13
The variations are difficult to decide internally. The phrase with path.r is more
clear and explicit, without path.r it might be not clear who sent him.
oi;date 01*, D, 124, pc, L547, L1016, a, aur, d, e, q, Sy-C, arm, geo1
scitis
oi;damen 1424, pc
01 is corrected by 01C2.
Lat(b, c, f, r1, vg) read txt ("scio").
ff2, l omit (h.t.)
Lacuna: C, X, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
There is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that his testimony to me is true.
There is another who testifies on my behalf, and you know that his testimony to me is true.
Compare also:
NA27 John 4:25le,gei auvtw/| h` gunh,\ oi=da o[ti Messi,aj e;rcetai o`
lego,menoj cristo,j\ o[tan e;lqh| evkei/noj( avnaggelei/ h`mi/n a[panta
oi=damen P66C, 01C, G, L, N, L, f13, 33, 1071, 1241, al,
f, Sy-Hmg, sa, ac2, bo, Orpt
Both oi=da and oi=date make good sense. oi=da is more normal, because it is clear
that Jesus knows the truth. oi=date is the more dramatic reading, because if the
Jews know the truth about Jesus' testimony, they are even more guilty. It could
be argued that this is contradicted by verse 5:37, but the meaning is not exactly
the same. Generally in the Gospel of John the Jews do not know who Jesus is
and always wrongly interpret the Biblical evidence.
The oi=date fits good to the u`mei/j avpesta,lkate pro.j VIwa,nnhn in verse 33.
The Jews should know the truth from the testimony of John.
Rating: - (indecisive)
Metzger writes: " The latter [P66..] reading, however, gives an antithesis, that is
out of accord with the context."
This is not clear though. Both readings make good sense, but mei,zwn is clearly
the harder reading.
Metzger also notes that it is possible that mei,zwn is just an incorrect form of
the accusative. This is supported by the following variant:
NA27 John 1:50 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtw/|\ o[ti ei=po,n soi o[ti
ei=do,n se u`poka,tw th/j sukh/j( pisteu,eij mei,zw tou,twn o;yh|
mei,zwn P75, M, D, f13, 2*, 28, 579, 1071, 1424, al
mei,zona P66, 01, pc, Epiph (D lacuna)
mei,zw is accusative masc/fem. singular and is derived from mei,zos-a (normally
the forms are based on the comparative infix ion-, but there is a second
comparative infix ios-. mei,zw uses both forms).
The incoherent support for the readings shows that the variation is at least in
part accidental.
T&T #54
Lacuna: C, X, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
One question that arises with this variant is one of punctuation. Is it:
a) "You search the scriptures, in which you think that you have life; they are
they which bear witness of me."
or
b) "Search the scriptures: Those (scriptures) in which you think that you have
life, they it is that bear witness of me"
See:
T.W. Manson, Review of Bell/Skeat "Unknown Gospel and New Gospel", Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 23 (1937) 130-132
H.I. Bell "Search the Scriptures (Jo 5:39)" ZNW 37 (1938) 10-13
M.-E. Boismard "A propos de Jean 5:39, essai de critique textuelle" RB 55 (1948) 5-34
J.N. Birdsall "Photius and the text of the fourth Gospel" NTS 4 (1957-8) 61-3
The IGNTP Byzantine edition of John lists: pc = 817, 994, L638, L1075, Chrys
Lacuna: C, X, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
A natural addition from the previous verse. There is no reason for an omission.
T&T #55
Lacuna: C, X, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
A. Pallis (Notes, 1926) writes: "There is something wrong in this sentence, for
there is no logical connection between the two clauses. Perhaps pw/j du,nasqe
u`mei/j do,xan para. avllh,lwn lamba,nein kai. th.n do,xan ktl. How is it
possible for you, or any sane person, to prefer glory bestowed by another man,
and not rather seek that glory which comes from God? I cannot, however,
account for the intrusion of pisteu/sai."
tou/ monogenou/j qeou/ N, 1071 (not in NA, SQE and Tis! Only in Swanson!)
Or: avlla. th.n do,xan th.n avpo. tou/ mo,nou zhtou/ntej (Com. Mt 15, 23)
He cites it twice with qeou/ in De Oratione 19, 2 and 29,8.
Lacuna: C, X, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
It is possible that some scribes got confused by the similar looking letters:
monouquouzhteite
Perhaps the overbar of the nomen sacrum has been interpreted as a deletion
label? On the other hand one could argue that scribes would not have easily
misinterpreted or overlooked such a NS bar.
The object qeo,j seems to be required, except one takes mo,noj as a noun. E.A.
Abbott in his "Johannine Grammar" notes that tou/ mo,nou could be written as a
title tou/ Mo,nou = "the only One".
The support for the short reading is strong.
Zahn (Comm. Jo) notes that para. tou/ mo,nou qeou/ does not mean "from God
alone", but "from the one who alone is God", which, in context, is not very fitting.
Perhaps one can punctuate: "from the only one, (from) God, "?
The second variant by N, 1071 is even more interesting, because it seems to be a
relict of the monogenh.j qeo.j reading in 1:18! N has a lacuna at 1:18, but 1071
reads ui`o.j there.
Unfortunately T&T only lists the first variant and not the second (monogenou/j).
T&T #57
Compare:
NA27 John 6:23a;lla h=lqen ploia,ria evk Tiberia,doj evggu.j tou/ to,pou
o[pou e;fagon to.n a;rton euvcaristh,santoj tou/ kuri,ou
Looks like a conflation, but the support for the short forms is just too weak. It
is more probable that the short forms are either stylistic improvements,
removing one redundant term, or accidental omissions due to parablepsis (th/j -
th/j).
It is possible that the D reading represents a tradition in which the feeding
took place near Tiberias and not Bethsaida (so Boismard).
T&T #59
472 (= cscr): Scrivener notes in his collation: "obelo notatur rubro in marg", T&T
have it for txt.
Lacuna: C, X
B: no umlaut
The longer period of Jesus' ministry in John (about 3 years) caused problems,
because the other Gospels speak only of one year.
See the extensive discussion in WH (Notes on Select Readings, p. 77-81).
T&T note no witness for the sole omission of to. pa,sca.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Context:
NA27 John 6:5 le,gei pro.j Fi,lippon\
omit to.n: P66, 01, B, D, L, N, W, D, Y, 33, 579, 892, pc
add to.n: A, Q, f1, f13, Maj
Compare:
NA27 John 1:46 le,gei auvtw/| o` Fi,lippoj\ e;rcou kai. i;de
omit o`: P66*, 01, A, WS, Q, Y, f1, f13, Maj
add o`: P66C, P75, B, L, 33, 579, L2211, pc
NA27 John 12:22 e;rcetai o` Fi,lippoj kai. le,gei tw/| VAndre,a|( e;rcetai
VAndre,aj kai. Fi,lippoj kai. le,gousin tw/| VIhsou/
add 1st o`: P66, P75, B, L, 33, 157, 892, 1071, 1241, pc
nd
add 2 o`: P66*, W
There is a great variation with Fi,lippoj and the article. No clear rule is
discernible. Since normally the Majority text adds the article, there is a slight
tendency here to regard the reading without the article as original.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
LXX Psalm 8:6 hvla,ttwsaj auvto.n bracu, ti parV avgge,louj
NA27 Hebrews 2:7 hvla,ttwsaj auvto.n bracu, ti parV avgge,louj
NA27 Hebrews 2:9 to.n de. bracu, ti parV avgge,louj
NA27 Acts 5:34 ... evke,leusen e;xw bracu. tou.j avnqrw,pouj poih/sai
bracu, ti 015, 025, 049, 056, 1241, Maj
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 86
NA27 John 6:11 e;laben ou=n tou.j a;rtouj o` VIhsou/j kai. euvcaristh,saj
die,dwken toi/j avnakeime,noij o`moi,wj kai.
evk tw/n ovyari,wn o[son h;qelon
BYZ John 6:11 e;laben de. tou.j a;rtouj o` VIhsou/j kai. euvcaristh,saj
die,dwken toi/j maqhtai/j( oi` de, maqhtai. toi/j avnakeime,noij o`moi,wj kai.
evk tw/n ovyari,wn o[son h;qelon
txt P28(3rd CE), P66, P75, 01*, A, B, L, N, W, P, 063, 0141, f1, 33, 565, 579,
1241, al, Lat, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, sa, pbo, bo, arm, goth
Lacuna: C, X
B: umlaut! (1357 C 1 R) die,dwken toi/j avnakeime,noij
"and Jesus took the loaves, and having given thanks he distributed to the disciples, and the
disciples to those reclining, in like manner, also of the little fishes as much as they wished."
Parallels:
NA27 Matthew 14:19 kai. kla,saj e;dwken toi/j maqhtai/j tou.j a;rtouj( oi`
de. maqhtai. toi/j o;cloij
NA27 Matthew 15:36 e;laben tou.j e`pta. a;rtouj kai. tou.j ivcqu,aj kai.
euvcaristh,saj e;klasen kai. evdi,dou toi/j maqhtai/j( oi` de. maqhtai. toi/j
o;cloij
NA27 Mark 6:41 kai. evdi,dou toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ i[na paratiqw/sin
auvtoi/j( kai. tou.j du,o ivcqu,aj evme,risen pa/sin
NA27 Luke 9:16 kai. evdi,dou toi/j maqhtai/j paraqei/nai tw/| o;clw|
It is possible that the term fell out due to h.t. (toi/j - toi/j).
Possibly the words have been added, because the disciples also collected the
pieces left over, or to avoid a similarity with the Last Supper?
The most probable explanation is that the words have been added as a
harmonization to the Synoptics (so also Weiss).
T&T #62
a] evpoi,hsen shmei/a P75, B, 091(fragm. 6th CE), pc7, a, bo, ac2, arm, WH, Trgmg
pc = 109, 207, 1273, 1654, 2487, 2722, 2768
txt 01, A, D, L, W, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 28, 33, 565, 700, 1071, Maj,
Lat, Sy, goth, WHmg, NA25
to. shmei/on o] evpoi,hsen 157, 1010, 1293, al90
evpoi,hsen shmei/on 213*, 579
For 091 compare Gregory, Textkritik III, p. 1063. T&T and IGNTP confirm.
Lacuna: P66, C, X
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 2:23 polloi. evpi,steusan eivj to. o;noma auvtou/ qewrou/ntej
auvtou/ ta. shmei/a a] evpoi,ei\
NA27 John 6:2 hvkolou,qei de. auvtw/| o;cloj polu,j( o[ti evqew,roun ta. shmei/a
a] evpoi,ei evpi. tw/n avsqenou,ntwn
NA27 John 6:26 zhtei/te, me ouvc o[ti ei;dete shmei/a( avllV o[ti evfa,gete evk
tw/n a;rtwn kai. evcorta,sqhte
The singular shmei/on refers specifically to the Feeding. The plural is more
general and it is possible that it is a scribal assimilation to 2:23 or 6:2 (so
Weiss).
Lacuna: P66, C, X
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 6:3avnh/lqen de. eivj to. o;roj VIhsou/j kai. evkei/ evka,qhto meta.
tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/
a) pa,lin
There is no reason for an omission. It is possible that the word has been added
to refer back to 6:3.
Occurrences/verses of pa,lin in the Gospels:
Mat, 16/1068 1.5%
Mar, 26/673 3.9%
Luk, 3/1149 0.3%
Joh, 45/878 5.1%
b) feu,gei / avnecw,rhsen
Very slim Greek support. This word is never used for Jesus elsewhere. It is
certainly the harder reading. It fits good in the context. Metzger thinks it has
been introduced "to enliven the narrative". It is possible that it comes from the
Latin fugit (note that 01 is Western in Jo 1-8!).
avnacwre,w occurs 11 times in Mt and once in Mk. Additionally it appears twice
in Acts.
Rating: - (indecisive)
Lacuna: P66, C, X
B: no umlaut
ploionhrconto skotiahdhegego
peranthsqalas neikaioupwelh
shseiskafarna ...
oumkai ----------
---------------------
This means that originally after the oum no kai. appeared, otherwise it would
not have been written over the erasure. It is interesting that the scribe did not
continue after the kai., but left the lines blank. This could mean that he noted
the error only later.
ploionhrconto skotiahdhegego
peranthsqalas neikaioupwelh
shseiskafarna ...
oumkatelaben
deautoush-----
The reading by Swanson makes no real sense. It also does not fit good into the
two lines. It is also strange why L, which is not Western, should adopt this
curious reading here.
Compare:
NA27 John 1:5 kai. to. fw/j evn th/| skoti,a| fai,nei( kai. h` skoti,a auvto. ouv
kate,laben
NA27 John 12:35 peripatei/te w`j to. fw/j e;cete( i[na mh. skoti,a u`ma/j
katala,bh|\
Compare also:
Protogospel of James 14:1 kai. kate,laben auvto.n nu.x
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 91
Minority reading:
NA27 John 6:17 kai. evmba,ntej eivj ploi/on h;rconto pe,ran th/j qala,sshj
eivj Kafarnaou,m kai. skoti,a h;dh evgego,nei kai. ou;pw evlhlu,qei pro.j
auvtou.j o` VIhsou/j (
T&T #64
f13 not mentioned in NA and SQE, but in Swanson and Geerlings! According to
Geerlings 69, 124, 174, 230(all f13b) omit. In T&T only 13 and 543 are noted for
the words.
Checked from images: 13, 828 have the words. 69 omits. 346 has a lacuna.
Lacuna: P66, C, X, P
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 6:21 h;qelon ou=n labei/n auvto.n eivj to. ploi/on( kai. euvqe,wj
evge,neto to. ploi/on evpi. th/j gh/j eivj h]n u`ph/gon
NA27 John 6:22 Th/| evpau,rion o` o;cloj ... ei=don o[ti ... ouv suneish/lqen
toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ o` VIhsou/j eivj to. ploi/on avlla. mo,noi oi` maqhtai.
auvtou/ avph/lqon\
T&T #66
Byz 01*, D, D, Q, 0141, 0211, f13, 33, 397, 597, 821, 1071, 2786, Maj,
a, d, e, 27, 33, Sy, sa, arm, geo
omit evkei/no D, 0211, 33, 1071, pc, Sy-H
txt P75, 01C2, A, B, L, N, W, Y, 063, f1, 22, 157, 213, 565, 579, 799*, 1010,
1241, 2561*, 2718, al58, Lat, bo, pbo, ac2, mf, goth
The next day the crowd that had stayed on the other side of the sea saw that there had been
only one boat there -- that into which his disciples entered --. They also saw that Jesus had
not got into the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.
Compare:
6:16 When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, 17 got into a boat, and started
across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.
Probably a clarification what boat is meant and that it is strange for Jesus being
there without another boat.
There is no reason for an omission.
A. Pallis (Notes, 1926) writes: "The difficulty of the passage is increased by the
article oi` having dropped out before ei=don; without its addition the text reads
as if it were on the morrow that the disciples saw that there had not been
another boat."
Rating: 2 (NA clearly original)
TVU 93
NA27 John 6:23 a;lla h=lqen ploia,ria evk Tiberia,doj evggu.j tou/ to,pou
o[pou e;fagon to.n a;rton euvcaristh,santoj tou/ kuri,ou
BYZ John 6:23 a;lla de. h=lqen ploia,ria evk Tiberia,doj evggu.j tou/ to,pou
o[pou e;fagon to.n a;rton euvcaristh,santoj tou/ kuri,ou
T&T #67
a;lla = "other"
a;lla de. h=lqen ploia,ria evk A, D, Q, f13, 28, 700, 1424, Maj
Swanson has a;lla de. ploi/a evk for Y in error. NA, Lake and IGNTP
(majuscule) have ploi/a h=lqen against Swanson.
Lacuna: P66, C, X
B: no umlaut
Latin:
"naves" aur, b, c, f, ff2, l, r1, vg
"naviculae" a, d, e, q
The txt reading is not in any manuscript and it is strictly speaking a conjectural
emendation! The NA apparatus separates the word ploi/a/ploia,ria from the
rest and gets thus witnesses for both variants.
When omitting the bracketed part the words are read by P75, (B) only.
The first occurrence (blue) is basically safe except for e, q: "navis" for
"navicula"! (not in NA!)
NA27 John 6:24 evne,bhsan auvtoi. eivj ta. ploia,ria kai. h=lqon eivj
Kafarnaou.m zhtou/ntej to.n VIhsou/n
eivj ta. ploi/a A, D, Q, 0141, f1, 28, 157, 565, 700, 1424, Maj, q, Sy-H
eivj to. ploi/on 01*
eivj ta. ploia,ria P75, 01C2, B, L, N, W, Y, 33, 579, 892, 1071, al,
Lat, Sy-Hmg
B: no umlaut
Compare also:
NA27 Mark 3:9 kai. ei=pen toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ i[na ploia,rion
proskarterh/| auvtw/| dia. to.n o;clon i[na mh. qli,bwsin auvto,n\
But note:
NA27 Luke 5:2 kai. ei=den du,o ploi/a e`stw/ta para. th.n li,mnhn\ oi` de.
a`liei/j avpV auvtw/n avpoba,ntej e;plunon ta. di,ktua
du,o ploi/a P75, 01, CC3, D, Q, f1, f13, Maj, Lat
ploi/a du,o B, W, 579, 892, pc, e, WH
du,o ploia,ria A, C*, L, Qsic, Y, 33, 1241, 1424, al, NA25
Now putting all these arguments together we get the txt reading. If one values
the external evidence higher, then the P75 reading a;lla h=lqen ploi/a evk
should be taken. The bracketing is, although very unusual, ok therefore.
T&T #68
69: The words have been added in the margin by a different pen.
Sy-S omits until verse 24 ploia,ria.
Boismard adds Tatian's Diatessaron for the omission. The verse is not
commented upon in Ephrem and the Arabic has the words, though.
Lacuna: P66, C, X
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 6:11 e;laben ou=n tou.j a;rtouj o` VIhsou/j kai. euvcaristh,saj
die,dwken toi/j avnakeime,noij
NA27 John 6:24o[te ou=n ei=den o` o;cloj o[ti VIhsou/j ouvk e;stin evkei/ ouvde.
oi` maqhtai. auvtou/( evne,bhsan auvtoi. eivj ta. ploia,ria kai. h=lqon eivj
Kafarnaou.m zhtou/ntej to.n VIhsou/n
The words are not really needed. If it is a secondary addition it would be a very
strange one. Possibly added to make clear what eating is meant (6:11)? It is more
probable that the words have been omitted as unnecessary. Note the even
further omission by Sy-S.
ku,rioj is only rarely used in narrative of John (11:2).
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Immediate context:
NA27 John 6:31 a;rton evk tou/ ouvranou/ e;dwken auvtoi/j fagei/n
de,dwken 01, W, Q, f13, pc
Compare:
1. Change from de,dwken to e;dwken:
NA27 John 3:35 kai. pa,nta de,dwken evn th/| ceiri. auvtou/
e;dwken D, K
NA27 John 5:22 avlla. th.n kri,sin pa/san de,dwken tw/| ui`w/|(
e;dwken G, f13
NA27 John 5:36 ta. ga.r e;rga a] de,dwke,n moi o` path.r i[na teleiw,sw auvta,
e;dwken A, D, Q, 579, Maj
NA27 John 6:39 i[na pa/n o] de,dwke,n moi mh. avpole,sw evx auvtou/(
e;dwken A, D, Q, 579, Maj
NA27 John 7:22 dia. tou/to Mwu?sh/j de,dwken u`mi/n th.n peritomh,n
e;dwken D, L, pc
NA27 John 10:29 o` path,r mou o] de,dwke,n moi pa,ntwn mei/zo,n evstin
e;dwken P66, P75, M, U
NA27 John 12:49 auvto,j moi evntolh.n de,dwken ti, ei;pw kai. ti, lalh,sw
e;dwken D, L, Q, Maj
NA27 John 18:11 to. poth,rion o] de,dwke,n moi o` path.r ouv mh. pi,w auvto,
e;dwken D, N, D, Q, Y, 1424
NA27 John 4:12 ... VIakw,b( o]j e;dwken h`mi/n to. fre,ar
de,dwken P66, P75, C, f13, pc
NA27 John 13:3 eivdw.j o[ti pa,nta e;dwken auvtw/| o` path.r eivj ta.j cei/raj
de,dwken P66, P75, A, D, Q, Y, f13, 33, Maj
e;dwken 01, B, K, L, W, 070, f1, 579, L844, pc
A typical variation.
de,dwken / e;dwken in John = 10 : 11.
Of the Gospels it is only in John, that de,dwken appears. The perfective usage
of di,dwmi is typically Johannine. He uses it 23 times. A change from de,dwken
to e;dwken is thus more probable. This can be also seen from the examples above
which show 9 changes from de,dwken to e;dwken, but only 2 the other way round.
And it is not at all clear, if these 2 examples are really valid, because it is
possible that here the txt reading is wrong.
Possibly e;dwken is a conformation to immediate context, verse 31 (so already
Weiss).
txt P66, B, D, P*, L, T, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 565, 579, 1071, Maj,
Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, Co, arm, goth
Note that A and W have moi after pisteu,ete ! This is not noted in NA.
Compare:
NA27 John 6:26zhtei/te, me ouvc o[ti ei;dete shmei/a( avllV o[ti evfa,gete evk
tw/n a;rtwn kai. evcorta,sqhte
"you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves."
John 5:37-40 And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard
his voice or seen his form, 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not
believe him whom he has sent. 39 "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have
eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. 40 Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
It is not clear what Jesus meant with the "But I said to you..." (VAllV ei=pon ...).
If the me is not genuine, then the words may refer back to verse 26 and the
feeding and other signs (so many commentators). Zahn (Comm. Jo) thinks that
this back reference is "unquestionable".
It is possible that the me and moi have been added to provide an object. The
different additions by txt (me), A (moi) and W(me + moi) may indicate a
secondary cause.
If the me is genuine, the saying to which Jesus refers has not been explicitly
reported before. 5:37-40 have been suggested, but are not fitting perfectly. It
is therefore possible that the me has been omitted to avoid this difficulty.
Note the kai. that can either mean "also, even" or with the following kai.:
kai. ... kai, "both ... and" or "not only ... but also".
K, L omit the first kai..
me for first evme.: G, L, L, P*, f1, 124, 28, 565, 579, 700, pc
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Immediate context:
NA27 John 6:35 o` evrco,menoj pro.j evme. ouv mh. peina,sh|(
pro.j me A, D, L, W, Q, Y, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj
pro.j evme, P75, 01, B, T
Compare:
NA27 John 6:44 ouvdei.j du,natai evlqei/n pro,j me
pro.j evme. B, E, H, M, U, D, Q, 2, al
NA27 John 7:37 eva,n tij diya/| evrce,sqw pro,j me kai. pine,tw
pro.j evme. P75, B
verse 39:
Byz 01C1?, K, P, M, U, G, D, Q, 047vid, f13, 33, 579, 1071, Maj,
Lat(a, aur, c, ff2, j, r1, vg), Sy-H
txt P66, P75, 01*vid, A, B, Cvid, D, L, T, W, Y, 091, 0141, f1, 157, 565vid, 700,
892, al, it(b, d, e, f, q), Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P, Co
01: The scribe omits 39a due to parablepsis. The words have been added at the
bottom of the page, but then, strangely, have subsequently been deleted again!
For this text the online IGNTP majuscule edition and Swanson have patro,j,
Tischendorf, NA and the online Sinaiticus transcription have not.
From the images a clear decision is not possible, though there is a slight
preference for the text without patro,j.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Lacuna: C, X
B: no umlaut
See discussion in 5:30!
In almost all occurrences of this phrase a variation takes place, either the
addition or omission of patro,j.
txt 01, A, D, 0141, f13, 33, Maj-part[K, P, N, S, 28, 1071, 1241, 1424], Tis
C: Tis, Swanson, NA have C for the omission of evn, IGNTP has it for evn.
NA27 John 6:40 ... kai. avnasth,sw auvto.n evgw. evn th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|
BYZ John 6:40 kai. avnasth,sw auvto.n evgw. th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|
Byz P75, B, C, T, W, Q, 0141, f1, 579, Maj, Trg, WH, Bal, SBL
NA27 John 6:44 ... kavgw. avnasth,sw auvto.n evn th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|
B: no umlaut
NA27 John 12:48 o` lo,goj o]n evla,lhsa evkei/noj krinei/ auvto.n evn th/|
evsca,th| h`me,ra| omit evn: P66, 1241
At first this looks like an example of the rule that when a certain wording
appears several times and the scribe changes it at first, he finally gives in. This
means that the support for the wrong reading gets weaker in succession.
This is true for the first three verses, but is turned upside down in verse 6:54,
where an overwhelming number of MSS supports the short reading. This is then
once again followed later by two almost safe long readings.
It is comparatively improbable that John used both wordings. Curious!
Rating: - (indecisive)
txt P66, P75, 01, B, C, D, L, N, T, U, W, Q, 0233, f1, 33, 565, 579, 892, 1071,
1241, pc, it(a, b, d, e, j, q, 35), Sy, Co, arm, Cl
tou/ patro,j me CIGNTP, LSwanson ?
Compare also:
NA27 John 5:30 avlla. to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j me
BYZ John 5:30 avlla. to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j me patro,j
Byz M, U, G, Q, 1582C, f13, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 1424, Maj, it
txt P66, P75, 01, A, B, C, D, L, W, Y, f1, 69, 28, 33, 565, 579, 892, 1241, al,
Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, bopt
o[ti P66*
B: no umlaut
Parallels:
NA27 Matthew 13:55 ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` tou/ te,ktonoj ui`o,j
NA27 Mark 6:1 3 ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` te,ktwn(
NA27 Luke 4:22 ouvci. ui`o,j evstin VIwsh.f ou-toj
Compare:
NA27 John 7:42ouvc h` grafh. ei=pen o[ti evk tou/ spe,rmatoj Daui.d kai. avpo.
Bhqle,em th/j kw,mhj o[pou h=n Daui.d e;rcetai o` cristo,j
ouvci. 01, BC, D, W, X, 0105, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj
ouvc P66, P75, L, T, Q, Y, pc
ouvk B*, N
NA27 John 14:22 Le,gei auvtw/| VIou,daj( ouvc o` VIskariw,thj\ ku,rie( kai. ti,
ge,gonen o[ti h`mi/n me,lleij evmfani,zein seauto.n kai. ouvci. tw/| ko,smw|
both safe!
John uses ouvc 20 times and ouvci, 5 times. Normally these are safe. John even
uses both forms in one verse: 14:22, both safe!
It is possible that ouvci, is a harmonization to Lk. Otherwise it is difficult to
explain, why the other appearances are all safe.
T&T #70
01 corrected by 01C2.
Lacuna: X
B: no umlaut
T&T #74
Byz A, CC2, D, N, D, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 213, 397, 565, 579, 799, 821, 1241,
Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co, geo2, goth, [Trg]
C: is given as in NA. This is in contrast to Tischendorf who has C for eivj evme. in
his GNT. IGNTP list a lacuna of 10 letters here, which must have read eivj evme.
e;cei. Tischendorf has this lacuna in his transcription but no note on this.
P75 has a lacuna: NA lists it as "vid" for txt. Reconstructions show that this is
not justified. P75 should be dropped from this variant.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Lacuna: X
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 3:15 i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn evn auvtw/| e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nion
BYZ John 3:15 i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn eivj auvto.n ...
NA27 John 3:36 o` pisteu,wn eivj to.n ui`o.n e;cei zwh.n aivw,nion\
NA27 John 5:24 kai. pisteu,wn tw/| pe,myanti, me e;cei zwh.n aivw,nion
NA27 John 6:35 kai. o` pisteu,wn eivj evme. ouv mh. diyh,sei pw,pote
Compare also:
NA27 John 14:1 Mh. tarasse,sqw u`mw/n h` kardi,a\ pisteu,ete eivj to.n qeo.n
kai. eivj evme. pisteu,ete
From here on pisteu,wn is always followed by eivj evme.: 7:38; 11:25-26; 12:44,
12:46; 14:12.
txt P66, P75, (01), B, C, D, L, T, W, Y, 33, 0211, 157, 579, 1071, al,
Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, ac2, Cl, OrCom.Jo
Origen quotes the long form twice in De Oratione and the short form twice in
his commentary on John.
Lacuna: X, A(until 8:52)!
B: no umlaut
txt "and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
Byz "and the bread that I will give is my flesh that I will give for the life of the world."
Byz P75vid, 01, C, D, L, W, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 565, 579, 1071, Maj,
d, ff2, goth, NA25, Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal
txt P66, B, T, 892, 1424, pc, L253, Lat, Sy, Co, arm, geo, Or, WH
WH, Trgmg have auvtou/ in brackets.
Lacuna: P75, A, X
P75: The words are within a lacuna, but from space considerations almost
certain. Swanson omits the word. So also Comfort & Barrett. NA does not note
it. Reconstruction:
kosmouzwhsemacontoounoiiou
daioiprosallhlouslegontespwsdu
nataioutoshmindounaithnsarkaautou
fagein eipenounautoisois amhn
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
T&T #76
omit: (01*), D, d
The omission by D could be due to parablepsis, too, either h.t. sij -sij, or
the complete symmetric structure caused the omission.
T&T #77
D, d:
kaqw/j evn evmoi. o` path.r kavgw. evn tw/| patri,\ avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n(
eva.n mh. la,bete to. sw/ma tou/ ui`ou/ tou/ avnqrw,pou w`j to.n a;rton th/j
zwh/j( ouvk e;cete zwh.n evn auvtw/|\
d: sicut in me pater et ego in patre. Amen amen dico vobis,
nisi acceperitis corpus fili hominis sicut panem vitae, non habetis vitam in aeo.
a, ff2:
Si acceperit homo corpus filii (ff2: fili) hominis quemadmodum panem vitae,
habebit vitam in eo (ff2: illo).
= eva.n mh. la,bete to. sw/ma tou/ ui`ou/ tou/ avnqrw,pou w`j to.n a;rton th/j
zwh/j( ouvk e;cete zwh.n evn auvtw/|\
"As the father is in me, I also am in the father. Truly, truly, I say to you,
if you do not receive the body of the Son of Man as the bread of
life, you have no life in him."
Compare:
NA27 John 10:38 evn evmoi. o` path.r kavgw. evn tw/| patri,
NA27 John 6:53 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( eva.n mh. fa,ghte th.n sa,rka tou/
ui`ou/ tou/ avnqrw,pou kai. pi,hte auvtou/ to. ai-ma( ouvk e;cete zwh.n evn
e`autoi/j D, a read: la,bete th.n sa,rka
The words look like a combination of 10:38 and 6:53 (where D also reads
la,bete).
Metzger calls it "a homiletic expansion". We know that D is fond of such
additions. It possibly also a reflection of Mk 14:22 and parallels.
Note that both, the end of verse 56 + addition by D and the addition by D +
beginning of verse 57 are the same: evn auvtw/|\ kaqw.j
56 o` trw,gwn mou th.n sa,rka kai. pi,nwn mou to. ai-ma evn evmoi. me,nei
kavgw. evn auvtw/|
kaqw/j evn evmoi. o` path.r kavgw. evn tw/| patri,\ avmh.n avmh.n le,gw
u`mi/n( eva.n mh. la,bete to. sw/ma tou/ ui`ou/ tou/ avnqrw,pou w`j
to.n a;rton th/j zwh/j( ouvk e;cete zwh.n evn auvtw/|\
57 kaqw.j avpe,steile,n me o` zw/n path.r kavgw. zw/ dia. to.n pate,ra( kai. o`
trw,gwn me kavkei/noj zh,sei diV evme,
Thus in principle the words could have fallen out due to haplography.
W has a long dittography here: He repeats 54 e;cei ... 56 ai-ma. To the contrary
33 omits that part!
D and 01 (which is Western in this part!) omit the final clause of verse 55, but
01 is not following D in the long addition in verse 65.
It should be noted that the word sw/ma is suspicious here. It appears nowhere
else in these chapters, but only sa.rx is used 7 times within 6:51 and 6:63!
T&T #79
T&T #80
u`mw/n D, 0141, 33, 597, 821, pc3, d, e, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, bomss, ac2, pbo, Gre
01: NA has 01 correctly for txt, T&T notes it wrongly for u`mw/n. I have checked
it at the facsimile. Klaus Witte confirms.
Tischendorf notes additionally "3pe" (= L251) for txt.
Lacuna: A, X
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 6:31 oi` pate,rej h`mw/n to. ma,nna e;fagon evn th/| evrh,mw|(
NA27 John 6:49 oi` pate,rej u`mw/n e;fagon evn th/| evrh,mw| to. ma,nna kai.
avpe,qanon\
Compare:
NA27 Mark 1:21 Kai. eivsporeu,ontai eivj Kafarnaou,m\ kai. euvqu.j toi/j
sa,bbasin eivselqw.n eivj th.n sunagwgh.n evdi,dasken
NA27 Mark 6:2 kai. genome,nou sabba,tou h;rxato dida,skein evn th/|
sunagwgh/|(
NA27 Luke 4:31 Kai. kath/lqen eivj Kafarnaou.m po,lin th/j Galilai,aj
kai. h=n dida,skwn auvtou.j evn toi/j sa,bbasin\
NA27 Luke 6:6 VEge,neto de. evn e`te,rw| sabba,tw| eivselqei/n auvto.n eivj th.n
sunagwgh.n kai. dida,skein
NA27 Luke 13:10 +Hn de. dida,skwn evn mia/| tw/n sunagwgw/n evn toi/j
sa,bbasin
T&T #81
X: txt not extant, but cited in the commentary (p. 15 B9, PDF p. 31)
P66 corrected in the upper margin.
Lacuna: A, X
B: no umlaut
"But among you there are some who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who
were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him.
Compare:
NA27 John 16:1 Tau/ta lela,lhka u`mi/n i[na mh. skandalisqh/te
omit: 01*, 1424*
01* corrected by 01C2.
The omission of mh. is not easy to explain. The negation is clearly paralleled in
the ouv pisteu,ousin earlier in the verse.
Metzger notes that the omission "may be the result of a desire to indicate that
Jesus knew his own, rather than those who were not his own. The parallelism,
however, with the first part of the verse seems to require the presence of the
negative."
The support for the omission is not coherent.
Byz CC3, D, Y, 0141, 0250, f1, f13, 33, 565, 579, 1071, Maj,
Lat(aur, c, f, j, q, vg), Sy-P, Sy-H, sapt, ac2, goth
Lacuna: P75, A, X
B: no umlaut
Similar cases:
a) Majority variants:
NA27 BYZ
6:65 tou/ patro,j tou/ patro,j mou
Byz C , Y, 0250, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, samss
C3
txt P66, 01, B, C*, D, L, T, W, Q, 124, 892, al, it, Sy-S, Sy-C, samss, bo
b) Minority readings:
4:23 tw/| patri. tw/| patri. mou 69
6:44 o` path.r o` path.r mou P66, G, 157, pc
6:57 to.n pate,ra to.n pate,ra mou P75, Sy-S
10:15 to.n pate,ra to.n pate,ra mou 579
10:30 o` path.r o` path.r mou W*, D, 700, pc, e, Sy-S, Sy-P, Co
C
12:26 o` path.r o` path.r mou P66 , U, Q, 0211, f13, 28, 700, 1424, pc, Lat
12:50 o` path.r o` path.r mou 1424
14:26 o` path.r o` path.r mou D, Q, 118
14:28 to.n pate,ra to.n pate,ra mou G, f13, 157
15:16 to.n pate,ra to.n pate,ra mou 1424
15:261 tou/ patro,j tou/ patro,j mou D, P, 579, 1424
15:262 tou/ patro,j tou/ patro,j mou D
16:3 to.n pate,ra to.n pate,ra mou 1424
16:16 to.n pate,ra to.n pate,ra mou G, 0233, pc, Sy-S
16:23 to.n pate,ra to.n pate,ra mou N, 054
16:25 tou/ patro,j tou/ patro,j mou 1071
16:26 to.n pate,ra to.n pate,ra mou D, 1424
16:28 to.n pate,ra to.n pate,ra mou H
16:32 o` path.r o` path.r mou 054, 69, 788, 346(=f13), 28
18:11 o` path.r o` path.r mou P66vid, 69, 700, Sy-S, Sy-P, Co
In the following cases the tou/ patro,j mou is safe: Jo 2:16; 5:17; 5:36; 5:43;
6:32; (6:40); 8:49; 10:25; 10:37; 14:2; 14:7; 14:21; 15:1; 15:23; 15:24; 20:172.
There are also several cases where o` path.r without mou is safe.
The Minority variants where mou has been added are more in number than those
where it has been omitted (21 : 8). It is of course a natural addition. In all
Majority cases Byz has the added mou.
That the additions are secondary is probable for several reasons:
a) they represent a slightly higher Christology
b) there is no reason for an omission, except accidental.
c) the mou is well known from the Synoptics where it appears often. There it is
the rule to have path,r be followed by a personal pronoun.
In the instances of 8:38; 10:29; 10:32 and 20:171 the support for the addition is
quite good.
On the other hand at 15:10 the support for the omission is also quite good.
These cases should be reconsidered.
It is interesting that this variation is so prominent in John.
Rating: 2? (NA probably original)
T&T #83
Cristo.j o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ CC3, 0141, f1, 33, 565, 821, 1010, 1819, 2129,
pc8, it(a, aur, c, e, j, l, 9A, 11A, 29, 33, 47, 48),
Sy-S, arm
Cristo.j Tert
o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ pc, b, Sy-C
a[gioj tou/ qeou/ P75, 01, B, C*, D, L, W, 397, d, sams, pbo, boms
omit o[ti su. ei= o` a[gioj tou/ qeou/: 047 (unknown reason)
Lacuna: A, X
B: no umlaut
Parallels:
NA27 Matthew 16:16 avpokriqei.j de. Si,mwn Pe,troj ei=pen\ su. ei= o`
cristo.j o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ tou/ zw/ntoj
NA27 Mark 8:29 kai. auvto.j evphrw,ta auvtou,j\ u`mei/j de. ti,na me le,gete
ei=nai avpokriqei.j o` Pe,troj le,gei auvtw/|\ su. ei= o` cristo,j
NA27 Luke 9:20 ei=pen de. auvtoi/j\ u`mei/j de. ti,na me le,gete ei=nai Pe,troj
de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen\ to.n cristo.n tou/ qeou/
NA27 John 1:49 avpekri,qh auvtw/| Naqanah,l\ r`abbi,( su. ei= o` ui`o.j tou/
qeou/( su. basileu.j ei= tou/ VIsrah,l
NA27 John 11:27 le,gei auvtw/|\ nai. ku,rie( evgw. pepi,steuka o[ti su. ei= o`
cristo.j o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ o` eivj to.n ko,smon evrco,menoj
If the longer form is original, there would have been no reason to change it into
the short form. The expansions are harmonizations to the above parallels,
especially Mt 16:16 (so Weiss).
T&T #85
Carioth e
Skariw,q D, Lat
Scarioth
Lacuna: A, X
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 12:4 le,gei de. VIou,daj o` VIskariw,thj ei-j evk tw/n maqhtw/n
auvtou/( o` me,llwn auvto.n paradido,nai\
vIskariw,tou Y
avpo. Karuw,tou D
NA27 John 13:2 kai. dei,pnou ginome,nou( tou/ diabo,lou h;dh beblhko,toj
eivj th.n kardi,an i[na paradoi/ auvto.n VIou,daj Si,mwnoj VIskariw,tou(
avpo. Karuw,tou D, e
NA27 John 13:26 avpokri,netai o` VIhsou/j\ evkei/no,j evstin w-| evgw. ba,yw to.
ywmi,on kai. dw,sw auvtw/| ba,yaj ou=n to. ywmi,on lamba,nei kai.
di,dwsin VIou,da| Si,mwnoj VIskariw,tou
avpo. Karuw,tou D
"Man of Kerioth" (a town in southern Judea). This is very certainly the meaning
but not the correct text. Probably a scribe wanted to make the meaning more
explicit.
Rating: 2 (NA clearly original)
TVU 114
Minority reading:
NA27 John 7:1 Kai. meta. tau/ta periepa,tei o` VIhsou/j evn th/| Galilai,a|\ ouv
ga.r h;qelen evn th/| VIoudai,a| peripatei/n( o[ti evzh,toun auvto.n oi`
VIoudai/oi avpoktei/nai
Compare:
NA27 John 10:18 ouvdei.j ai;rei auvth.n avpV evmou/( avllV evgw. ti,qhmi auvth.n
avpV evmautou/ evxousi,an e;cw qei/nai auvth,n( kai. evxousi,an e;cw pa,lin
labei/n auvth,n\ tau,thn th.n evntolh.n e;labon para. tou/ patro,j mou
NA27 John 19:10 le,gei ou=n auvtw/| o` Pila/toj\ evmoi. ouv lalei/j ouvk oi=daj
o[ti evxousi,an e;cw avpolu/sai, se kai. evxousi,an e;cw staurw/sai, se
NA27 John 19:11 avpekri,qh auvtw/| VIhsou/j\ ouvk ei=cej evxousi,an katV evmou/
ouvdemi,an eiv mh. h=n dedome,non soi a;nwqen\ dia. tou/to o` paradou,j me,
soi mei,zona a`marti,an e;cei
ouv ga.r ei=cen evxousi,an does probably not mean "not having authority/right"
(which makes no sense with the following clause), but simply "not being able to".
But Chrysostom shows that the understanding of "not having authority" was
common. He writes in his 48th homily on the Gospel of John:
"What sayest thou, O blessed John? Had not He 'power', who was able to do all that He
would? ... The Evangelist spake not so that he might be supposed to utter riddles, but to
make it plain that He showeth proofs both of His Godhead and His Manhood. For when he
saith, that "He had not power," he speaketh of Him as a man, doing many things after the
manner of men; but when he saith, that He stood in the midst of them, and they seized
Him not, he showeth to us the power of the Godhead, (as man He fled, as God He
appeared,) and in both cases he speaks truly."
So, the W reading is clearly the more difficult one. Possibly from the Latin?
"potestatem" has a broad range of meanings: "power, strength" but also "chance,
opportunity". The latter is more probable.
T&T #87
auvto.j evn parrhsi,a| P66C, P75, 01, EC, L, X, D, Y, 070, 0141, f1, 124, 33,
213, 397, 579, 799, 821, 865, 892, 1241, Maj, Lat,
Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, Co, arm, geo2, WH, NA25, Trg
NA/SQE list only the last three variants (and D* in the appendix).
579 reads txt, as given in T&T, Swanson and Schmidtke. This has been checked
at the film. NA notes it wrongly for the P66* reading.
Merck lists also TatianN for auvto..
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
txt "for no one does anything in secret, and himself seeks to be in public"
B.. "for no one does anything in secret, and seeks it to be in public"
Compare:
NA27 Matthew 10:26 Mh. ou=n fobhqh/te auvtou,j\ ouvde.n ga,r evstin
kekalumme,non
It is possible that the text originally lacked a pronoun, which has been supplied
later at various places and in different forms. But the support for this is only
versional and may simply be translational inaccuracy.
The neuter form might have been suggested from Mt 10:26 (Lk 12:2) where also
a neuter follows a masculine form. Weiss (Textkritik, p. 41) notes that possibly
the auvto. is a conformation to the neuter ti. The B reading is more difficult
(almost nonsensical), the txt reading makes better sense in context.
The variation is strange and difficult to decide. The support for auvto. is quite
good.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 116
46. Difficult variant
NA27 John 7:8 u`mei/j avna,bhte eivj th.n e`orth,n\ evgw. ouvk avnabai,nw eivj th.n
e`orth.n tau,thn( o[ti o` evmo.j kairo.j ou;pw peplh,rwtai
BYZ John 7:8 u`mei/j avna,bhte eivj th.n e`orth,n tau,thn\ evgw. ou;pw
avnabai,nw eivj th.n e`orth.n tau,thn\ o[ti o` kairo.j o` evmo.j ou;pw
peplh,rwtai
Byz P66, P75, B, L, T, W, X, D, Q, Y, 070, 0105, 0141, 0250, f1, f13, 1071, Maj,
f, j, q, 27, 29, vgmss, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, sa, ac2, goth, NA25, WH, Weiss
txt 01, D, K, P, M, 1071, 1241, al, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, bo, arm, Diatess,
WHmg, Tis, Trg
Latin: vos ascendite ad diem festum (hunc), ego non ascendo ad diem festum
(nondum f, q et al.)
P66 changes the second ou;pw singularly into ouvde,pw (so, too, in Jo 7:30).
33, 565, 579 omit due to h.t. e`orth,n tau,thn\ ... e`orth.n tau,thn\
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
Diatessaron:
Ephrem (McCarthy): "I am not going up during this feast, that is, to the cross. He did
not say, to the feast, but, during the feast. They were
seeking him in order to hand him over. Therefore he deceived
them, I am not going up. But he went up secretly."
Arabic (Preuschen): "ich gehe jetzt nicht hinauf zu diesem Fest"
Arabic (Hogg): "but I go not up now to this feast"
NA27 Mark 7:18 ouv noei/te A, B, D, W, Q, 28, 33, 565, 579, 1424, Maj
ou;pw noei/te 01, L, D, U, f1, 700, 892, 1342, pc
It is possible that scribes changed ouvk into ou;pw to remove the inconsistency
between verse 8 and verse 10.
On the other hand ou;pw could have been changed into ouvk to improve style,
because there is one more ou;pw later in the verse. It is also possible that ouvk
is at least in part just an accidental error (several ou;pwouvk variations appear,
see examples above). ouvk is basically a Western reading (01, D, it, vg, Sy-S, Sy-
C), joined by a few Byzantine manuscripts. Both 01 and D change one other ou;pw
to ouvk.
The external support for ou;pw is very strong.
Difficult.
Already Porphyry the philosopher (3rd CE) notes that with the ouvk we would
have a "changeable" Jesus. Jerome's Against the Pelagians 2:17 writes:
"Ut autem ascenderunt fratres ejus, tunc et ipse ascendit ad solemnitatem, non
manifeste, sed quasi in abscondito (Joan. VII, 10). Iturum se negavit, et fecit quod
prius negaverat. Latrat Porphyrius, inconstantiae ac mutationis accusat, nesciens omnia
scandala ad carnem esse referenda. Moyses, inquit, dedit vobis legem, et nemo ex vobis
facit legem, utique possibilem, et tamen quod erat possibile, nemo impleverat, neque
enim culpa imperantis est, sed fragilitas audientis, ut omnis mundus subditus fiat Deo."
Weiss (Jo Com.) suggests that the ou;pw indicates that Jesus did not want to go
to THIS festival (tau,thn !), but only to a later one. This, he thinks, is also
required from context (thus there is no real difference here between ouvk and
ou;pw). Weiss thinks that Jesus changed his mind due to a hint from God or
what ever. We will never know.
The Latin (Old Latin and Vulgate) could be interpreted as if Jesus would not go
up on that special day only. Compare Augustine: (Sermon LXXXIII. = CXXXIII.
Benedictine Edition)
"Ipsa verba solvunt quaestionem. Multis diebus agebatur ille dies festus. 'Ad istum', utique hodiernum
'diem', inquit, 'festum', istum utique hodiernum quando illi sperabant, non ascendit; sed quando ipse
disponebat. Denique attende quod sequitur: 'Haec cum dixisset, ipse mansit in Galilaea.' Ergo non
ascendit 'ad istum diem festum.' ...
... Non ascendo, inquit, ad diem festum. Dixit: Non ascendo, ut occultaretur; addidit: istum, ne
mentiretur. Aliquid intulit, aliquid abstulit, aliquid distulit; nihil tamen falsi dixit, quia nihil falsi de eius
ore procedit."
"The words themselves solve the difficulty. That feast was kept for many days. 'On this', that is, this
present 'feast day', saith He, this day, that is, when they hoped, He went not up; but when He Himself
resolved to go. Now mark what follows, 'When He had said these words, He Himself stayed in Galilee.'
So then He did not go up 'on that feast day'. ...
... He said, 'I go not up,' that He might be hid; He added 'this,' that He might not lie. Something He
expressed, something He suppressed, something He repressed; yet said He nothing false, for 'nothing
false proceedeth out of His Mouth.' "
But on the other hand "diem festum" could be simply a translation of e`orth,n
tau,thn.
Compare:
Chrys C. Caragounis "Jesus, his brothers and the journey to Jerusalem
(Jo 7:8-10)" Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 63 (1998) [he argues for ou;pw]
Rating: 2? (NA probably original)
T&T #88
Byz P75, B, DC1, T, PC, D, Q, Y, 0105, 0141, f13, 33, 579, 799, 821, Maj,
a, ff2, q, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, geo2, goth, NA25, WH, Weiss, Trg
txt P66, 01, D*, K, P*, L, N, W, X, 070, f1, 22, 213, 397, 565, 799, 865, 1071,
1241, al100, Lat, Co, arm, WHmg, Trgmg
L reads Byz. This has been confirmed by Klaus Witte from Muenster from the
film. NA lists it wrongly for the omission. Swanson and T&T (implicitly) have it
correctly.
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 7:10
~Wj de. avne,bhsan oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ ... to,te kai. auvto.j avne,bh ...
omit: 01, D, 1424, pc, it(a, b, d, e, r1, 48), Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, ac2, geo, Bois, Tis, Bal
txt P66, P75, B, L, T, W, X, Q, Y, 070, 0105, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 565, 579, 1071,
Maj, Lat(aur, c, f, ff2, l, q, vg), Sy-P, Sy-H, bo, arm, goth
"quasi"
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 2:15 kai. poih,saj frage,llion evk scoini,wn pa,ntaj evxe,balen
evk tou/ i`erou/ ta, te pro,bata kai. tou.j bo,aj( kai. tw/n kollubistw/n
evxe,ceen to. ke,rma kai. ta.j trape,zaj avne,treyen(
w`j P66, P75, G, L, N, WS, X, 0162, f1, 22, 33, 565, 892, 1241,
al, Lat, Sy-Hmg, Orsup
txt 01, A, B, Q, Y, f13, 579, 1071, Maj, l, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co, Or
No parallel for this construction in the Greek Bible. Possibly idiomatic (compare
Jo 2:15)?
It is probable that w`j has been omitted as superfluous or awkward. It is also
possible that it has been omitted, because in this sentence w`j appears twice
with two different meanings. The first is a temporal particle "while, when", the
second a particle of comparison "as, like". Weiss (Textkritik, p. 170) thinks that
the w`j has probably been omitted, because there was none in front of the
parallel fanerw/j.
Metzger notes that "a copyist may have inserted the word in order to soften
the force of the expression evn kruptw/|." (so already Tischendorf) - But is this
probable?
T&T #89
Byz polu.j peri. auvtou/ h=n D, 0105, 0141?, f1, f13, 157, 565, 579, Maj
polu.j h=n peri. auvtou/ 01, N, Y, 397, 892, 1010, 1071, 1293, al100
polu.j h=n 1424, pc4
txt peri. auvtou/ h=n polu.j P75, B, L, T, W, X, 213, 597, 799, 821, 865,
1241, 1819, 2786, pc9
h=n peri. auvtou/ polu.j P66C, 070vid, 33, Tis, Bal
one of these: Lat(b, f, ff2C, j, q, r1, 11A, vg), Sy, Co, goth
Tischendorf gets this reading, because he separates it into two variants: a) the
position of h=n and b) the position of polu.j.
X: polloi/j
070 reads: kai. goggusmo.j h=n peri. auvtou/ polu.j evn toi/j
0141: T&T have it for Byz, IGNTP for txt.
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 6:41 VEgo,gguzon ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi peri. auvtou/ o[ti ei=pen\ evgw,
eivmi o` a;rtoj o` kataba.j evk tou/ ouvranou/(
NA27 John 6:61 eivdw.j de. o` VIhsou/j evn e`autw/| o[ti goggu,zousin peri.
tou,tou oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ ei=pen auvtoi/j\ tou/to u`ma/j skandali,zei
NA27 John 7:32 h;kousan oi` Farisai/oi tou/ o;clou goggu,zontoj peri.
auvtou/ tau/ta(
Rating: - (indecisive)
txt de,dwken P66, P75, 01, L, T, W, X, Q, Y, 0105, 0141, 0250, f1, f13, 33,
Maj, WHmg, Tis
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
o` a;nqrwpoj
B, N, Q, (0250), 33, pc, [NA25] , [WH], Weiss, [Trgmg]
txt P66, 01, D, L, T, W, X, Y, 0105, 0141, f1, f13, 579, Maj, Trg
Compare context:
NA27 John 7:22 dia.tou/to Mwu?sh/j de,dwken u`mi/n th.n peritomh,n & ouvc
o[ti evk tou/ Mwu?se,wj evsti.n avllV evk tw/n pate,rwn & kai. evn sabba,tw|
perite,mnete a;nqrwpon
Compare also:
NA27 John 9:11 avpekri,qh evkei/noj\ o` a;nqrwpoj o` lego,menoj VIhsou/j
phlo.n evpoi,hsen
with o`: P66, 01, B, L, 070, f1, 22, 33, 1071, pc
without o`: P75, A, C, D, W, X, Q, Y, f13, 579, Maj
NA27 John 16:21 ... ouvke,ti mnhmoneu,ei th/j qli,yewj dia. th.n cara.n o[ti
evgennh,qh a;nqrwpoj eivj to.n ko,smon
add o`: 01*, 157, 579
Byz M, U, G, D, L, 0105, 157, 579, 700, Maj, f, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, goth
txt P66, P75, 01, B, D, K, P, L, N, T, W, X, Q, Y, 0105, 0141, f1, f13, 28, 565,
892, 1071, 1241, 1424, al, Lat, Sy-C, Sy-S, Co, arm, Or
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 4:42 ou-to,j evstin avlhqw/j o` swth.r tou/ ko,smou
NA27 John 6:14 ou-to,j evstin avlhqw/j o` profh,thj
NA27 John 7:40 ou-to,j evstin avlhqw/j o` profh,thj\
Clearly a secondary addition stimulated by the avlhqw/j earlier in the verse and
the similar occurrences in John.
NA27 John 7:36 ti,j evstin o` lo,goj ou-toj o]n ei=pen\ zhth,sete, me kai. ouvc
eu`rh,sete, me( kai. o[pou eivmi. evgw. u`mei/j ouv du,nasqe evlqei/n
txt P75, B, G, T, X, f1, 565, 892, pc, vgms, Sy, Co, WH, [Trgmg]
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
LXX Jeremiah 36:13 kai. evkzhth,sate, me kai. eu`rh,sete, me o[ti zhth,sete, me
evn o[lh| kardi,a| u`mw/n
NA27 John 8:21
Ei=pen ou=n pa,lin auvtoi/j\ evgw. u`pa,gw kai. zhth,sete, me (
kai. ouvk eu`rh,sete, me N, f1, 565
kai. ouvk eu`rh,sete 118, 700
NA27 John 13:33 tekni,a( e;ti mikro.n meqV u`mw/n eivmi\ zhth,sete, me
Difficult.
Either the me has been omitted to improve style or it has been added to make
the saying more symmetrical (compare the previous zhth,sete, me) and to
harmonize it with Jer and other occurrences in John.
Note that the same variation also appears in 8:21! Here N has the me!
Rating: - (indecisive)
(brackets ok)
Compare:
NA27 John 7:52 avpekri,qhsan kai. ei=pan auvtw/\| mh. kai. su. evk th/j
Galilai,aj ei= evrau,nhson kai. i;de o[ti evk th/j Galilai,aj profh,thj ouvk
evgei,retai
NA27 John 8:12 Pa,lin ou=n auvtoi/j evla,lhsen o` VIhsou/j le,gwn\ evgw, eivmi
to. fw/j tou/ ko,smou\ o` avkolouqw/n evmoi. ouv mh. peripath,sh| evn th/|
skoti,a|( avllV e[xei to. fw/j th/j zwh/j
txt P66C, 01C2, L, N, X, Q, Y, T, 0105, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 157, 565, 579, 1424,
Maj, Or3 times
Compare:
NA27 Revelation 22:17 Kai. to. pneu/ma kai. h` nu,mfh le,gousin\ e;rcou kai.
o` avkou,wn eivpa,tw\ e;rcou kai. o` diyw/n evrce,sqw( o` qe,lwn labe,tw
u[dwr zwh/j dwrea,n
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 126
NA27 John 7:37-7:38 VEn de. th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra| th/| mega,lh| th/j e`orth/j
ei`sth,kei o` VIhsou/j kai. e;kraxen le,gwn\ eva,n tij diya/| evrce,sqw pro,j me
kai. pine,tw 38 o` pisteu,wn eivj evme,( kaqw.j ei=pen h` grafh,( potamoi. evk
th/j koili,aj auvtou/ r`eu,sousin u[datoj zw/ntoj
A question of punctuation.
There is either a full stop after pine,tw or after o` pisteu,wn eivj evme,.
after pine,tw: P66, P75?, 01C, Origen, Eus, Chrys, Cyril, Basil,
Athanasius, Jerome
P75: The papyrus is fragile at this point. It appears from the Bodmer b/w image
that there may be a high point after pine,tw. But this should be checked at the
original.
In 01 a highpoint is squeezed between w and o in a different, lighter brown,
color. Similarly after grafh. such a point appears. 03 has no points at all.
D, d, e have no point after evme., but a line ends there (argument from colometry).
The "Western" punctuation has in its favor that it gives a nice parallelism and
chiasmus: eva,n tij diya/|
evrce,sqw pro,j me)
kai. pine,tw
o` pisteu,wn eivj evme,)
The problem with punctuation 1 is that in this case it is normally assumed that
the auvtou/ of verse 38 refers to the believer, which is extremely improbable,
since it does not fit the context and John's theology (cp. Menken).
Menken now suggests that one may translate:
"He who believes in me, for him, as scripture has said, rivers of living water shall
flow from his [Jesus'] inside."
Schnackenburg is seeing this as a viable option, too.
Turner writes: "Chrysostom in loc. takes the same interpretation as Origen, and refers th/j
koili,aj auvtou/ to the believer, though he adopts a punctuation of his own. As the Scripture
nowhere says that 'rivers shall flow out of his belly', it results that the words kaqw.j h` grafh
le,gei must be constructed not with what follows but with what precedes, and we must put a light
stop (u`posti,xai dei/) after le,gei, and translate 'He that believes on Me in the full sense in which
Scripture foretold Christ - as Son of God, and Creator of all things, and coeternal with the
Father, and coming as Man and as Redeemer - out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water'.
But in spite of St Chrysostom's eminence as a commentator, and in spite of the assent of later
Greeks like Theophylact who adopted his view, we may say confidently that whatever
arrangement of the words is right, this arrangement is certainly wrong."
Zahn, Weiss and Barrett think that it is the believer from which the water
flows. Schnackenburg argues that from internal considerations it is basically
safe that, whatever solution on the punctuation one prefers, it is Jesus from
which the water flows. It remains an open question. Interesting is that no
textual variants are recorded here.
Since this is not really a textcritical question please refer to the commentaries.
E.g. the following have a detailed discussion: C.K. Barrett 1978 p. 326-29,
Schnackenburg 1977 II, p. 211-17
Compare:
T. Herbert Bindley "John VII.37, 38" Expositor 20 (1920) 445
C.H. Turner "On the punctuation of Jo 7:37-38" JTS 24 (1922) 66-70 [he
is giving many fathers references]
K.H. Kuhn "St. John 7:37-8" NTS 4 (1957-8) 63-5 [discusses the Coptic
evidence]
J. Blenkinsopp "John 7:37-9: Another note on a notorious crux" NTS 6
(1959-60) 95-8
G.D. Kilpatrick "The punctuation of John 7:37-38" JTS 11 (1960) 340-2
M.J.J. Menken "The Origin of the Old Testament Quotation in John 7:38"
NovT 38 (1996) 160-75
M.A. Daise "If anyone thirsts, let that one come to me and drink: The
literary texture of Jo 7:37b-38" JBL 122 (2003) 687-699
TVU 127
NA27 John 7:39 tou/to de. ei=pen peri. tou/ pneu,matoj o] e;mellon
lamba,nein oi` pisteu,santej eivj auvto,n\ ou;pw ga.r h=n pneu/ma( o[ti
VIhsou/j ouvde,pw evdoxa,sqh
BYZ John 7:39 Tou/to de. ei=pen peri. tou/ pneu,matoj ou- e;mellon
lamba,nein oi` pisteu,ontej eivj auvto,n\ ou;pw ga.r h=n pneu/ma a[gion( o[ti
VIhsou/j ouvde,pw evdoxa,sqh
Byz P66, 01, D, L, T, W, X, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 579,
Maj-part[G, H, N, G, D, P, 28, 157, 565, 892, 1241, 1424],
Robinson, NA25, Trg, WH, Tis, Bal, SBL
txt P75, B,
Maj-part[E, K, M, S, U, V, Y, L, W, 0105, 700] , WHmg, Trgmg
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
"But this he said of the Spirit, which are about to receive those believing in him"
Similar instances:
NA27 John 4:14 o]j dV a'n pi,h| evk tou/ u[datoj ou- evgw. dw,sw auvtw/|(
NA27 John 15:20 mnhmoneu,ete tou/ lo,gou ou- evgw. ei=pon u`mi/n\
NA27 John 21:10 evne,gkate avpo. tw/n ovyari,wn w-n evpia,sate nu/n
NA27 John 4:5 Suca.r plhsi,on tou/ cwri,ou o] e;dwken VIakw.b tw/| VIwsh.f
tou/ cwri,ou ou- P66, C*, D, L, WS, Q, 086, f1, 33,
Maj-part[M, N, S, W, 28, 157, 565, 700, 1071, 1241]
The three other examples of attraction in John (see above) are safe. To the
contrary the only other example without attraction in John (4:5) shows the same
variation.
The conclusion would be that it was the o] that initiated the change.
The change emerged independently several times, because the support is not
coherent.
T&T #90
pneu/ma a[gion P66*, L, NC, W, X, D, 0105, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 213, 397,
565, 579, 799, 821, 865, 1071, 1241, Maj, [Trg]
It is possible that the h=n refers to Jesus and not to the Spirit:
"and not yet was he Spirit" against: "for not yet was the Spirit". To avoid this
view dedo,menon might have been added.
txt P66, P75, (L), T, W, X, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj
ouvde,pwte L
Lacuna: A, C
B umlaut! 1361 A 40 L
o[ti VIhsou/j ou;pw evdoxa,sqh 40 VEk tou/ o;clou
Compare:
NA27 John 7:6 o` kairo.j o` evmo.j ou;pw pa,restin
ouvde,pw W
NA27 John 8:57 penth,konta e;th ou;pw e;ceij kai. VAbraa.m e`w,rakaj
ouvde,pw D
ouvde,pw appears two more times in John, both occurrences are safe.
ou;pw appears 11 times, basically safe, too, but with three times singular
variation to ouvde,pw.
Probably ou;pw here is a conformation to immediate context, the ou;pw earlier in
the verse. The support for ou;pw is incoherent.
polloi. ou=n evk tou/ o;clou K, P, D, Y, 0105, 0141, f13, 33, 579, 1071,
Maj, q, Sy, goth
evk tou/ o;clou ou=n polloi. 118
oi` ou=n evk tou/ o;clou Q
polloi. evk tou/ o;clou oi` P66*
oi` ou=n evk tou/ o;clou polloi. 124
polloi. ou=n avkou,santej evk tou/ o;clou 157
avkou,santej evk tou/ o;clou avkou,santej 047
txt VEk tou/ o;clou ou=n P66C, P75, 01, B, D, L, T, W, X, f1, 565, pc,
Lat, Co, arm
Compare:
NA27 John 6:60 Polloi. ou=n avkou,santej evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ ei=pan\
NA27 John 11:45 Polloi. ou=n evk tw/n VIoudai,wn oi` evlqo,ntej
If polloi. was originally present, there would have been no reason for an
omission. Note 6:60, which is safe. Probably polloi. has been added from 6:60.
txt tw/n lo,gwn tou,twn P66C, P75, 01C2, B, L, N, T, Y, 0141, f1, 33, 397,
565, 597, 799, 821, 892, 1071, 2193, al60,
it(a, b, e, f, q, r1), Sy-Hmg, Sy-Pal, Co, arm, goth
to.n lo,gon tou/ton X, 213, 849, 865, 1241, 2786, al124, samss, boms
tou,twn tw/n lo,gwn G, pc2
01: IGNTP completely omits the word tou,twn for 01. It is clearly there,
confirmed from the facsimile (CSNTM 052b column C, last line).
The versions are from Tis and are not completely clear!
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
Several variations:
a) add auvtou/: P66*, 01*, D, K, W, YC, Q, f13, pc
b) add tou/ton/tou,twn: P66, P75, 01, D, B, G, L, N, U, X, P, Y, f1, 33, 565,
1071, Lat, Co, arm
The addition of tou,twn and the plural are almost safe. The omission could be
due to h.t. (-wn -wn).
The only question is the addition of auvtou/, which is basically
Western/Caesarean.
Metzger: The P66* et al. reading "has the appearance of being a conflation."
T&T #92
o[ti ou-to,j
B, D, 821, 1010, 1293, pc20, [NA25] , [WH], Weiss, [Trgmg]
txt P66, P75, 01, L, N, T, W, X, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 213, 397, 799, 849,
865, Maj
Compare context:
NA27 John 7:12 kai. goggusmo.j peri. auvtou/ h=n polu.j evn toi/j o;cloij\ oi`
me.n e;legon o[ti avgaqo,j evstin(
NA27 John 7:31 VEk tou/ o;clou de. polloi. evpi,steusan eivj auvto.n kai.
e;legon\ o` cristo.j o[tan e;lqh| mh. plei,ona shmei/a poih,sei w-n ou-toj
evpoi,hsen
NA27 John 7:41 a;lloi e;legon\ ou-to,j evstin o` cristo,j( oi` de. e;legon\
mh. ga.r evk th/j Galilai,aj o` cristo.j e;rcetai
txt P66C, 01, D, W, X, Q, Y, 0105, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj
evpe,ballen P66*, 1424
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
Compare context:
NA27 John 7:30 VEzh,toun ou=n auvto.n pia,sai( kai. ouvdei.j evpe,balen evpV
auvto.n th.n cei/ra( o[ti ou;pw evlhlu,qei h` w[ra auvtou/ safe!
Compare also:
NA27 Matthew 26:50
to,te proselqo,ntej evpe,balon ta.j cei/raj evpi. to.n VIhsou/n
NA27 Mark 14:46 oi` de. evpe,balon ta.j cei/raj auvtw/|
NA27 Luke 9:62 ouvdei.j evpibalw.n th.n cei/ra evpV a;rotron
NA27 Luke 20:19 kai. oi` avrcierei/j evpibalei/n evpV auvto.n
NA27 Luke 21:12 pa,ntwn evpibalou/sin evfV u`ma/j ta.j cei/raj auvtw/n
T&T #94
w`j ou-toj o` a;nqrwpoj X, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 157, 579, 700, 892,
1071, 1241, Maj, Lat, Sy, sa, ac2, pbo, arm, geo,
goth, Gre, Vogels, von Soden, [Trg]
Ouvde,pote ou[twj o` a;nqrwpoj 13*
13: T&T note 13* for txt, but this is not correct. The evidence acc. to Swanson
(and Geerlings) is given above. It is clear that 13* is an accidental omission due
to homoioarcton ou[twj - ou-toj. This has been confirmed by Klaus Witte from
Mnster from the film. The corrector adds the missing words. Swanson
interprets this wrongly by inserting them after o` a;nqrwpoj and not before.
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Mark 4:26 Kai. e;legen\ ou[twj evsti.n h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/ w`j
a;nqrwpoj ba,lh| to.n spo,ron evpi. th/j gh/j
It is possible that the words fell out due to h.t. (a;nqrwpoj - a;nqrwpoj, so
Weiss). Some Byzantine minuscules omit, too (e.g. 225, 229 acc. to Tis). h.t. is at
least in part responsible for the omission.
The txt reading is unusual Greek. Normally ou[twj comes in front of the verb.
Rating: - (indecisive)
T&T #97
T&T #98
Byz o` evlqw.n nukto.j pro.j auvto.n G, 579, 1424, Maj, Lat, Sy, goth
o` evlqw.n pro.j auvto.n nukto.j K, P, N, D, Y, 0211, 0250, 157, 1071, al
o` evlqw.n pro.j auvto.n nukto.j to. prw,ton D, 397 (but post auvtw/n!)
o` evlqw.n pro.j auvto.n nukto.j to. pro,teron X, 33, 865
o` evlqw.n pro.j auvto.n to. pro,teron nukto.j 0141, 821
o` evlqw.n to. pro,teron nukto.j pro.j auvto.n 1241
o` evlqw.n nukto.j pro.j auvto.n to. pro,teron Q, f1, f13, 213, 565, 799,
892, 2193, al,
r1, Sy-H**, bo, arm
Compare:
NA27 John 3:2 [Nikodemus:] ou-toj h=lqen pro.j auvto.n nukto.j
Compare also:
NA27 John 6:62 eva.n ou=n qewrh/te to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pou avnabai,nonta
o[pou h=n to. pro,teron
NA27 John 9:8 Oi` ou=n gei,tonej kai. oi` qewrou/ntej auvto.n to. pro,teron
o[ti prosai,thj h=n e;legon\ ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` kaqh,menoj kai.
prosaitw/n
NA27 John 19:39 h=lqen de. kai. Niko,dhmoj( o` evlqw.n pro.j auvto.n nukto.j
to. prw/ton(
NA27 John 10:40 ...
to,pon o[pou h=n VIwa,nnhj to. prw/ton bapti,zwn
to. pro,teron P45, 01, D, Q, f13, 579, 1071, 2786, pc
NA John 12:16 tau/ta ouvk e;gnwsan auvtou/ oi` maqhtai. to. prw/ton
27
to. pro,teron Y
Compare also the discussion about to. pro,teron versus pro,teron, next variant.
omit P75, 01C2, B, T, 205, 1582*, 849, 2786, pc4, NA25, WH, Weiss, Trg
txt P66, (D), L, W, X, Q, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 213, 565, 799, 821, 865,
892, 1241, pc23, e
to. prw/ton D, 397
omit o` evlqw.n pro.j auvto.n to. pro,teron 01*, pc, Tis, Bal
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 6:62 eva.n ou=n qewrh/te to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pou avnabai,nonta
o[pou h=n to. pro,teron
NA27 John 9:8 Oi` ou=n gei,tonej kai. oi` qewrou/ntej auvto.n to. pro,teron
o[ti prosai,thj h=n e;legon\ ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` kaqh,menoj kai.
prosaitw/n
omit to.: 700*
NA27 John 19:39 h=lqen de. kai. Niko,dhmoj( o` evlqw.n pro.j auvto.n nukto.j
to. prw/ton(
omit to.: P66*
Also:
NA27 John 10:40 ... to,pon o[pou h=n VIwa,nnhj to. prw/ton bapti,zwn
to. pro,teron P45, 01, D, Q, f13, 579, 1071, pc
NA27 John 12:16 tau/ta ouvk e;gnwsan auvtou/ oi` maqhtai. to. prw/ton
to. pro,teron Y
omit to.: 579
The change from to. pro,teron to nu,ktoj has already been discussed in the
main commentary with rating 2 (NA clearly original).
The phrase to. pro,teron/to. prw/ton appears in the Gospels only in John (5
times). It appears also in Gal 4:13 and 1.Tim 1:13. In three of the cases there
exists a singular omission of to..
It is possible that the addition of to. is a conformation to 6:62.
The witnesses supporting the omission are very good ones, but they represent a
very narrow stream in the transmission only.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 137
Minority reading:
NA27 John 7:52 avpekri,qhsan kai. ei=pan auvtw/\| mh. kai. su. evk th/j
Galilai,aj ei= evrau,nhson kai. i;de o[ti evk th/j Galilai,aj profh,thj ouvk
evgei,retai
ta.j grafa,j kai. i;de W, it(a, aur, c, e, ff2, l, r1, 9A), vgCl, sa, ac2
scripturas et vide
f, q, vg read txt.
Lacuna: A, C
B: umlaut (p. 1361 C 1 R) evrau,nhson kai. i;de o[ti
Compare:
NA27 John 5:39 evrauna/te ta.j grafa,j( o[ti u`mei/j dokei/te evn auvtai/j zwh.n
aivw,nion e;cein\
T&T #99
In NA only in the appendix (lect. minores).
E.R. Smothers notes a letter of Prof. Martin, the editor of P66, to him. Martin
writes: "On p. 52, line 2, the article o` with profh,thj, as finally written, is paler
and, on close inspection, seems to have been imperfectly scratched. If so, the
corrector, whoever he was, wished to remove it." G. Fee agrees with this view
(P66, S&D, 1968, p. 70).
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
That the Sahidic reads the article, is noted in Horner (1910) and in Hans Quecke
"Das Joh.ev. in Saidisch", Rome, 1984.
Compare:
NA27 Luke 7:39 ivdw.n de. o` Farisai/oj o` kale,saj auvto.n ei=pen evn e`autw/|
le,gwn\ ou-toj eiv h=n profh,thj(
o` profh,thj B*, X, 205, 482, pc, Weiss, NA25, WH both have o` in brackets
NA27 John 1:21 kai. hvrw,thsan auvto,n\ ti, ou=n su. VHli,aj ei= kai. le,gei\
ouvk eivmi, o` profh,thj ei= su, kai. avpekri,qh\ ou;
NA27 John 1:25 kai. hvrw,thsan auvto.n kai. ei=pan auvtw/|\ ti, ou=n bapti,zeij
eiv su. ouvk ei= o` cristo.j ouvde. VHli,aj ouvde. o` profh,thj
NA27 John 6:14 Oi` ou=n a;nqrwpoi ivdo,ntej o] evpoi,hsen shmei/on e;legon
o[ti ou-to,j evstin avlhqw/j o` profh,thj o` evrco,menoj eivj to.n ko,smon
NA27 John 7:40 VEk tou/ o;clou ou=n avkou,santej tw/n lo,gwn tou,twn
e;legon\ ou-to,j evstin avlhqw/j o` profh,thj\
Several commentators think that this is the correct reading, at least the
intended reading.
Smothers notes that there actually was a prophet from Galilee, Jonas:
LXX 2 Kings 14:25 o] evla,lhsen evn ceiri. dou,lou auvtou/ Iwna ui`ou/ Amaqi
tou/ profh,tou tou/ evk Geqcober
"which he spoke by his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-hepher."
The reading of P66* makes perfect sense and fits good into the Fourth Gospel.
G. Fee (P66, S&D, 1968, p. 79) writes: "it has been pointed out that the singular
readings of P66* are ALL of dubious quality and most likely the product of the
scribe himself, not his exemplar. The reading of o` profh,thj in P66* therefore
has as little textual value as the 19th CE conjectures; and even though this
reading is contextually to be preferred, and perhaps even what the author
intended in terms of meaning, there can be little question that he in fact wrote
profh,thj without the article. Even if a GOOD early manuscript were found
which had the article, it must continue to be rejected as secondary on the basis
of ardua lectio potior."
Compare:
E.R. Smothers "Two readings in papyrus Bodmer II" HTR 51 (1958) 109-122
Rating: - (indecisive)
Lacuna: P75, A, C
B: no umlaut
Interestingly the combination of avkolouqe,w with moi. appears 3 more times and
always safe. Perhaps John used evmoi. here for emphasis purposes:
evgw, eivmi ... o` avkolouqw/n evmoi. ...
T&T # 103
Lacuna: A, C
B: no umlaut
Western non-interpolation?
NA27 John 8:26 polla. e;cw peri. u`mw/n lalei/n kai. kri,nein( avllV o`
pe,myaj me avlhqh,j evstin(
add path,r: 01
Compare also:
NA27 John 6:38 o[ti katabe,bhka avpo. tou/ ouvranou/ ouvc i[na poiw/ to.
qe,lhma to. evmo.n avlla. to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j me
add patro,j: D, 700, 118C, 892, 1424, al, it, Sy-S, Sy-C
NA27 John 6:44 ouvdei.j du,natai evlqei/n pro,j me eva.n mh. o` path.r o`
pe,myaj me e`lku,sh| auvto,n( omit: A (homoioarcton)
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 141
Minority reading:
NA27 John 8:21 Ei=pen ou=n pa,lin auvtoi/j\ evgw. u`pa,gw kai. zhth,sete, me
( kai. evn th/| a`marti,a| u`mw/n avpoqanei/sqe\ o[pou evgw. u`pa,gw u`mei/j ouv
du,nasqe evlqei/n
Lacuna: A, C, Sy-C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 7:34 zhth,sete, me kai. ouvc eu`rh,sete, me( kai. o[pou eivmi. evgw.
u`mei/j ouv du,nasqe evlqei/n
omit: P66, 01, D, G, L, W, Q, Y, 1582, 118, f13, 33, Maj, Latt, arm, NA25
txt P75, B, N, T, X, 0105, 1, 565, al, Sy, Co, WH
DiatessArab: "If I should begin to speak unto you " (Hogg, Preuschen)
Sy-S,C: "The chief is, that I should speak myself with you, " (Burkitt)
Bohairic: "At the beginning I also told you " (Horner)
Sahidic: "From at first I speak to you." (Horner)
P75 has a dot between the o[ and the ti. (The dot is not a high point but a
normal full stop which is located under the horizontal bar of the T. It is not
entirely clear if it is intentional or simply a blot.)
B: umlaut! (1362 A 31 L)
auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\ th.n avrch.n o[ ti kai. lalw/ u`mi/n
Cyril of Alexandria:
o[ti kai. lo,gou parV u`mi/n evpoihsa,mhn avrch,n
"That I even began to speak to you!"
Funk: "It is improbable that John would have used this phrase [th.n avrch.n] in a
way foreign to his usual understanding of avrch,. th.n avrch.n = o[lwj does not
suit either the context or the grammatical structure ... It should, therefore, be
assigned a temporal meaning."
Smothers: "The ancient versions are an important indication that to the earliest
translators the original afforded no evident meaning."
"Every attempt to find a meaning for our text that will meet all requirements
labors under the inexorable difficulty that, as it stands, it is an ellipse the
resolution of which is not self-evident. Hence it is that the best of scholars fail
of a definitive solution, and differ widely in their selection of a provisional one."
"If this [the P66C reading] were the common tradition of the text, it is safe to
surmise that the main body of Johannine scholars would be content with it."
If the reading of P66C is correct, the error must be an extremely early one.
It is possible that the words fell out due to a scribal oversight of the two
eip:
eipenautoisoiseiponuminthnarchn
eipenautoisoisthnarchn
Zahn notes (Comm. Jo) that the early Greek commentators agreed on the
meaning "that I read to you at all". There was no question about that and no
indication of any difficulty in the understanding of the words. Zahn also thinks
that we should take oti as simple o[ti and not o[ ti.
Compare:
Theodor Zahn, Commentary on John
R. W. Funk "Papyrus Bodmer II (P66) and John 8:25" HTR 51 (1958) 95 -
100;
E.R. Smothers "Two readings in Papyrus Bodmer II" HTR 51 (1958) 111 -
122
[both tend to accept the reading of P66C.]
C. Rico "Jn 8:25 Au Risque de la Philologie: L'histoire d'une expression
Greque" RB 112 (2005) 596-627 [Unfortunately my French is too bad to
understand what his conclusion is.]
Chrys Caragounis "What did Jesus mean by th.n avrch.n in John 8:25?"
NovT 49 (2007) 129-47 [Detailed investigation of the evidence in the
Greek literature. He concludes that it means "from the beginning"]
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 143
Minority reading:
NA27 John 8:27 ouvk e;gnwsan o[ti to.n pate,ra auvtoi/j e;legen
01: The words have been deleted by dots above the letters and additionally by
small slashes through Q and N. Tischendorf assigns it to corrector C (= 01C2).
Lacuna: Sy-C
B: no umlaut
Lacuna: A, C, Sy-C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 6:32 ei=pen ou=n auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\
NA27 John 6:53 ei=pen ou=n auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j \ add pa,lin: 28
NA John 12:35 ei=pen ou=n auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\
27
The o[ti is clearly secondary, because there is no reason for an omission. It has
been inserted as a separator for the direct speech.
The omission of auvtoi/j is more difficult to account for. The phrase is typical
for John and the other 5 instances are safe! It is the exception that John does
not specify to whom Jesus is talking. In these instances (7:33 and 12:7) some
witnesses added a pronoun! It is thus more probable that the addition is
secondary here too.
auvtoi/j:
Rating: 1? (NA probably wrong)
(remove auvtoi/j)
pa,lin:
Rating: - (indecisive)
External Rating: 2? (NA probably original)
(after weighting the witnesses)
TVU 145
Minority reading:
NA27 John 8:34 avpekri,qh auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\ avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti
pa/j o` poiw/n th.n a`marti,an dou/lo,j evstin th/j a`marti,aj
Even without the words the meaning is the same. It is possible that the words
have been omitted as almost redundant to improve style, to avoid repetition.
Weiss (Textkritik, p. 132) thinks that the words have been omitted, because
verse 35 continues with the simple o` de. dou/loj.
T&T #113
Byz P66, 01*, D, N, D, Y, 070, 0250, 124, 157, 579, 1071, 1424, Maj,
Lat, Sy, sa, ac2
txt P75, 01C2, B, C, K, L, W, X, Y, Q, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 213, 397, 565, 597, 799,
821, 849, 865, 892, al130, f, Sy-Hmg, Sy-Pal, bo, arm, geo, goth, Or, Chrys
Lacuna: A, P, 1241
B: no umlaut
Fee writes (P66, S&D, 1968, p. 55): "One must ultimately ask at a point like this,
to whom is one to attribute the greater insight, to the author or to the
subsequent scribe? Distinctions are probably to be made between the two verbs
and such distinctions probably belong to the author, not to a second century
reviser."
Lacuna: A, P, 1241
B: no umlaut
T&T #114
T&T #115
tou/ patro.j poiei/te P66, B, L, W, 070, 597, 849, 2516, sa, pbo, Or
tou/ patro.j lalei/te P75
tou/ patro.j u`mw/n poiei/te 01, C, K, X, Q, f1, f13pt, 33, 213, 397, 565, 799,
865, 892, al130
tw/| patri. u`mw/n poiei/te (D), N, D, Y, 0141, f13pt, 157, 579, 821, 1071,
1424, Maj, Lat, Sy, bo, ac2, goth, Tert
f13: 69, 124, 174, 230 =f13b
D: u`mw/n tau/ta poiei/te
Tis notes erroneously that 13 omits u`mw/n, against Swanson, Geerlings and NA.
Checked from the film image. 13 reads para. tou/ prj u`mw/n poiei/te.
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 8:41 u`mei/j poiei/te ta. e;rga tou/
patro.j u`mw/n
NA27 John 8:44 u`mei/j evk tou/ patro.j tou/ diabo,lou evste. kai. ta.j
evpiqumi,aj tou/ patro.j u`mw/n qe,lete poiei/n
"You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires."
The meaning of this saying at this position is not entirely clear. What father is
meant here? We are told only in verse 44 that their father is meant to be the
devil.
For this reason the insertion of u`mw/n clearly contrasts the father of Jesus
from the father of the Jews. See also verse 41. In the Byzantine text the
emphasis lies on the mou and the u`mw/n: "I say what I see from my father and
you do what you see from your father."
On the other hand in the txt reading it is possible that both fathers are the
same, namely God and that the saying is in the imperative mood: "What I see
from the father that am I saying, and what you see from the father, please do
it!"
There is no reason why the personal pronouns should have been omitted if
originally present. The txt reading is much more difficult.
poiei/te an 700
txt P75, 01*, BC2, D, W, G, Q, 070, 0141, 0250, 13, 28, 157, 1424,
Maj-part, Epiph, WHmg, Tis
evpoiei/te an 01C2, C, K, P, L, N, X, D, Y, f1, f13, 33, 565, 579, 892,
Maj-part, Robinson has an in brackets
B p. 1362 C 7: Since poiei/te happens to be the first word of a line the enhancer
added a small e in front of it. There is an umlaut on the line before.
Lacuna: A
B: no umlaut
NA27 John 8:42 eiv o` qeo.j path.r u`mw/n h=n hvgapa/te a'n evme,(
NA27 John 9:41 eiv tufloi. h=te( ouvk a'n ei;cete a`marti,an\
omit a'n: D, K, Y, Q, f13
NA27 John 11:21 eiv h=j w-de ouvk a'n avpe,qanen o` avdelfo,j mou\
NA27 John 11:32 eiv h=j w-de ouvk a;n mou avpe,qanen o` avdelfo,j
NA27 John 14:2 eiv de. mh,( ei=pon a'n u`mi/n o[ti poreu,omai e`toima,sai to,pon
u`mi/n omit a'n: 01, W, 579, pc
NA27 John 14:7 eiv evgnw,kate, me( kai. to.n pate,ra mou gnw,sesqe
evgnw,keite a'n A, CC3, Q, f13, 892, Maj
a'n h|;deite B, C*, L, Q, N, X, Y, f1, 22, 33, 565, al
txt P66, 01, D, W, 579
NA27 John 14:28 eiv hvgapa/te, me evca,rhte a'n o[ti poreu,omai pro.j to.n
pate,ra
NA27 John 15:19 eiv evk tou/ ko,smou h=te( o` ko,smoj a'n to. i;dion evfi,lei\
NA27 John 18:30 eiv mh. h=n ou-toj kako.n poiw/n( ouvk a;n soi paredw,kamen
auvto,n
NA27 John 18:36 eiv evk tou/ ko,smou tou,tou h=n h` basilei,a h` evmh,( oi`
u`phre,tai oi` evmoi. hvgwni,zonto a'n i[na mh. paradoqw/ toi/j VIoudai,oij\
omit a'n: B*
(+ word order variation by other witnesses)
At some points several witnesses omit a'n. Note the characteristic variation at
John 14:7 (see discussion of this variant in the main John commentary!).
Metzger explains: "It appears that the original text of this verse involved a
mixed conditional sentence, with eiv ... evste in the protasis, and evpoiei/te in the
apodosis ('If you are really Abraham's children, you would be doing the works of
Abraham'). The variant readings arose in an effort to make a more
grammatically 'correct' condition; thus, instead of evste, the later text reads
h=te, which, with evpoiei/te, makes a condition contrary to fact. Other witnesses
add a'n, even though in Koine Greek 'the addition of a'n to the apodosis is no
longer obligatory (BDF 360,1)."
txt P66, P75, C, D, X, Q, Y, 0141, 0250, f13, 33, 579, Maj, f, vg, Sy-H**
NA27 John 8:52 ei=pon ou=n auvtw/| oi` VIoudai/oi\ nu/n evgnw,kamen o[ti
daimo,nion e;ceij VAbraa.m avpe,qanen kai. oi` profh/tai( kai. su. le,geij\
eva,n tij to.n lo,gon mou thrh,sh|( ouv mh. geu,shtai qana,tou eivj to.n
aivw/na
omit P66, 01, B, C, W, X, Q, 579, pc,
it(a, b, e, r1), Sy-S, Sy-P, sapt, ac2, pbo, bo, Trg, WH, SBL
Lacuna: A
B: no umlaut
Context:
NA27 John 8:20 Tau/ta ta. r`h,mata evla,lhsen
add ou=n: 579
NA John 8:24 ei=pon ou=n u`mi/n
27
NA27 John 8:27 ouvk e;gnwsan o[ti to.n pate,ra auvtoi/j e;legen
add ou=n: L, 69
NA John 8:31 e;legen ou=n o`
27
VIhsou/j
omit ou=n: 579
NA27 John 8:36 eva.n ou=n o` ui`o.j u`ma/j evleuqerw,sh|
omit ou=n: P75, f13-part
NA27 John 8:42 ei=pen auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\
add ou=n: 01, D, 579, f13-part, Maj-part[M, S, U, W, 28, 700, 1424]
NA John 8:47 dia. tou/to u`mei/j ouvk avkou,ete(
27
safe!
NA27 John 8:58 ei=pen auvtoi/j VIhsou/j\
add ou=n: D, N, f1, f13, 700, al[G, K, 28, 565]
ou=n is a typical John word. It appears more often in John than in the Synoptics
together:
normalized
total (per 1000 words)
Mt 56 3.1
Mk 6 0.5
Lk 33 1.7
Jo 200 12.8 (= every 4th verse!)
The Byzantine text has 201 times ou=n (01: 188, B: 194)
Interestingly the Byzantine text adds ou=n 13 times in the Synoptics: Whereas
there are 95 occurrences of ou=n in NA27 (Mt-Lk), there are 108 in Robinson's
Byzantine text.
Overall it appears slightly more probable that ou=n has been added.
ouvk evgennh,qhmen
B, D*, C2, NA25, WH, Weiss, Trg, Bal
txt P75, 01C2, C, DC1, X, Q, Y, 0141, f1, 33, Maj, Or, WHmg, Tis
ouvk evgennh,meqa 01*, L, 070
ouv gegenh,meqa P66, N, W, 0250, f13, 28, 157, 565, al
Swanson has Y for the 01* reading, probably in error. No note in Lake and
IGNTP (majuscule) = implicitly for txt.
Lacuna: A
B: no umlaut
Note that Heracleon, dated around 170 CE(!), cited in Origen, reads txt.
Lacuna: A
B: no umlaut
Ephrem has (McCarthy): "You are the sons of the Evil One, of him, who from the
beginning was a murderer."
Compare:
NA27 1 John 3:12 ouv kaqw.j Ka,i?n evk tou/ ponhrou/ h=n kai. e;sfaxen to.n
avdelfo.n auvtou/\ kai. ca,rin ti,noj e;sfaxen auvto,n o[ti ta. e;rga auvtou/
ponhra. h=n ta. de. tou/ avdelfou/ auvtou/ di,kaia
Drachmann suggests:
u`mei/j evk tou/ patro.j tou/ Ka,i?n
Compare:
J. Wellhausen "Erweiterungen und nderungen im Vierten Evangelium"
Berlin 1907, p. 19-24
A.B. Drachmann "Zu Joh 8:44" ZNW 12 (1911) 84-5
NA adds "(Sy-S)" but this is probably in error. Burkitt has: " 'therefore ye hear
it not, because you are not ' - One line has been dropped by the scribe of S."
Lacuna: A
B: no umlaut
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 153
Minority reading:
NA27 John 8:53 mh. su. mei,zwn ei= tou/ patro.j h`mw/n VAbraa,m( o[stij
avpe,qanen kai. oi` profh/tai avpe,qanon ti,na seauto.n poiei/j
h`mw/n P66, P75, A, BC2, C, L, W, D, Q, 070, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 157, 579, 1241,
Maj, aur, f, vg, Sy, Co, goth, WHmg, NA25, Trg
B: no umlaut
In B (p. 1363 B 2) the h is added above the u. Interestingly both letters, the
h and the u are enhanced and accented! Possibly the enhancer did not know
which one to choose? Tischendorf assigns the addition of the H to B2.
Rating: - (indecisive)
e`w,rake,n se P75, 01*, 070, Sy-S, sa, boms, ac2, DiatessEphrem, WHmg
Compare:
NA27 John 8:56 VAbraa.m o` path.r u`mw/n hvgallia,sato i[na i;dh| th.n
h`me,ran th.n evmh,n( kai. ei=den kai. evca,rh
"Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad."
The quality of the witnesses shows that the reading must be very early. If
original it is possible that the txt reading is a conformation to the preceding
verb e;ceij which is also second person.
The scholars J.H. Bernhard, A.S. Lewis (Sy-S), A Merx and F. Blass argued for
the originality of the reading. T. Baarda: "the present writer cannot escape
the conclusion that [this reading] may, in fact, be correct."
Note that McCarthy in his Ephrem translation has "and you have seen
Abraham?", probably in error. Compare Baarda's article.
Compare:
T. Baarda "John 8:57B The contribution of the Diatessaron of Tatian" NovT
38 (1996) 336-43
omit gene,sqai: D, it
f, vg have the word.
Robertson's "Wordpictures":
"Before Abraham was" (prin Abraam genesthai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence
with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference,
"before coming as to Abraham," "before Abraham came into existence or was born." I am (eg
eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God.
The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being)
is complete. See the same contrast between en in 1:1 and egeneto in 1:14.
The h;mhn of 157 is a smoothing of the absolute "I am!" - 157: "Before Abraham
was, I was already."
T&T #119
txt P66, P75, 01*, B, D, W, Q*, 849, pc9, Lat, Sy-S, sa, ac2, arm, geo1
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Luke 4:30 auvto.j de. dielqw.n dia. me,sou auvtw/n evporeu,eto
The words have probably been added from Lk 4:30 "to give the impression that
Jesus escaped by miraculous power" (Metzger, so also Weiss).
There is no reason for an omission. In Lk the words are safe.
T&T #120
evme. ... pe,myanto,j me 01C1, A, C, X, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 213, 397,
565, 579, 799, 821, 865, 892, 1071, 1241, Maj,
Latt, Sy, ac2, arm, goth
h`ma/j... pe,myanto,j me B, D, 070, Sy-Pal, sa, geo1, WH, NA25
h`ma/j... pe,myanto,j h`ma/j P66, P75, 01*, L, W, 849, pbo, bo, Tis
B: no umlaut
BYZ John 9:6 Tau/ta eivpw,n( e;ptusen camai,( kai. evpoi,hsen phlo.n evk tou/
ptu,smatoj( kai. evpe,crisen to.n phlo.n evpi. tou.j ovfqalmou.j tou/ tuflou/(
evpe,crisen auvtou/ P66, P75C, 01, A, CC, L, N, Q, f1, 33, 157, 565, 579, 1071,
pc, WHmg
evpe,crisen auvto.n P75*
evpe,crisen auvtw/| D, Baljon
add tou/ tuflou/ A, C, W, X, Y, f13, 28, 157, 579, 700, 1071, 1424, Maj
add auvtou/ D, N
Latin:
linvit/levit a, aur, vg
linvit ei d (Dative = D)
superlinvit b, f
superunxit e
superunxit eum c, ff2, l, (q) (Accusative)
Compare:
NA27 John 9:11 avpekri,qh evkei/noj\ o` a;nqrwpoj o` lego,menoj VIhsou/j
phlo.n evpoi,hsen kai. evpe,crise,n mou tou.j ovfqalmou.j kai. ei=pe,n moi o[ti
u[page eivj to.n Silwa.m kai. ni,yai\ avpelqw.n ou=n kai. niya,menoj
avne,bleya
NA27 John 9:15 pa,lin ou=n hvrw,twn auvto.n kai. oi` Farisai/oi pw/j
avne,bleyen o` de. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ phlo.n evpe,qhke,n mou evpi. tou.j
ovfqalmou.j kai. evniya,mhn kai. ble,pw moi H, 579, pc
Compare also:
NA27 Mark 8:25 ei=ta pa,lin evpe,qhken ta.j cei/raj evpi. tou.j ovfqalmou.j
auvtou/(
NA27 Luke 13:13 kai. evpe,qhken auvth/| ta.j cei/raj\
1. evpe,crisen / evpe,qhken
In context both words appear. In verse 11 and 15 the words are safe.
evpicri,w is a rare word. It appears only here in the Gospels.
Since the support is so weak, it is more probable that we have a change to the
more common word here. Note that in verse 15 also evpe,qhken is used.
Metzger: "Perhaps because the verb 'anoint' seemed inappropriate to describe
the application of clay, a few copyists substituted a more general term."
Wei thinks that evpe,crisen is a conformation to verse 11.
Diatessaron:
Metzger, in his commentary (first edition only!), gives the following citiation
from Ephrem's commentary on the Diatessaron: "he made eyes from the clay".
McCarthy gives (p. 258): "When he said this, he spat on the ground, and made
clay from his spittle, and fashioned the eyes with the clay." McCarthy has the
following footnote on the word "fashioned": "The Syriac verb to make/to do,
which is used here alludes to the idea of re-creation in Jesus' action."
2. Omission of auvtou/
tau/ta eivpw.n e;ptusen camai. kai. evpoi,hsen phlo.n evk tou/ ptu,smatoj
kai. evpe,crisen auvtou/ to.n phlo.n evpi. tou.j ovfqalmou.j
Compare:
C.C. Tarelli "Historical Greek Grammar and Textual Criticism" JTS 38 (1937)
238-42
BYZ John 9:8 Oi` ou=n gei,tonej kai. oi` qewrou/ntej auvto.n to. pro,teron
o[ti tuflo.j h=n e;legon Ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` kaqh,menoj
kai. prosaitw/n
No txt in NA!
txt P66, P75, 01, B, C*, D, K, PC, L, N, W, X, Q, Y, 070, 0211, f1, 124, 788, 33,
157, 565, 579, 1071, pc, L253, Lat, Sy, Co, arm
prosai,thj "beggar"
Compare:
NA27 John 9:1 Kai. para,gwn ei=den a;nqrwpon tuflo.n evk geneth/j
NA27 John 9:2 ou-toj h' oi` gonei/j auvtou/( i[na tuflo.j gennhqh/|
That the person is a beggar has not been mentioned before. The term follows
also later in the verse. Everything in the story concentrates on the blindness,
this is the issue. That he was a beggar is only of marginal relevance. It is
therefore more probable that the change went from beggar to blind.
One could of course also argue that beggar is a conformation to the same word
later in the verse, but this is not very probable in so large a group of diverse
witnesses.
Weiss (Jo Com.) notes that he was probably known to the others more as a
beggar than as a blind.
Rating: 2? (NA probably original)
a;lloi de.\ ouvci,( avlla. 070, f1, 565, pc, aur, vg, sa
Alii dicebant a, e
070 has for the first a;lloi e;legon: a;lloi de. e;legon
L, X, 33, 892, 1071, 1241, al omit the first part due to parablepsis (a;lloi
e;legon - a;lloi e;legon). They start again with ouvci,( avllV which makes it
quite probable that they originally read txt.
047 omits the first part a;lloi evstin and continues with a;lloi de.( o[ti.
B: no umlaut
It is quite clear that all the changes are attempts to improve the repetitive
style.
T&T #122
Byz A, D, Y, f13, 33, 579, Maj, Lat(aur, f, q, vg), Sy, geo, goth
u[page ni,yai eivj th.n ... and omit the following kai. ni,yai:
K, P, X, 0233, f13, 22, 28, 33, 1071, 1424, al (not in NA, SQE and T&T!)
txt P66, P75, 01, B, D, L, W, X, Q, 070, 0141, f1, 213, 397, 565, 597, 799, 821,
849, 865, 1241, al, it(a, b, c, d, e, ff2, l, r1), Sy-Pal, Co, arm, Ir
Burkitt has for Sy-S: "Go and wash thy face with a baptism of Shiloah."
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
T&T #123
txt P66, P75, 01, B, L, W, X, 070, 33, (213), 397, 597, 799*, 849, 865,
it(a, b, c, ff2, j, r1), Sy-S, Sy-Hmg, Sy-Pal
213 omits h`me,ra|
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 5:9 +Hn de. sa,bbaton evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra|
Rating: - (indecisive)
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 9:23 dia. tou/to oi` gonei/j auvtou/ ei=pan o[ti h`liki,an e;cei(
auvto.n evperwth,sate
The main problem here is the omission by P75 et al. It is interesting to note that
they seem to support the Byzantine sequence of the words.
The sentence is slightly redundant and it is possible that P75 et al. omitted the
words for that reason.
It is also possible that scribes added the words auvto.n evrwth,sate from verse
23, and did so at different positions.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 165
NA27 John 9:26ei=pon ou=n auvtw/| \ ti, evpoi,hse,n soi pw/j h;noixe,n sou
tou.j ovfqalmou,j
BYZ John 9:26 ei=pon de. auvtw/| pa,lin( ti, evpoi,hse,n soi pw/j h;noixe,n sou
tou.j ovfqalmou,j
Byz P66, 01C2, A, L, X, D, Q, Y, 070, 0141, 0250, f1, f13, 33, Maj,
f, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, arm, goth, [Trgmg]
Tischendorf has 565 for txt. Swanson and NA (implicitly) for Byz.
NA and Schmidtke have 579 for txt! But it actually reads as Swanson has it
(checked at the film): eivpw,n de. auvtw/|\ ti, evpoi,hse,n pa,lin pw/j h;noixe,n ...
This looks like a wrongly inserted correction.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
NA27 John 9:24 VEfw,nhsan ou=n to.n a;nqrwpon evk deute,rou o]j h=n
tuflo.j kai. ei=pan auvtw/|\ ...
pa,lin appears in the previous verses. They ask him again and again, so pa,lin is
only natural here.
In verse 17 (D, it) omit pa,lin, possibly to avoid repetition.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
"I told you already, and you did not hear, why again do you wish to hear?"
The ouvk is problematical here. The text is easier and more logical without it:
"I told you already, and you've heard it! Why again do you wish to hear?".
There is no reason for a secondary insertion of ouvk.
txt P66, P75, 01, A, L, W, X, 0250, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj
a`martwlw/n avnqrw,pwn o` qeo.j X (cp. 9:16,24)
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare context:
NA27 John 9:29 h`mei/joi;damen o[ti Mwu?sei/ lela,lhken o` qeo,j( tou/ton de.
ouvk oi;damen po,qen evsti,n order safe!
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 168
Minority reading:
NA27 John 9:33 eiv mh. h=n ou-toj para. qeou/ ( ouvk hvdu,nato poiei/n
ouvde,n
T&T #126
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
T&T #129
The Vulgate manuscript "book of Armagh" (8th or 9th CE, Dublin) reads txt, too
(hominis), but has been corrected.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Matthew 16:13 ti,na le,gousin oi` a;nqrwpoi ei=nai to.n ui`o.n tou/
avnqrw,pou
NA27 John 5:25 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti e;rcetai w[ra kai. nu/n evstin
o[te oi` nekroi. avkou,sousin th/j fwnh/j tou/ ui`ou/ tou/ qeou/ kai. oi`
avkou,santej zh,sousin
ui`ou/ tou/ avnqrw,pou K, P, S, W, 28, al, Sy-Hmg, Sy-Pal, pbo
(not in NA but in SQE!)
omit, but kai. ti,j evstin( e;fh ku,rie P75, B, W, WHmg, Weiss
omit, but kai. e;fh ti,j evstin( ku,rie 070
txt 01, D, K, L, X, D, Q, Y, 0141, 0250, f1, f13, 33, 565, 579, 1071, Maj,
Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, (Co), goth, NA25, Bois, Trg
ku,rie( ti,j evstin 01*
ku,rie( kai. ti,j evstin 01C
ti,j evstin( ku,rie( A, L, G, Q, 0306, pc, Lat, Sy-P, Co
WH has kai. ei=pen in brackets, and the P75, B reading as alternate reading.
Lacuna: C, N, P
B: no umlaut
Compare context:
NA27 John 9:37 ei=pen auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ ...
e;fh auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ ... 01
avpekri,qh auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ ... D
NA27 John 9:38 o` de. e;fh\ pisteu,w( ku,rie\ kai. proseku,nhsen auvtw/|
NA27 John 9:39 Kai. ei=pen o` VIhsou/j\
It is possible that the P75, B reading with e;fh is original, because it is awkward
stylistically. In the previous verse Jesus is speaking. Then it follows without
break kai. ti,j evstin. The short e;fh may easily be overlooked. The simplest
correction would be the one by 070.
The txt reading is the much more normal form. There would have been no reason
to change it. The correction in P66 shows how the change probably worked. First
inserting something before kai. ti,j evstin, to separate the different speakers
and then eliminating the e;fh.
In a later step the style is further improved by omitting the kai. before ti,j
evstin.
It is basically possible that the omission by P75, B, W, 070 is accidental, but the
various other changes indicate that there apparently was some stumbling block
here for the scribes, most probably a missing introductory formula.
T&T #130
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare the discussion of the previous variant (verse 36) for the addition of
e;fh, which might very well be original. With e;fh we have a difficult, redundant
style. Note Q.
There is no convincing argument, why the words could have been omitted. It is
basically possible that the words 38-39a have also been omitted as not really
needed to combine the saying in verse 39 directly with Jesus' words in verse 37.
So also B. Aland who suggests that the belief of the blind born is only natural
after Jesus' disclosure.
But that is not really convincing.
It is possible that the words have been added to fulfill verse 36. The support
for the omission is strong and diverse. If it has been added secondarily, e;fh
might have been borrowed from verse 36.
The Tuscan Diatessaron (Vaccari) omits verses 38 and 39 entirely. It has been
suggested that the verses fell out due to homoioarcton (37: et dixit ei Iesus ... ;
39: dixit ei Iesus ...). But it is not clear how this would result in the complete
omission of verse 39.
C.L. Porter suggests that the words have been added because the story was a
baptismal lesson. One lectionary lesson runs from 9:1 to 9:38, the other from
9:39 to 10:9. It is thus possible that the words Kai. ei=pen o` VIhsou/j have
been added as an incipit to verse 39. Also verse 38 has been added as a
conclusion to the story.
R.E. Brown additionally comments (Com. Jo.) that it is possible that the words
"were an addition stemming from the association of John 9 with the baptismal
liturgy and catechesis. ... When the catechumens passed their examinations and
were judged worthy of Baptism, lessons from the OT concerning cleansing water
were read to them. Then came the solemn opening of the Gospel book and the
reading of John 9, with the confession of the blind man, 'I do believe, God',
serving as the climax."
Porter notes a similar addition, Acts 8, verse 37, also clearly a baptismal
confession:
Acts 8:37 eivpe de. o` Fi,lippoj( Eiv pisteu,eij evx o[lhj th.j kardi,aj(
e;xestin avpokriqei.j de. ei-pe( Pisteu,w to.n u`io.n tou/ Qeou/ evinai to.n
VIhsou/n Cristo,n
add verse: E, 1739, pc, Lat, Sy-H, arm, mae, Ir, Cyp
All other witnesses omit this verse.
Brown further notes that fhmi, appears only two (or three? Verse 36?) more
times in John and proskune,w is not used in John concerning Jesus, therefore
he concludes that 38-39a is a secondary addition.
Compare:
C.L. Porter "John 9:38, 39a: A liturgical addition to the text" NTS
13 (1966) 387-94
B. Aland "NT Handschriften als Interpreten des Textes? - P75 und
seine Vorlagen in Jo 10." in: Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre
Nachgeschichte im frhen Christentum, ed. D.-A. Koch et al.
Festschrift Willi Marxen, Gtersloh, 1989, p. 379-397
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 172
NA27 John 10:4 o[tan ta. i;dia pa,nta evkba,lh|( e;mprosqen auvtw/n
poreu,etai kai. ta. pro,bata auvtw/| avkolouqei/( o[ti oi;dasin th.n fwnh.n
auvtou/\
BYZ John 10:4 kai. o[tan ta. i;dia pro,bata evkba,lh| e;mprosqen auvtw/n
poreu,etai kai. ta. pro,bata auvtw/| avkolouqei/ o[ti oi;dasin th.n fwnh.n
auvtou/\
txt P66C, P75, 01C1, B, D, L, W, X, Q, Y, f1, 22, 33, 565, 1071, 1241, al,
a, d, e, Co, arm
ta. i;dia evkba,lh| pa,nta P66*
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare context:
NA27 John 10:1 VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( o` mh. eivserco,menoj dia. th/j
qu,raj eivj th.n auvlh.n tw/n proba,twn avlla. avnabai,nwn avllaco,qen
evkei/noj kle,pthj evsti.n kai. lh|sth,j\
NA27 John 10:2 o` de. eivserco,menoj dia. th/j qu,raj poimh,n evstin tw/n
proba,twn
NA27 John 10:3 tou,tw| o` qurwro.j avnoi,gei kai. ta. pro,bata th/j fwnh/j
auvtou/ avkou,ei kai. ta. i;dia pro,bata fwnei/ katV o;noma kai. evxa,gei
auvta,
And also: 10:7-8, 10:11-13, 10:15-16, 10:26-27.
It is possible that pro,bata has been changed to pa,nta to improve style and to
avoid unnecessary repetition.
On the other hand it is possible that pa,nta has been changed to pro,bata as a
harmonization to immediate context, especially the previous verse 3 (so also
Weiss).
T&T #132
omit P75, B, L, X, Y, 0141, 33, 157, 213, 397, 579, 597, 700, 799*, 821, 849,
865, 1071, 1241, 1424, 2786, pm420 [G, K, P, U, 157], Trg, WH
Lacuna: C, 892
B: no umlaut
Compare context:
NA27 John 10:1 VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( o` mh. eivserco,menoj dia. th/j
qu,raj eivj th.n auvlh.n tw/n proba,twn avlla. avnabai,nwn avllaco,qen
evkei/noj kle,pthj evsti.n kai. lh|sth,j\ safe!
NA27 John 6:47 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( o` pisteu,wn e;cei zwh.n aivw,nion
add o[ti: 01, Q, 124
NA27 John 14:12 VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( o` pisteu,wn eivj evme.
add o[ti: Q
NA27 John 16:23 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( a;n ti aivth,shte to.n pate,ra evn
tw/| ovno,mati, mou dw,sei u`mi/n
omit o[ti: P5, B, C, D*, L, (Y), pc, Or
add o[ti: 01, A, DC, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj, L844 (P22 not clear!)
avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n without o[ti safe at:
1:51, 5:19, 6:26, 6:32, 6:53, 8:51, 8:58, 12:24, 13:16, 13:20
avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n with o[ti safe at: 5:25, 8:34, 13:21, 16:20
John uses the phrase avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n more often without (13) than
with (5) o[ti. But he can use both forms it in two consecutive verses: 13:20 and
21.
Almost all occurrences are safe. It is only this verse and Jo 16:23, where there
is significant variation.
It is possible that the omission is a conformation to context, verse 1.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 174
Minority reading:
NA27 John 10:7 Ei=pen ou=n pa,lin o` VIhsou/j\ avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti
evgw, eivmi h` qu,ra tw/n proba,twn
Compare:
NA27 John 10:1 o` mh. eivserco,menoj dia. th/j qu,raj eivj th.n auvlh.n tw/n
proba,twn avlla. avnabai,nwn avllaco,qen evkei/noj kle,pthj evsti.n kai.
lh|sth,j\
NA27 John 10:2 o` de. eivserco,menoj dia. th/j qu,raj poimh,n evstin tw/n
proba,twn
NA27 John 10:9 evgw, eivmi h` qu,ra\ diV evmou/ eva,n tij eivse,lqh| swqh,setai
kai. eivseleu,setai kai. evxeleu,setai kai. nomh.n eu`rh,sei
NA27 John 10:11 VEgw, eivmi o` poimh.n o` kalo,j o` poimh.n o` kalo.j th.n
yuch.n auvtou/ ti,qhsin u`pe.r tw/n proba,twn\
NA27 John 10:12 o` misqwto.j kai. ouvk w'n poimh,n(
NA27 John 10:14 VEgw, eivmi o` poimh.n o` kalo.j
The reading "I am the gate" is difficult. The change of P75 is only natural and
derived from context. Perhaps a local Egyptian reading, known to the scribe of
P75? Even though B. Aland thinks this argumentation is "compelling", she writes:
"it should be noted though, that similar variants scarcely appear in P75."
On the other hand a change the other way round could be explained as a
harmonization to verse 9.
P6:
The Codex named "ac" is also the NT papyrus P6 and is bilingual Greek -
Achmimic. Unfortunately the Greek part for verse 7 is lost. About three lines
are missing. The text extant is close to P75. So it is possible, though impossible
to prove, that P6 also read o` poimh.n.
Compare:
Royse, Scribal Habits, 2008, p. 694-5
P. Weigandt "Zum Text von Joh 10:7" NovT 9 (1967) 43 - 51
B. Aland "NT Handschriften als Interpreten des Textes? - P75 und
seine Vorlagen in Jo 10." in: Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre
Nachgeschichte im frhen Christentum, ed. D.-A. Koch et al.
Festschrift Willi Marxen, Gtersloh, 1989, p. 379-397
P45 has a lacuna, but space considerations make it very improbable that it
contained the words.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Diatessaron: The sentence is in Ephrem and in the Arabic, both times in the
short form.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Zahn (Comm. Jo): "It remains probable that pro. evmou/ facilitated the
misinterpretation by Gnostics and Manichaeans and prompted its omission in
many catholic manuscripts."
B. Aland notes that the text in P75, which reads o` poimh.n in verse 7 and omits
pro. evmou/ makes sense. She thinks that we have here an "extremely intelligent,
vigorous" intervention, provoked by the offence of the original text, giving:
10:7 I am the shepherd of the sheep.
10:8 All that ever came are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not
hear them.
10:9 I am the door:
Aland thinks that the scribe wanted to restore the original sense of a corrupted
transmission.
Compare:
B. Aland "NT Handschriften als Interpreten des Textes? - P75 und
seine Vorlagen in Jo 10." in: Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre
Nachgeschichte im frhen Christentum, ed. D.-A. Koch et al.
Festschrift Willi Marxen, Gtersloh, 1989, p. 379-397
Rating: - (indecisive)
(brackets ok)
TVU 176
Minority reading:
NA27 John 10:11 VEgw, eivmi o` poimh.n o` kalo,j o` poimh.n o` kalo.j th.n
yuch.n auvtou/ ti,qhsin u`pe.r tw/n proba,twn\
same in 10:15
NA27 John 10:15 kaqw.j ginw,skei me o` path.r kavgw. ginw,skw to.n
pate,ra( kai. th.n yuch,n mou ti,qhmi u`pe.r tw/n proba,twn
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare also:
NA27 Matthew 20:28w[sper o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou ouvk h=lqen
diakonhqh/nai avlla. diakonh/sai kai. dou/nai th.n yuch.n auvtou/ lu,tron
avnti. pollw/n
NA27 Mark 10:45 kai. ga.r o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou ouvk h=lqen diakonhqh/nai
avlla. diakonh/sai kai. dou/nai th.n yuch.n auvtou/ lu,tron avnti. pollw/n
Probably the scribes where influenced by the Synoptic form (which was possibly
the more standard formula?) dido,nai th.n yuch.n and changed it therefore in
John. In the last two instances of these verses (11, 15, 17+18) finally they "gave
in" and took the Johannine form.
Nevertheless Zahn (Comm. Jo) thinks that because ti,qhmi in verses 17-18 is
safe, it cannot be correct here.
Byz AC, X, D, Y, 0141, f13, 22mg, 157, 565, 700, 1071, 1424, Maj,
Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, goth, [Trgmg]
txt P44-Avid(6th CE), P45, P66, P75, 01, A*, B, D, L, W, Q, 0211, f1, 22*, 33,
579, 1241, al, L253, d, e, Sy-S, Sy-Pal, Co, aeth, arm
W further omits o[ti misqwto.j evstin
Sy-S is not noted in NA, but wrongly included into "Sy" under Byz.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
The addition seems superfluous, since it has already been mentioned in the
previous verse 12 that he flees.
It is possible that the words have been added to avoid the possible
interpretation of the wolf being the hireling: "the wolf ..., because a hireling he
is ..." (note that in verse 12, the Byzantine text also adds ta. pro,bata).
It is also possible that the words have been omitted accidentally: o` de. - o[ti.
The reading of 579 is due to h.t., skipping misqwto,j feu,gei( o[ti.
txt WHmg
eri P66
erei 01C2, L, W, Q, 346
(so, too, L, W, f13, 28 in Mk 4:15, 01, A, W in Lk 11:22)
01: h and n are canceled with a slash (/) and e and i are written above it.
Lacuna: P75, C
B: no umlaut
Compare also:
NA27 John 3:16 ou[twj ga.r hvga,phsen o` qeo.j to.n ko,smon( w[ste to.n ui`o.n
to.n monogenh/ e;dwken ( i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn eivj auvto.n mh. avpo,lhtai
avllV e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nion
eivj to.n ko,smon P63 (ca. 500), 33, 1071,pc, e
In the previous verse the verbs are present tense. Also the following verbs are
present. Thus formally a present tense verb would be expected here too.
h=ren is clearly the harder reading. It is possible that Jesus here speaks of his
death as already past. The same thing happened in 3:16 (and here too a
correction has been added!). h=ren may be considered a "timeless" Aorist.
Weiss (Jo Com.) suggests that the h=ren points to the previous, futile attacks of
his opponents.
Unfortunately P75 has a lacuna here.
P66 writes eri here. In 1:29 it has correctly ai;rwn, in 10:24 it correctly writes
ai;reij. In 16:22 it has either airi or eri.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 179
NA27 John 10:22 VEge,neto to,te ta. evgkai,nia evn toi/j ~Ierosolu,moij(
ceimw.n h=n(
BYZ John 10:22 VEge,neto de. ta. evgkai,nia evn ~Ierosolu,moij
kai. ceimw.n h=n
Byz P66*, 01, A, D, X, D, Q, 0141, f13, 157, Maj, Lat, ac2, Sy-P, Sy-H, Tis, Trg
txt P66C, P75, B, L, W, Y, 33, 579, 1071, pc, Co, arm, Trgmg
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
VEge,neto to,te appears only here in the Greek Bible. It is thus very unusual.
VEge,neto de. appears 97 times (17 times in Lk, none in Mt/Mk).
Both forms are easily confused:
egenetotote
egenetode
Zahn (Comm. Jo) also correctly notes that John when using to,te (9 times), he
always puts it at the beginning of the sentence or phrase, never after the verb.
In this respect this verse would be unique.
It is also possible that originally nothing was there and the words have been
added to smooth the abrupt change. On the other hand it is also possible that
the word has been deleted at the beginning of a lection.
Metzger writes: "After considerable debate a majority of the Committee
preferred to,te as 'too appropriate not to have been included originally'. "
T&T #137
Byz (P66*), A, D, X, D, Y, f1, f13, 157, 213, 397, 565, 579, 799, 865, Maj,
it, Sy, bopt, goth, [Trgmg]
kaqw.j ei=pon u`mi/n o[ti P66*
txt P66C, P75, 01, B, K, P, L, M*, W, Q, 0141, 33, 597, 821, 1241, 2561*, al60,
aur, c, vg, sa, bopt, ac2, arm
Lacuna: C
B: umlaut! (1365 C 39 R) proba,twn tw/n evmw/n
Compare:
NA27 John 1:23 kaqw.j ei=pen VHsai<aj o` profh,thj
NA27 John 7:38 kaqw.j ei=pen h` grafh,(
NA27 John 12:50 kaqw.j ei;rhke,n moi o` path,r(
NA27 John 13:33 kaqw.j ei=pon toi/j VIoudai,oij
Compare also:
NA27 John 10:3-4 tou,tw| o` qurwro.j avnoi,gei kai. ta. pro,bata th/j fwnh/j
auvtou/ avkou,ei kai. ta. i;dia pro,bata fwnei/ katV o;noma kai. evxa,gei
auvta, 4 o[tan ta. i;dia pa,nta evkba,lh|( e;mprosqen auvtw/n poreu,etai kai.
ta. pro,bata auvtw/| avkolouqei/( o[ti oi;dasin th.n fwnh.n auvtou/\
Why should the words have been added? Possibly to point back to verses 3-4 (so
Weiss).
It is also possible, and clearly suggested by the P66* reading, that the words
are meant to go with what follows:
10:26 avlla. u`mei/j ouv pisteu,ete(
o[ti ouvk evste. evk tw/n proba,twn tw/n evmw/n
kaqw.j ei=pon u`mi/n $o[ti%
10:27 ta. pro,bata ta. evma. th/j fwnh/j mou avkou,ousin(
kavgw. ginw,skw auvta. kai. avkolouqou/si,n moi(
P66 elsewhere adds the o[ti recitativum (3:28, 7:36).
Rating: - (indecisive)
T&T #139
T&T #140
Byz o]j ... mei/zwn pa,ntwn P66, D, 0141, f1, f13, 33, Maj1600, sa, Weiss
o]j ... mei/zon pa,ntwn A, Q, pc7, Sy
o]j ... pa,ntwn mei/zo,n P75vid, BC1, 869
o]j ... pa,ntwn evstin mei/zo,n X, 213, 799, 865
mg
o]j ... pa,ntwn mei/zw,n 249, 317, 333, 397, 423, 743, d(!), WH , Bal(!)
txt o] ... pa,ntwn mei/zo,n B*, (Lat), bo, WH, NA25, Tis
Lacuna: C
B: umlaut! (1366 A 7 L) o` path,r mou o] de,dwke,n
In B there is a small s written above the line between the Omikron and the
s
Delta: o d. All letters are enhanced. It is not clear whether the added Sigma
is early or not. Tischendorf assigns it to B2 (= BC1, NA).
The reading of A et al. is impossible Greek, but C.K. Barrett suggests this
meaning in his commentary: "My father who gave them to me is greater than any
other power This reading makes as good sense as Byz, and in addition could
easily give rise to [the other readings]. This seems to be the only satisfactory
way of accounting for all the variants."
The Byzantine text is the most simple and straightforward and makes good
sense. Everything else is either wrong Greek, or difficult to understand.
Compare:
NA27 John 5:36 ta. ga.r e;rga a] de,dwke,n moi o` path.r
NA27 John 6:37 pa/n o] di,dwsi,n moi o` path.r pro.j evme. h[xei(
NA27 John 6:39 i[na pa/n o] de,dwke,n moi mh. avpole,sw evx auvtou/(
NA27 John 17:4 to. e;rgon teleiw,saj o] de,dwka,j moi i[na poih,sw\
NA27 John 17:6 toi/j avnqrw,poij ou]j e;dwka,j moi evk tou/ ko,smou
NA27 John 17:7 pa,nta o[sa de,dwka,j moi para. sou/ eivsin\
NA27 John 17:8 o[ti ta. r`h,mata a] e;dwka,j moi de,dwka auvtoi/j(
NA27 John 17:9 avlla. peri. w-n de,dwka,j moi( o[ti soi, eivsin(
NA27 John 17:11 evn tw/| ovno,mati, sou w-| de,dwka,j moi(
NA27 John 17:12 evn tw/| ovno,mati, sou w-| de,dwka,j moi(
NA27 John 17:22 kavgw. th.n do,xan h]n de,dwka,j moi de,dwka auvtoi/j
NA27 John 17:24 Pa,ter( o] de,dwka,j moi( qe,lw i[na o[pou eivmi. evgw.
NA27 John 18:9 ou]j de,dwka,j moi ouvk avpw,lesa evx auvtw/n ouvde,na
NA27 John 18:11 to. poth,rion o] de,dwke,n moi o` path.r ouv mh. pi,w auvto,
It is Johannine usage that the relative pronoun always refers to things given,
never to the one who gives.
The problem with this reading is that it may be acceptable, but nevertheless
awkward Greek. On the other hand just that might have been the reason for the
changes. Schnackenburg favors this reading, too.
A. Pallis (Notes, 1926) writes: "the [txt reading] is worthless. But how has so
unsuitable a reading as o] - mei/zon arisen? Perhaps we had originally o[ti in the
sense of o]j, and its sense being missed, it was disfigured to o], and then the
predicate naturally followed in the neuter."
Compare also the next verse:
BGT John 10:29 mei/zo,n / mei/zwn evstin
BGT John 10:30 evgw. kai. o` path.r e[n evsmen e[n = Neuter
The neuter form here is the only correct possibility to express identity
(compare Whittaker).
Robertson's "wordpictures":
"But the context calls for o]j ... mei/zwn with o` path,r as the subject of evstin.
The greatness of the Father, not of the flock, is the ground of the safety of
the flock."
Whittaker points out that mei/zwn pa,ntwn (or pa,ntwn mei/zwn) was a
Hellenistic liturgical formula (evpi,klhsij) applied to the supreme deity.
Compare:
J.H. Michael "The text and context of St. John 10:29" JTS 24 (1922) 51-54
R.G. Bury "St. John 10:29" JTS 41 (1940) 262-3
J.N. Birdsall "John 10:29", JTS 11 (1960) 342-44
St.N. Sakkos VIwa,nnou 10:29 (Thessaloniki, 1968) [also opts for Byz]
John Whittaker "A Hellenistic Context for John 10, 29" Vigiliae Christianae
24 (1970) 241-260 [accepts Byz]
J.R. Royse "Scribal Habits" 2008, p. 683, 685-7
B. Aland "NT Handschriften als Interpreten des Textes? - P75 und seine
Vorlagen in Jo 10." in: Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im
frhen Christentum, ed. D.-A. Koch et al. Festschrift Willi Marxen,
Gtersloh, 1989, p. 379-397
T&T #142
ou=n D, 0211, 69, 124, 788(=f13), 28, al37, L844, pc, it, vgCl, sams, bo
ou=n pa,lin P66, A, X, Y, D, 0141, f1, f13, 213, 397, 565, 579, 799, 821, 865,
1071, 1241, Maj, f, Sy-H, sams, [Trg], SBL
Lacuna: P75, C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 8:59 h=ran ou=n li,qouj i[na ba,lwsin evpV auvto,n VIhsou/j de.
evkru,bh kai. evxh/lqen evk tou/ i`erou/
NA27 John 10:39 VEzh,toun ou=n auvto.n pa,lin pia,sai( kai. evxh/lqen evk
th/j ceiro.j auvtw/n
omit: P45, 01*, D, 69, 579, 1241, al, Lat, ac2
Rating: - (indecisive)
T&T #143
Lacuna: C, 892
B: no umlaut
Compare context:
NA27 John 10:33 avpekri,qhsan auvtw/| oi` VIoudai/oi\ peri. kalou/ e;rgou ouv
liqa,zome,n se
The Jews answered, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for
blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself a God."
Ehrman argues for a deliberate change: "The change appears not to have been
made by accident, in view of the tendency of the scribe of P66 to omit short
words far more readily than to add them." ("Orthodox corruption", 1993, p. 84 +
114)
On the other hand it could be a dittography: ton & ton. This appears to be
more probable since the scribe corrects himself.
Compare also above 7:52, where P66* adds the article o` in front of profh,thj.
T&T #149
Byz (01), A, K, P, D, Y, 0141, f13, (579, 1241), Maj, aur, f, vg, goth
pisteu,hte 01, 0211, 1010, 1293, pc8
pisteu,hte 579, 1241, pc3
txt P45, P66, P75, B, L, W, X, Q, f1, 33, 213, 397, 565, 597, 799*, 865, pc9,
L844, Co, Sy-Pal, arm
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
"But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that
you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."
T&T #150
pa,lin auvto.n P66, B, Q, f13, 1010, 1293, Maj, Sy, Weiss, Trg, SBL
... pa,lin pia,sai auvto.n U, 2718, pm300, sa
Compare:
NA27 John 10:31 VEba,stasan pa,lin li,qouj oi` VIoudai/oi i[na liqa,swsin
auvto,n
omit: P45, D, Q, 69, 124, 788(=f13), 28, pc, Lat, sams, pbo, bo, arm
txt P66, 01, A, B, L, W, Y, f1, f13, 33, 1241, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H, sa, ac, ac2
Interesting similar combination of witnesses here and in 10:31. And again the
omission is difficult to explain.
Weiss (Jo Com.) notes (correctly) that pa,lin is often omitted, but gives no
reason (stylistic?).
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 187
Minority reading:
NA27 John 10:40 Kai. avph/lqen pa,lin pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou eivj to.n to,pon
o[pou h=n VIwa,nnhj to. prw/ton bapti,zwn kai. e;meinen evkei/
txt incomplete in NA!
Lacuna: C, 892
B: no umlaut
e;menen is certainly the rarer form. It appears only one more time in the Gospels
(Lk 8:27). The aorist appears 8 times in John.
eivj Bhqani,an 01C2, AC2, CC2, D, X, L, 0211, f13, 33, 157, 579, 1071, al,
L253, d, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-Pal, bopt
Compare:
NA27 John 11:1+Hn de, tij avsqenw/n( La,zaroj avpo. Bhqani,aj( evk th/j
kw,mhj Mari,aj kai. Ma,rqaj th/j avdelfh/j auvth/j
It is possible that the place has been repeated here, because the last mention
was in verse 1. Verse 18 seems to require a previous mentioning. If original there
is no reason for an omission.
omit: A*, D, pc, d, e, Sy-P, Sy-Palms, sa, bo, ac2, Tis, Bal
892: confirmed by J.R. Royse (Scribal habits, 2008, p. 518) from microfilm.
Tis additionally notes: Sy-P, arm
B: no umlaut
It is also possible that it has been omitted to improve style, to bring te,ssaraj
and h`me,raj together. The other word order variants seem to support this.
omit 01*, B, 0211*, 1346, pc, NA25, WH, Weiss, Tis, Bal
txt P66, 01C2, A, C, D, L, W, X, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj
P75: The h is not visible. The situation looks like this (with the b not visible):
ras e
bhq
Both readings are possible.
Context:
NA27 John 11:1 +Hn de, tij avsqenw/n( La,zaroj avpo. Bhqani,aj
NA27 John 12:1
~O ou=n VIhsou/j pro. e]x h`merw/n tou/ pa,sca h=lqen eivj Bhqani,an
There probably have been different Bethanies (compare Jo 1:28 in the main
commentary). It is therefore possible that the article has been added (perhaps
by John already) for emphasis: THIS Bethany is near Jerusalem ...
The usage in context is safe without the article.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 191
77. Difficult variant:
Minority reading:
NA27 John 11:21 ei=pen ou=n h` Ma,rqa pro.j to.n VIhsou/n\ ku,rie( eiv h=j w-de
ouvk a'n avpe,qanen o` avdelfo,j mou\
txt incomplete in NA!
C*: Noted in Tischendorf ("vid"), Swanson and NA, but not in IGNTP.
R. Lyon writes: "add perhaps to.n after pro.j. This is based entirely on the space
available."
Lacuna: 892
B: no umlaut
Compare:
a) omission:
NA27 John 3:26 kai. h=lqon pro.j to.n VIwa,nnhn
omit to.n: 1, 118, 124
NA27 John 13:1 metabh/| evk tou/ ko,smou tou,tou pro.j to.n pate,ra(
omit to.n: P66*
b) addition:
NA27 John 6:5 le,gei pro.j Fi,lippon\
add to.n: A, Q, f1, f13, Maj
NA27 John 20:2 tre,cei ou=n kai. e;rcetai pro.j Si,mwna Pe,tron
add to.n: 01
The norm is the usage with the article, but John also uses pro.j sometimes
without the article safe.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 192
Minority reading:
NA27 John 11:21 ei=pen ou=n h` Ma,rqa pro.j to.n VIhsou/n\ ku,rie( eiv h=j w-de
ouvk a'n avpe,qanen o` avdelfo,j mou\
omit: B, Sy-S
Compare:
NA27 John 11:32 ~H ou=n Maria.m w`j h=lqen o[pou h=n VIhsou/j ivdou/sa
auvto.n e;pesen auvtou/ pro.j tou.j po,daj le,gousa auvtw/|\ ku,rie( eiv h=j w-de
ouvk a;n mou avpe,qanen o` avdelfo,j
omit: P75, 01*, B, C*, X, f1, 33, 1241, pc, a, 35, bomss,
WH, NA25, Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal, SBL
txt P45, P66, 01C2, CC3, D, L, W, D, Q, Y, 0141, 0250, f13, 157, 579, Maj,
Lat, Sy, Co, Bois, [Trgmg]
B: no umlaut
avlla. kai. nu/n ("but even now") is an unusual phrase and appears only here in
the Gospels. It nevertheless fits perfectly and an omission is difficult to
understand.
The omission is limited to the Alexandrian texttype.
avlla. is a typical Johannine word and appears more often in John than in the
Synoptics (33 - 30 - 19 - 56).
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 194
79. Difficult variant
Minority reading:
NA27 John 11:25 ei=pen auvth/| o` VIhsou/j\ evgw, eivmi h` avna,stasij kai. h`
zwh,\ o` pisteu,wn eivj evme. ka'n avpoqa,nh| zh,setai(
Ephrem (McCarthy): "I am the resurrection. Whoever believes in me, even if he dies,
yet shall he live."
Cyprian (De Mortalitate 21): ipso Christo Domino et Deo nostro monente et
dicente: Ego sum resurrectio. Qui credit in me, licet moriatur, uiuet et omnis qui
uiuit et credit in me non morietur in aeterum.
Codex a (Vercellensis) apparently reads: "Dixit illi IHS. Ego in me etsi mortuus
fuerit vivet." It omits eivmi h` avna,stasij kai. h` zwh,\ o` pisteu,wn, possibly
due to parablepsis (ei ei).
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 14:6 le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ evgw, eivmi h` o`do.j kai. h` avlh,qeia
kai. h` zwh,\ ouvdei.j e;rcetai pro.j to.n pate,ra eiv mh. diV evmou/
Compare:
B. Aland "Der textkritische und textgeschichtliche Nutzen frher Papyri,
demonstriert am Johannesevangelium", in: Recent Developments in Textual
Criticism. hrsg. von W. Weren und D.-A. Koch, Assen 2003, 19-38.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 195
NA27 John 11:31 oi` ou=n VIoudai/oi oi` o;ntej metV auvth/j evn th/| oivki,a| kai.
paramuqou,menoi auvth,n( ivdo,ntej th.n Maria.m o[ti tace,wj avne,sth kai.
evxh/lqen( hvkolou,qhsan auvth/| do,xantej o[ti u`pa,gei eivj to. mnhmei/on i[na
klau,sh| evkei/
BYZ John 11:31 oi` ou=n VIoudai/oi oi` o;ntej met auvth/j evn th/| oivki,a| kai.
paramuqou,menoi auvth,n ivdo,ntej th.n Mari,an( o[ti tace,wj avne,sth kai.
evxh/lqen hvkolou,qhsan auvth/| le,gontej( o[ti u`pa,gei eivj to. mnhmei/on i[na
klau,sh| evkei/
Byz P66, A, CC2, D, Q, Y, 0250, f13b, Maj, Lat, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, sa, ac2, goth
txt (P75), 01, B, C*, D, L, W, X, 0141, f1, f13a,c, 22, (33), 157, 579, 700, 1241,
al, d, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-Hmg, bo, arm, geo
doxa,zontej P75, 33
"They followed her because they thought that she was going to the tomb to
weep there."
Compare:
NA27 John 11:13 eivrh,kei de. o` VIhsou/j peri. tou/ qana,tou auvtou/( evkei/noi
de. e;doxan o[ti peri. th/j koimh,sewj tou/ u[pnou le,gei
e;legon X
P75: reads []j but space considerations make pro.j much more likely.
Lacuna: P45, 565
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Matthew 18:29 pesw.n ou=n o` su,ndouloj auvtou/
BYZ Matthew 18:29 pesw.n ou=n o` su,ndouloj auvtou/ ei.j tou.j po,daj auvtou/
Byz CC, W, f13, 33, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H, mae-1+2
txt 01, B, C*, D, L, Q, 058, f1, 124(=f13), 579, 700, 892, 1424, al,
Lat, Sy-S, Sy-C, sa, bo
NA27 Mark 5:22 kai. ivdw.n auvto.n pi,ptei pro.j tou.j po,daj auvtou/ safe!
NA27 Mark 7:25 evlqou/sa prose,pesen pro.j tou.j po,daj auvtou/\
700: ei.j tou.j po,daj
NA27 Luke 10:11 kai. to.n koniorto.n to.n kollhqe,nta h`mi/n evk th/j po,lewj
u`mw/n eivj tou.j po,daj avpomasso,meqa u`mi/n\
BYZ Luke 10:11 kai. to.n koniorto.n to.n kollhqe,nta h`mi/n evk th/j po,lewj
u`mw/n avpomasso,meqa u`mi/n\
Byz D, L, 124, 174, 230, 346, 788(=f13), 2, 28, 565, Maj, vg
txt P45, P75, 01, A, B, C, D, G, K, P, L, M, R, U, W, Q, X, Y, f1, f13, 33, 157,
579, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 1424, al, it, Sy
NA27 Luke 10:39 h] kai. parakaqesqei/sa pro.j tou.j po,daj tou/ kuri,ou
BYZ Luke 10:39 h] kai. parakaqi,sasa para. tou.j po,daj tou/ VIhsou/(
NA27 Luke 15:22 kai. u`podh,mata eivj tou.j po,daj safe!
Compare also LXX:
LXX Judith 10:4 kai. e;laben sanda,lia eivj tou.j po,daj
"She put sandals on her feet"
Both eivj and pro.j tou.j po,daj are used in the Gospels. Although the phrase
with eivj sounds slightly strange, it is possibly idiomatic.
Is it possible to translate this as: "when she saw him she felt into his feet"?
Again (as in 10:29) this is one of the cases suggested by Metzger ("Lucianic
recension", 1959) where one could have an old relict of the earliest Antiochian
text. Not necessarily correct, but at least older than any possible recension.
Compare:
Marie-Luise Lakmann "Papyrus XIV-XV (P75) Neue Fragmente"
Museum Helveticum 64 (2007) 22-41
Rating: - (indecisive)
1582: There is a tilde sign ~ above evtara,cqh and the normal text is given in the
margin. Above it is a special sign, a combination of pr, of which Amy Anderson
(f1, p. 19) says that it is "the typical mark for the citation of a father". Possibly
Origen?
Lacuna: 565
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 11:38 VIhsou/j ou=n pa,lin evmbrimw,menoj evn e`autw/| e;rcetai eivj
to. mnhmei/on\
Note also "Secret Mark": kai. ovrgisqei.j o` VIhsou/j avph/lqen metV auth/j eivj
to.n kh/pon o[pou h=n to. mnhmei/on
Carl Conrad wrote on the bgreek mailing list (04. Aug. 2002):
LSJ-Glare indicates a fundamental sense applicable to horses, "snort in" (the citation is
from Aristophanes, hIPPOUS EN AMPUKTHRSIN EMBRIMWMENAS with an added rfc.
to Lucian in that sense--so that its most common usage would be metaphorical for
"express anger or disdain" as indicated by gesture or snorting. The article also cites LXX
Lam. 2:6 in the sense "indignation," and EMBRIMHSIS in the same sense from several
extra-biblical sources. In John 11:33 my sense of what the text is saying that Jesus saw
the women weeping and immediately felt an inner indignation at this reaction to what was
not a final death of Lazarus. It's as if, in English at least, we might say, "he saw the
women weeping and said to himself (though nobody else heard him), 'Humph!'"
This is one of the cases where the original scribe of P66 changed deliberately
one reading into another, very probably from a different manuscript. P75 has
the normal reading.
A. Pallis (Notes, 1926) writes: "The words evta,raxen e`auto.n, i.e. evtara,cqh evn
auvtw/,| are probably a glossa, for they mean nothing different to evnebrimh,sato
tw/| pneu,mati, i.e. evnebrimh,sato evn e`autw/| (cf. v. 38), was agitated within
himself."
Compare:
C. Story "The mental attitude of Jesus at Bethany. Jo 11:33, 38" NTS 37 (1991)
51-66.
Martha appears in Jo 11:1, 5, 19, 20, 21, 24, 30, 39; 12:2
The addition of "the sister of the dead man", is not necessary, because Martha
has been mentioned several times before. It is possible therefore that the
words have been omitted as superfluous. There is no reason for an addition.
txt P59vid(7th CE), P66, P75vid, 01, B, C*, (D), L, W, X, Q, Y, 0233, 33, 157,
1241, pc, Lat, Sy, sa, ac2, arm
o[te ou=n h=ran to.n li,qon D, pc
ou- h=n A, K, P, 0211, 0250, f1, 22, 579, al, f, Sy-H, goth
o[pou h=n 1071, pc
o[pou e;keito pc, bo
P59 not in NA, but in IGNTP. The reading is not completely clear.
The papyrus reads ... o` Ij tou.j ... This is a singular reading. There is space for
about 4 letters in the lacuna. The editors of the Ed. pr. reconstruct:
41 h=ran ou=n to.n li,qon) h=ren o` VIhsou/j tou.j ovfqalmou.j
This would fit the space. Whatever the exact wording in the lacuna was, it is
clear that the words ou- h=n o` teqnhkw.j keime,noj were not included.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Lacuna: 565
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 11:38 VIhsou/j ou=n pa,lin evmbrimw,menoj evn e`autw/| e;rcetai eivj
to. mnhmei/on\ h=n de. sph,laion kai. li,qoj evpe,keito evpV auvtw/|
Note also "Secret Mark": kai. proselqw.n o` VIhsou/j avpeu,lisen to.n li,qon
avpo. th/j qu,raj tou/ mnhmei,ou\
Compare also:
NA27 John 8:59 h=ran ou=n li,qouj i[na ba,lwsin evpV auvto,n
"So they took up stones to throw at him"
NA27 John 11:39 le,gei o` VIhsou/j\ a;rate to.n li,qon
"Take away the stone."
NA 27
John 20:1 kai. ble,pei to.n li,qon hvrme,non evk tou/ mnhmei,ou
"the stone having been taken away from the tomb"
Note also the double appearance of h=ran / h=ren: They lifted up the stone and
Jesus lifted up his eyes.
o` VIhsou/j auvtoi/j
P75, B, C*, L, W, [Trgmg], [WH]
omit o`: P75, B, C*
mg
Trg and WH have o` in brackets.
txt P45, P66, 01, A, CC2, D, X, Q, Y, 0141, 0250, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj
o` VIhsou/j 700
auvtoi/j 157
The phrase le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j appears 5 more times in John (Jo 2:7;
4:34; 8:39 (D omits auvtoi/j); 21:10; 21:12), always basically safe! Therefore it
appears probable that here something was different.
It should be noted that h.t. may have happened:
autoisois
This caused probably in the omissions in 157 and 700.
It is basically possible that at a very early stage of the transmission a scribe
accidentally omitted auvtoi/j or o` VIhsou/j and that the words have been added
subsequently at the wrong position.
Rating: 1? (NA probably wrong)
TVU 201
82. Difficult variant
NA27 John 11:44 le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\ lu,sate auvto.n kai. a;fete auvto.n
u`pa,gein
BYZ John 11:44 le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\ lu,sate auvto.n kai. a;fete
u`pa,gein
Byz 01, A, CC2, D, W, X, D, Y, 0141, 0250, f1, f13, Maj, Lat, Sy, arm, IrLat
txt P45, P59vid, P66, P75, B, C*, L, Q, 33, 157, 579, pc,
ff2, Sy-Pal, Co, goth, Or, [Trg]
P59: Both the editors of the ed. pr. and IGNTP reconstruct with auvto.n. It is
required by the space.
[autois lusate auton] kai
[afete auton up]agein
[polloi ou]n ek t[wn] iou
Lacuna: 565
B: no umlaut
Normally it is the Byzantine text that adds personal pronouns. It is possible that
it has been omitted as superfluous to improve style. It is also possible that it
has been added to make the saying more symmetrical.
Rating: - (indecisive)
txt P6(4th CE), P45, 01, A*, L, W, X, Q, Y, 0250, f13, 33, Maj, Trgmg
o[sa evpoi,hsen P66C, 0141, pc
Lacuna: 892
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 6:14 Oi` ou=n a;nqrwpoi ivdo,ntej o] evpoi,hsen shmei/on e;legon
o[ti ou-to,j evstin avlhqw/j o` profh,thj o` evrco,menoj eivj to.n ko,smon
a] evpoi,hsen shmei/a P75, B, 091(6th CE), pc, WH
NA27 John 15:14 u`mei/j fi,loi mou, evste eva.n poih/te a] evgw. evnte,llomai
u`mi/n
o] B, 579, pc
a] P66, 01, D, L, X, f1, f13, 565, 1071, pc
o[sa A, Q, Y, 0250, 33, Maj
John uses a] with poie,w 6 times elsewhere safe, but only once o] (13:27).
Both the singular and the plural refer to the raising of Lazarus. Probably the
singular is a correction. Note that CC2 additionally adds shmei/on.
The support for the singular is curiously diverse.
Compare discussion at Jo 4:29 above and 15:14 below.
Weiss (Com. John) thinks that a] is a conformation to verse 46.
Metzger: "the majority of the committee thought it more likely that copyists
replaced a] with the singular because the context speaks of Jesus' having
performed one shmei/on."
Byz A, W, D, Q, Y, 0141, 0250, f1, f13, 33, 157, 579, 700, 892s, 1071, Maj,
c, f, r1, vgSt, WW, Sy, sa, ac2, arm, geo, Or, [Trgmg]
txt P45, P66, B, D, L, M, X, G, 0233, 346, 1241, 1424, al, it, vgCl, bo
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare also:
NA27 John 18:14 h=n de. Kai?a,faj o` sumbouleu,saj toi/j VIoudai,oij o[ti
sumfe,rei e[na a;nqrwpon avpoqanei/n u`pe.r tou/ laou/
"Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for
the people."
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 204
Minority reading:
NA27 John 11:51 tou/to de. avfV e`autou/ ouvk ei=pen( avlla. avrciereu.j w'n tou/
evniautou/ evkei,nou evprofh,teusen o[ti e;mellen VIhsou/j avpoqnh,|skein
u`pe.r tou/ e;qnouj(
Compare:
NA27 John 11:49 ei-j de, tij evx auvtw/n Kai?a,faj( avrciereu.j w'n tou/
evniautou/ evkei,nou( ei=pen auvtoi/j\ u`mei/j ouvk oi;date ouvde,n(
The complete omission is probably due to the fact that it has already been
mentioned in verse 49 and is thus considered redundant.
Samfou,rein D
Sapfurim d
P66* reads: evggu.j th/j evrh,mou( ___ VEfrai.m legome,nhn ____( kavkei/
B: no umlaut
Unknown name.
Sepphoris is excluded by its geographical position, but see below.
WH: "perhaps a local tradition".
JR Harris (Codex Bezae, 1891, p. 184) thinks it is possibly a corruption from the
Syriac. That the words eivj VEfrai.m legome,nhn po,lin in Syriac could be
read as "the city of Samphurim". He notes a similar case where Ephrem in his
Diatessaron commentary reads "whose name is Gerizim" as "Samgriazim".
Harris write: "In this last case Mar Ephraem is evidently perplexed about the
name which, if his text had been quite clear, would have needed no comment;
that is, he found it in the text upon which he had been working, and we have
therefore to suggest that Tatian had inserted the name of the mountain in his
text. Such a proceeding would be quite in harmony with many of his other
expansions and elucidations of the Scripture. But this drives us back to the first
case; for the two belong so suspiciously together that we are obliged to ask
whether Samfou,rein is not also a corruption of a Tatian text."
Compare:
Theodor Zahn "Zur Heimatkunde des Ev. Joh." Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift 1908,
p. 31-39
TVU 206
Minority reading:
NA27 John 12:1 ~O ou=n VIhsou/j pro. e]x h`merw/n tou/ pa,sca h=lqen eivj
Bhqani,an( o[pou h=n La,zaroj( o]n h;geiren evk nekrw/n VIhsou/j
pe,nte P66*
P66C: There are superior dots over the pen, the te has been
scraped out and ex written over it.
Lacuna: P75
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 11:39 le,gei o` VIhsou/j\ a;rate to.n li,qon le,gei auvtw/| h`
avdelfh. tou/ teteleuthko,toj Ma,rqa\ ku,rie( h;dh o;zei( tetartai/oj ga,r
evstin
Is it possible that the scribe remembered "four" from 11:39 and accidentally
wrote "five"?
Royse (Scribal Habits, 2008, p. 430) suggests that perhaps the scribe misread
the e of ex as numeral e = 5, and wrote pe,nte. Sometimes there is a rough
breathing above the e (so. e.g. in P75, Jo 2:6, 20), which may be the cause for
this confusion.
Scrivener notes two other cases of pe,nte for ex (Heracleon at Jo 2:20 and A in
Acts 27:37).
Lacuna: P75, C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 11:21 ouvk a'n avpe,qanen o` avdelfo,j mou\
BYZ John 11:21 o` avdelfo,j mou ouvk a'n evteqnh,kei
NA27 John 12:2 evpoi,hsan ou=n auvtw/| dei/pnon evkei/( kai. h` Ma,rqa
dihko,nei( o` de. La,zaroj ei-j h=n evk tw/n avnakeime,nwn su.n auvtw/|
It is quite probable that the words have been deleted as inappropriate and
superfluous. First, he is not dead anymore and second immediately following are
the words "whom he had raised from the dead". This is typically repetitive
Johannine style.
On the other hand it is possible that the words have been added for some
lectionary purposes, although this must have been quite early (P66).
Ross notes a stylistic consideration, namely that John normally inserts the
article before the noun, unless the name is followed by other words in apposition
(e.g. h` Ma,rqa, but VIou,daj o` VIskariw,thj). "Had John intended the shorter
version he would have written o` La,zaroj, as in verse 2."
Compare:
J.M. Ross "Some unnoticed points in the text of the NT" NovT 25 (1983) 59-72
Rating: - (indecisive)
omit: f1, 565, 1071, pc, Sy-S, ac2, pbo, bo, Codex Fuldensis
Byz A, (D), Q, X, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 565, Maj, it, Sy-H, bo, goth
VIou,daj Si,mwnoj vIskariw,tou Y
VIou,daj Si,mwn o` vIskariw,thj G, H, U, pc
VIou,daj o` vIskariw,thj 0233, f1, 565, pc
VIou,daj avpo. Karuw,tou D
VIou,daj Si,mwnoj VIskariw,thj ei-j w'n evk tw/n dw,deka 157
txt P66, P75vid, 01, B, L, W, 0217, f1, 33, 579, 1241, pc,
d, vg, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-Pal, sa, ac2, arm
Compare:
NA27 John 6:71e;legen de. to.n VIou,dan Si,mwnoj VIskariw,tou\
avpo. Karuw,tou 01*, Q, f13, Sy-Hmg
corr. by 01C2
Skariw,q D, it
NA27 John 13:2 kai. dei,pnou ginome,nou( tou/ diabo,lou h;dh beblhko,toj
eivj th.n kardi,an i[na paradoi/ auvto.n VIou,daj Si,mwnoj VIskariw,tou(
avpo. Karuw,tou D, e
NA27 John 13:26ba,yaj ou=n to. ywmi,on lamba,nei kai. di,dwsin VIou,da|
Si,mwnoj VIskariw,tou
avpo. Karuw,tou D
omit Si,mwnoj: 69, 788(=f13)
Lacuna: C, 892
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 6:8 le,gei auvtw/| ei-j evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ safe!
NA27 John 6:66 VEk tou,tou polloi. evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/
omit evk: 01, C, D, L, W, Q, Y, f13, Maj
add evk: P66, B, G, T, f1, 33, 157, 565, pc
NA27 John 12:2 o` de. La,zaroj ei-j h=n evk tw/n avnakeime,nwn su.n auvtw/|
omit evk: A, D, W, Q, Y, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj
add evk: P66, 01, B, L
NA27 John 12:9 :Egnw ou=n o` o;cloj polu.j evk tw/n VIoudai,wn
omit evk: P66, W, 157, (579)
NA27 John 12:20 +Hsan de. {Ellhne,j tinej evk tw/n avnabaino,ntwn
omit evk: 700, 1424
NA27 John 13:23 h=n avnakei,menoj ei-j evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/
omit evk: U, Q, L, f1, 28, 700, 1424, Maj-part
John uses the phrase ei-j evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ two times elsewhere, but
never without evk elsewhere. The usage ei-j tw/n appears 12 times in the
Synoptics, but only once in John (19:34 safe). Compare:
NA27 Mark 13:1 ... le,gei auvtw/| ei-j tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/\
As can be seen from the evk tw/n examples above, the omission of evk is
frequent, mostly by Western/Majority MSS.
In the immediately preceding context (12:2) a similarly divided case appears.
Rating: - (indecisive)
txt P66, P75, 01, B, D, K, P, L, Q, W, X, Q, Y, 0211, 0217, 33, 579, 1241, al,
Lat, Sy-S, Sy-Hmg, Co, arm
Lacuna: C
B: umlaut! ( 1368 C 15 L) ei=pen ou=n o` VIhsou/j\ a;fej auvth,n( i[na
Compare:
NA27 John 2:10 su. teth,rhkaj to.n kalo.n oi=non e[wj a;rti
The Byzantine reading is what one might have expected. The txt reading is
paradoxical: On the one hand Mary has broken the bottle and the oil is gone, on
the other hand she should keep it for his burial.
Is it possible that John intended the meaning of Byz, but wrote txt?
W. Khne suggests the following conjecture:
i[na ti, eivj th.n h`me,ran tou/ evntafiasmou/ mou thrh,sh| auvto,\
"Why should she keep it ?"
Zahn (Comm. Jo) suggests that the txt reading is difficult, because a) the
anointing at Jesus burial did not happen due to his resurrection and b) a Mary of
Bethany is not mentioned with the women at the tomb.
Zahn explains the difficult text so that Mary did not use all of the oil but
retained some of it.
Compare:
W. Khne "Eine kritische Studie zu Jo 12:7" TSK 98-99 (1926) 476-7
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Western non-interpolation?
Parallels:
NA27 Matthew 26:11 pa,ntote ga.r tou.j ptwcou.j e;cete meqV e`autw/n( evme.
de. ouv pa,ntote e;cete\
NA27 Mark 14:7 pa,ntote ga.r tou.j ptwcou.j e;cete meqV e`autw/n kai. o[tan
qe,lhte du,nasqe auvtoi/j eu= poih/sai( evme. de. ouv pa,ntote e;cete
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 213
NA27 John 12:9 :Egnw ou=n o` o;cloj polu.j evk tw/n VIoudai,wn
BYZ John 12:9 :Egnw ou=n o;cloj polu.j evk tw/n VIoudai,wn
Byz P66*, P75, 01C?, A, BC2, Q, X, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 28C, 33, 157, Maj,
Co, Weiss, Trg, SBL
:Ocloj de. polu.j evk tw/n VIoudai,wn h;kousan D, it, Sy-P, samss, ac2
:Egnw ou=n evk tw/n VIoudai,wn o;cloj polu.j 700
txt P66C, 01*, B*, L, W, 047, 0250, 28*, 579, 892S, 1241, pc,
boms, arm, geo, [Trgmg]
o` o;cloj o` polu.j P66C, W, 0250, 1010, pc
:Egnw ou=n o` o;cloj tw/n VIoudai,wn 579, arm, geo
UBS has 157 erroneously for o` o;cloj against NA, Swanson and Hoskier's
collation (JTS 1913). Checked at the film.
01: There is an unusual dot above the letter. It is probably accidental, but it
cannot be ruled out completely, that it is a deletion sign. Tischendorf, Swanson,
IGNTP and the online transcription note nothing, but NA does.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
For other minutiae see also Royse (Scribal Habits, 2008, p. 508-9). He checked 579 from microfilm
and several others.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
In B the o` is left unenhanced (= B3).
Similar:
NA27 John 12:12 Th/| evpau,rion o` o;cloj polu.j o` evlqw.n eivj th.n e`orth,n(
avkou,santej o[ti e;rcetai o` VIhsou/j eivj ~Ieroso,luma
BYZ John 12:12 Th/| evpau,rion o;cloj polu.j o` evlqw.n eivj th.n e`orth,n
avkou,santej o[ti e;rcetai VIhsou/j eivj ~Ieroso,luma
Byz P2, 01, A, D, Q, W, Y, f1, 28, 33, 157, 579, 700, 892S, 1071, 1424, Maj
txt P66*, B, L, f13, pc, Weiss
o` o;cloj o` polu.j P66C, Q
The reading of 892S has been confirmed by Royse (p. 407) from the microfilm.
It is noted for txt in NA26, but not in NA27.
B: no umlaut
Metzger writes: "But the expression o` o;cloj polu.j serving as a subject of a
verb is such unusual Greek (with polu.j in the predicate position) that serious
doubts arise whether the evangelist could have written it thus."
The reading of P66 et al. clearly shows that the o` was originally present. What
other reason could there be to explain this variety of readings?
A check of all occurrences of o;cloj in John shows that from time to time some
manuscripts omit the article before o;cloj, but never add it, if not originally
present.
So, overall and especially in this case a secondary addition of the article is very
unlikely.
pw/j Sy-S
"It were testifying the crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb"
"It were testifying the crowd that had been with him that he called Lazarus out of the tomb"
Metzger argues that the txt reading is more difficult because it could be taken
as referring to two crowds: one that had been with him and another that is
following him in verse 18.
Weiss (Textkritik, p. 96) thinks that the o[te has been changed into o[ti because
an object was missing for the evmartu,rei.
No txt in NA!
o[loj D, L, Q, X, Q, Y, 0141, 0211, f13, 33, 157, 892, 1071, 1241, 1424, al,
Latt, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H**, Sy-Pal, bo, arm, [Trgmg]
o[loj o` ko,smoj 0211
txt P66, 01, A, B, K, P, L, W, D, f1, 565, 579, Maj, sa, ac2, goth
Lacuna: C
B: umlaut! (1369 A 31 L) ko,smoj ovpi,sw auvtou/ avph/lqen
Compare:
NA27 Mark 8:36 ti, ga.r wvfelei/ a;nqrwpon kerdh/sai to.n ko,smon o[lon
kai. zhmiwqh/nai th.n yuch.n auvtou/
NA27 Mark 14:9 avmh.n de. le,gw u`mi/n( o[pou eva.n khrucqh/| to. euvagge,lion
eivj o[lon to.n ko,smon(
and parallels: Matt. 16:26; 26:13; Lk. 9:25
Compare also:
NA27 1 John 2:2 kai. auvto.j i`lasmo,j evstin peri. tw/n a`martiw/n h`mw/n( ouv
peri. tw/n h`mete,rwn de. mo,non avlla. kai. peri. o[lou tou/ ko,smou
NA27 1 John 5:19 oi;damen o[ti evk tou/ qeou/ evsmen kai. o` ko,smoj o[loj evn
tw/| ponhrw/| kei/tai
Quite good and diverse support. Of course it is a natural addition. The word
could have fallen out due to h.t. (..OS - ..OS).
The phrase also appears in 1. John.
P66* reads:
kai. pa,lin o` VAndre,aj de. kai. o` Fi,lippoj le,gousin
C
P66 reads:
VAndre,aj de. kai. Fi,lippoj le,gousin
Q reads:
VAndre,aj te kai. Fi,lippoj le,gousin
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
No txt in NA!
sou to.n ui`o,n L, X, 0233, f1, f13-part, 33, 579, 1071, 1241, pc,
vgmss, Sy-Hmg, bo, Aug
1582 has to. o;noma in the text, but to.n ui`o,n in the margin, by the original
scribe Ephraim (10th CE).
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 8:54 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j\ eva.n evgw. doxa,sw evmauto,n( h` do,xa mou
ouvde,n evstin\ e;stin o` path,r mou o` doxa,zwn me( o]n u`mei/j le,gete o[ti
qeo.j h`mw/n evstin(
NA27 John 17:1 pa,ter ... do,xaso,n sou to.n ui`o,n( i[na o` ui`o.j doxa,sh| se,(
NA27 John 17:5 kai. nu/n do,xaso,n me su,( pa,ter( para. seautw/| th/| do,xh| h-|
ei=con pro. tou/ to.n ko,smon ei=nai para. soi,
d: gloria quam habebam aput te antequam fieret mundus. (!)
D:th/| do,xh| h-| ei=con para, soi pro. tou/ ge,nesqai to.n ko,smon
The D reading is clearly a secondary conformation to the well known words from
17:5, where D has (again alone) the same words.
The reading of B is either accidental or might be a reminiscence to 8:54 or also
to ch. 17.
VIhsou/j 01
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
The phrase avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen appears 13 times in John, all
basically safe! The word order avpekri,qh kai. ei=pen VIhsou/j appears nowhere
else.
If the txt reading is original there is absolutely no reason why it should be
changed.
Note the following: The form avpekri,qh VIhsou/j without kai. ei=pen also
appears several times:
safe!
NA27 John 13:8 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j\
add kai. ei=pen: 1071
NA John 18:8 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j\
27
safe!
NA John 18:34 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j\
27
safe!
Only 3 out of ten occurrences are safe. In 7 cases kai. ei=pen has been added.
Under these circumstances it is possible that originally no kai. ei=pen was
present at all (= 01 has alone the correct text). For some reason, then, some
scribes added kai. ei=pen between avpekri,qh and VIhsou/j. All this very early in
the transmission history. The support by 157 and 1424 is difficult to explain,
though, because it would indicate that the variant appeared independently twice.
It is also possible that the P75, B reading is original and has been changed into
the common word order.
blhqh,setai ka,tw Q, 1093, it(b, e, ff2, l, r1), Sy-S, sa, Epiph, Chrys, Bois
ev
Tis adds: "22 ", a lectionary.
mittetur deorsum b, e, l r1
dimittetur deorsum ff2
mittitur foras a, aur, c, d
eicietur foras f, vg
Augustine:
princeps huius saeculi missus est foras (in Ps 9:7) Enarrationes in Psalmos 9.8.26
missus est foras princeps huius saeculi (in Matt 5:9) De sermone Domini in monte 1.2.9.124
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
No parallel.
Compare next verse:
NA27 John 12:32 kavgw. eva.n u`ywqw/ evk th/j gh/j( pa,ntaj e`lku,sw pro.j
evmauto,n "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth ..."
Compare:
NA27 Matthew 4:6 eiv ui`o.j ei= tou/ qeou/( ba,le seauto.n ka,tw\
NA27 Luke 4:9 eiv ui`oj. ei= tou/ qeou/( ba,le seauto.n evnteu/qen ka,tw\
NA27 John 8:23 kai. e;legen auvtoi/j\ u`mei/j evk tw/n ka,tw evste,( evgw. evk tw/n
a;nw eivmi,\
The change by Q could have resulted from an attempt to conform the word
better to the next verse. It is also possible that the ka,tw is a reminiscence of
8:23.
Rating: 2 (NA clearly original)
TVU 220
89. Difficult variant
Minority reading:
NA27 John 12:32 kavgw. eva.n u`ywqw/ evk th/j gh/j( pa,ntaj e`lku,sw pro.j
evmauto,n
pa,nta P66, 01*, D, pc, Latt, Sy-Pal, geo1, IrLat, Jerome, Aug
omnia
Lacuna: P75, C
B: umlaut! (1369 C 5 R) pa,ntaj e`lku,sw pro.j evmauto,n
Note also:
NA27 John 2:24 auvto.j de. VIhsou/j ouvk evpi,steuen auvto.n auvtoi/j dia. to.
auvto.n ginw,skein pa,ntaj
pa,nta f13, 2*, Maj-part, [Merck: Er?, l, arm, sa+ac, Chrys]
(not in NA and SQE)
Compare:
NA27 John 6:44 ouvdei.j du,natai evlqei/n pro,j me eva.n mh. o` path.r o`
pe,myaj me e`lku,sh| auvto,n(
"No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me;"
Compare also:
NA27 John 3:35 o` path.r avgapa/| to.n ui`o.n kai. pa,nta de,dwken evn th/|
ceiri. auvtou/
NA27 John 13:3 eivdw.j o[ti pa,nta e;dwken auvtw/| o` path.r eivj ta.j cei/raj
NA27 John 17:7 nu/n e;gnwkan o[ti pa,nta o[sa de,dwka,j moi para. sou/
eivsin\
NA27 John 17:10 kai. ta. evma. pa,nta sa, evstin kai. ta. sa. evma,( kai.
dedo,xasmai evn auvtoi/j
It is possible that the more general pa,nta has been changed to the more
specific pa,ntaj.
In John pa,nta appears 21 times, but pa,ntaj only 3 times. It is thus also
possible that the more rare pa,ntaj has been changed to the more common
pa,nta.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 221
NA27 John 12:40 tetu,flwken auvtw/n tou.j ovfqalmou.j kai. evpw,rwsen
auvtw/n th.n kardi,an( i[na mh. i;dwsin toi/j ovfqalmoi/j kai. noh,swsin th/|
kardi,a| kai. strafw/sin( kai. iva,somai auvtou,j
BYZ John 12:40 Tetu,flwken auvtw/n tou.j ovfqalmou.j kai. pepw,rwken
auvtw/n th.n kardi,an i[na mh. i;dwsin toi/j ovfqalmoi/j kai. noh,swsin th/|
kardi,a| kai. evpistrafw/sin kai. iva,swmai auvtou,j
Byz BC2, D, 0141, f1, 230, 1689(=f13), 565, 700, 1424, Maj
peph,rwken pc
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
In B (p. 1370 A 2) the p is written above the line. It is enhanced or written by
the enhancer. Tischendorf assigns it to B3.
"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they might not look with their
eyes, and understand with their heart and turn - and I would heal them."
tuflo,w "blind"
tetu,flwken indicative perfect active 3rd person singular
Compare:
LXX Job pepw,rwntai ga.r avpo. ovrgh/j oi` ovfqalmoi, mou
17:7
pepolio,rkhmai mega,lwj u`po. pa,ntwn
peph,rwntai 01C, A, pc
"My eye has grown dim from grief, and all my members are like a shadow."
NA27 Mark 6:52ouv ga.r sunh/kan evpi. toi/j a;rtoij( avllV h=n auvtw/n h`
kardi,a pepwrwme,nh safe!
NA27 Mark 8:17 ti, dialogi,zesqe o[ti a;rtouj ouvk e;cete ou;pw noei/te
ouvde. suni,ete pepwrwme,nhn e;cete th.n kardi,an u`mw/n
pephrwme,nhn D*
NA27 Romans 11:7 Ti, ou=n o] evpizhtei/ VIsrah,l( tou/to ouvk evpe,tucen( h`
de. evklogh. evpe,tucen\ oi` de. loipoi. evpwrw,qhsan(
evperw,qhsan C, 69
BDAG: poorly attested by one late ms. 66** [s. Tdf.]=Gregory 1911; here the mng. is surely to blind,
which phro,w signifies as early as Aristot.
NA27 Romans 11:25 o[ti pw,rwsij avpo. me,rouj tw/| VIsrah.l ge,gonen a;cri
ou- to. plh,rwma tw/n evqnw/n eivse,lqh| safe!
NA27 2 Corinthians 3:14 avlla. evpwrw,qh ta. noh,mata auvtw/n safe!
NA27 Ephesians 4:18 dia. th.n pw,rwsin th/j kardi,aj auvtw/n( safe!
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare LXX:
LXX Isaiah 6:10evpacu,nqh ga.r h` kardi,a tou/ laou/ tou,tou kai. toi/j wvsi.n
auvtw/n bare,wj h;kousan kai. tou.j ovfqalmou.j auvtw/n evka,mmusan mh,pote
i;dwsin toi/j ovfqalmoi/j kai. toi/j wvsi.n avkou,swsin kai. th/| kardi,a|
sunw/sin kai. evpistre,ywsin kai. iva,somai auvtou,j
Compare LXX:
LXX Isaiah 6:10evpacu,nqh ga.r h` kardi,a tou/ laou/ tou,tou kai. toi/j wvsi.n
auvtw/n bare,wj h;kousan kai. tou.j ovfqalmou.j auvtw/n evka,mmusan mh,pote
i;dwsin toi/j ovfqalmoi/j kai. toi/j wvsi.n avkou,swsin kai. th/| kardi,a|
sunw/sin kai. evpistre,ywsin kai. iva,somai auvtou,j
Parallel:
NA27 Matthew 13:15 evpacu,nqh ga.r h` kardi,a tou/ laou/ tou,tou( kai. toi/j
wvsi.n bare,wj h;kousan kai. tou.j ovfqalmou.j auvtw/n evka,mmusan( mh,pote
i;dwsin toi/j ovfqalmoi/j kai. toi/j wvsi.n avkou,swsin kai. th/| kardi,a|
sunw/sin kai. evpistre,ywsin kai. iva,somai auvtou,j
txt P66, P75, 01, A, B, L, M, X, Q, Y, W, f1, 124, 33, 157, 472, 579, 1071, al,
e, Co, arm, geo1
evpei. W
u`pe,r P66C, 01, L, W, X, f1, f13-part, 33, 157, 565, 579, 1071, al, WHmg
f13: 13, 69, 346, 543, 828
ei;per L, Y, pc
h; 1241, pc
33: Swanson has 33 wrongly for txt= h;per, against NA and Tis! Checked at the
film.
579: Swanson has 579 correctly for u`pe,r, but NA (implicitly) and Schmidtke
(explicitly) have it incorrectly for h;per. Checked at the film.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
h;per conjunction,
"than", strengthened form of h;
Compare:
LXX Tobit (S) 14:4 kai. evn th/| Mhdi,a| e;stai swthri,a ma/llon h;per evn
VAssuri,oij kai. evn Babulw/ni
h;per is very rare and appears only here in the NT. In Koine Greek h;per and
u`pe,r are pronounced alike.
Compare:
NA27 John 3:15 i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn evn auvtw/| e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nion
NA27 John 3:16 ... i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn eivj auvto.n mh. avpo,lhtai avllV e;ch|
zwh.n aivw,nion
omit pa/j: P63 (ca. 500)
NA27 John 6:40 tou/to ga,r evstin to. qe,lhma tou/ patro,j mou( i[na pa/j o`
qewrw/n to.n ui`o.n kai. pisteu,wn eivj auvto.n e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nion( kai.
avnasth,sw auvto.n evgw. evn th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|
NA27 John 11:26 kai. pa/j o` zw/n kai. pisteu,wn eivj evme. ouv mh. avpoqa,nh|
eivj to.n aivw/na pisteu,eij tou/to
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 227
NA27 John 12:47 kai. eva,n ti,j mou avkou,sh| tw/n r`hma,twn kai. mh.
fula,xh|( evgw. ouv kri,nw auvto,n\ ouv ga.r h=lqon i[na kri,nw to.n ko,smon(
avllV i[na sw,sw to.n ko,smon
BYZ John 12:47 kai. eva,n ti,j mou avkou,sh| tw/n r`hma,twn kai. mh.
pisteu,sh|( evgw. ouv kri,nw auvto,n ouv ga.r h=lqon i[na kri,nw to.n ko,smon
avll i[na sw,sw to.n ko,smon
txt P66*, P75, 01, A, B, K, P, L, (W), X, Y, f1, f13, 33, 157, 565, 1071, al,
vg, Sy, Co, arm, DiatessEphrem
mh. avkou,sh| tw/n r`hma,twn mhde. fula,xh| W
Swanson and NA have wrongly 579 for the P66C reading, against Schmidtke.
Schmidtke is right. Checked at the film. (compare also James C. Royse, Scribal
habits, 2008, p. 465)
Lacuna: C
B: umlaut! (1370 A 32 L) tw/n r`hma,twn kai. mh. fula,xh|(
Parallel:
NA27 Luke 11:28 auvto.j de. ei=pen\ menou/n maka,rioi oi` avkou,ontej to.n
lo,gon tou/ qeou/ kai. fula,ssontej
Compare context:
NA27 John 12:44 VIhsou/j de. e;kraxen kai. ei=pen\ o` pisteu,wn eivj evme. ouv
pisteu,ei eivj evme. avlla. eivj to.n pe,myanta, me(
NA27 John 12:46 evgw. fw/j eivj to.n ko,smon evlh,luqa( i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn
eivj evme. evn th/| skoti,a| mh. mei,nh|
NA27 John 12:48 o` avqetw/n evme. kai. mh. lamba,nwn ta. r`h,mata, mou e;cei
to.n kri,nonta auvto,n\ o` lo,goj o]n evla,lhsa evkei/noj krinei/ auvto.n evn th/|
evsca,th| h`me,ra|
Compare also:
NA27 John 5:47 eiv de. toi/j evkei,nou gra,mmasin ouv pisteu,ete( pw/j toi/j
evmoi/j r`h,masin pisteu,sete
NA27 John 8:51 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( eva,n tij to.n evmo.n lo,gon thrh,sh|(
qa,naton ouv mh. qewrh,sh| eivj to.n aivw/na
NA27 John 12:25 kai. o` misw/n th.n yuch.n auvtou/ evn tw/| ko,smw| tou,tw| eivj
zwh.n aivw,nion fula,xei auvth,n
NA27 John 17:8 o[ti ta. r`h,mata a] e;dwka,j moi de,dwka auvtoi/j( kai. auvtoi.
e;labon kai. e;gnwsan avlhqw/j o[ti para. sou/ evxh/lqon( kai. evpi,steusan
o[ti su, me avpe,steilaj
BYZ John 13:2 kai. dei,pnou genome,nou( tou/ diabo,lou h;dh beblhko,toj eivj
th.n kardi,an VIou,da Si,mwnoj VIskariw,tou i[na auvto.n paradw/|(
Byz P66, 01C2, A, D, D, Q, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 157, 565, 700, 892, 1071, Maj,
Lat, Co
Lacuna: P75, C
B: no umlaut
Compare context:
NA27 John 13:1 Pro. de. th/j e`orth/j tou/ pa,sca eivdw.j o` VIhsou/j o[ti h=lqen
auvtou/ h` w[ra i[na metabh/| evk tou/ ko,smou tou,tou pro.j to.n pate,ra(
avgaph,saj tou.j ivdi,ouj tou.j evn tw/| ko,smw| eivj te,loj hvga,phsen auvtou,j
NA27 John 13:4 evgei,retai evk tou/ dei,pnou kai. ti,qhsin ta. i`ma,tia kai.
labw.n le,ntion die,zwsen e`auto,n\
NA27 John 13:26 avpokri,netai o` VIhsou/j\ evkei/no,j evstin w-| evgw. ba,yw to.
ywmi,on kai. dw,sw auvtw/|
The Byzantine reading is clearly the more difficult, because the following
context shows that the supper was still in progress (see verse 26). In verse 13:1
a new story begins, it would be slightly awkward that the supper already ends in
verse 2 when in the previous verse it has not yet begun.
On the other hand is the aorist by far the more frequent tense for gi,nomai
(aorist/present = 174/27 in the Gospels). It is possible that scribes simply
expected that the supper ended and used the more familiar aorist form.
It has also been suggested (Metzger) that the aorist might be an ingressive
aorist (indicating the beginning of an action) with the meaning "supper having
been served". Then both readings mean basically the same.
Rating: - (indecisive)
VIskariw,th| W
avpo. Karuwtou D, d, e
VIskariw,tou genitive
VIskariw,thj nominative
Compare:
NA27 John 6:71 to.n VIou,dan Si,mwnoj VIskariw,tou\
VIskariw,thn f1, 579, Maj-part
There appears to be a tendency to change the case ending. The name is usually
taken to mean "Judas, son of Simon from Kerioth". But it appears that scribes
took the complete three words as one name and changed the ending of the third
word according to the expected case. So here into the nominative.
txt P66, B, C*, (D), K, P, L, W, Q, Y, 0211, f13, 157, 892, 1071, 1424, al,
it, vgCl, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co, Ortxt, [NA25], [WH], Weiss
ouv crei,an e;cei th.n kefalh.n ni,yasqai eiv mh. tou.j po,daj mo,non D
NA cites Sy-H twice (for Byz and txt). The correct reading is txt (confirmed by
A. Juckel from Muenster).
P66 has a correction after kaqaro.j. Instead of o[loj originally there was
something else, about 2 letters longer. One can see a deleted -oj at the end.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Lacuna: X
B: no umlaut
Compare also:
NA27 John 13:29 avgo,rason w-n crei,an e;comen eivj th.n e`orth,n( h' toi/j
ptwcoi/j i[na ti dw/|
The addition of mo,non and the reading of D are clearly conformations to the
previous verse.
On the other hand the variation at this phrase might be an indication that it was
not present at all originally. This is supported by 01 et al. and several church
fathers. Against this Robertson argues in his Wordpictures that ni,ptw is used
normally as "to wash something", often body parts. This is correct except for
the Siloam pericope (Joh 9:7, 11, 15), where it is simply used as "to wash".
The guest was supposed to bathe (lou,w) before coming to a feast and so only
the feet had to be washed (ni,ptw) on removing the sandals.
It is possible that eiv mh. tou.j po,daj has been omitted because of the
difficulty of reconciling it with the following avllV e;stin kaqaro.j o[loj:
"One who has bathed does not need to wash,
except for the feet, but is entirely clean.
But then the question arises why does one need the footwashing? The whole
construction is awkward and invites variation. Probably the intended meaning
was: "The one who has bathed (to be prepared for the feast), has only to have
his feet washed again to be completely clean."
Another possible meaning would be:
"The one who has bathed (to be prepared for the feast), is completely clean. He
has to wash his feet again, but this has no bearing on being clean (in terms of
purity)."
P. F. Beatrice argued for the shortest, the 579 reading. This reading makes good
sense, if understood the way Beatrice has it: "The person who is purified by
footwashing, does not need it (washing hands and head), but is totally clean."
The problem with this is that it does not explain the raise of the other variants.
Compare:
J.D.G. Dunn "The washing of the disciples' feet in John 13:1-20" ZNW 61
(1970) 247-52 [who argues for the short 01 reading on exegetical
grounds.]
J. Owanga-Welo "The function and meaning of the Footwashing in the
Johannine Passion narrative: A structural approach." Dissertation Emory
University 1980
F. F. Segovia "John 13:1-20, The footwashing in the Johannine Tradition"
ZNW 73 (1982) 31-51
J.C. Thomas "A note on the text of Jo 13:10" NovT 29 (1987) 46-52
P. F. Beatrice "John 13:1-10 and Romans 13:1-7 in Irenaeus of Lyons. Two
test cases for NT TC", in "The NT Text in Early Christianity, Proceedings
of the Lille Colloquium", July 2000, C.B. Amphoux and J.K. Elliott (eds.), p.
369-386
Byz P66, 01, A, D, W, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 157, 579, Maj,
Lat, Sy, bo, ac2, arm, geo, goth, Eus, Tert, Gre, Tis, Trgmg
LXX reference:
LXX Psalm 40:10 kai. ga.r o` a;nqrwpoj th/j eivrh,nhj mou evfV o]n h;lpisa o`
evsqi,wn a;rtouj mou evmega,lunen evpV evme. pternismo,n
Parallels:
NA27 Mark 14:18 ei-j evx u`mw/n paradw,sei me o` evsqi,wn metV evmou/
NA27 Luke 22:21 Plh.n ivdou. h` cei.r tou/ paradido,ntoj me metV evmou/ evpi.
th/j trape,zhj
Compare:
NA27 John 6:54 o` trw,gwn mou th.n sa,rka
NA27 John 6:56 o` trw,gwn mou th.n sa,rka
NA27 John 6:57 kai. o` trw,gwn me kavkei/noj zh,sei diV evme,
NA27 John 6:58 o` trw,gwn tou/ton to.n a;rton zh,sei eivj to.n aivw/na
It has been suggested that metV evmou/ is a harmonization to Mk (so Weiss), but
it seems more probable that mou is a conformation to Jo 6.
That it is a harmonization to the LXX is quite improbable because the wording is
very different.
Lacuna: X
B: no umlaut
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 233
94. Difficult variant
Minority reading:
NA27 John 13:24 neu,ei ou=n tou,tw| Si,mwn Pe,troj puqe,sqai ti,j a'n ei;h
peri. ou- le,gei
puqe,sqai ti,j a'n ei;h A, D, W, D, Q, f1, f13, Maj, d, r1, Sy, goth
puqe,sqai Y, (e), Sy-S, Co
kai, le,gei auvtw/|\ eivpe. ti,j evsti,n B, C, L, X, 068, 0141, 33, 892, 1071,
pc, b, l, Or?,
NA25, WH, Gre, Weiss, Tis, Trg, Bal
puqe,sqai ti,j a'n ei;h peri. ou- ele,gen(
kai, le,gei auvtw/\| eivpe. ti,j evsti,n 01
Lacuna: P75
B: no umlaut
Parallel:
NA27 Luke 22:23 kai. auvtoi. h;rxanto suzhtei/n pro.j e`autou.j to. ti,j a;ra
ei;h evx auvtw/n o` tou/to me,llwn pra,ssein
Compare:
NA27 Luke 8:9 VEphrw,twn de. auvto.n oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ ti,j au[th ei;h h`
parabolh,
NA27 Luke 9:46 Eivsh/lqen de. dialogismo.j evn auvtoi/j( to. ti,j a'n ei;h
mei,zwn auvtw/n
NA27 Luke 15:26 kai. proskalesa,menoj e[na tw/n pai,dwn evpunqa,neto ti,
a'n ei;h tau/ta
NA27 Luke 18:36 avkou,saj de. o;clou diaporeuome,nou evpunqa,neto ti, ei;h
tou/to
This is the only instance of the optative in John. ei;h is a typical Lukan word and
appears there 7 times (Lk. 1:29; 3:15; 8:9; 9:46; 15:26; 18:36; 22:23). In two
cases the word ei;h comes together with punqa,nomai !
Note also the Lukan parallel Lk 22:23 with ti,j a;ra ei;h.
It thus appears that the phrase is unjohannine and could be a harmonization to
Lk. The support for the txt reading is better and quite early though. The
reading of P66* is not clear and cannot be taken as evidence for the B et al.
reading.
Note also the clear conflation in 01!
Weiss (Jo Com.) thinks that the txt reading is an explanatory gloss conformed
to the next verse 25. He further notes that the le,gei has been felt to be in
contradiction with the neu,ei.
Rating: - (indecisive)
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 6:10 avne,pesan ou=n oi` a;ndrej to.n avriqmo.n w`j
pentakisci,lioi
omit ou=n: Maj-part[E, F, G, H, M, S, V, G, D, W, 2, 28]
replace by de.: 1424, pc
Byz P66, 01*, A, D, W, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, Maj, Latt, Sy, Co, goth, SBL
txt 01C1, B, C, L, M, X, 33, 892, 1071, 1241, pc, Sy-Hmg, aeth, Or
Tregelles reads txt, but has additionally lamba,nei kai. in brackets in the
margin.
Lacuna: P75
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Matthew 26:26 VEsqio,ntwn de. auvtw/n labw.n o` VIhsou/j a;rton kai.
euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. dou.j toi/j maqhtai/j
NA27 Mark 14:22 Kai. evsqio,ntwn auvtw/n labw.n a;rton euvlogh,saj e;klasen
kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j
NA27 Luke 22:19 kai. labw.n a;rton euvcaristh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken
auvtoi/j
Rating: - (indecisive)
brackets ok.
TVU 236
97. Difficult variant
Minority reading:
NA27 John 13:31 {Ote ou=n evxh/lqen( le,gei VIhsou/j\
nu/n evdoxa,sqh o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou
kai. o` qeo.j evdoxa,sqh evn auvtw/|\
13:32 eiv o` qeo.j evdoxa,sqh evn auvtw/|(
kai. o` qeo.j doxa,sei auvto.n evn auvtw/|(
kai. euvqu.j doxa,sei auvto,n
omit: P66, 01*, B, C*, D, L, W, X, P*, f1, 2*, 579, 1071, al, L253,
it(a, aur*, b, c, d, ff2*, l, 11A, 29, 47), vgmss, Sy-S, Sy-H, ac2, mf, bopt, WH
txt 01C2, A, CC2, K, D, Q, Y, f13, 33, 157, 565, 700, 1241, 1424, Maj,
Lat(aurC, e, f, ff2C, q, r1, vg), Sy-P, sa, bopt, goth, OrLem, NA25, [Trg]
Lacuna: P75
B: no umlaut
Western non-interpolation?
On the one hand the words could have been added to make the saying more
complete, more symmetrical.
On the other hand it is possible that the words have been omitted due to
parablepsis. This is probably correct at least in part, though the diversity of
witnesses makes it improbable, that this is the only reason. Also, the following
phrase kai. ... auvto.n evn auvtw/| is not omitted by any witness, even though a
similar probability for h.t. exists.
It is also possible that the words have been omitted as redundant.
Even if the words are secondary it is possible that they have later been omitted
due to h.t. by some witnesses, e.g. Byzantine witnesses P, 2*.
Rating: - (indecisive)
(brackets ok)
Compare:
NA27 Matthew 26:64 le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\ su. ei=paj plh.n le,gw u`mi/n\
avpV a;rti o;yesqe to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pou kaqh,menon evk dexiw/n th/j
duna,mewj
NA27 Luke 12:56 u`pokritai,( to. pro,swpon th/j gh/j kai. tou/ ouvranou/
oi;date dokima,zein( to.n kairo.n de. tou/ton pw/j ouvk oi;date
dokima,zein plh.n P45, D, 157, pc
BYZ John 8:10 VAnaku,yaj de. o` VIhsou/j( kai. mhde,na qeasa,menoj plh.n
th.j gunaiko,j( ei=pen auvth/|(
I don't think that this argumentation is justified. I see the addition of plh.n as
conformation to standard idiom. The different word-order supports this.
omit: 01*, 33, 565, pc, aur, vg, Sy-S, sams, pbo, bo, WHmg
Lacuna: P75
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 4:19 le,gei auvtw/| h` gunh,\ ku,rie( ...
omit ku,rie: 01*, pc
NA John 11:21 ei=pen ou=n h` Ma,rqa pro.j to.n VIhsou/n\ ku,rie( ...
27
NA27 John 14:5 Le,gei auvtw/| Qwma/j\ ku,rie( ouvk oi;damen pou/ u`pa,geij\
NA27 John 14:8 Le,gei auvtw/| Fi,lippoj\ ku,rie( dei/xon h`mi/n to.n pate,ra(
NA27 John 14:22 Le,gei auvtw/| VIou,daj( ouvc o` VIskariw,thj\ ku,rie( ...
It is possible that the word has been omitted as an unnecessary repetition after
verse 36. On the other hand it could have been added as a conformation to verse
36.
From the evidence for the other cases above, it is clear that 01* is very
unreliable in this respect. Sy-S omits once, too.
There is one case (13:8), where ku,rie has been added by D et al.
txt P66, 01, A, CC3, D, X, W, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj
o` VIhsou/j 01, CC3, D, W, X, Y, f1, f13, 33, 579, Maj
Compare context:
NA27 John 13:38 avpokri,netai VIhsou/j\ th.n yuch,n sou u`pe.r evmou/ qh,seij
avmh.n avmh.n le,gw soi( ouv mh. avle,ktwr fwnh,sh| e[wj ou- avrnh,sh| me tri,j
add auvtw/:| CC3, f1, Maj-part[E, G, H, S, U, G, D, LC, 2, 28, 565, 700, 1071,
1424]
Compare also:
NA27 John 13:8 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j auvtw/|\
txt P75, A, B, C, L*, pc, L844
auvtw/| VIhsou/j P66, 01, W, Q, f1, f13, Maj
omit auvtw/:| CC3, D, Y, 157, (1071), 1241, pc
B: no umlaut
The phrase avpekri,qh VIhsou/j appears 23 times in John and only in one case
(18:8) some scribes added a pronoun. This suggests that also here no addition
took place but that B, C, L omitted the pronoun. Perhaps this was for stylistic
reasons, because le,gei auvtw/| appeared earlier in the verse already.
txt avkolouqh/sai P66, 01, A, CC3, D, L, W, X, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 579,
Maj
B: no umlaut
Compare also:
NA27 John 13:33 tekni,a( e;ti mikro.n meqV u`mw/n eivmi\ zhth,sete, me( kai.
kaqw.j ei=pon toi/j VIoudai,oij o[ti o[pou evgw. u`pa,gw u`mei/j ouv du,nasqe
evlqei/n( kai. u`mi/n le,gw a;rti
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 242
100. Difficult variant
NA27 John 14:4 kai. o[pou evgw. u`pa,gw oi;date th.n o`do,n
BYZ John 14:4 kai. o[pou evgw. u`pa,gw oi;date kai. th.n o`do,n oi;date(
txt P66C, 01, B, C*, L, Q, W, X, 33, (579), 1071, pc, a, sams, pbo, bo
ouvk oi;date th.n o`do,n 579
oi;date L1127 (acc. to NTS 14, 1967, p. 140), h.t. from Byz?
On the other hand it is also possible that the txt reading is a stylistic
improvement. Note the reading of 157, which also looks like a stylistic
improvement. Metzger on the other hand notes the "syntactical harshness" of
the shorter text.
pw/j oi;damen th.n o`do.n B, C*, NA25, WH, Weiss, Tis, Trg, Bal
Lacuna: P75
B: no umlaut
Zahn (Comm. Jo) calls the txt reading a "pedantic emendation" and opts for the
B reading.
Rating: - (indecisive)
a) evgnw,kate
Byz A, B, C, DC1, L, Q, X, D, Q, Y, 0141, 0211, f1, 22, f13, 33, 892, Maj,
NA25, WH, Weiss, Trg, Bal, SBL
b) gnw,sesqe
Byz A, CC3, D, 0211, Q, f13, 892, Maj
txt P66, 01, D, W, 579, pc
Swanson has Q for evgnw,keite a'n in error. NA, Tis and IGNTP (majuscule) have
a'n h|;deite for Q (so also Tis in his Q-edition)!
The readings of the versions are not really unequivocal here.
Lacuna: P75
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 8:19 eiv evme. h;|deite( kai. to.n pate,ra mou a'n h;|deite
BYZ John 8:19 eiv evme. h;|deite( kai. to.n pate,ra mou h;|deite a'n
not in NA:
Byz 01, Q, f13, 157, 579, Maj
txt P39, P66, P75, B, L, N, W, Y, f1, 33, 1071
omit a'n: D
a'n h|;deite is very probably a harmonization to 8:19 where the words are safe.
Metzger translates:
txt "If you have come to know me [as in fact you do],
you shall know my father also."
Byz "If you had come to know me [which, alas, you do not],
you would have knowledge of my father also."
The txt reading is a promise, the Byzantine reading a reproach. Metzger writes:
"Despite the harmony between this statement [txt] and the rest of verse 7,
another interpretation of Jesus' words gained wide currency [Byz] ... The latter
construction [Byz] (a condition contrary to fact), seems to have arisen either
because copyists recalled Jesus' reproach against unbelieving Jews in 8:19 or
because Philip's question (verse 8) and Jesus reply (verse 9) suggested to them
that the disciples knew neither Jesus nor the Father."
Lacuna: P75
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Mark 11:2 lu,sate auvto.n kai. fe,rete
Ellipsis (from evllei,pw = "leave out"): Typical in Greek, the pronoun is omitted
where it can be supplied easily from context.
The support is very slim.
Note another B, C* agreement in 14:5, see above.
Weiss (Textkritik, p. 146) thinks that the e`wra,kate without the auvto,n would
have been much too striking to be secondary.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Hebrews 4:7 pa,lin tina. o`ri,zei h`me,ran( sh,meron( evn Daui.d le,gwn
meta. tosou/ton cro,non( kaqw.j proei,rhtai\
LXX 4 Maccabees 5:7 aivdou/mai ga,r sou th.n h`liki,an kai. th.n polia,n h]n
meta. tosou/ton e;cwn cro,non ou; moi dokei/j filosofei/n th/| Ioudai,wn
crw,menoj qrhskei,a|
Johannine usage:
NA27 John 7:33 ei=pen ou=n o` VIhsou/j\ e;ti cro,non mikro.n meqV u`mw/n eivmi
NA27 John 13:33 tekni,a( e;ti mikro.n meqV u`mw/n eivmi\
add cro,non: 01, L, Q, Y, f13, 28, 157, 1071, pc
The phrase appears only two more times in the Greek Bible, both in the
accusative.
John uses cro,noj three more times, also always in the accusative (5:6, 7:33,
12:35). Weiss (Com. John) says the accusative was generally the more common.
The question therefore is why someone should change the accusative into the
dative?
The evidence for the dative is curiously divided. The text of 01 is not Western
anymore in this part of the Gospel and comparatively close to W. Q appears to
be a mixed text.
Perhaps idiomatic usage.
Rating: - (indecisive)
BYZ John 14:11 pisteu,ete, moi o[ti evgw. evn tw/| patri. kai. o` path.r evn
evmoi,\ eiv de. mh, dia. ta. e;rga auvta. pisteu,ete moi
Very probably a conformation to the preceding pisteu,ete, moi (so also Weiss).
omit verse: X, L*, 0141, f1, 22, 565, pc, L253, b, vgms, Sy-S, Sy-Pal, arm, geo
L*, 0141, 118, 205, 209, pc omit from i[na verse 13 on.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 15:16 o[ ti a'n aivth,shte to.n pate,ra evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou dw/|
u`mi/n
NA27 John 16:23 a;n ti aivth,shte to.n pate,ra evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou dw,sei
u`mi/n
txt P66, P75vid?, 01, B, W, Q, 060, 0211, f13, 2, 28, 33, 579, 700,
Maj-part[E, H, U, G, D, W], c, f, (ff2), vg, Sy, armUsc, goth,
NA25, [Trgmg], [Robinson1991]
to.n pate,ra pc
a patre meo ff2, aeth
WH have me in brackets.
Lacuna: P75, C
X, L*, 0141, f1, 565, pc, b, vgms, Sy-S, Sy-Pal, arm omit the verse probably due
to h.t.
Armusc = Uscanus (Oskan, Usgan) edition from 1666.
P75 has a lacuna here, but the text with me fits the space better.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
B: no umlaut
"If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it" sounds awkward. Either you
"ask me" or you "ask in my name", but both? How could one "ask me in my name"?
So me is certainly the harder reading. The Byzantine omission is either intended
to remove this problem or it is a harmonization to the previous verse (so Weiss).
As for the complete omission of the verse one could also argue that it has been
omitted deliberately to avoid contradiction with 15:16 or 16:23.
On the other hand it is possible that the txt reading is a harmonization to the
following verse, but this is not very likely.
Rating: 2? (NA probably original)
txt P66*, 01, D, Q, W, Q, f1, f13, 579, Maj, it, WHmg, Tis
Compare also:
NA27 John 15:16
i[na o[ ti a'n aivth,shte to.n pate,ra evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou dw/| u`mi/n
tou/tw| poih,sw f13
Probably tou/to is a conformation to the previous verse, where it's safe (so
already Weiss). Also the support for tou/to is incoherent.
BYZ John 14:15 VEa.n avgapa/te, me( ta.j evntola.j ta.j evma.j thrh,sate
Lacuna: P75, C
B: no umlaut
Compare context:
NA27 John 14:14 eva,n ti aivth,shte, me evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou evgw. poih,sw
NA27 John 14:21 o` e;cwn ta.j evntola,j mou kai. thrw/n auvta.j
evkei/no,j evstin o` avgapw/n me\
NA John 14:23 eva,n tij avgapa/| me to.n lo,gon mou thrh,sei(
27
NA27 John 14:24 o` mh. avgapw/n me tou.j lo,gouj mou ouv threi/\
Compare also:
NA27 John 8:51 eva,n tij to.n evmo.n lo,gon thrh,sh|( ...
NA27 John 15:10 eva.n ta.j evntola,j mou thrh,shte( ...
NA27 John 15:20 eiv to.n lo,gon mou evth,rhsan(
kai. to.n u`me,teron thrh,sousin
NA John 17:6 soi. h=san kavmoi. auvtou.j e;dwkaj
27
Rating: - (indecisive)
Same in 15:11:
NA27 John 15:11 Tau/ta lela,lhka u`mi/n i[na h` cara. h` evmh. evn u`mi/n h=| kai.
h` cara. u`mw/n plhrwqh/|
BYZ John 15:11 Tau/ta lela,lhka u`mi/n i[na h` cara. h` evmh. evn u`mi/n mei,nh|(
kai. h=| cara. u`mw/n plhrwqh/|
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 3:2 eva.n mh. h=| o` qeo.j metV auvtou/
omit h=:| P66*, L
NA27 John 9:31 avllV eva,n tij qeosebh.j h=| kai. to. qe,lhma auvtou/ poih/|
h=n for h=:| P66
NA27 John 16:24 i[na h` cara. u`mw/n h=| peplhrwme,nh
h=n for h=:| W
NA27 John 17:26 i[na h` avga,ph ... evn auvtoi/j h=| kavgw. evn auvtoi/j
hn for h=:| P66
omit: 579
It is probable that, to avoid the letter H as a verb, this has been changed to
me,nh|. Additionally it is a harmonization to the next verse.
There is no reason why someone should change me,nh| to h=|.
evsti,n P66*, B, D*, W, 0211, f1, 69, 22, 565, pc, it, vgms, Sy-C, Sy-P, WH, Trg
est
txt P66C, 01, A, DC2, Q, X, Q, Y, 0141, f13, 33vid, 157, 579, 1071, Maj,
erit aur, r1, vg, Sy-S, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, Co, arm, WHmg, NA25
P75: The reading, given as )))ai in the ed.pr. and reproduced like that in
Swanson, isn't clear at all. The printed NA does not give the notation for txt.
The online NA indicates P75 as completely missing for this word, which is
probably correct.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
P66 "You know him, because he abides with you, and he is in you"
txt "You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you"
The Spirit is not yet there. The future tense is more appropriate therefore.
With evsti,n being original, e;stai would be a natural conformation to context.
On the other hand is possible that the present tense is a conformation to the
tense of the previous verbs, especially ginw,skete (so Weiss).
Metzger writes: "A majority of the Committee interpreted the sense of the
passage as requiring the future e;stai, which is adequately supported."
Menei can be present me,nei or future menei/. If scribes interpreted it as
future, e;stai would have been a conformation to that tense.
Jo uses three times elsewhere evn + dative of a person + evsti,n, but never e;stai
(7:18, 12:35, 14:10).
Compare:
James M. Hamilton Jr. "Appendix 2: 'He Is with You, and He Is in You?'
The Text of John 14:17c," in: God's Indwelling Presence, The Holy Spirit
in the Old and New Testaments, NACSBT; Nashville: Broadman and
Holman, 2006, p. 17582.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 254
Minority reading:
NA27 John 14:20 evn evkei,nh| th/| h`me,ra| gnw,sesqe u`mei/j o[ti evgw. evn tw/|
patri, mou kai. u`mei/j evn evmoi. kavgw. evn u`mi/n
No txt in NA and SQE!
u`mei/j gnw,sesqe
P75, B, L, M*, Q, X, 060, 0141, 33, 1071, L844, pc, Trg, WH
gnw,sesqe A, L, Q, pc
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare context:
NA27 John 14:17 to. pneu/ma th/j avlhqei,aj( o] o` ko,smoj ouv du,natai
labei/n( o[ti ouv qewrei/ auvto. ouvde. ginw,skei\ u`mei/j ginw,skete auvto,(
o[ti parV u`mi/n me,nei kai. evn u`mi/n e;stai
Compare:
NA27 John 16:20 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti klau,sete kai. qrhnh,sete
u`mei/j(
John normally uses the order u`mei/j verb. The order verb - u`mei/j is very
unusual. There is actually only one other example: Jo 16:20, here the order is
safe.
The P75, B reading is clearly the easier reading and the support is incoherent.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 9:36 avpekri,qh evkei/noj kai. ei=pen\ kai. ti,j evstin( ku,rie( i[na
pisteu,sw eivj auvto,n
omit kai.: 01*, A, L, Q, 1241, pc
Compare also:
NA27 Mark 10:26 oi` de. perissw/j evxeplh,ssonto le,gontej pro.j e`autou,j\
kai. ti,j du,natai swqh/nai
There is no reason for the addition of kai.. Probably it has been omitted as
redundant or to improve style. Similar Jo 9:36.
Weiss (Com. John) thinks that the kai. has been omitted, because it was not
understood. It connects the question with the previous words.
Metzger notes that "in Talmudic discussions, however, questions are normally
introduced with 'and'."
o` evmo.j o]n avkou,ete D, L844, pc, d, r1, Sy-H, Sy-Pal, ac2, mf, pbo, arm, geo
Lacuna: C
B umlaut! (p. 1372 B 41) ouv threi/\ kai. o` lo,goj o]n avkou,ete
Compare:
NA27 John 7:6 o` kairo.j o` evmo.j
NA27 John 8:37 o[ti o` lo,goj o` evmo.j ouv cwrei/ evn u`mi/n
NA27 John 12:26 kai. o[pou eivmi. evgw. evkei/ kai. o` dia,konoj o` evmo.j e;stai\
The support for o` evmo.j is not very strong, but diverse. Strange. Probably added
for stylistic reasons to correspond with the second evmo.j.
Byz ei=pon u`mi/n P75, 01, A, D, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 565, 579, 1071,
Maj, Latt, Co, goth, Gre, Trg, Tis, Bal, SBL
txt ei=pon u`mi/n evgw, B, L, 060, 0141, 127, 1819, WH, NA25
evgw, ei=pon u`mi/n X
ei=pon evgw, Cyr (Tis)
060 (6th CE, P. 5877, Berlin): Not listed in IGNTP but in NA. At the place in
question (the image is in the IGNTP volume) the parchment is quite damaged,
but part of the w of egw and the bottom part of the vertical bar of g can
be seen. After it comes eivrh,nhn. evgw is also in the ed. pr. by A.H. Salonius
(ZNW 26, 1927 p. 103).
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
33: From the b/w INTF film this is impossible to judge. The ink is very blurred
at this point. Swanson has pa,nta o[sa ei=pon u`mi/n,
NA has pa,nta evgw. ei=pon u`mi/n
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Lacuna: P66, C, W
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 1:31 kavgw. ouvk h;|dein auvto,n( avllV i[na fanerwqh/| tw/| VIsrah.l
dia. tou/to h=lqon evgw. evn u[dati bapti,zwn
omit evgw,: 28, 157
NA27 John 18:21 ti, me evrwta/|j evrw,thson tou.j avkhkoo,taj ti, evla,lhsa
auvtoi/j\ i;de ou-toi oi;dasin a] ei=pon evgw,
It is possible that evgw, has been added to make clear that ei=pon is 1st person
singular and not 3rd person plural. This is supported by the rather unusual
support (two Byzantine minuscules) and the differing word order.
This construction with evgw, is not unusual in John.
On the other hand it is possible that evgw, has been omitted as unnecessary.
Weiss (Textkritik, p. 138) notes that a secondary evgw, would have been added at
the beginning for emphasis (as 33 did) and not at the end where it could have
been easily overlooked.
Rating: - (indecisive)
(brackets ok)
TVU 258
Minority reading:
NA27 John 14:31 avllV i[na gnw/| o` ko,smoj o[ti avgapw/ to.n pate,ra( kai.
kaqw.j evnetei,lato, moi o` path,r( ou[twj poiw/ evgei,resqe( a;gwmen
evnteu/qen
omit o` path,r: D, d, e, l
Lacuna: P66, C, W
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 8:28 avlla. kaqw.j evdi,daxe,n me o` path.r tau/ta lalw/
evnetei,lato, moi 1241
NA27 John 12:49 o[ti evgw. evx evmautou/ ouvk evla,lhsa( avllV o` pe,myaj me
path.r auvto,j moi evntolh.n de,dwken ti, ei;pw kai. ti, lalh,sw
txt P66vid, B, D, L, M, S, X, L, Q, P, 0250, f1, f13-part, 33, 565, 579, 1424, al,
WH
gi,nhsqe 579
Swanson has 33 for txt, NA for Byz. It's difficult to see on the film, but the
short reading appears slightly more probable.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Lacuna: C, W
B: no umlaut
txt "... that you bear much fruit and shall be my disciples."
Byz "... that you bear much fruit and you will become my disciples."
Metzger writes:
"The Committee found it exceedingly difficult to decide between ge,nhsqe,
which depends upon i[na and is coordinate with fe,rhte, and genh,sesqe, which
probably must be construed as an independent clause or sentence. - Yet on rare
occasions the future indicative occurs with i[na, see Blass-Debrunner 369(2)."
Rating: - (indecisive)
Weiss: In his Jo Com. (1893) he recommends to delete the third mou, but in his
Greek text (1905) he has it.
Note word-order:
evgw. tou/ patro,j ta.j evntola.j P66, P75vid, B, it
evgw. tou/ patro,j mou ta.j evntola.j 01, vg, Weisslater
Note also:
ta.j evntola,j ta.j evma.j A
th/| avga,ph| th/| evmh/| 01, X, pc
Lacuna: C, W
B: no umlaut
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 261
Minority reading:
NA27 John 15:14 u`mei/j fi,loi mou, evste eva.n poih/te a] evgw. evnte,llomai
u`mi/n
o] B, 579, pc, NA25, WH, Weiss, Trgmg
txt a] P66, 01, D, L, X, f1, f13, 565, 1071, pc, WHmg
Lacuna: C, W
B: no umlaut
Context:
NA27 John 15:7 eva.n mei,nhte evn evmoi. kai. ta. r`h,mata, mou evn u`mi/n mei,nh|(
o] eva.n qe,lhte aivth,sasqe( kai. genh,setai u`mi/n
o[sa 01
Compare:
NA27 John 11:45Polloi. ou=n evk tw/n VIoudai,wn oi` evlqo,ntej pro.j th.n
Maria.m kai. qeasa,menoi a] evpoi,hsen evpi,steusan eivj auvto,n\
NA27 John 11:46 tine.j de. evx auvtw/n avph/lqon pro.j tou.j Farisai,ouj kai.
ei=pan auvtoi/j a] evpoi,hsen VIhsou/j
o] C, D, M, f13-part, pc
o[sa A, K, P, Y, L, f13-part, pc
B: no umlaut
A. Pallis writes (Notes, 1926): "fortau/ta pa,nta poih,sousin eivj u`ma/j dia.
to. o;noma, mou( o[ti ouvk oi;dasin to.n pe,myanta, me [they will do all these things to
of the following
you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me]
verse, as well as misei/ u`ma/j o` ko,smoj of v. 19, assert that this blind and
malignant world has ever hated the apostles, and therefore nothing but violence,
and not conformity with their teaching, was to be expected therefrom."
TVU 263
Minority reading:
NA27 John 16:1 Tau/ta lela,lhka u`mi/n i[na mh. skandalisqh/te
Compare:
NA27 John 6:64 avllV eivsi.n evx u`mw/n tinej oi] ouv pisteu,ousin h;|dei ga.r
evx avrch/j o` VIhsou/j ti,nej eivsi.n oi` mh. pisteu,ontej kai. ti,j evstin o`
paradw,swn auvto,n
omit mh.: 01, G, XComm, 1071, 1243, pc, aur, vgWW,St, Aug
mnhmoneu,hte auvtw/n 01*, D, Y, 0141, f1, 230, 1689, 565, 700, 1424,
Maj, ff2, Sy-Pal, bomss, Tis, Bal
mnhmoneu,hte D, 788, a, d, Sy-S, Co, arm
... so that when their hour comes you may remember them ...
... so that when their hour comes you may remember ...
... so that when the hour comes you may remember them ...
... so that when the hour comes you may remember ...
It appears that the double auvtw/n was a problem for the scribes. They omitted
one or the other or both. Weiss (Jo Com.): "much too difficult to be secondary".
It is not clear what h` w[ra means without auvtw/n. Elsewhere in John Jesus'
hour is meant. So, it is possible that auvtw/n has been added or moved from the
later to the earlier position (as in 01!).
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 265
Minority reading:
NA27 John 16:7 avllV evgw. th.n avlh,qeian le,gw u`mi/n( sumfe,rei u`mi/n i[na
evgw. avpe,lqw eva.n ga.r mh. avpe,lqw( o` para,klhtoj ouvk evleu,setai pro.j
u`ma/j\ eva.n de. poreuqw/( pe,myw auvto.n pro.j u`ma/j
ouv mh. e;lqh| B, L, Y, 33, 1071, pc, NA25, WH, Weiss, Trg, SBL
txt ouvk evleu,setai 01, A, D, D, Q, 0141, f1, f13, 157, 579, Maj, Trgmg
Compare context:
NA27 John 15:26 {Otan e;lqh| o` para,klhtoj o]n evgw. pe,myw u`mi/n
NA27 John 16:4 avlla. tau/ta lela,lhka u`mi/n i[na o[tan e;lqh| h` w[ra auvtw/n
NA27 John 16:13 o[tan de. e;lqh| evkei/noj( to. pneu/ma th/j avlhqei,aj(
The form evleu,setai appears only here in John (additionally only once in Mk and
Lk par.).
It is possible that the rare evleu,setai has been changed to e;lqh| from context.
Weiss (Textkritik, p. 91) thinks that the ouvk evleu,setai fits better to the
preceding mh. avpe,lqw and the following pe,myw.
txt 01, D, L, W, Q, f1, 33, 565, 579, 1071, pc, WHmg, Tis
evn pa,sh| th/| avlhqei,a| Q
01* omits pa,sh|
Lacuna: C, X
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 8:44 kai. evn th/| avlhqei,a| ouvk e;sthken(
NA27 John 17:17 a`gi,ason auvtou.j evn th/| avlhqei,a|\
BYZ John 16:13 {Otan de. e;lqh| evkei/noj( to. pneu/ma th/j avlhqei,aj(
o`dhgh,sei u`ma/j eivj pa/san th.n avlh,qeian\ ouv ga.r lalh,sei avfV e`autou/(
avllV o[sa a'n avkou,sh| lalh,sei( kai. ta. evrco,mena avnaggelei/ u`mi/n
Byz avkou,sh| A, 0141, 0250, f13, Maj
Lacuna: C, X
B: no umlaut
Byz A, D, Q, Y, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat(aur, c, f, q, vg), Sy, bopt, arm, goth
kai. o[ti ... N, Y, 0211, 69*, 1241, pc, aur
kai. evgw.... 33, 892, pc
kai. o[ti evgw.... 28
o[ti evgw.... 054, 1342, pc, TR
Lacuna: C, X
B: no umlaut
The words are required to explain the second part of the disciples question in
verse 17. But the words already appeared in verse 10! So it is probable that the
question in verse 17 refers back to verse 10. Thus, according to Weiss the words
have been added (from verse 17) as being indispensable here. Note that possibly
also the ouv is a conformation to verse 17.
In the Synaxarion one lection ends with verse 13 and the next goes from verse
14 to 30. So it is possible that the words have been added again in verse 16 due
to some such lectionary separation.
There is no reason to omit the words if originally present.
Rating: 2? (NA probably original)
omit o] le,gei: P5(3rd CE), P66, 01*, D*, W, f1, f13, 565, 579, al,
it(a, b, d, e, ff2, r1), Sy-Pal, sa, arm
P66, 124 also omit to. (h.t. tou/to to.)
P5: It is undecidable if P5 reads to. or not, but it quite clearly does not read o]
le,gei. Compare reconstruction:
geihminmeikronkaiou qewreiteme
kaipalinmeikronkaioy esqemekaioti
egwupagwproston praelegonoun
tiestintoutoto meikronoukoida
mentilaleie gnwoihsotihqelon
autonerwtan kaieipenautois
peritoutouzht eitemetallhlwn
0141 omits the complete verse (perhaps parablepsis 18 e;legon ou=n - 19 Byz
e;gnw ou=n)
P66 is not noted in NA for the omission of to..
Lacuna: C, X
B: no umlaut
The omission of o] le,gei is more difficult to explain. Metzger: "the phrase was
deleted either as not absolutely necessary for the sense or was added in order
to clarify the sense."
In the case of P66 it is possible that the scribe simply omitted the phrase due
to h.t. (tou/to - to.). This seems to have happened independently in 124.
Rating: - (indecisive)
(brackets ok)
TVU 270
111. Difficult variant:
Minority reading:
NA27 John 16:18 e;legon ou=n\ ti, evstin tou/to o] le,gei to. mikro,n
ouvk oi;damen ti, lalei/
No txt in NA and SQE!
omit P66, 01C2, B, L, Y, 054, 124, 33, 892S, 1071, pc, Or, Trg, WH, SBL
txt 01*, A, D, W, Q, f1, f13, 579, Maj
tou/to to. mikro,n P5?, 01*, D*, W, f1, f13, 565, 579, al
tou/to mikro,n P66, 124
tou/to o] le,gei mikro,n 01C2, B, L, Y, 33, 892S, 1071, pc, Or
tou/to o] le,gei to. mikro,n A, DC, Q, Maj
P5: It is undecidable if P5 reads to. or not, but it quite clearly does not read o]
le,gei. Compare reconstruction:
geihminmeikronkaiouqewreiteme
kaipalinmeikronkaioyesqemekaioti
egwupagwprostonpraelegonoun
tiestintoutotomeikronoukoida
mentilaleiegnwoihsotihqelon
autonerwtankaieipenautois
peritoutouzhteitemetallhlwn
01: The to is crossed out by two small diagonal strokes and olegi is written
above it. (Image: CSNTM 58a column D, line 10, folio 254a).
P66 not in NA (for the omission of to.).
0141 omits the verse.
Lacuna: C, X
B: no umlaut
Compare previous context:
NA27 John 16:16-17 Mikro.n kai. ouvke,ti qewrei/te, me( kai. pa,lin mikro.n
kai. o;yesqe, me 17 ei=pan ou=n evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ pro.j avllh,louj\
ti, evstin tou/to o] le,gei h`mi/n\ mikro.n kai. ouv qewrei/te, me( kai. pa,lin
mikro.n kai. o;yesqe, me
Compare also:
NA27 John 4:15 le,gei pro.j auvto.n h` gunh,\ ku,rie( do,j moi tou/to to. u[dwr
NA27 John 12:5 dia. ti, tou/to to. mu,ron ouvk evpra,qh
toutotomikron
This means P66 should be counted to the 01* reading.
It is possible that the omission of to. is a conformation to the immediately
preceding context, where no to. appears. On the other hand the addition of to.
would be only natural. BDF 267-2a note that to. is set before a cited word.
It is rather improbable that o] le,gei has been added secondarily. It is
stylistically awkward. But it cannot be ruled out that it has been added for
clarification.
ti, evstin tou/to to. mikro,n sounds normal and straightforward.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 271
Minority reading:
NA27 John 16:19 :Egnw o` VIhsou/j o[ti h;qelon auvto.n evrwta/n(
txt P5vid(3rd CE), A, B, D, L, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 157, 1071, Maj, Co
oti h[q]elon
All letters are damaged, but parts are visible and make the reading certain.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Lacuna: C, X
B: no umlaut
No txt in NA!
h`me,ra P66, D, pc, it(a, b, c, d, e, ff2, r1), Sy-S, Sy-P, ac2, Aug
A typical variation.
The versional evidence could be translational freedom.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 273
Minority reading:
NA27 John 16:22 kai. u`mei/j ou=n nu/n me.n lu,phn e;cete\ pa,lin de. o;yomai
u`ma/j( kai. carh,setai u`mw/n h` kardi,a( kai. th.n cara.n u`mw/n ouvdei.j
ai;rei avfV u`mw/n
txt P22(3rd CE), 01*, B, C, WC, D, 0141, f1, f13, 579, 1071, Maj,
Lat("habetis" aur, c, f, ff2, q, vg)
Compare:
NA27 John 16:20 avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti klau,sete kai. qrhnh,sete
u`mei/j( o` de. ko,smoj carh,setai\ u`mei/j luphqh,sesqe( avllV h` lu,ph u`mw/n
eivj cara.n genh,setai
The future of e;cw is rare. It appears only once in John (8:12). The form e[xete
appears only once in the NT (Rev 2:10).
In the previous verse 20 all verbs are future. Jesus is talking about the things
to come. It is possible that e[xete is a conformation to verse 20.
"And you, therefore, now, indeed, have/will have sorrow;"
ai;rei P22(3rd CE), P66, 01, A, C, DC2, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 157, 579,
1071, Maj, Lat(b, e, f, q, vg), Sy, WHmg
Lacuna: X
B: no umlaut
A. Pallis (Notes, 1926): "ai;rei, a present as an emphatic and vivid form of the
future."
setaihgunhotantikthluphne
ceiotihlqenhwraauthsotan
degennhshtopaidionouketi
mnhmoneueithsqliyewsdia
thncaranotiegennhqhanqrw
poseistonkosmonkaiumeisoun
nunmenluphnecetepalinde
oyomaiumaskaicarhsetaiumwn
hkardiakaithncaranumwnoudeis
areiaireiafumwnkaienekeinhth With the txt reading this would be:
hmeraemeoukerwthseteouden
amhnamhnlegwuminantiaith amhnamhnlegwuminantiaith
shtetonpateradwseiuminentw shtetonpateraentwonomatim
onomatimouewsartioukhth oudwseiuminewsartioukhth
sataioudenentwonomatimouai sataioudenentwonomatimouai
thsasqaikailhmyesqeinahca
raumwnhpeplhrwmenhtau
taenparoimiaislelalhkaumin
ercetaiwraoteouketienparoimi
aislalhswuminallaparrhsia
peritoupatrosapaggelwumin
It would be quite unlikely for a scribe to divide a m-ou this way, especially (as it
appears possible) to a new page. A normal division and line length is only possible
with the variant reading.
(The ed. pr. is misleading here, because it notes 3 lines missing, but there are
only two. This has already been noted by Aland in his "Neue NT Papyri II" NTS
article, 1963/64, on P66.)
P22: Of P22 only the final u`mi/n is present, but only the txt reading fits the
required space. Reconstruction:
tieanaiths[h]t[etonpraentwonomatimoudwsei
umein ew[sar]ti [ouk ...
B: no umlaut
Compare also:
NA27 John 14:13 kai. o[ ti a'n aivth,shte evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou tou/to
poih,sw( i[na doxasqh/| o` path.r evn tw/| ui`w/|
NA27 John 14:14 eva,n ti aivth,shte, me evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou evgw. poih,sw
NA27 John 15:16
i[na o[ ti a'n aivth,shte to.n pate,ra evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou dw/| u`mi/n
The txt reading is congruent with John's style and it appears elsewhere in this
form. These occurrences are safe.
The 01/B reading is unusual. It could therefore be argued that the txt reading
is an attempt to conform this unusual reading to the normal Johannine style.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 276
Minority reading:
NA27 John 16:27 auvto.j ga.r o` path.r filei/ u`ma/j( o[ti u`mei/j evme.
pefilh,kate kai. pepisteu,kate o[ti evgw. para. tou/ qeou/ evxh/lqon
NA27 John 16:28 evxh/lqon para. tou/ patro.j kai. evlh,luqa eivj to.n ko,smon\
Weiss: In his Jo Com. (1893) he notes: "the article has to be kept by all means".
Later in his Greek text (1905) he omits the article.
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 16:30 evn tou,tw| pisteu,omen o[ti avpo. qeou/ evxh/lqej
Compare also:
NA27 John 1:6 VEge,neto a;nqrwpoj( avpestalme,noj para. qeou/(
NA27 John 6:46 eiv mh. o` w'n para. tou/ qeou/
para. tou/ patro.j 01
NA John 8:40 lela,lhka h]n h;kousa para. tou/ qeou/\
27
NA27 John 10:18 tau,thn th.n evntolh.n e;labon para. tou/ patro,j mou
NA27 John 15:15 pa,nta a] h;kousa para. tou/ patro,j mou evgnw,risa u`mi/n
NA27 John 15:26 o]n evgw. pe,myw u`mi/n para. tou/ patro,j(
to. pneu/ma th/j avlhqei,aj o] para. tou/ patro.j evkporeu,etai
It is especially noteworthy that para. tou/ qeou/ appears never after 9:33. In
10:18; 15:15; 15:26 para. tou/ patro.j appears. It is possible that scribes
harmonized here to context.
It is possible that patro.j is a harmonization to o` path.r earlier in the verse
and to the next verse 28.
There would be no reason to change patro.j to qeou/ here.
evk B, C*, L, X, Y, 33, pc, NA25, WH, Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal, SBL
para. P5(3rd CE), P22(3rd CE), 01, A, CC2, D, Q, 0141, f1, f13, 157, 579,
1071, Maj
Compare:
NA27 John 4:30 evxh/lqon evk th/j po,lewj
NA27 John 6:65 eva.n mh. h=| dedome,non auvtw/| evk tou/ patro,j
para. tou/ patro.j 28
NA John 8:42 evgw. ga.r evk tou/ qeou/ evxh/lqon kai. h[kw\
27
evxh/lqon evk appears several times in John. Two times evk tou/ has been changed
into para. tou/. For this reason it is quite possible that evk is original here. It is
probable that para. is a conformation to the previous verse (so also Weiss).
o` ui`o.j P60?, 01, B, C*, W, 0109, 0301, pc, d(!), ff2*, Orpt
IGNTP wrongly notes X for the A, D reading. Tischendorf has it right. Checked
at the online PDF color photos.
B: no umlaut
P107(POxy 4446, 3rd CE): Space considerations rule out a sou within the lacuna
(ed. princeps: "kappa and the spacing thereafter guarantee that this was the
reading of the papyrus."). Reconstruction:
touei]ston[ouranoneipenpere
lhlu]qenhw[radoxasonsou
tonun]inak[aiou)sd]ox[ashse
kaqw]sedwkasautwe[xousian
pash]ssarkosinapan[odedw
kasau]twdwsa[u]twzw[hn
I have checked this at the (online) photo and it is certain. There is no space for
a sou. The only possibility would be that it was added above the line, as a
correction. In verse 2 P107 reads dw/|j auvtw/|, with W. P107 is not noted in NA.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
The addition of sou is possibly a conformation to the previous sou. It makes the
saying more symmetrical:
Interestingly ui`o,j sou appears nowhere else in John applied to Jesus. There is
no reason for an omission if originally present, except for Ellipsis.
There is also no reason for an omission of kai.. It has probably been added for
stylistic reasons.
Compare:
NA27 John 15:16
i[na o[ ti a'n aivth,shte to.n pate,ra evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou dw/| u`mi/n
dw,sei 01*, Q, 579
John uses dw,sei 4 more times (6:27; 11:22; 14:16; 16:23), always safe.
dw,sei and dw/| are the same morph.
The error is probably at least in part accidental, since h and ei where
pronounced alike. Also some scribes seemed to be confused over who gave whom
what.
The D reading is a conformation to Jo 3:15-16 or 6:40.
A: NA has Avid for e;gnwkan. This is probably not correct. A reads e;gnwka. I
have checked this at the facsimile (CSNTM, GA02_55b.jpg, line 15 from the
bottom, left column). There is a small A, but no trace of an N, or ephelkustikon.
IGNTP confirms this, too.
But Tischendorf writes: "In A lineolam finalem super -ka admodum tenuem esse
Woidius refert; sed fortior esset, si posteriore manu suppleta esset."
I cannot see anything. This has to be checked at the original again.
B: no umlaut
Compare also:
NA27 John 17:25 pa,ter di,kaie( kai. o` ko,smoj se ouvk e;gnw( evgw. de, se
e;gnwn( kai. ou-toi e;gnwsan o[ti su, me avpe,steilaj\
e;dwkaj A, (B), 0109, f1, 579, 1342, pc, Trgmg, WH, Bal
e;dwkej B, Trgmg
Compare context:
NA27 John 17:2 kaqw.j e;dwkaj auvtw/| evxousi,an pa,shj sarko,j(
i[na pa/n o] de,dwkaj auvtw/| dw,sh| auvtoi/j zwh.n aivw,nion
e;dwkaj1 safe!
e;dwkaj2 Q, al[E, G, H, K, P, S, Y, D, L, W, 2, 565S]
NA27 John 17:4 to. e;rgon teleiw,saj o] de,dwka,j moi
e;dwkaj C, D, K, P, W, Y, pc
NA27 John 17:6 VEfane,rwsa, sou to. o;noma toi/j avnqrw,poij ou]j e;dwka,j
moi evk tou/ ko,smou soi. h=san kavmoi. auvtou.j e;dwkaj kai. to.n lo,gon
sou teth,rhkan
e;dwka,j1 01, A, B, D, K, P, N, W, Q, 1582, 157, 579, al
de,dwka,j1 C, L, Y, 0109, f1, f13, 33, Maj
NA27 John 17:8 o[ti ta. r`h,mata a] e;dwka,j moi de,dwka auvtoi/j(
e;dwkaj1 A, (B), C, D, W, P, 579, al
e;dwkej B, Trgmg
de,dwka,j1 01, L, Q, Y, 0109, f1, f13, 33, Maj, WHmg
e;dwka2 N, W
NA27 John 17:9 ouv peri. tou/ ko,smou evrwtw/ avlla. peri. w-n de,dwka,j moi(
e;dwkaj D, N, W, Q, 579
NA27 John 17:11 th,rhson auvtou.j evn tw/| ovno,mati, sou w-| de,dwka,j moi(
e;dwkaj P66vid, 01, L, M, N, W, 579, pc
NA27 John 17:12 evn tw/| ovno,mati, sou w-| de,dwka,j moi
e;dwkaj C, N, W, 579
NA27 John 17:22 kavgw. th.n do,xan h]n de,dwka,j moi de,dwka auvtoi/j
e;dwkaj1 A, D, N, U, Q, P, Y, 157, 579, al, Trgmg
e;dwka2 01, A, K, P, M, N, Q, f13, al
NA27 John 17:24 Pa,ter( o] de,dwka,j moi( ... h]n de,dwka,j moi
e;dwkaj1 A
e;dwkaj2 B, Q, Maj-part, Trgmg
Perhaps there is a slight difference in meaning also, with the perfect having a
more permanent notion.
Discussion on B-Greek 28th Nov. 2004:
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
"Well, for what it's worth, my own judgment is that the author of GJn appears sometimes to use
the perfect tense deliberately with emphasis upon the stative present, but that on the other
hand he perhaps provides more evidence than most GNT authors of the tendency of the aorist
to supplant
the perfect in the indicative so that any real distinction between the perfect as stative and the
aorist as perfective has become moot. I really don't believe that there's any aspectual
difference between EDWKAS and DEDWKAS in 17:2 or in the other aorists and perfects in
these verses. I'd convey them all in English with the auxiliary "have" and the participle."
A. Dirkzwager wrote:
"Is it possible that we have to look for a Hebrew/Aramaic background for these changes?
There we have an alternation between perfect and imperfect in sentences in parataxis in order
to express what we would like to say in hypotaxis. I think it is possible that a Semite continues
to use the alternation where he is writing in hypotaxis."
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 283
116. Difficult reading
Minority reading:
NA27 John 17:8 o[ti ta. r`h,mata a] e;dwka,j moi de,dwka auvtoi/j( kai. auvtoi.
e;labon kai. e;gnwsan avlhqw/j o[ti para. sou/ evxh/lqon( kai. evpi,steusan
o[ti su, me avpe,steilaj
Compare:
NA27 John 17:7 nu/n e;gnwkan o[ti pa,nta o[sa de,dwka,j moi para. sou/
eivsin\
e;gnwka W, 118, 579, pc
e;gnwn 01
one of these: it (a, b, c, e, ff2, q, not d), Sy-S, Sy-P,
Sy-Hmg, Sy-Pal, sa, ac, goth
NA27 John 7:26 kai. i;de parrhsi,a| lalei/ kai. ouvde.n auvtw/| le,gousin
mh,pote avlhqw/j e;gnwsan oi` a;rcontej o[ti ou-to,j evstin o` cristo,j
NA27 John 17:25 pa,ter di,kaie( kai. o` ko,smoj se ouvk e;gnw( evgw. de, se
e;gnwn( kai. ou-toi e;gnwsan o[ti su, me avpe,steilaj\
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 284
Minority reading:
NA27 John 17:11 kai. ouvke,ti eivmi. evn tw/| ko,smw|(
kai. auvtoi. evn tw/| ko,smw| eivsi,n(
kavgw. pro.j se. e;rcomai
pa,ter a[gie( th,rhson auvtou.j evn tw/| ovno,mati, sou
w-| de,dwka,j moi( i[na w=sin e]n kaqw.j h`mei/j
P107 (POxy 4446): The editor W.E.H. Cockle comments: "Since the reading in
line 2 of the papyrus [se. e;rc] is clear, as is th,#rhson in line 5, it is certain
that the papyrus had some addition at this point. So little survives, however, and
the traces in line 4 are so meagre, that the reading offered in the text is far
from certain."
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
B: no umlaut
A strange combination with verse 12. Possibly some kind of transcription error.
DC added in verse 11 the Byzantine evn tw/| ko,smw| from verse 12.
The first line makes no sense, but note that Origen supports this, too!
Note also that (acc. to NA) P66vid omits auvtoi..
The support from P107 is not secure.
B. Aland notes: "the variant probably originated from the desire to emphasize
the ceremonial farewell text. The direction here goes clearly from P107 (and
other early forms) to D."
Compare:
B. Aland "Der textkritische und textgeschichtliche Nutzen frher Papyri,
demonstriert am Johannesevangelium", in: Recent Developments in Textual
Criticism. hrsg. von W. Weren und D.-A. Koch, Assen 2003, 19-38.
B: no umlaut
b) verse 12 w-:|
Byz ou]j A, CC3, D, X, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 157, 1071, Maj,
Latt, Sy-P, Sy-H, geo2, goth
txt w-| B, C*, L, W, 33, 579, pc, Sy-Pal, sa, pbo, bo, ac2, arm, geo1
o] 01C2, (Co, Sy-Pal, arm, acc. to Tis)
c) verse 24 o]:
Byz ou[j A, C, L, X, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 157, 1071, Maj,
Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, sa, Cl, Trgmg
Compare:
NA27 John 17:2 pa/n o] de,dwkaj auvtw/| dw,sh| auvtoi/j zwh.n aivw,nion
NA27 John 17:4 to. e;rgon teleiw,saj o] de,dwka,j moi i[na poih,sw\
NA27 John 17:7 nu/n e;gnwkan o[ti pa,nta o[sa de,dwka,j moi
NA27 John 17:9 avlla. peri. w-n de,dwka,j moi( o[ti soi, eivsin(
NA27 John 17:22 kavgw. th.n do,xan h]n de,dwka,j moi de,dwka auvtoi/j(
NA27 John 18:9 i[na plhrwqh/| o` lo,goj o]n ei=pen o[ti ou]j de,dwka,j moi
In the verses 11 and 12 the dative (attracted to the case of the antecedent) is a
difficulty. In the previous verses ) never Jesus name is meant, but his followers.
Thus it is quite probable that scribes stumbled at verses 11 and 12. There is no
reason why someone should change the plural ou[j to the dative singular.
Note that the support for ou[j in verse 12 is much stronger than in verse 11. This
is unusual. It is possible that in verse 12 the txt reading w-| is a conformation to
the preceding verse.
If one changes to ou[j in verse 12 though, the w-| in verse 11 would be even more
unusual. Both verses have a very similar wording and it would be only natural if in
both verses the same meaning is intended.
In verse 24 the intended meaning is probably the same, but the singular o] is
certainly more difficult. There is no reason for a secondary origin of o].
A. Pallis (Notes, 1926) writes on verse 12: "The sentence w-| de,dwka,j moi
evidently refers to the Apostles. Jesus pleaded for his disciples in v. 9 evrwtw/
peri. w-n de,dwka,j moi, and the fact that he did so a second time in this
passagewas perceived by that student who substituted the variant ou[j for w-.|
But a second variant o] in the form o[ti is the one probably which represents the
true reading; it being the undeclinable relative particle. This remark applies
equally to v. 11, where we find the same variations, and to v. 24, where the
reading varies between o] and ou[j."
verse 11:
Rating: 2 (NA clearly original)
verse 12:
Rating: - (indecisive)
External Rating: 2? (NA probably original)
(after weighting the witnesses)
verse 24:
Rating: 2? (NA probably original)
TVU 286
Minority reading:
NA27 John 17:11 kai. ouvke,ti eivmi. evn tw/| ko,smw|( kai. auvtoi. evn tw/| ko,smw|
eivsi,n( kavgw. pro.j se. e;rcomai
pa,ter a[gie( th,rhson auvtou.j evn tw/| ovno,mati, sou
w-| de,dwka,j moi( i[na w=sin e]n kaqw.j h`mei/j
NA27 John 17:12 o[te h;mhn metV auvtw/n evgw. evth,roun auvtou.j
omit: P66*
i[na w=sin e]n kaqw.j kai. h`mei/j B*, M, S, U, 054, 579, 700, pc,
L844, pc, Lat, Sy-H, arm
i[na w=sin e]n kaqw.j h`mei/j e]n X (= Jo 17:22)
i[na w=sin e]n kaqw.j kai. h`mei/j e]n Q
i[na w=sin e]n kaqw.j h`mei/j e]n evsmen Y, 0141, 0211, 33, 1424, pc, vgms
(=Jo 17:22 Byz!)
Compare:
NA27 John 17:21 i[na pa,ntej e]n w=sin( kaqw.j su,( pa,ter( evn evmoi. kavgw. evn
soi,( i[na kai. auvtoi. evn h`mi/n w=sin( i[na o` ko,smoj pisteu,h| o[ti su, me
avpe,steilaj
NA27 John 17:22 kavgw. th.n do,xan h]n de,dwka,j moi de,dwka auvtoi/j(
i[na w=sin e]n kaqw.j h`mei/j e[n\
BYZ John 17:22 Kai. evgw. th.n do,xan h]n de,dwka,j moi( de,dwka auvtoi/j(
i[na w=sin e[n( kaqw.j h`mei/j e[n evsmen
NA27 John 17:23 evgw. evn auvtoi/j kai. su. evn evmoi,( i[na w=sin teteleiwme,noi
eivj e[n(
Possibly omitted "due to the difficulty of the original reading" (Metzger). There
is no reason for an addition.
Several other manuscripts try to smooth the reading by adding kai. and/or e]n,
probably inspired from verse 22. Codex D has completely reworked this
paragraph (see above).
Note that P66*, 01*, Sy-S also omit w-| de,dwka,j moi in verse 12!
Byz A, CC3, DC, X, D, Q, Y, 0141, f13, 33, 157, 579, Maj, f, q, Sy, arm, goth
txt P60(7th CE), P66, 01, B, C*, D*, L, W, f1, 1071, pc,
Lat, Co, Did, DiatessEphrem
B: no umlaut
Ephrem: "when he was praying, While I was with them, I was keeping watch over
them." The Arabic Diatessaron has the long form.
Compare context:
NA27 John 17:11 kai. ouvke,ti eivmi. evn tw/| ko,smw|( kai. auvtoi. evn tw/| ko,smw|
eivsi,n( kavgw. pro.j se. e;rcomai ...
NA27 John 17:13 nu/n de. pro.j se. e;rcomai kai. tau/ta lalw/ evn tw/| ko,smw|
i[na e;cwsin th.n cara.n th.n evmh.n peplhrwme,nhn evn e`autoi/j
Probably added from context verse 11 (so also Weiss). There is no reason for an
omission.
Compare:
NA27 John 17:11 kai. ouvke,ti eivmi. evn tw/| ko,smw|( kai. auvtoi. evn tw/| ko,smw|
eivsi,n( kavgw. pro.j se. e;rcomai pa,ter a[gie( th,rhson auvtou.j evn tw/|
ovno,mati, sou w-| de,dwka,j moi( i[na w=sin e]n kaqw.j h`mei/j
acc. to UBS4 (it, ac2) omit from w-| ... h`mei/j.
It is possible that the words have been added here as a conformation to verse
11. But the support is rather weak.
On the other hand it is quite possible that the words have been omitted as
redundant here.
Note that Sy-S also omits w-| de,dwka,j moi in verse 11 (see above)!
Byz 01C2, CC3, X, P*, Y, 0141, f13, 33, 157, 1071, Maj, q, Sy, bopt
txt P66, A, B, C*, D, L, W, Q, PC, f1, 579, pc, Lat, Co, Sy-Pal, goth
Compare:
NA27 John 17:11 pa,ter a[gie( th,rhson auvtou.j evn tw/| ovno,mati, sou
NA27 John 17:12 evgw. evth,roun auvtou.j evn tw/| ovno,mati, sou
NA27 John 17:19 kai. u`pe.r auvtw/n evgw. a`gia,zw evmauto,n( i[na w=sin kai.
auvtoi. h`giasme,noi evn avlhqei,a|
NA27 John 17:24 Pa,ter( o] de,dwka,j moi( qe,lw i[na o[pou eivmi. evgw.
kavkei/noi w=sin metV evmou/( i[na qewrw/sin th.n do,xan th.n evmh,n( h]n
de,dwka,j moi o[ti hvga,phsa,j me pro. katabolh/j ko,smou
path,r A, B, N, pc, NA25, WH, Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal
pa,ter 01, C, D, L, W, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Cl
NA27 John 17:25 pa,ter di,kaie( kai. o` ko,smoj se ouvk e;gnw( evgw. de, se
e;gnwn( kai. ou-toi e;gnwsan o[ti su, me avpe,steilaj\
path,r A, B, N, pc, NA25, WH, Weiss, Trg, Tis, Bal
pa,ter P59vid(7th CE), 01, C, D, L, W, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Cl
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 12:28 pa,ter( do,xaso,n sou to. o;noma
path,r B
NA John 17:1 ei=pen\ pa,ter( evlh,luqen h` w[ra\
27
path,r N
NA John 17:5 kai. nu/n do,xaso,n me su,( pa,ter(
27
path,r D*, N
NA John 17:11 pa,ter a[gie( th,rhson auvtou.j
27
path,r B, N
BYZ John 17:21 i[na pa,ntej e]n w=sin kaqw.j su, pa,ter evn evmoi. kavgw. evn
soi, i[na kai. auvtoi. evn h`mi/n e]n w=sin i[na o` ko,smoj pisteu,sh| o[ti su, me
avpe,steilaj
Sy-S has a lacuna. Burkitt writes: A possible restoration is "united", giving: "that
they also may be united".
B: no umlaut
Compare also:
NA27 John 17:11 i[na w=sin e]n kaqw.j h`mei/j
Metzger writes: "The pedantic addition of e]n before w=sin, which comes from
e]n w=sin earlier in the verse, clouds the thought more than illumines it."
"so that the world may know that you have sent me
and you have loved them even as you have loved me."
"so that the world may know that you have sent me
and I have loved them even as you have loved me."
Compare:
NA27 John 13:34 VEntolh.n kainh.n di,dwmi u`mi/n( i[na avgapa/te avllh,louj(
kaqw.j hvga,phsa u`ma/j i[na kai. u`mei/j avgapa/te avllh,louj
NA27 John 15:9 Kaqw.j hvga,phse,n me o` path,r( kavgw. u`ma/j hvga,phsa\
NA27 John 15:12 Au[th evsti.n h` evntolh. h` evmh,( i[na avgapa/te avllh,louj
kaqw.j hvga,phsa u`ma/j
Both readings make good sense and it is probable that the 1st person is an
accidental error. It is also possible that the 1st person is influenced by 15:9
which has the same meaning as the D et al. reading here.
Byz tw/n Kedrw.n 01C2, B, C, L, X, Q, Y, 054, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 157, 579,
1071, Maj, Or, WH, Trg
txt tou/ Kedrw.n A, S, D, W, 0250, pc, aur, c, e, f, q, vg ("Cedron"), Sy, arm,
(Josephus), NA25, Trgmg
tou/ Ke,drou 01*, D, W, a, b, d, r1 ("Cedri"), Co, Tis
Caedrum e
Compare LXX:
LXX 2 Samuel 15:23 kai. pa/sa h` gh/ e;klaien fwnh/| mega,lh| kai. pa/j o`
lao.j pareporeu,onto evn tw/| ceima,rrw| Kedrwn kai. o` basileu.j die,bh
to.n ceima,rroun Kedrwn
1. ceima,rrw| tw/n Kedrwn B, pc
2. ceima,rroun tw/n Kedrwn A, it, pc
Rating: - (indecisive)
P60(7th CE) has a lacuna after evgw, eivmi, it can read either the B reading or the
D reading.
According to Tischendorf a reads: "Dixit illis 'Ego sum.' Iesus autem stabat et
Iudas " This punctuation has also Jlicher's "Itala".
From here starts D/dsup. The Greek is still old for this verse, but the next page
with the Latin is already the supplement (reading the Byz/vg text).
B: no umlaut
This is one of the very few NA readings that is supported only by D in the
Greek.
The omission could be accidental:
a) autoisis, VIhsou/j written as nomen sacrum after auvtoi/j.
b) autoisois, o` VIhsou/j written as nomen sacrum after auvtoi/j.
c) isisthkei, VIhsou/j written as nomen sacrum before ei`sth,kei,
which is often written as i`sth,kei in the manuscripts, e.g. P66, 01, B*, D.
On the other hand the different insertion points may indicate a secondary
cause.
Overall the support for the omission is just to slim and not weighty enough.
Unfortunately d is not present anymore.
B: no umlaut
13. 24. 14-15. 19-23. 16-18 Sy-S
Note also:
NA27 John 18:13 kai. h;gagon pro.j {Annan prw/ton\ h=n ga.r penqero.j tou/
Kai?a,fa( o]j h=n avrciereu.j tou/ evniautou/ evkei,nou\
omit: P60(7th CE)
Interestingly already Martin Luther inserted a note after verse 13 in his 1545
German Bible: "Hie solt stehen der Vers: 'Und Hannas sandte jn gebunden zu
dem Hohenpriester Caiphas.' Ist von dem Schreiber versetzt im umbwerffen
des Blats, wie offt geschicht." (= "Here should stand verse 24 misplaced by a
scribe in turning a leaf, as often happens.") [taken from Reclam's
Studienausgabe of Luther's 1545 NT].
Friedrich Spitta is discussing the problems in his "Zur Geschichte und Litteratur
des Urchristenthums", 1893, vol. 1, p. 158 ff.: "In der That liegt hier eine
merkwrdige Unordnung (strange disorder) des Stoffes vor." He conjectures
the order 13, 19-23, 24, 14-18 and explains it by some inattentive scribe,
skipping from 13 to 24, continuing with 14-18, then noting his error and adding
19-23(24).
On the Sy-S order Blass writes: "This is the narrative of the real author; the
other one is that of blundering scribes." (Philology of the Gospels, p. 59)
W. Randolph Church proposed the order: 13, 24, 14, 19-23, 15-18.
He notes that the two interchanged passages have about the same number of
letters (19.23: 427; 15-18: 436) and some accidental exchange appeared.
Compare: W. Randolph Church "The dislocations in the eighteenth chapter of
John" JBL 49 (1930) 375-83
All those changes in order are good suggestions but are difficult to explain. It is
nevertheless interesting how many scribes moved verse 24 after verse 13.
From 18:14 - 20:13 D is not extant anymore, but only as a supplement (DS).
For 20:1-13 only the Latin d is present.
txt P66vid, 01, B, C*, DS, L, W, X, Q, 0141, f1, f13, 22, 33, 565, 579, al,
Latt, Sy-S, Sy-P, Sy-Hmg, Sy-Pal, Co, arm
Compare:
NA27 John 11:50 ouvde. logi,zesqe o[ti sumfe,rei u`mi/n i[na ei-j a;nqrwpoj
avpoqa,nh| u`pe.r tou/ laou/ kai. mh. o[lon to. e;qnoj avpo,lhtai
Immediate context:
NA27 John 18:9 i[na plhrwqh/| o` lo,goj o]n ei=pen o[ti ou]j de,dwka,j moi ouvk
avpw,lesa evx auvtw/n ouvde,na
avpole,sqai probably comes from the reference in 11:50, where both words
appear: ei-j a;nqrwpoj avpoqa,nh| ... to. e;qnoj avpo,lhtai
It is either due to confusion or a deliberate abridgement.
This in itself is of course no argument in favor of one reading.
avpole,sqai is the more difficult reading, because it deviates from the position
in the reference 11:50.
A direct harmonization to 11:50 is improbable, because in that case it would be
more suitable to add the missing phrase kai. mh. o[lon to. e;qnoj avpo,lhtai, as
do 22 and a.
Rating: - (indecisive)
Byz 01C2, C, L, X, D, Q, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 579, 700, 1071, Maj, samss, ac2, [Trg]
txt P66, 01*, A, B, DS, W, Y, 472, pc, Sy-S, Sy-P, samss, pbo, bo
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 18:16 evxh/lqen ou=n o` maqhth.j o` a;lloj o` gnwsto.j tou/
avrciere,wj kai. ei=pen th/| qurwrw/| kai. eivsh,gagen to.n Pe,tron
NA27 John 20:2-4 tre,cei ou=n kai. e;rcetai pro.j Si,mwna Pe,tron kai. pro.j
to.n a;llon maqhth.n o]n evfi,lei o` VIhsou/j 3 VExh/lqen ou=n o` Pe,troj kai.
o` a;lloj maqhth.j kai. h;rconto eivj to. mnhmei/on 4 e;trecon de. oi` du,o
o`mou/\ kai. o` a;lloj maqhth.j proe,dramen ta,cion tou/ Pe,trou kai. h=lqen
prw/toj eivj to. mnhmei/on(
NA27 John 20:8 to,te ou=n eivsh/lqen kai. o` a;lloj maqhth.j o` evlqw.n
prw/toj eivj to. mnhmei/on kai. ei=den kai. evpi,steusen\
The article is important for the identification of "the other disciple". Is it the
disciple "whom Jesus loved" (13:23, 20:2)?
The addition of the article is probably inspired from context. There is no reason
for an omission.
omit: P66*
NA27 John 19:4 Kai. evxh/lqen pa,lin e;xw o` Pila/toj kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\
verse 18:29
1. evxh/lqen ou=n o` Pila/toj pro.j auvtou.j
Byz A, C , D , K, D, Y, 0250, 157, Maj, q, Sy-S, Co? probably, acc. to Horner
C3 S
P66: the available text allows readings 3 and 4. Space considerations make it
more probable that P66 reads 3.
B: no umlaut
verse 19:4
evxh/lqen pa,lin e;xw o` Pila/toj P66*, A, B, DS, G, 0211, f1, 33, 157, al,
Sy-H, WH, NA25 txt
C
evxh/lqen ou=n pa,lin e;xw o` Pila/toj P66 , D, Q, Y, 0141, 700, Maj
P90: Only evxh/lqen pa,lin is visible. The editors conclude from space
considerations that there is not enough space for e;xw. NA follows them and
notes P90 as "vid". But this is not justified. The evidence turns out to be
inconclusive. Careful reconstructions show no preference for either reading. P90
should be dropped from the apparatus.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Lacuna: C, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
Note also:
NA27 John 18:4 VIhsou/j ou=n eivdw.j pa,nta ta. evrco,mena evpV auvto.n
evxh/lqen kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ ti,na zhtei/te
e;xw P60
Compare:
NA27 John 18:38 Kai. tou/to eivpw.n pa,lin evxh/lqen pro.j tou.j VIoudai,ouj
NA27 John 19:5 evxh/lqen ou=n o` VIhsou/j e;xw(
It is therefore most probable that e;xw has been omitted as redundant. The
word order variants are difficult to decide. The 01, L reading in 19:4 is the same
order as the txt reading in 18:29. This is probably the reason, why WH have this
reading as alternative in the margin.
omit: 01*, B, 087vid, 579, pc, a, c, e, q, NA25, WH, Weiss, Tis, Bal
087: IGNTP has it without the "vid" qualifier. They give it as:
[]
01* corrected by 01C2
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 1 Timothy 5:19 kata. presbute,rou kathgori,an mh. parade,cou
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 301
Minority reading:
NA27 John 18:31 ei=pen ou=n auvtoi/j o` Pila/toj\ la,bete auvto.n u`mei/j kai.
kata. to.n no,mon u`mw/n kri,nate auvto,n ei=pon auvtw/| oi` VIoudai/oi\ h`mi/n
ouvk e;xestin avpoktei/nai ouvde,na\
No txt in NA and SQE!
Compare context:
NA27 John 18:33 Eivsh/lqen ou=n pa,lin eivj to. praitw,rion o` Pila/toj
omit o`: DS
NA27 John 18:38 le,gei auvtw/| o` Pila/toj\
omit o`: P66
pa,ntej P66vid, G, K, P, N, U, Y, f1, f13, 28, 33, 157, 565, 700, al,
it, Sy-P, Sy-Pal, Co, arm
P90 has a lacuna (only the p is visible), but from space considerations it is very
probable that it read one of the short forms.
Lacuna: C, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Mark 7:14 Kai. proskalesa,menoj pa,lin to.n o;clon e;legen auvtoi/j\
avkou,sate, mou pa,ntej kai. su,nete
BYZ Mark 7:14 Kai. proskalesa,menoj pa,nta to.n o;clon e;legen auvtoi/j
VAkou,ete, mou pa,ntej kai. suni,ete
Byz A, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Sy, samss
txt 01, B, D, L, D, 892, 1342, Lat, Sy-Hmg, sams, bo
omit 565, 579, pc, samss, bomss
NA27 John 19:6 {Ote ou=n ei=don auvto.n oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` u`phre,tai
evkrau,gasan le,gontej\
NA27 John 19:12 evk tou,tou o` Pila/toj evzh,tei avpolu/sai auvto,n\ oi` de.
VIoudai/oi evkrau,gasan le,gontej\
NA27 John 19:15 evkrau,gasan ou=n evkei/noi\ a=ron a=ron( stau,rwson auvto,n
It is possible that pa,lin has been omitted or changed to pa,ntej because no
earlier shouting is recorded.
Zahn asks (Comm. Jo): "Why should anybody add pa,lin here, with no support
from the context? Also nobody could miss a pa,ntej here, who has read verses
30, 31 and 19:12. Both short readings are suspicious and therefore pa,lin
pa,ntej must be the origin of the variation."
Rating: - (indecisive)
Ehrman argues for a deliberate omission: "If the reading now preserved in
Vaticanus once had a wider currency, then the deletion of the entire sentence
makes considerable sense. Scribes found its implications troubling; for them,
even though Jesus had been bloodied and reviled, he was not a mere mortal.
Pilate's statement to the contrary could best be dismissed by being excised."
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 305
Minority reading:
NA27 John 19:14 h=n de. paraskeuh. tou/ pa,sca( w[ra h=n w`j e[kth kai.
le,gei toi/j VIoudai,oij\ i;de o` basileu.j u`mw/n
Compare:
NA27 Mark 15:25 h=n de. w[ra tri,th kai. evstau,rwsan auvto,n
e[kth Q, 479**, pc, Sy-Hmg, aeth
Most probably the change to tri,th was an attempt to harmonize the account
with that of Mk.
Note also:
NA27 John 4:6 evkaqe,zeto ou[twj evpi. th/| phgh/|\ w[ra h=n w`j e[kth
Compare: Theodor Zahn, Commentary on John, Excursus 6.
BYZ John 19:15 oi` de. evkrau,gasan\ a=ron a=ron stau,rwson auvto,n
Lacuna: C, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
Parallels:
NA27 Matthew 27:27 To,te oi` stratiw/tai tou/ h`gemo,noj paralabo,ntej to.n
VIhsou/n eivj to. praitw,rion sunh,gagon evpV auvto.n o[lhn th.n spei/ran
NA27 Mark 15:15 kai. pare,dwken to.n VIhsou/n fragellw,saj i[na
staurwqh/|
NA27 Luke 23:24 to.n de. VIhsou/n pare,dwken tw/| qelh,mati auvtw/n
Pare,labon ou=n to.n VIhsou/n sounds not complete. It is not clear who took
him and for what. The changes and additions are only natural.
P60 not in NA! The ap prefix is not completely clear, but quite probable:
IGNTP and the ed.pr. reconstruct:
ap[ h]gagon k[ai ...
M: Swanson has M for eivj to. praitw,rion. IGNTP and NA have not.
Lacuna: C, Sy-S
For other minor changes see Swanson!
B: no umlaut
Parallels:
NA27 Matthew 27:31 ... kai. avph,gagon auvto.n eivj to. staurw/sai
NA27 Mark 15:20 ... Kai. evxa,gousin auvto.n i[na staurw,swsin auvto,n
NA27 Luke 23:26 Kai. w`j avph,gagon auvto,n( evpilabo,menoi Si,mwna, tina
Kurhnai/on evrco,menon avpV avgrou/ evpe,qhkan auvtw/| to.n stauro.n fe,rein
o;pisqen tou/ VIhsou/
The reading eivj to. praitw,rion is curious. Even though the praetorium
appears twice in 18:28 and 18:33 it makes no sense here.
Weiss (Jo Com.) thinks that the kai. avph,gagon is from Mt 27:31.
Rating: 2 (NA clearly original)
TVU 309
124. Difficult variant
NA27 John 19:20 kai. h=n gegramme,non ~Ebrai?sti,( ~Rwmai?sti,( ~Ellhnisti,
BYZ John 19:20 kai. h=n gegramme,non ~Ebrai?sti, ~Ellhnisti, ~Rwmai?sti,
NA27 John 19:19 e;grayen de. kai. ti,tlon o` Pila/toj kai. e;qhken evpi. tou/
staurou/\ h=n de. gegramme,non \ VIhsou/j o` Nazwrai/oj o` basileu.j
tw/n VIoudai,wn
f13, 579 insert the words in verse 19. This probably seemed to be a more
appropriate place for them. This is also the position where the words are
inserted in the Byzantine text of Lk 23:38.
It is interesting that the wording and the order of the languages in different in
Jo and in Byz-Lk.
It has been argued that the txt order, Hebrew, Latin, Greek, is more natural,
because we have first the language of the inhabitants, then the language of the
occupation regime and finally the main language of the Mediterranean area (=
national, official, common language). The Byzantine order could be a geographical
ordering from East to West. But all this is not very convincing.
Rating: - (indecisive)
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 18:33 kai. ei=pen auvtw/|\ su. ei= o` basileu.j tw/n VIoudai,wn
NA27 John 18:37 ei=pen ou=n auvtw/| o` Pila/toj\ ouvkou/n basileu.j ei= su,
avpekri,qh o` VIhsou/j\ su. le,geij o[ti basileu,j eivmi
NA27 John 18:39 bou,lesqe ou=n avpolu,sw u`mi/n to.n basile,a tw/n
VIoudai,wn
NA27 John 19:3 cai/re o` basileu.j tw/n VIoudai,wn
NA27 John 19:19 VIhsou/j o` Nazwrai/oj o` basileu.j tw/n VIoudai,wn
The phrase basileu.j tw/n VIoudai,wn appears immediately before (and several
times elsewhere in John). It is probable that it has simply been repeated and
eivmi added at the end for emphasis.
There is no reason why the B, L word order should have been changed.
omit: 01, B, pc, L844, it(a, b, c, ff2, r1), samss9, ac2, pbo,
NA25, WH, Weiss, Tis, Bal
Compare:
NA27 John 13:18 avllV i[na h` grafh. plhrwqh/|\
NA27 John 17:12 i[na h` grafh. plhrwqh/|
NA27 John 19:36 evge,neto ga.r tau/ta i[na h` grafh. plhrwqh/|\
Compare also:
NA27 Matthew 26:54 pw/j ou=n plhrwqw/sin ai` grafai. o[ti
NA27 Matthew 26:56 i[na plhrwqw/sin ai` grafai. tw/n profhtw/n
NA27 Mark 14:49 avllV i[na plhrwqw/sin ai` grafai,
NA27 Luke 4:21 o[ti sh,meron peplh,rwtai h` grafh. au[th
NA27 Acts 1:16 a;ndrej avdelfoi,( e;dei plhrwqh/nai th.n grafh.n
Note:
NA27 James 2:23 kai. evplhrw,qh h` grafh. h` le,gousa\
Lacuna: C, D, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
txt P66vid, 01, B, L, W, X, Y, f1, 33, 565, 579, pc, it, samss5, ac2, pbo
poih,santej spo,ggon ou=n mesto.n tou/ o;xouj meta. colh/j
Eus (cf. Tis)
Lacuna: C, D, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
Parallels:
NA27 Matthew 27:34 e;dwkan auvtw/| piei/n oi=non meta. colh/j memigme,non\
NA27 Matthew 27:48 kai. labw.n spo,ggon plh,saj te o;xouj
kai. periqei.j kala,mw| evpo,tizen auvto,n
NA Mark 15:23 kai. evdi,doun auvtw/| evsmurnisme,non oi=non\
27
Compare:
LXX Psalm 68:22 kai. e;dwkan eivj to. brw/ma, mou colh.n kai. eivj th.n
di,yan mou evpo,tisa,n me o;xoj
positum erat aceto plenum hysopo admiscentes c, 16, 25, 48, Hil, Chrys, Non
"vinegar mixed with Hyssop"
For details of the Latin see the online Vetus Latina Iohannes.
Lacuna: C, D, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
u[sswpoj "hyssop", a small bush with aromatic leaves used for ritual purification
(appears 10 times in the LXX)
u`ssw/| o` u`sso,j, "the javelin, spear", Latin "pilum"
Compare:
NA27 Matthew 27:48 kai. periqei.j kala,mw| ["reed"] evpo,tizen auvto,n
NA27 Mark 15:36 kai. gemi,saj spo,ggon o;xouj periqei.j kala,mw|
evpo,tizen auvto,n le,gwn\
Compare also:
LXX Exodus 12:22 lh,myesqe de. de,smhn u`ssw,pou kai. ba,yantej avpo. tou/
ai[matoj "Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin,"
LXX Numbers 19:6 kai. lh,myetai o` i`ereu.j xu,lon ke,drinon kai. u[sswpon
kai. ko,kkinon "The priest shall take cedarwood, hyssop, and crimson material,"
and also: Lev 14:4, 6, 49, 51f; Num 19:6, 18; 1 Ki 5:13; Ps 50:9; Heb 9:19
Hyssop is possibly a very early error, perhaps by John already? An aromatic
herb is not really suited for the purpose, but see below.
u`ssw/| was printed by Baljon and Lagrange, and accepted in Moffatts translation
and the NEB.
Parker (Living Text): "Here is a conjecture [u`ssw/]| which would have been
accepted in such a narrative in any other kind of text. It should be accepted
here."
The Mishnah notes on the use of Hyssop for purification purposes (Mishnah
Parah 12:1a): "Hyssop which is [too] short one makes it suffice with a thread
and with a spindle and immerses it and brings it up and holds on to the Hyssop
[itself] and sprinkles."
Beethan writes: "The translation would then be 'therefore having placed round a
"hyssop" (i.e. a bunch of hyssop lengthened and thereby stiffened with a spindle
for the purpose of dipping and sprinkling) a sponge full of the sour wine, they
conveyed it to his mouth.' "
The Jerusalem Bible translates "hyssop stick".
It has been suggested that Hyssop has been introduced here as a symbol, to
indicate that Jesus is actually the Passah lamb. Note Exo 12:22 where Hyssop is
mentioned to be used to disperse the blood of the lamb.
Compare:
E. Nestle "Zum Ysop bei Johannes, Josephus und Philo" ZNW 14 (1913)
263-5
G. Schwarz "u`ssw,pw| periqe,ntej Jo 19:29" NTS 30 (1984) 625-26
F.G. and P.A. Beethan "A note on Jo 19:29" JTS 44 (1993) 163 - 169
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 315
Minority reading:
NA27 John 19:35 kai.
o` e`wrakw.j memartu,rhken( kai. avlhqinh. auvtou/ evstin
h` marturi,a( kai. evkei/noj oi=den o[ti avlhqh/ le,gei( i[na kai. u`mei/j
pisteu,shte
The verse does not fit very good here, because it separates the events and the
scripture references.
Cyrill of Alexandria in his commentary on John discusses the verses in the order
34. 36-37, 35.
This verse has another difficulty, namely: To what refers the evkei/noj? It is
normally assumed that it refers to the beloved disciple, but this would be very
unusual stylistically and unjohannine. It has been proposed therefore that it
refers to Jesus (so Zahn).
Blass concludes: "everything is insecure: The whole verse and its position, also
its parts, especially the evkei/noj oi=den, and finally, if this could be fixed, we
are left with the evkei/noj and dispute about it. One thing should be clear:
whoever wants to build on this verse a hypothesis regarding the origin of this
Gospel, he builds on sand, drifting sand even."
19:35
pisteu,hte 01*, B, Y, Or, NA25, WH, Trgmg, Tis, Bal, SBL
pisteu,shte 01C2, A, DS, L, W, X, D, Q, 0141, 0211, f1, f13, 33, Maj,
Gre, Bois, Weiss, Trg
Lacuna: P66, C
20:31
pisteu,hte P66vid?, 01*, B, Q, 0211, 0250, 157, 892S, 1071, L2211, pc
NA25, WH, Trgmg, Tis, Bal, SBL
pisteu,shte 01C2, A, C, D, L, W, X, D, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, 565, Maj,
Bois, Weiss, Trg (Gre not covered)
P66: In 20:31 NA gives it as "vid" for pisteu,hte. This is more probable, but not
completely certain.
There is an extra file with images on this paleographic problem, click here.
Lacuna: P75, 579
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 6:29 i[na pisteu,hte eivj o]n avpe,steilen evkei/noj
BYZ John 6:29 i[na pisteu,shte eivj o]n avpe,steilen evkei/noj
Byz D, W, 1582, f13, 28, 157, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, Maj
txt P75, 01, A, B, L, N, T, Q, Y, 1, 33, 565, 579, pc, Or [P66 lac.]
Jo 8:24 pisteu,shte P66,
pisteu,hte P75, pc
Jo 10:381 pisteu,hte
pisteu,shte P66*
Compare also:
NA27 John 13:34 i[na kai. u`mei/j avgapa/te[present] avllh,louj
Note that also in the earlier cases (6:29, 10:38, 13:19, 17:21) this variation
occurs.
Very difficult to judge.
Weiss (Textkritik, p. 58) notes that for scribes the subjunctive present was the
norm in i[na clauses. So also Riesenfeld, who argues that John commonly uses
the present tense after i[na.
Carson writes (1987) that "whatever one concludes the outcome of the text-critical
question to be, the meaning of the verse is not determined by the tense of this one verb. Apart
from other considerations, the most that can be deduced from the aorist itself is a reference to
the simple act of believing; from the present, some kind of durative or iterative belief, and even
that can be questioned. John 11:15 provides an instance where the aorist subjunctive pisteu,shte
curs with the sense of having faith corroborated; John 1:7 provides an instance of the aorist
subjunctive pisteu,swsin signifying a coming to faith (cf. also 4:48). At the same time, the
present subjunctive pisteu,hte occurs in the best reading of John 6:29 to refer to the entire
process of coming to faith and continuing to believe: this is the work of God, i[na pisteu,hte eivj
o]n avpe,steilen evkei/noj. In short, the text-critical evidence is not determinative, not only
because it is evenly balanced but also because both the present subjunctive and the aorist
subjunctive can occur both in the context of coming to faith and in the context of continuing in
faith. R. Schnackenburg rightly observes that even if one reads the aorist in this verse, such a
reading is insufficient ground on which to base an "evangelistic" interpretation."
Both, Carson and Fee, agree that the present subjunctive is original. But they
are both strongly biased by the "notable early support" from P66.
Compare:
H. Riesenfeld "Zu den johanneischen i[na-Satzen" Studia Theologica 19
(1965) 213-20
D.A. Carson "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered"
JBL 106 (1987) 639-51
G.D. Fee "On the Text and Meaning of John 20,3031" in: "The Four Gospels
1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (ed. F. van Segbroeck et al.; BETL 100;
Leuven, 1992), 21932205
D.A. Carson "Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30-31:
One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel" JBL 124 (2005) 693-
714
Rating: - (indecisive)
(brackets ok)
TVU 317
128. Difficult variant
Minority reading:
NA27 John 19:38 Meta. de. tau/ta hvrw,thsen to.n Pila/ton VIwsh.f o` avpo.
~Arimaqai,aj(
omit o` P66*vid, A, B, DS, L, Y, 579, pc, WH, NA25, Weiss, Trg, SBL
o` VIwsh.f avpo. A
Compare parallels:
NA27 Matthew 27:57
h=lqen a;nqrwpoj plou,sioj avpo. ~Arimaqai,aj( tou;noma VIwsh,f(
NA27 Mark 15:43 evlqw.n VIwsh.f o` avpo. ~Arimaqai,aj
omit o`: B?, D, WC, 083, 13, 28, 579, pc
txt 01, A, C, L, W*, Q, Y, f1, f13, 33, Maj
NA27 Luke 23:51 VIwsh.f ... avpo. ~Arimaqai,aj po,lewj tw/n VIoudai,wn
Compare also:
NA27 John 11:1 +Hn de, tij avsqenw/n( La,zaroj avpo. Bhqani,aj safe!
NA27 John 21:2 kai. Naqanah.l o` avpo. Kana. safe!
Compare discussion at Mk 15:43. In Mark the reading WITH the article has to
be preferred, especially since the B reading is suspect.
Difficult to decide internally. It is possible that the o` has been inserted to
indicate clearly which Joseph is meant, that it's not e.g. Jesus' father:
"Came Joseph from Arimathea"
"Came Joseph, the one from Arimathea"
Both forms with and without the article appear in John (11:1 and 21:2), both
safe.
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 318
Minority reading:
NA27 John 19:39 h=lqen de. kai. Niko,dhmoj( o` evlqw.n pro.j auvto.n nukto.j
to. prw/ton( fe,rwn mi,gma smu,rnhj kai. avlo,hj w`j li,traj e`kato,n
mixturam Lat
malagmam e
Lacuna: C, Sy-S
B: no umlaut
Metzger writes:
"Although e[ligma, being the more difficult reading (the word normally means "a
fold, a wrapping" and not "a roll, a package", which would be required here),
might seem to be preferable as explaining the rise of the other readings, a
majority of the Committee was impressed by the earlier and more diversified
testimony supporting mi,gma."
Hoskier (Codex B, I, p. 400) suggests that the verb e;cwn of 01*, W comes from
the Bohairic which has it too.
Rating: 2? (NA probably original)
TVU 319
Minority reading:
NA27 John 20:1 Th/| de. mia/| tw/n sabba,twn Mari,a h` Magdalhnh. e;rcetai
prwi> skoti,aj e;ti ou;shj eivj to. mnhmei/on kai. ble,pei to.n li,qon
hvrme,non evk tou/ mnhmei,ou
avpo. th/j qu,raj 01, D?, W, f1, 22, 565, 579, al,
d, f, r1, vgms, Sy-S, Sy-Pal, pbo, bo, arm
D: conjecture from d.
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Mark 16:3 kai. e;legon pro.j e`auta,j\ ti,j avpokuli,sei h`mi/n to.n li,qon
evk th/j qu,raj tou/ mnhmei,ou
Byz A, K, PC, 050, 0141, f1, f13, 565, 700, 1071, Maj, Lat(a, aur, f, q, vg)
Lacuna: C, 579
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 John 1:38 oi` de. ei=pan auvtw/|\ r`abbi,(
o] le,getai meqermhneuo,menon dida,skale(
NA John 5:2 kolumbh,qra h` evpilegome,nh ~Ebrai?sti. Bhqzaqa.
27
NA27 Mark 10:51 o` de. tuflo.j ei=pen auvtw/|\ r`abbouni,( i[na avnable,yw
A typical Johannine term. It is possible that the addition at this point has been
stimulated by the previous context (19:13+17).
On the other hand it is possible that it has been omitted as redundant, o]
le,getai dida,skale follows immediately.
The other occurrences above of ~Ebrai?sti, are safe.
Compare also:
NA27 John 20:4 kai. o` a;lloj maqhth.j proe,dramen ta,cion tou/ Pe,trou
No parallel.
If the words were original, there would have been no reason for an omission.
It had been suggested that this reading was also in the Diatessaron, because it
is found in several Gospel harmonies (e.g. the Heliand, the Middle Dutch
harmonies, and several Latin harmonies). Compare Petersen "Diatessaron", p.
304-5.
Baarda further notes that the corrector of Codex Sinaiticus "is supposed to
have worked at Caesarea".
Compare:
T. Baarda "Jesus and Mary (Jo 20:16 f.) in the Second Epistle on Virginity
ascribed to Clement" in "Studien zum Text " Festschrift Greeven, 1986, 11-34,
esp. 27-32.
B: no umlaut
"Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father."
Compare:
Jan Krans:
http://vuntblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/5-to-touch-or-not-to-touch-lepsius-on.html
Johannes Lepsius "Die Auferstehungsberichte" in the Journal Das Reich
Christi issues 7-8 (July-August 1902). Of it, a separate publication exists,
entitled "Reden und Abhandlungen von Johannes Lepsius. 4. Die
Auferstehungsberichte", Berlin, Reich Christi-Verlag, 1902.
Christoph Gotthelf Gersdorf "Beitrge zur Sprach-Characteristik der
Schriftsteller des Neuen Testaments. Eine Sammlung meist neuer
Bemerkungen, Erster Theil", Leipzig, Weidmann, 1816. footnote on pp. 79-
80
TVU 323
Minority reading:
NA27 John 20:17 le,gei auvth/| VIhsou/j\ mh, mou a[ptou( ou;pw ga.r
avnabe,bhka pro.j to.n pate,ra\ poreu,ou de. pro.j tou.j avdelfou,j mou kai.
eivpe. auvtoi/j\ avnabai,nw pro.j to.n pate,ra mou kai. pate,ra u`mw/n kai.
qeo,n mou kai. qeo.n u`mw/n
ev
maqhta.j mou 47 (Tis)
Lacuna: C, 579
B: no umlaut
Parallel:
NA27 Matthew 28:10 to,te le,gei auvtai/j o` VIhsou/j\ mh. fobei/sqe\ u`pa,gete
avpaggei,late toi/j avdelfoi/j mou i[na avpe,lqwsin eivj th.n Galilai,an(
kavkei/ me o;yontai omit: 01*
maqhta.j mou 157, L2211, pc, Cyr
Compare:
NA27 John 21:23 evxh/lqen ou=n ou-toj o` lo,goj eivj tou.j avdelfou.j o[ti o`
maqhth.j evkei/noj ouvk avpoqnh,|skei\
NA27 John 2:12 Meta. tou/to kate,bh eivj Kafarnaou.m auvto.j kai. h` mh,thr
auvtou/ kai. oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ kai. evkei/ e;meinan
ouv polla.j h`me,raj
omit auvtou/: P66*, P75, B, K, P, L, Y, 0162, f13, 28, 1071, pc, Or
NA27 John 7:3 ei=pon ou=n pro.j auvto.n oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/\
NA27 John 7:5 ouvde. ga.r oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ evpi,steuon eivj auvto,n
NA27 John 7:10 ~Wj de. avne,bhsan oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ eivj th.n e`orth,n(
In 21:23 the meaning is "the brethren, the community". It is probable that the
omission is an attempt to achieve this meaning.
Note the same variation at Mt 28:10.
txt 01*, A, B, D, W, L*, 078, pc, Lat(a, aur, d, q, vg), Sy-S, Sy-P, ac2, pbo
Lacuna: C, 579
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Matthew 18:20 ou- ga,r eivsin du,o h' trei/j sunhgme,noi eivj to. evmo.n
o;noma( evkei/ eivmi evn me,sw| auvtw/n
auvtoi/j ta.j cei/raj P66vid, L, X, Q, Y, 0141, f1, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy, [Trgmg]
with kai. th.n pleura.n auvtou/
P66: One can see the u of the final auvtou/. Also the space would fit.
Lacuna: C, 579
B: no umlaut
Compare parallel:
NA27 Luke 24:40 kai. tou/to eivpw.n e;deixen auvtoi/j ta.j cei/raj kai. tou.j
po,daj
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 326
NA27 John 20:23a;n tinwn avfh/te ta.j a`marti,aj avfe,wntai auvtoi/j( a;n
tinwn krath/te kekra,thntai
BYZ John 20:23 a;n tinwn avfh/te ta.j a`marti,aj avfie,ntai auvtoi/j a;n
tinwn krath/te kekra,thntai
"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are
retained."
Byz avfie,ntai BC2, W, U*, D, Q, 078, 0141, 69, 700, 1071, 1424, Maj,
Sy, Or, Trgmg
txt avfe,wntai 01C2, A, D, L, UC, X, 050, 0211, f1, f13, 33vid, 157, 565,
L844, al, WH, NA25
Swanson has 33 for Byz against NA. The online image from INTF is impossible
to read. The last two pages are completely blurred by black ink.
Lacuna: C, 579
B: no umlaut
B (p. 1380 B 31) originally wrote: afeiontai. The e and the o are
left unenhanced. A very small e is written above the o. Tischendorf assigns
everything to B3.
Compare also:
NA27 Matthew 9:2 te,knon( avfi,entai, sou ai` a`marti,ai
BYZ Matthew 9:2 te,knon avfe,wntai, soi, ai` a`marti,ai sou
Lacuna: 579
B: no umlaut
NA27 John 2:12 kai. oi` avdelfoi. auvtou/ kai. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/
omit auvtou/: L
NA27 John 4:8 oi` ga.r maqhtai. auvtou/ avpelhlu,qeisan eivj th.n po,lin
omit auvtou/: 28
NA27 John 4:31 VEn tw/| metaxu. hvrw,twn auvto.n oi` maqhtai. le,gontej\
add auvtou/: N, S, WS, Q, Y, W, 124, 28, 33, 1071
NA27 John 6:24 VIhsou/j ouvk e;stin evkei/ ouvde. oi` maqhtai. auvtou/(
omit auvtou/: 01*
NA27 John 6:60 Polloi. ou=n avkou,santej evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ ei=pan\
omit auvtou/: P66*
NA27 John 6:66 VEk tou,tou polloi. evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ avph/lqon
omit auvtou/: 01
NA27 John 9:2 kai. hvrw,thsan auvto.n oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ le,gontej
omit auvtou/: D
NA27 John 11:7 e;peita meta. tou/to le,gei toi/j maqhtai/j\
add auvtou/: A, D, K, P, D, L, f13, 28, 157
NA27 John 13:5 kai. h;rxato ni,ptein tou.j po,daj tw/n maqhtw/n
add auvtou/: D
NA27 John 13:23 h=n avnakei,menoj ei-j evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/
omit auvtou/: W
The situation in John is quite clear. He almost always uses the pronoun and the
cases where there is variation are comparatively easy to judge. This case
(20:30) would be also straightforward if not B would be supporting the omission.
But B is known to omit pronouns at times. Also B makes the support incoherent.
Rating: 2 (NA clearly original)
NA27 John 20:31 tau/ta de. ge,graptai i[na pisteu,shte
Lacuna: 579
Parallel:
NA27 Matthew 27:1 Prwi<aj de. genome,nhj sumbou,lion e;labon pa,ntej oi`
avrcierei/j safe!
Compare:
NA27 John 6:19 qewrou/sin to.n VIhsou/n peripatou/nta evpi. th/j qala,sshj
kai. evggu.j tou/ ploi,ou gino,menon( kai. evfobh,qhsan
geno,menon G, 69, 700, 1424, pc
Genitive Absolute.
Robinson (Wordpictures) writes:
"Note present middle participle (dawn coming on and still dark). In Mt 27:1 the
aorist participle (genome,nhj) means that dawn had come."
Both forms occur only here in John, but John uses the present particle two
more times.
It is possible that the aorist is a harmonization to Mt. Weiss (Com. John) thinks
that it is a conformation to the following e;sth.
Externally this is mainly 01, W against B, C, L.
Rating: 1? (= NA probably wrong)
TVU 329
Minority reading:
NA27 John 21:6 o` de. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ ba,lete eivj ta. dexia. me,rh tou/ ploi,ou
to. di,ktuon( kai. eu`rh,sete e;balon ou=n( kai. ouvke,ti auvto. e`lku,sai
i;scuon avpo. tou/ plh,qouj tw/n ivcqu,wn
oi` de. ei=pon\ diV o[lhj nukto.j evkopia,samen kai. ouvde.n evla,bomen\
evpi. de. tw/| sw/| r`h,mati, balou/men\
dixerunt autem: Per totam noctem laborantes nihil coepimus.
In verbo autem tuo mittemus.
P66, 01C, Y, vgmss, sa, aeth, Cyr
01: The words have been added at the bottom of the column. Tischendorf
assigns this to corrector Ca. There are some dots above this addition, which may
indicate that these words have subsequently been deleted again. Tischendorf
says by Cb.
Lacuna: 579
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Luke 5:5kai. avpokriqei.j Si,mwn ei=pen\ evpista,ta( diV o[lhj nukto.j
kopia,santej ouvde.n evla,bomen\ evpi. de. tw/| r`h,mati, sou cala,sw ta.
di,ktua
et respondens Simon dixit illi praeceptor per totam noctem laborantes nihil cepimus
in verbo autem tuo laxabo rete (e: non intermittimus).
Lacuna: 579
B: no umlaut
Compare:
NA27 Mark 12:34 kai. ouvdei.j ouvke,ti evto,lma auvto.n evperwth/sai
omit ouvke,ti D, 579
ouvdei.j evto,lma ouvke,ti (W), f13
NA27 Acts 5:13 tw/n de. loipw/n ouvdei.j evto,lma kolla/sqai auvtoi/j
NA27 Matthew 9:16 ouvdei.j de. evpiba,llei evpi,blhma r`a,kouj avgna,fou evpi.
i`mati,w| palaiw/|\
omit de. 579
Byz A, CC2, X, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, Maj, (c), 47v. 15, Sy
Bariona c
Compare:
NA27 John 1:42 su. ei= Si,mwn o` ui`o.j VIwa,nnou(
BYZ John 1:42 Su. ei= Si,mwn o` ui`o.j VIwna/\
Byz A, BC2, Y, f1, f13, Maj, Sy
txt P66, P75, 01, B*, L, WS, 33, pc, it, Co
VIwa,nna Q, L890, pc, vg
VIwa,na 1241
Compare also:
NA27 Matthew 16:17 avpokriqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtw/\| maka,rioj ei=(
Si,mwn Bariwna/( o[ti sa.rx kai. ai-ma ouvk avpeka,luye,n soi avllV o`
path,r mou o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j
It is possible that the Byzantine VIwna/ in John is a harmonization to Mt:
Bariwna/. On the other hand VIwna/ is the more rare word and it is possible
that scribes erroneously took it as VIwa,nnou.
Lacuna: L, 579
and 0141 omits the words.
B: no umlaut
John uses pro,bata 10 more times, always safe. There is no reason to change
pro,bata here.
It appears quite probable that the more rare pro,batia is correct.
It has been speculated that John 21 has been added later to the Gospel of John.
If this is true it is possible that pro,batia was in the source already.
Lacuna: L, 579
B: no umlaut
Compare context:
NA27 John 21:15 {Ote ou=n hvri,sthsan le,gei tw/| Si,mwni Pe,trw| o`
VIhsou/j\ Si,mwn VIwa,nnou( avgapa/|j me ple,on tou,twn le,gei auvtw/|\ nai.
ku,rie( su. oi=daj o[ti filw/ se le,gei auvtw/|\ bo,ske ta. avrni,a mou 16
le,gei auvtw/| pa,lin deu,teron\ Si,mwn VIwa,nnou( avgapa/|j me le,gei auvtw/|\
nai. ku,rie( su. oi=daj o[ti filw/ se le,gei auvtw/|\ poi,maine ta. pro,bata,
mou 17 le,gei auvtw/| to. tri,ton\ Si,mwn VIwa,nnou( filei/j me evluph,qh
o` Pe,troj o[ti ei=pen auvtw/| to. tri,ton\ filei/j me kai. le,gei auvtw/|\
ku,rie( pa,nta su. oi=daj( su. ginw,skeij o[ti filw/ se le,gei auvtw/| o`
VIhsou/j\ bo,ske ta. pro,bata, mou
a;lloj se zw,sei kai. oi;sei A, X, D, Q, Y, f13, Maj, Lat, Sy-S, Co, Trgmg
kai. oi;sei se A
kai. avpoish 892S
C: The evidence above is that of Tischendorf and NA. CC has been reconstructed
differently by IGNTP:
CC1 = a;lloi se zw,sousin (as D, W above)
CC2 = C* as above
Lacuna: L, 579
B: no umlaut
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 335
Minority reading:
NA27 John 21:21 tou/ton ou=n ivdw.n o` Pe,troj le,gei tw/| VIhsou/\
ku,rie( ou-toj de. ti,
NA27 John 21:22 le,gei auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j\
eva.n auvto.n qe,lw me,nein e[wj e;rcomai( ti, pro.j se, su, moi avkolou,qei
23 ... eva.n auvto.n qe,lw me,nein e[wj e;rcomai ( ti, pro.j se,
B: no umlaut
si = "if, whether"
sic = "so, like this"
eum = "him"
volo = "I will"
Compare Jerome:
"And when they were fishing in the ship on the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus stood upon the
shore, and the Apostles knew not who it was they saw; the virgin alone recognized a virgin,
and said to Peter, 'It is the Lord.' Again, after hearing the prediction that he must be
bound by another, and led whether he would not, and must suffer on the cross, Peter said,
'Lord what shall this man do?' being unwilling to desert John, with whom he had always
been united. Our Lord said to him, 'What is that to you if I wish him so to be?' [Lat:
Dicit ei Dominus: "Quid ad te si eum volo sic esse?"] Whence the saying went abroad
among the brethren that that disciple should not die. Here we have a proof that virginity
does not die [virginitatem non mori], and that the defilement of marriage is not washed
away by the blood of martyrdom, but virginity abides with Christ, and its sleep is not
death but a passing to another state. If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend
that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of
the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was
that he was loved more than the other Apostles."
Jerome, "Against Jovinianus", book I, 26
compare: Migne PL, Vol. 23, col. 258
Cyrill of Alexandria ( 444 CE) wrote in his commentary on John (12th book to
the passage):
Peter, then, observing him, longed for information, and sought to know in what perils he
would be involved in the time to come, and in what way his life would end. But the question
seemed unseemly, and it appeared to savour rather of a meddlesome and inquisitive spirit,
that, after having learnt what was to happen unto himself, he should seek to know the
future fate of others. For this cause, then, I think the Lord makes no direct reply to his
question or inquiry, but, diverting the aim of the questioner, does not say that John will
not die, but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? That is to say, Thou
hast heard, O Peter, the things concerning thyself, what need is there for thee to ask
questions about others, and to seek to fathom out of season the knowledge of the Divine
decrees. For if he never die at all, He says, what consolation will this be to thy heart?
Chrysostom wrote (ca. 390 CE, 88th homily on the Gospel of John):
And observe, I pray you, here also the absence of pride in the Evangelist; for having
mentioned the opinion of the disciples, he corrects it, as though they had not
comprehended what Jesus meant. 'Jesus said not', he tells us, that 'he shall not die, but,
If I will that he tarry.'
txt P109(3rd CE), P122vid(4/5th CE), 01C1, A, B, C*, W, X, D, Q, Y, 0141, f13, 33,
Maj, Lat, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co
Rating: - (indecisive)
TVU 338
Minority reading:
NA27 John 21:25 :Estin de. kai. a;lla polla. a] evpoi,hsen o` VIhsou/j (
a[tina eva.n gra,fhtai kaqV e[n( ouvdV auvto.n oi=mai to.n ko,smon cwrh/sai
ta. grafo,mena bibli,a
B: no umlaut
Originally the verse had been omitted in 01* and the colophon was added after
verse 24 (scribe A). This has been erased and verse 25 added with a new
colophon by another scribe (D). WH: "Tregelles, who examined the manuscript in
Tischendorf's presence, believed the difference in handwriting to be due only to
a fresh dip of the pen."
P109 (=POxy 4448) is our earliest witness to this verse, dated to the 3rd CE.
Compare:
NA27 John 20:30 Polla. me.n ou=n kai. a;lla shmei/a evpoi,hsen o` VIhsou/j
evnw,pion tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/( a] ouvk e;stin gegramme,na evn tw/|
bibli,w| tou,tw|\
NA27 John 20:31 tau/ta de. ge,graptai i[na pisteu,shte o[ti VIhsou/j evstin
o` cristo.j o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/( kai. i[na pisteu,ontej zwh.n e;chte evn tw/|
ovno,mati auvtou/
There are scholia in certain minuscules (e.g. 36, 137, 237, al) by an unnamed
writer which claim that the text did not originally belong to the Gospel: The
text of the verse, a marginal note by some careful person (tino.j tw/n
filopo,nwn - elsewhere this is a designation for Theodor of Mopsuestia), stood
originally outside of the text (e;xwqen) but has crept in without the knowledge
of the first later.
It is not clear though if this refers to real knowledge about codices which are
missing the verse, or if it is not simply just a suspicion. The note is also found in
the Syrian writer Barhebraeus (Nestle 2nd ed TC intro).
For the text of the scholion see Tis (8th ed. p. 966). See Zahn Einl. II p. 495.
Weiss (Jo Com.) suggests that the verse might have been omitted because of
the bold exaggeration.
Note that 20:31 is missing in G* (not in NA!).
It has been suggested (e.g. Trobisch, "The first edition of the NT", 2000), that
this verse was an editorial note, the conclusion of the first Four-Gospel-Canon
and does not really belong to the fourth Gospel.
B: no umlaut