TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT.................................................................................................ii

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF JOHN 3:13

Introduction....................................................................................................................1

1.1 The Text: John 3:13.......................................................................................1

1.2 Text Critical Apparatus........................................................................................1

1.3.2 Witnesses.......................................................................................................2

1.3.3 Preference of the Printed Editions.................................................................2

1.4. External Criticism...............................................................................................3

1.4.1. Result:..........................................................................................................5

1.5. Internal Evidence................................................................................................5

1.5.1. Transcriptional Probability...........................................................................6

1.5.2. Intrinsic Probability......................................................................................6

1.5.3. Result:..........................................................................................................7

Conclusion......................................................................................................................7

bibliography...................................................................................................................9
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF JOHN 3:13

Introduction

The text of John 3:13 which we are going to analyse, reveals that there are significant
Greek witnesses to the text of John that leave out the final clause, ‘ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ
οὐρανῷ.’ On the basis of both external and internal grounds, it is argued by some that
the words were initially present but later eliminated to avoid stating that Jesus was
present on earth and in heaven at the same time. On the other hand, some, holding on
to the most ancient authority of high value, contend that the clause was added later on
by the scribes. In this exercise we shall make a brief analysis the on the basis of its
textual problem and try to and propose a possible genuine reading of the text.

1.1 The Text: John 3:13

καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου. (Jn. 3:13 GNT)

1.2 Text Critical Apparatus

ἀνθρώπου P66, 75 ‫א‬ B L T Wsupp 083 086 33 1010 1241 copsa, bopt, ach2, fay
geo2 Diatessaron
Origenlat 2/4
Eusebius Adamantius Gregory-Nazianzus Apollinaris Gregory-Nyssa Didymus
Epiphanius3/4 Cyril14/16 (Cyril1/16 θεοῦ) Theodoret1/4; Jerome1/3 // ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ
οὐρανῷ Ac (A*vid omit ὤν) Δ Θ Ψ 050 ƒ1 ƒ13 28 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1071
1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz [E G H N] Lect (l 7511/2 θεοῦ for ἀνθρώπου) ita, aur, b, c, f, ff2, j, l, q,
r1
vg (ite syrc, pal
Zeno ὃς ἦν) syrp, h
copbopt arm eth geo1 slav Hippolytus Origenlat 2/4

Adamantiuslat Eustathius Ps-Dionysius Amphilochius Epiphanius 1/4 Chrysostom Paul-Emesa

Cyril1/16 Hesychius Theodoret3/4 John-Damascus; Hilary Lucifer Ambrosiaster Ambrose
Chromatius Jerome2/3 Augustine // ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 0141 l 681/2 l 673
l 12231/2 l 16271/2 syrs

1.3 Inventory

1.3.1 Variant Readings

1. Reading 1: ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ

2. Reading 2: omission
3. Reading 3: ὁς ὴν ὲν τῷ οὐρανῷ

4. Reading 4: ὁ ὤν ὲκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

1.3.2 Witnesses (cf. GNT 5 )

John 3:13 Cat. I Cat. Cat. III Cat. IV Cat. V

II Caesarian Western Byzantine
Alexandrian
1. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Copbopt 892 Δ Θ ƒ1 ƒ13 157 vg AEFGHK
ἀνθρώπου ὁ Copbomss ita 28 565 579? Syrh M S V ΓΑ Π
ὤν ἐν τῷ Dionysius 700 1071 ita, aur, b, c, f, ff2 Ψ 050 063
οὐρανῷ Origen 1243 1505 vg
180 205 597
arm geo1 Hippolytus 1006 1292
slav Novatian 1424 751
Origenlat 2/4 Hillary Byz Lect
Ps-Dionysius Lucifer Syr p syr h
Amphilochiu Ambrose Basil
s Paul-Emesa Eustathius
Hesychius Epiphanius1/4
John-
Chrysostom
Damascus
Nonnus
Augustine
Theodoret
2. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ P66.75 ‫א‬ 33 Apollinaris Diatessaron
ἀνθρώπου B L Τb Cyril14/16 Jerome1/3
Wsupp 086 Wsupp geo2
0113 086 Eusebius
1241 Adamantius
coptsa, bopt, Gregory-
ach2, fay Nazianzus
Gregory-
Origenlat
2/4 Nyssa
Epiphanius3
Didymus
3. ὁς ὴν ὲν τῷ Zeno ite syrc, pal
οὐρανῷ (Curetonian)
4. ὁ ὤν ὲκ τοῦ 0141 80
οὐρανοῦ l 681/2 l 673
l 12231/2
l 16271/2 Syrs

1.3.3 Preference of the Printed Editions

1. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: Westcott-Hort, Merk, Weymouth, Von Soden, Nestle-Aland

26th edition (1979), Nestle-Aland 27th edition, UBS 4th edition (1983), GNT 3-5th
editions.

2. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ: Tischendorf, Tregelles, Griesbach,

Lachmann, Alford, Weiss, Vogels, Lagrange (with hesitation), Bover, and MNTB.

1.4. External Criticism

Based on the above chart, we shall discuss and analyse the authenticity of variant
readings. First of all, the external evidence clearly shows that readings 3 (ὁς ὴν ὲν τῷ
οὐρανῷ) and 4 (ὁ ὤν ὲκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) are secondary. They are correctional variants of
reading 2.1 The former is supported by only versional evidence and just two Greek
manuscripts and the Sinaiticus Syriac provide evidence for the latter. Black contends
that each of these readings appears to be an effort to avoid implying that Jesus was
both on earth and in heaven at the same time.2

Comparatively small number of manuscripts support variant reading 2 in which the ‘ὁ

ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ’ is omitted. This minority, however comprises the manuscripts
which are considered to be of the highest value. 3 The Bodmer Papyri P66,75, Uncials
Sinaiticus (‫)א‬, and Vaticanus (B) are the earliest and best uncial representatives in
John, belonging to Alexandrian text-type. The Coptic and Ethiopic translations, as
well as Origen’s testimony, offer early versional and patristic support to this
remarkable corpus of Greek manuscripts. Black raises question saying, if the
traditional reading is recognised as the original, some effort must be made to explain
how the words were removed in such early and significant witnesses to the text of the
NT.4 For him the shorter reading is supported by a single text type. In the Greek
manuscript evidence, the omission is found mainly in the Alexandrian text type.
However, the other Alexandrian witness, particularly those from manuscripts written
in the Bohairic dialect, suggest that the words ‘ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ’ were also well-
known in Egypt at an early stage.5 Furthermore, in terms of patristic evidence, Origen,
an Alexandrian Father, testifies simply that he was familiar with the local text as
preserved in Greek witnesses and variations. Otherwise, ecclesiastical tradition
indicates that the phrase is often accepted as original.6

1
Edwyn Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, Francis Noel Davey, ed. (London: Faber and Faber,
1947), 218.
2
David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1994), 50.
3
B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 65.
4
David Alan Black, “The Text of John 3:13,” Grace Theological Journal 6. 1 (1985): 49-66,
50.
5
Black, New Testament Textual Criticism, 50-51.
6
Black, “The Text of John 3:13,” 52.
The evidence for reading 1 the phrase ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is found in most of the
uncial of the New Testament (A, E, F, G, K, Θ, Π, 28, 565 etc.) and in nearly every
ancient version, e.g., Old Latin, Vulgate, Armenian, Georgian, including several
Bohairic manuscripts from Egypt. The Alexandrian father Origen, whose evidence is
divided equally between readings 1 and 2, also supports the longer reading.
Furthermore, unlike its omission, the longer reading is not limited to manuscripts
from a certain geographical area. The majority of the then-known ancient world,
including Rome and the West, Greece, Syria, Palestine, and even Alexandria, the
centre of Egyptian literature, acknowledged the words "ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ" as
authentic throughout a broad geographic range.7

These considerations are significant in the light of the canons of textual criticism that
apply to external evidence. In this regard Greenlee states that any reading supported
by one text type exclusively is automatically suspect, since “no manuscript or text
type is perfectly trustworthy.”8 On the other hand, a reading supported by two or more
text type is to be preferred to a reading supported by only one text type. 9 Black
arguing in favour of the longer reading says that the external evidence shows that
significant ancient traditions support the longer reading, including the Old Latin,
which establishes the date of the longer reading as at least the last quarter of the
second century. Thus, the evidence provided by the church fathers, ancient
translations, and the Greek manuscript come together to form a powerful three-cord
thread that is difficult to break.10 Barrett also accepts the variant ‘who is in heaven’
after ‘Son of Man’ on the ground of its being more difficult reading.11

Black, Barret and some others argue in favour of reading 1. But, the interpretations of
these witnesses have increasingly been questioned since the time of Westcott and
Hort, despite the widely recognised antiquity and value of these major uncials.
Greenlee says, “The agreement of ‫ א‬and B remains one of the most highly regarded
witness to the NT text.”12

Metzger argues that the majority of the Committee was impressed with the quality of
7
Black, New Testament Textual Criticism, 52.
8
J. Harold. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, rev. ed. (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1995), 115-16.
9
Greenlee Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 116.
10
Black, “The Text of John 3:13,” 53.
11
Charles K. Barret, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary
and Notes (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 213.
12
Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 81.
the external evidence supporting the shorter reading, they viewed the words ‘ὁ ὢν ἐν
τῷ οὐρανῷ’ as an interpretive gloss that reflected later Christological development.13

Many exegetes like Morris, Schnackenburg and others retreat to the early uncials ‫א‬
and B. In the words of Morris, “The words ‘who is in heaven’ are absent from some
of the most reliable manuscripts and they should probably be omitted.” 14
Konstenberger asks - “If no sensible copyist would have put it in, one wonders why
we should think John would put it in?”15 Can we suppose that the author is less
sensible than the copyist?16

Therefore, the shorter reading ‘ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου’ is to be preferred as being the
original reading, backed by the weighty evidence P66 P75 ‫ א‬B L T Ws 083 086 cop
Diatessaron and also it was known to the church fathers, such as Origen, Didymus,
and Jerome. At a later stage some scribes expanded the reading to ‘ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ
οὐρανῷ,’ which is found in some manuscripts that date from the fifth to tenth
centuries C.E.

1.4.1. Result:

So based on the external evidence we opt for the second reading which omits the
phrase ‘ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ’/‘who is in heaven,’ because it is attested by the best
witnesses of Alexandrian family and they come from the older MSS than those of the
majority, supporting the longer variants.

1.5. Internal Evidence

Metzger says that in every case, all variant readings must be thoroughly evaluated in
light of both transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities.17 In this section we shall
evaluate the variant readings on their transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities.

13
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion
Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. (London: United Bible Societies,
1994), 174.
14
L. Morris, The Gospel According to John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 224.
15
Andreas Konstenberger, John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2004), 133.
16
Donald A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 203.
17
Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: its Translation,
Corruption and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 315.
1.5.1. Transcriptional Probability

Although there are more witnesses to support the longer reading, the rule of textual
criticism states that the “manuscript must also be weighed, not merely counted.” 18
Even though there are few witnesses that support the omission, the document as a
whole has more value because of them. Metzger holds that the reading supported by a
combination of Alexandrian and Western witnesses is generally superior to any other
reading.19

In John 3:13 the omission is found both in Alexandrian and Western witnesses.
Therefore, the variant reading with omission is preferred over the addition of ὁ ὢν ἐν
τῷ οὐρανῷ.

However, holding the authenticity of the longer reading Hoskyns says that it is
possible to hold that, since addition is more difficult to explain than the omission, the
absence of the words in the group of exclusively Alexandrian manuscripts is due
either to accidental omission or to their rejection because of the difficulty of
reconciling them with the historical context of the discourse. 20 Similarly Black
contends for the preference of the longer reading and says that it is possible that the
words, ‘ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,’ were found theologically objectionable and omitted by a
less orthodox scribe, on that basis.21

Nevertheless, I disagree with the above proposal and contend that the shorter reading
could be genuine. The principle of textual criticism says that the scribes had a
tendency to add rather than erase or omit things. The reason for this principle is
that copyists often considered the text to be the Word of God and hence would not
erase things deliberately. Rather, the trend was to introduce additions, particularly to
make the text more comprehensible. 22 If the reading 1 was original, the most
important manuscript like p66, P75, ,‫ א‬and B would not have omitted it.

1.5.2. Intrinsic Probability

If the reading ὁ ὢv ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is correct, it may imply that while Jesus was

18
Paul D. Wegner, A student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible (Downers Grove: IVP,
2006), 140.
19
Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 314.
20
Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 218.
21
Black, New Testament Textual Criticism, 53.
22
Wegner, A student’s Guide to Textual Criticism, 247
speaking to Nicodemus, he, spoke of himself as being in heaven even while he was on
earth. If that is the case, it is easy to see why there are variations on this hard saying:
ὁς ὴν ὲν τῷ οὐρανῷ and ὁ ὤν ὲκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ and omission of the clause.
Nevertheless, the issue could be resolved by considering such a statement to be part of
the narrator’s remarks rather than Jesus’ assertion to Nicodemus. Additionally, ‘the
one who is in heaven’ may have been inserted into the text via a marginal note if
verse 13 was initially understood to be the evangelist’s assertion. Schnackenburg says
that “a gloss could easily have been composed on the model of John 1: 18.”23

Furthermore, the articular singular οὐραvός is already used twice in this verse, which
have led the later scribes to include it in the longer readings. This combination of
elements indicates that ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is not a true Johannine text.

Another piece of internal evidence against the longer reading is related to the
evangelist's objectives: If he understood v. 13 to be his own remarks rather than
Jesus’, his return to Jesus’ words in v. 14 (for the lifting up of the Son of Man is still
seen as in the future) appears illogical. As a result, the interpretation ‘who is in
heaven’ appears to be extremely difficult. Overall, as intriguing as the extended
reading is, it appears almost certainly to be a marginal gloss applied inadvertently to
the text during transmission.24

1.5.3. Result:

By examining both transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities, we prefer to hold the

reading 2 to be more authentic and original.

Conclusion

There are four variants for John 3:13. Variant 1 – ‘ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ’ is attested by a
vast majority of the witnesses and geographically wide spread. The Variants 3 and 4
are the correctional variants of the variant 1. A relatively small number of manuscripts
support variant reading 2, which omits the ‘ὁ ὤv ἐv τῷ οὐρανῷ’ The second reading
being older than the majority of the other variants and belonging to the most
trustworthy witnesses of Alexandrian category (P66 P75 ‫ א‬B L T Ws), we propose that
these variants would have held the original tradition and could be accounted as
23
Rudolf Schnackenburg The Gospel According to St John, vol. 1, Kevin Smyth, trans.
(Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1990), 393–94.
24
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203%3A13-15&version=NET.
genuine. Hence, the variants with the longer reading are additions made to the original
reading.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barret, Charles K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with
Commentary and Notes. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.

Black, David A. “The Text of John 3:13.” Grace Theological Journal 6. 1 (1985): 49-
66.

Black, David A. New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1994.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Greenlee, Jacob Harold. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. Revised.

ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.

Hoskyns, Edwyn. The Fourth Gospel. Edited by Francis Noel Davey. London: Faber
and Faber, 1947.

Konstenberger, Andreas. John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A

Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 3rd
ed. London: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: its
Translation, Corruption and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2005.

Morris, L. The Gospel According to John, New International Commentary on the

New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St John, vol. 1. Translated by

Kevin Smyth. Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1990.

Wegner, Paul D. A student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible. Downers Grove:
IVP, 2006.

Westcott, Brook F. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203%3A13-
15&version=NET.
‫‪Old Testament Textual Criticism‬‬

‫‪The text for Modern Text Critical Apparatus: Jeremiah 29:25‬‬

‫ֵאמ ֹר‍‬
‫‪a‬‬
‫ְהו֧ה ְצב ָ֛א ֹות אֱֹלהֵ ֥י יִׂש ְָר ֵ ֖אל ל ֑‬
‫ֽה־ָאמַ ר י ָ‬
‫אֲׁשר אַּתָ ה֩ ׁשָ ַ֨לחְּתָ בְׁשִ מְ ָ֜כה‪ּ‌‌a b‬כ ֹ ֞‬ ‫‌‪ַ֡ ‌b‬יעַן ֶ ֣‬
‫‌וְאֶ ֥ל‪ e‬אֶל־ ְצ ַפנְ ָי֤ה בֶן־מַ ֽעֲׂשֵ י ָה֙ הַּכ ֹ ֵ֔הן‪‌‌d‬אֶל־ּכָל־ ָהעָם֙ ֲא ֶ ׁ֣שר ּבִירּוׁש ָ֔לַ ִם ְו‪ְ ‌c d‬ספ ִָ֗רים‬
‫לֵאמֹֽר׃ ‪ּ‌e‬כָל־הַּכ ֹ ֲה ִנ֖ים‬