Today we
shall look into the question of whether or not the phrase “who is in heaven” was in the original text of John 3:13.
In two
recently published translations of the New Testament – the Evangelical Heritage Version and the Modern English Version – John 3:13 ends with the phrase, “who
is in heaven.” This is also the reading
of the King James Version. It is
supported by the vast majority (over 95%) of Greek manuscripts, as well as the
Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Ethiopic version, and a wide variety
of early patristic writers.
Manuscript 0141, in which the text of John is interspersed with extracts from patristic commentaries, has an unusual difficulty-relieving variant in John 3:13. |
The NIV and
ESV, however, do not include this phrase, following instead the shorter
Alexandrian text that is displayed in Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Vaticanus,
Sinaiticus, some Egyptian versions, and some patristic writers.
The late
Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary
on the Greek New Testament, defended the decision of the compilers of the
United Bible Societies’ printed Greek New Testament to reject this phrase: “The majority of the Committee, impressed by
the quality of the external attestation supporting the shorter reading,
regarded the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ as an interpretive gloss, reflecting later
Christological development.”
Against
this theory of “later” – but earlier than Hippolytus, who cited John 3:13 with
the phrase “who is in heaven” in Against Noetus – expansion, Wieland Willker responded effectively: “Internally the longer reading is clearly the
harder reading and there is no reason why the words should have been
added. Metzger says it could be an
“interpretive gloss, reflecting later Christological development”, but is this
probable? It seems more probable that
scribes omitted the difficult words or changed them as 0141, Sy-S [the Sinaitic
Syriac] and e [Old Latin codex Palatinus, from the mid-400s], Sy-C [the
Curetonian Syriac] did.”
Willker was
referring to alterations in the text of Old Latin codex Palatinus (from the
mid-400s) and the Curetonian Syriac that yield the meaning of “was in heaven” and in the Sinaitic
Syriac manuscript that yields the meaning of “is from heaven.”
This
textual variant overlaps with an interpretive question: writing in ancient Greek with no (or only
minimal) punctuation, did John intend to report that Jesus told Nicodemus, at
the time of their conversation, that the Son of Man was in heaven? Or, if the phrase is assumed to be original,
was it intended to be understood, not as part of Jesus’ words, but as a
parenthetical phrase made by John?
As Willker
noticed, it is not hard to see why early copyists would consider the phrase
puzzling: if the phrase is not
understood as a parenthetical comment by John, then Jesus seems to say that the
Son of Man is in heaven, while He is right there on the scene talking to
Nicodemus. Internal considerations thus
weigh in heavily against the shorter reading:
to remove this phrase would be to reduce the risk of misinterpretation,
whereas a copyist who added this phrase would be adding an interpretive
difficulty where there previously was none.
The phrase “ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ” is
far more likely to be part of the original text, excised in the Alexandrian
text-stream by a copyist prone to relieve perceived difficulties, that it is to
have originated as a scribal expansion.
The absence of this phrase in the fifth edition of the UBS/Biblica Greek New Testament, and in the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum
Testatementum Graece, is an echo of previous compilers’ reliance upon
poorly represented data combined with a preference for manuscripts that happened to be stored in a dry climate. In the Sinaitic Syriac and
the Curetonian Syriac and the Old Latin Codex Palatinus (and in the uncial 0141,
in which the closing phrase states that the Son of Man is from heaven) we see copyists surrendering to the temptation to
alter the text in order to resolve a perceived difficulty; the manuscripts that
lack the phrase echo the work of an early scribe who took things a little
further.
(Those who would object, “But we
should follow the oldest manuscripts” are advised to notice that Papyrus 75
reads πιστεύετε (not πιστεύσετε) at the end of 3:12, and in nearby 3:31, the
scribe of papyrus 66 initially omitted the word ἐρχόμενος, and also in 3:31, the scribes of Papyrus 75 and Sinaiticus both did not include the final phrase
ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν; the compilers of the UBS/NA texts obviously felt no
obligation to follow the oldest manuscripts unthinkingly. Nor should we.)
The recently published Tyndale
House edition of the Greek New Testament likewise omits the phrase; the
pitiable brevity of its apparatus prevents the reader from seeing the early
patristic evidence. Had the editors
accepted the judgment of Samuel Tregelles, the scholar from the 1800s whose
work laid the foundation for the THEGNT, this phrase would have been
retained. (But at least they mention the variant; the New American Standard does not even do that.)
Those who wish to read more about this variant-unit may wish to consult Dr. David Alan Black’s article (from Grace Theological Journal, 1985) on the subject.
P.S. A comparison of the treatment of John 3:13 in
different editions of the UBS Greek New
Testament does not build confidence in the reliability of the resources
upon which the Committee-members depended, or in the consistency of their presentations of the evidence.
In the first edition (1966), the Ethiopic version was listed as a witness
for the non-inclusion of “who is in
heaven.” The Arabic Diatessaron was
listed as a witness for the inclusion of the phrase. The Georgian version was listed in support of
the longer reading. Didymus was listed
as a witness for both readings. In the
fourth edition (1993), part of the Georgian evidence was listed as support for
the shorter reading, the Diatessaron was only listed for the shorter reading,
Didymus was listed only as support for the shorter reading, and the Ethiopic
version switched sides, favoring the inclusion of the phrase. And the certainty-rate varied from A (“the
text is certain”) to C (“the Committee had difficulty”) to B (“the text is
almost certain”).
[Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.]
5 comments:
0141, like X, is a commentary manuscript in minuscule. To set off the Scripture text from the commentary on it, the Scripture portions (a tiny fraction of the whole manuscript) are in uncial.
Such manuscripts should really be considered in a category by themselves, as the lemma is sometimes of a different textual nature than the accompanying commentary, and by breaking up the text into snippets they destroy the continuity one expects in a continuous-text manuscript. But no, Gregory decided they should be categorized as uncials, and Aland seconded that decision. So uncials they are. In name, anyway.
I can certainly understand the statement by Dr. Metzger regarding the possibility of this being a scribal insertion of Christology. The manuscript evidence, as you pointed out, do not truly support his statement.
John 3 ends in a manner where it makes it very difficult to state with confidence where Jesus stops speaking and where John makes his own statements. I find the "theory" that these are John's words to make the most sense.
Thanks for the post!
Some scribes excluding the phrase may have experienced a theological dilemma by assuming that these are Jesus' words and not a comment by John. The resultant paradox of incarnate physical presence coupled with simultaneous omnipresence might have been too difficult to grasp. And yet, the same omitting scribes in this passage seemed to have no problem with incarnation plus omniscience (as per Jn 2.24-25; 16.30; 18.4; 21.17).
I presume, however, that the entire portion 3.13-21 reflects John's comment (red-letter Bibles to the contrary). The same applies to Jn 3.31-36 -- the key in each case being the shift from first to third person in those portions).
John wrote it by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, therefore our understanding of heaven would be enhanced by following the manuscripts without private interpretations.
Heaven is that place where God's will is done. Christ abides in the Fathers will, therefore he abides in heaven even in this locale.
If the text is genuine and from jesus or even from john, We would have to examine exactly what he is saying. And what he didn't say. If Jesus is Calling himself the son of man which he is, And saying that he's also in heaven and on earth at the same time, Doesn't that mean that he's refuting the trinity? He's confirming that he's the Omnipresent God alone. Because the trinity says that the father is distinct from the son. So Jesus would have said, his father was in heaven as in other places. 🤔
Post a Comment