John 3_13

John 3:13:

13 And no one has ascended to heaven except he who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

SCR John 3:13 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν and οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ

The Problem: -

The Son of Man who is in heaven. =ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ

This text has 4 different forms in manuscripts:-

1Reading the deletion (deleting the entire passage)

2Read the addition (add the entire passage as it is)

3-Reading “The Son of Man Who Was in Heaven”

4Reading “The Son of Man who is from heaven”

The Aim of the Research: -

Proving that the mere existence of such types of differences between manuscripts is sufficient in itself to invalidate the infallibility of the Bible, whether the correct reading is the reading of addition or the reading of deletion. (The endemicity of distortion) or (the spread of distortion)

Supporting Manuscripts for Each Reading

In general (and I will detail it later in the research)

#Evidence for the deletion reading: Manuscripts from the second, third and fourth centuries. #Evidence for the addition reading: The oldest Greek manuscripts for this reading are from the eighth century, and translations from the fourth century . #Evidence for the reading “who was from heaven”:

Translations from the fifth century. #Evidence for the reading “who is from heaven”: A Syriac manuscript from the fourth century and a Greek manuscript.

Image of the text in the most important manuscripts

Link to the famous CNTTS website for images of manuscripts

http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts.aspx

Table of names, dates, symbols, and contents of manuscripts from the 2nd to the 7th century http://bibletranslation.ws/manu.html

First: The form of the Greek-English interliner text:

http://studybible.info/IGNT/John%203

With shading on the section deleted from the manuscripts

**Second: The form of the text in capital letters, which is the way it is written in manuscripts:

**

Notice the last word before the syllable, which is the word ( ἀνθρώπου = human).

Notice the first word after the syllable, which is the word ( και καθως= as) from verse 14.

For Those Who Are Not Good at Extracting Text from Manuscripts

When you find these two words next to each other in the manuscript, know that the passage has been deleted.

1The Sinaiticus Manuscript from the Fourth Century. The Section is Deleted

2The Vatican Manuscript from the Fourth Century, the Section is deleted:-

3Papyrus 66 From the End of the Second Century. The Section is Deleted

4Papyrus 75 From the Third Century, the Section is Deleted: -

Transcription of the Text of Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75:-

Book by Philip Comfort and David Barrett

The complete text of the earliest new testament manuscripts; edited by Philip W.Comfort&David P.Barrett

We will notice that the word ” ἀνθρώπου = human”, is immediately followed by the word ” kai kaiως = as”.

Transcription of Papyrus 66p:

Transcription of Papyrus 75 p:-

5The Upper Egyptian Coptic Manuscript from the Late Third Century and the Beginning of the Fourth Century. The Section is Deleted

The Most Famous Manuscripts for Each Reading from the Research of the Scholar David Black

Grace Theological Journal 6.1 (1985) 49-66 Copyright © 1985 by Grace Theological Seminary. Cited with permission. THE TEXT OF JOHN 3:13 DAVID ALAN BLACK

A Diagram of the Manuscripts that Omit the Phrase (who is in heaven) and Others that Add it over the Course of the First Five Centuries

Reading 1 = reading the deletion, Reading 2 = reading the addition, the first column is the number of Greek manuscripts for reading the deletion, the second column is the number of translation manuscripts for reading the deletion, the third column is the number of Greek manuscripts for reading the addition, the fourth column is the number of translation manuscripts for reading the addition.

Translations (Syriac - Latin - Coptic)

What is the Doctrinal Significance of This Passage?

Christian commentators see this passage as a declaration of Jesus’ divinity, such that he was in heaven in spirit at the same time he was speaking on earth!

Example 1 William Eddy in his commentary on The Treasure of the Ancients : “This is a statement of the divinity of Christ.”

Example 2: The Interpretation of the Church Encyclopedia : “Here Christ Declares that He is the Incarnate God, as He Did Not Leave Heaven at the Same Time that He Was on earth.”

Quote text:

( vv. 13-15: When the conversation of the Lord Christ with Nicodemus was nearing its end, the Lord began to declare three successive truths of His divinity:

First: He is the incarnate God, descending from heaven, ascending to heaven, and being in heaven at the same time. This means that during the time of Christ’s incarnation on earth, He - with His unlimited divinity - did not leave heaven for a single moment . He is in a constant state of incarnation and ascension, as indicated by the conjugation of the word “ascended” in the Greek language. It is not in the past tense as in the Arabic language, but in the present perfect tense as in the English language.

Example 3: Matthew Henry in his commentary : “Here Christ speaks in this phrase as God who is in heaven.”

Text in Arabic Translations: -

Link to browse Arabic translations

http://www.albishara.org/page.php?view=arabiccomper

The Arabic versions differ in 3 different forms:-

1Two versions mention the entire passage.

2Two versions delete the entire clip.

3Four copies write the first half of the passage and delete the second half

Versions that Mention the Passage: -

[Van Dyke][Jn. 3.13][And no one has ascended to heaven except he who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven.]

[Paulian] [John 3:13] [For no one has ascended to heaven except he who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.]

#Copies that delete the entire clip:-

[Shared][Jn.3.13][No one has ascended to heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven.]

[Sarah][Jn.3.13][No one has ascended to heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven.]

#Copies that write half of the passage and delete the other half: -

[Simplified][Jn. 3.13][And no one has ascended to heaven except He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man.]

[Jesus][Jn. 3.13][No one has ascended to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man.]

[Noble][Jn.3.13][No one has ascended to heaven except He who came down from heaven, that is, He who became flesh.]

[Catholic] [Jn. 3.13] [For no one has ascended to heaven except He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man.]

Text in English translations

Copies that Mention the Passage 17

ASV John 3:13 And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven.

DBY John 3:13 And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

DRA John 3:13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

ERV John 3:13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven.

ETH John 3:13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man, he who is in heaven.

GNV John 3:13 For no man ascendeth vp to heauen, but he that hath descended from heauen, that Sonne of man which is in heauen.

LEW John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man which is from heaven.

KJV John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

NKJ John 3:13 “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

MGI John 3:13 And no man has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven

MRD John 3:13 And no one hath ascended to heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

PNT John 3:13 And no man ascendeth vp to heauen, but he that came downe from heauen, euen the sonne of man which is in heauen.

RWB John 3:13 And no man hath ascended to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven.

TNT John 3:13 And no man ascendeth vp to heaven but he that came doune from heaven that is to saye the sonne of man which is in heaven.

WEB John 3:13 And no man hath ascended to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, {even} the Son of man who is in heaven.

YLT John 3:13 And no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down — the Son of Man who is in the heaven.

Copies that Deleted the Entire Clip Are Two Versions: -

GWN John 3:13 No one has gone to heaven except the Son of Man, who came from heaven.

NLT John 3:13 No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven.

#Copies that wrote the first half of the passage and deleted “who is in heaven” 19 copies:-

NRS John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

RSV John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.

TNIV John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

MIT John 3:13 No one has ascended to heaven. The exception is the one who descended from heaven—the human one.

NAB John 3:13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.

NABO John 3:13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.

NAS John 3:13 “And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man.

NAU John 3:13 “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

NET John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.

NIB John 3:13 No-one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

NIRV John 3:13 “No one has ever gone into heaven except the One who came from heaven. He is the Son of Man.

NIV John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

NJB John 3:13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of man

BBE John 3:13 And no one has ever gone up to heaven but he who came down from heaven, the Son of man.

CEB John 3:13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Human One.

CJB John 3:13 No one has gone up into heaven; There is only the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.

CSB John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven— the Son of Man.

CSBO John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven— the Son of Man.

ESV John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Greek-Arabic Text

Text in Critical Copies

Link to browse critical copies

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/home/scholarly-editions/greek-new-testament/greek-new-testament/

http://studybible.info/version/

Copies that Delete the Syllable (which is in heaven)

UBS version

Nestle Aland NA28 version

Westcott & Hort WHT Edition

Von Soden’s version

BNT John 3:13 οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

GNT John 3:13

ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

VST John 3:13 οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

WHT John 3:13 οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

#Copies that write the passage:

1-Tschendorf version

2-Samuel Triggles version

TIS John 3:13 οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.

TRG1 John 3:13 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ·

Manuscripts that testify to the reading of addition and the reading of deletion

(1) CNTTS cash machine

H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies. (2010). The Center for New Testament Textual Studies: NT Critical Apparatus (Jn 3:13). New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

#Manuscripts that delete the syllable (who is in heaven)

P66 P75 01 03 019 032 33 SBL

#Manuscripts that write the passage: -

02 07 011 013 017 021 028 030 034 037 039 041 044 045 1 2 10 13 21 28 35 47 60 69 83 118 124 157 178 229 263 346 382 399 461 475 480 489 544 565 579 700 703 726 788 825 927 943 944 1005 1006 1023 1071 1113 1190 1191 1195 1200 1201 1203 1217 1220 1222 1232 1235 1238 1242 1247 1251 1313 1319 1322 1341 1342 1355 1424 1470 1476 1478 1492 1514 1582 2322 2358 2372 2382 2399 ƒ1 ƒ13

(2) The Famous UBS Cash Version

This critical committee chose to read the deletion with a B rating, which means they are highly certain of the correctness of their choice. They mentioned three forms of the text in the manuscripts:

1Reading The Deletion: -

Greek evidence

1Papyrus 66, second century

2Papyrus 75, third century

3The Sinaiticus Codex, 4th century

4The Vatican manuscript, fourth century

5Manuscript T=029 = Borgianus from the fifth century

6Regis Manuscript L, 8th century

7Washington Manuscript, 5th century “Deleted by a later copyist”

8Other manuscripts of later date

Coptic evidence

1Upper Egyptian Coptic:

Or7594 Q4

Inv3992 Q3-4

Crosby Shoyen Q3-4 2Bohairic Coptic 3Akhmimic Coptic 4Fayumi Coptic

Georgian manuscripts

Tatian’s Diatessaron

Parents who use the text in the form of deletion:-

1Origen

2-Eusebius

3-Adamantius

4Gregory of Nazianzus

5Gregory the Text

6-Apollinarus

7Didymus the Blind

8-Epiphanius

9Cyril, the pillar of religion

10-Jerome

2Read The Addition: -

Greek evidence:

1Alexandria (later addition by a late copyist)

2Manuscript N Petropolitanus 6th century

2Capital manuscripts from the 9th century

3Small manuscripts from after the 9th century

Latin evidence:

1Vercellenses a 4th century

2Veronenses b 5th century

3Corbinses ff2 5th century

4Brixianus f 6th century

5Sarzanens j 6th century

6Aureus aur 7th century

7Monacensis q 7th century

8Ridigeranus l 8th century

Syriac evidence:

1Palestinian Syriac, 6th century

2Peshitta Syriac, 5th century 3Reading “who was in heaven”: 1Syriac Curitonianus, 5th century 2Latin Platinus, 5th century 4Reading “who is from heaven”: Sinaitic Syriac, 4th century

(3) Nestlé Aland Cash Copy NA28

(4) Richard Wilson’s Monetary Apparatus

(ἀνθρώπου ] Alex: p 66 p 75 א B L T 083 33 1241 cop sa cop bo (pt) cop fay cop ach2 Cyril 14/16 ( Cyril 1/16 Didymus WH CEI Riv mg TILC NM Alex/Cæs: Origen lat (2/4) Alex/Byz: 086 Keys: geo 2 Eusebius West: W supp Jerome 1/3 Byz: 1010 Adamantius Apollinaris Epiphanius 3/4 Gregory-Nyssa Gregory-Nazianzus Theodoret 1/4 ?: 0113 Diatessaron ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν see also​ John 1:18 ) Alex : ( A * ) A c Δ Ψ 157 1006 1243 1342 cop bo ( pt ) Cyril 1/16 [ NR ] Riv text Nv​ ​ ​​​​ 1071 1424 arm geo 1 Cæs/Byz: 700 West: 1292 1505 1646 it a it aur it b it c ( it e ) it f it ff2 it j it l it q it r1 vg ( syr c ) Augustine Ambrose Ambrosiaster Chromatius Jerome 2/3 Hilary Hippolytus Hippolytus Lucifer Novatian ( Zeno ) Byz: E G H K​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​syr h eth slav Adamantius lat Aphraates Amphilochius Basil Chrysostom Epiphanius 1/4 Hesychius Eustathius Jacob-Nisibis John-Damascus Nonnus Paul-Emesa Ps-Dionysius Theodoret 3/4 ς ND Dio ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ] West: year s Byz: 0141 80 l 68 (1/2) l 673 l 1223 (1/2) l 1627 (1/2))

Manuscripts of Reading Deletion: -

1The Alexandrian text:

2nd century Papyrus 66, 3rd century Papyrus 75, late 3rd century Sahidic Coptic, 4th century Cyanean and Vatican, 5th century Borjianus manuscript T Bohairic Coptic, late 5th century 083, Fayumi Coptic, Akhmimic Coptic, Cyril, Didymus.

2The Alexandrian Caesarean text:-

Origen twice

3-Byzantine Alexandria:-

Manuscript 086, 6th century 4Caesarean text: Eusebius of Caesarea, Georgian manuscripts. 5Western text: Jerome, Washington manuscript “later addition” 6Byzantine text: Manuscript 1010, the Diatessaron used by Apollinarius, Adamantius, and Epiphanius three times, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore. #Manuscripts Reading Addition: - 1The Alexandrian Text: - Capital manuscripts from after the 9th century - Small manuscripts from after the 9th century - Some Bohairic Coptic manuscripts - Cyril of Alexandria “once” 2The Alexandrian Caesarean Text: - Origen twice 3The Alexandrian Caesarean Text: - Manuscripts after the 9th century 4The Caesarean Text: - Small manuscripts from after the 9th century 5The Byzantine Caesarean Text: - Manuscript 700 from the 11th century 6The Western Text: - Vercelliensis a 4th century, Veronensis b 5th century, Corbinus ff2 5th century, Brixianus f 6th century, Sarzanensis j 6th century, Aureus aur 7th century, Monacensis q 7th century, Ridigeranus l 8th century

7Byzantine text: - Capital manuscripts after the 8th century - Small manuscripts after the 9th century - Peshitta Syriac 5th century, Palestinian Syriac 6th century, Heraclian Syriac 7th century - Byzantine Fathers

(5) Tischendorf’s Monetary Apparatus

Critical Comments

1Comment By Scientist Bruce Metzger:-

Metzger, B.M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 174–175). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

On the one hand, a minority of the Committee preferred the reading ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, arguing that (1) if the short reading, supported almost exclusively by Egyptian witnesses, were original, there is no discernible motive that would have prompted copyists to add the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, resulting in a most difficult saying (the statement in 1:18, not being parallel, would rarely have prompted the addition); and (2) the diversity of readings implies that the expression ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, having been found objectionable or superfluous in the context, was modified either by omitting the participial clause, or by altering it so as to avoid suggesting that the Son of Man was at that moment in heaven.
On the other hand, 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 interpretative gloss, reflecting later Christological development.

2Commentary By the Scientist Wield Felker

A Textual Commentary

on the

Greek Gospels

Vol. 4

John

BY

WIELAND WILLKER

Bremen, online published

10th edition 2013

***((If Jesus is still speaking, the addition is difficult: how can he be in heaven)
The whole section Jo 3:11 ff. looks strange, because in verse 11 there is a change from “I” to “we”: o] oi;damen lalou/men …
It appears that now not Jesus is speaking anymore but the church (or the Johannine community) after the resurrection. Then the longer reading makes good sense and is not problematic at all.
Zahn, on the other hand thinks (Comm. Jo), that the “we” refers to Jesus and John the baptist.
What we have here is a clear case of external against internal evidence. 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 “interpretative gloss, reflecting later Christological development”, but is this probable? It seems more probable that scripts omitted the difficult words or changed them as 0141, Sy-S and e, Sy-C did. The evk in 0141 et al. probably comes from the previous evk in the verse.
Hort writes: “it may have been inserted to correct any misunderstanding arising
out of the position of avnabe,bhken, as coming before kataba,j.”
Weiss (Textkritik, p. 131) notes that the words have been added to emphasize
the having-been-in-heaven of Jesus in contrast to the kataba,j).

---

3Flip Comfort Comment

***(There are two other variants on the longer reading: (1) “the Son of Man who was in heaven”
irsyic;(2)o vios TOV avGpomou o ov CK TOV oupavou(“theSonofMan, the
one being from heaven”) 0141 syr8. It is difficult to determine if the words o (OV ev TO)
ov pa va) (“the one being in heaven”) were originally written by John or were added later by
scribes. The shorter reading (WH NU) has excellent and early support—from the papyri, the
early Alexandrian uncials, the Diatessaron, and Coptic versions. The shorter reading was also
known to many church fathers, such as Origen, Didymus, and Jerome. The longer reading
appears in some later Greek manuscripts, was known to many early church fathers (Hippolytus,
Origen, Dionysius, Hesychius, Hilary, Lucifer, Jerome, Augustine), and was translated in some
early versions (primarily Old Latin and Syriac). From a documentary perspective, the shorter

---

***reading is more trustworthy.
However, some critics have argued that this phrase was deleted in the Alexandrian manuscripts
because of its enigmatic meaning—i.e., how could the Son of Man who was then and
there on earth also be in heaven? In support of this view, it could be argued that other scribes
attempted to adjust this existing, difficult expression (as in the two variants of the longer reading
listed above) in lieu of deleting it (see Black 1985,49-66). But other critics argue that the
phrase was added by scribes who may have been thinking of the expression in 1:18,0 0)v eis
TOV KOXTTOV TOU TTGiTpos (“the one being in the bosom of the Father”). For example,
Wescott and Hort (1882,75-76) argued that it was “a Western gloss, suggested perhaps by 1:18;
it may have been inserted to correct any misunderstanding arising out of the position of ava-
PePT]Ke v (has ascended], as coming before K(XTa|3as (having descended).”) As is explained
below, it seems that if any verse motivated scribes to make the addition, it was 1:18.
The English Versions display the division on this issue—with KJV/NKJV and some modern
versions (NEB REB) opting for the longer reading, and the rest of the modern versions presenting
the shorter reading. Hence, it is necessary for the interpreter to understand and explain
both variants. The reading is Jesus’ declaration of his exclusive ability to reveal the God
of heaven, who is God the Father, to men on
earth 1:18. He, the Son of Man,
had come from heaven and would go back to heaven. The longer reading shows that Jesus’
divine existence was not limited to just earth. He lives in heaven and earth simultaneously. Just
as the Father who sent his Son to earth accompanied the Son he sent, so the Son who left heaven
was still with his Father in heaven. As was noted earlier, this concept is also affirmed in 1:18,
which describes Christ (in his deity) as always existing by the Father’s side. ***

***The longer reading
could also be understood from the historical perspective of John’s readers who knew the postresurrected
Jesus as the one in heaven (Barrett 1978,213); As such, the last phrase of the longer
reading could be John’s personal reflective statement (NETmg).

---

4Vincent’s Interpretation

Vincent’s Word Studies

“Many authorities omit” Which is in heaven

Translation: (Many verses omit “who is in heaven”)

5Comment on the NetBible version

https://bible.org/netbible/

{Embed}

https://bible.org/netbible/

NET Bible : The Biblical Studies Foundation

NET Bible : new Bible translation, free Bible software, Bible studies and related Bible materials, .

((Most witnesses, including a few important ones (A [ * ] Θ Ψ 050 s 1,13 d latt sy c,p,h ), have at the end of this verse “the one who is in heaven” ( ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ , Jo wn en tw ouranw ).) A few others have variations on this phrase, such as “who was in heaven” (e sy c ) , or ” the one who is from heaven ” ( 0141 pc sy s ) . τῷ οὐρανῷ is authentic it may suggest that while Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus he spoke of himself as in heaven even while he was on earth. If that is the case, one could see why variations from this hard saying arose: “who was in heaven,” “the one who is from heaven,” and omission of the clause. At the same time, such a saying could be interpreted (though with difficulty) as part of the narrator’s comments rather than Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus, alleviating the problem. And if v. 13 was viewed in early times as the evangelist’s statement, “the one who is in heaven” could have crept into the text through a marginal note. Other internal evidence suggests that this saying may be authentic. The adjectival participle, ὁ ὤν , is used in the Fourth Gospel more than any other NT book (though the Apocalypse comes in a close second), and frequently with reference to Jesus (1:18; 6:46; 8:47)… At the same time, the witnesses that lack this clause are very weighty and must not be discounted. Generally, if other factors are equal speaking, the reading of such mss should be preferred. …The reading “who is in heaven” thus seems to be too hard. All things considered, as intriguing as the longer reading is, it seems almost certainly to have been a marginal gloss added inadvertently to the text in the process of transmission. For an argument in favor of the longer reading, see David Alan Black, “The Text of John 3:13,” GTJ 6 (1985): 49-66).

6-Scientist David Black

He is a defender of the authenticity of the clip, but he testifies to the following:

1Important Greek manuscripts omit the passage.

2The text in the early church had two forms: deletion and addition.

Grace Theological Journal 6.1 (1985) 49-66 Copyright © 1985 by Grace Theological Seminary. Cited with permission. THE TEXT OF JOHN 3:13 DAVID ALAN BLACK

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/gtj-nt/black-jn3-gtj-85.pdf

(The present article examines the text of John 3:13 in which the final clause, “who is in heaven”, is lacking in important Greek witnesses to the text of John).

(The text of John 3:13 circulated in the early church in two basics)

(yet quite distinct forms, one which included the words , and another which lacked them).

( This section examines in greater detail the external textual evidence for and against the reading)

(Variant reading (2) is also supported by a relatively small number of witnesses. This minority, however, comprises those manuscripts considered to be of the highest quality (as noted by Westcott4 ). The Bodmer papyri p66, 75 attest the shorter reading, as do the fourth century uncials Sinaiticus (x) and Vaticanus (B) which are the earliest and best uncial representatives in John of the Alexandrian text-type.)

My comment:-

First: The deletion reading is the most correct:

I will apply the rules of textual criticism agreed upon by scholars and then draw conclusions.

The Alexandrian Text is the Best of All Texts, and there is Almost a Global Consensus on This Issue. This Idea Was Initiated by the Scholar Fenton Hort in the Nineteenth Century

The following is a brief testimony from the Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism, which presents Hort’s theory, then states the overwhelming majority of scholars’ opinion on it, and then states the existence of a global consensus on the poor quality of the Byzantine text:

Hort’s theory says: (The text is Byzantine in time)

The overwhelming majority of scientists agree with this theory.

It was based on four points:

1Not one of the Fathers of the first four centuries retained the Byzantine text in his quotations primarily, but only incidentally.

2There is not a single manuscript of the Bible with the Byzantine text until the fifth century (the Alexandrian Gospels, which is not merely Byzantine), and there is no manuscript containing the complete Byzantine text until the ninth century.

3The Byzantine text is smooth, all readings that cause problems have been removed from it, and this is a development process that takes time.

4The Byzantine text tended to reconcile readings, so that if the copyist came across two readings, he would combine them together.

The discovery that made Hort famous was that the Byzantine text was (in his view) late. Hort based this argument on a number of points (I have amplified some of these): That none of the fathers before the fourth century preserve a characteristically Byzantine text (some have occasional Byzantine readings, but not on a consistent basis). That there are no early Byzantine manuscripts (in the Gospels, the earliest witness to the Byzantine text is A of the fifth century, and even it is not fully Byzantine; outside the Gospels, there are no fully Byzantine witnesses prior to the ninth century) That the Byzantine text is a consistently full, smooth text. Any difficult or disharmonious readings have been wiped away. This implies a gradual process of improvement over the years. Even if it came about suddenly (as a result of editing), the smooth readings must somehow have been before the editor. That the Byzantine text shows many conflations — places where two earlier readings have been combined….. the overall thrust of Hortʼs logic has convinced the

majority of scholars.

The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by Robert B. Waltz Inspired by Rich Elliott Pg 14-15

There is a Global Agreement on the Poor Quality of the Byzantine Text, and there is Almost No Longer Any Discussion about This matter:-

The uselessness of the Byzantine text was not only universally

accepted, but nearly unquestioned.

The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by

Robert B.Waltz Inspired by Rich Elliott.pg9.

Of course, the scholars’ testimonies on this point are very numerous… Now we find that three rules support the deletion reading (oldest - best - shortest), in addition to “Greek priority”. Two rules support the addition reading (most familial - geographical distribution). #The reason for the geographical spread can be explained by the time factor, as most manuscripts supporting the addition reading are from the 9th century and later… The reason for the diversity of families supporting the addition reading can be explained by “the influence of text types on each other”, as we know that the Byzantine text drew its material from previous texts, including the “Western”, so the real text supporting the addition reading is the Western text. Then the Byzantine was drawn from it. Then the Caesarean text was influenced by the Byzantine text due to the power of Byzantium, which supported its writers politically and materially, and the fall of the copying centers competing with Byzantium and producing the other three texts into the grip of Islam in the 7th century AD, which led to the dominance of the Byzantine text… So the events could have been as follows: First, a Western text, then a Byzantine text relied on it, then a Caesarean text was influenced by it

. Therefore, family diversity is in fact a family melting and not diversity because this diversity happened late and not early, and its main hero was a text known for its origin influenced by previous texts, and known for its absorption of all texts starting with the eighth text, and was able to do this absorption for political and ideological reasons. Note (the above is partly facts and partly a personal view. Among the facts are the chronological delay of the Byzantine text, its intrusion on previous texts, its chronologically late victory over the rest of the texts, and the collapse of the centers of copying competing texts due to the Islamic conquests). #One point remains: (the possibility of copying). Most defenders of the authenticity of the passage say that the rule of possibility of copying is in favor of reading the addition, meaning: What motivated the copyist to invent this passage, which is a tiring and not comfortable passage, as it raises questions such as “How can the Son of Man be on earth and at the same time in heaven?” To answer this, I hope that everyone whose imagination does not help him to imagine the doctrinal benefits of this addition will review the masterpieces of the Arab Orthodox Church, specifically the Coptic Church. You will see how a Christian can imagine that this text contains clear evidence of the divinity of Christ!! Please review what I mentioned at the beginning of my research in this regard. A

ccordingly, the most important pillars of the supporters of the reading of the addition collapse . # In response to the point (the reading of deletion is a local reading): - This is incorrect, but it has witnesses from all families. Please review the pictures of David Black, Richard Wilson, and Philip Comfort. Second: - Even if the reading of the addition is the most correct, the infallibility of the Bible has collapsed: - … The defenders of the authenticity of this passage do not realize the seriousness of their behavior. In their defense of it, they are destroying confidence in the manuscripts of the first five centuries. 1They say that the reading of deletion is a local reading, and I say it is not. Assuming that it is, then this is the case with the reading of the addition to the fifth century, which has no global witnesses. Reading became universal after the eighth century due to the process of digestion and dissolution that the Byzantine text carried out on other texts.

More dangerous than this is that this response is tantamount to diminishing confidence in local texts, and I ask: Is there a universal text up to the fifth century??? Isn’t this the case with the Bible manuscripts, that they are all local texts up to the fifth century??? Most of the Bible manuscripts up to the fifth century are Alexandrian texts, a few of them are Western texts and Caesarean texts, and there is no Byzantine text… They are all local texts… Therefore, challenging the reading of the Alexandrian text is challenging the validity of local readings, and thus is challenging all New Testament manuscripts up to the fifth century… Are you prepared to say: (My Bible has no reliable manuscripts up to the fifth century AD)??

Deduce this in the following equation: -

Dropping the Local Text = Dropping All Manuscripts from the Fifth Century = Dropping Infallibility

Please do not disparage local texts and accept what they dictate to you reluctantly!!

2The text in manuscripts up to the fourth century was (the reading of deletion), and starting from the fourth century the reading of addition appeared, so which of the two eras were its manuscripts forged?? If you chose the era after the fourth century, it is approximately equal to 1500 years of forged manuscripts If you chose the era before the fourth century, it is the most important era Did the copyists succeed in forgery for 400 years or for 1500 years?? In both cases, this is a huge success rate for the distorters. Therefore, all the data required to prove the fragility of the infallibility of the book have been achieved, as the infallibility of the book was based on one criterion, which is (dissemination guarantees the impossibility of distorting the book).,, Now we have 400 years of distortion or 1500 years. … The book did not protect itself from distortion during them, and dissemination was unable to make the distortions spread and become established. Even if the distortion was confined to a specific region, as if it were said: Those who distorted it were the Egyptians, the owners of the Alexandrian text, then we would respond and say: You have now said that there were local distortions that were able to enter the text of the book, and this makes us not trust the local texts, and all the texts of the manuscripts are local until approximately the eighth century when a unified text appeared! So we should not trust the manuscripts of the book until the time of the victory of the Byzantine text

And let us remember well that the early stage “the first century” was a stage in which the book was a “local, endemic text”… The occurrence of distortion of the local texts of the fourth century raises fears of the destruction of the local texts of the first century, and this reading of the Alexandrian text is supported by various testimonies that deny its claim of locality. So if there was a distortion in the manuscripts of the Alexandrian text, this is equal to = the spread of the distortion in the oldest evidence of the book. If the distortion was in the manuscripts of the Byzantine text, this is equal to = the spread of the distortion in most of the evidence of the book. Both of them destroy the infallibility of the book (the spread of the distortion) or (the spread of the distortion). I will summarize what I mentioned in an equation: - Challenging the local text = proving the spread of the distortion = the inability of the spread to protect the book

How Can the Spread of the Distortion Destroy the Infallibility of the Book?

1It loses confidence in the local texts, and this is the case with all manuscripts up to the eighth century, they are all local texts. As it means that the distorters were able to plant their distortion in almost all parts of the Christian world (the local Alexandrian text is in Egypt - the local Caesarean text is in the Levant - the local Western text is in North Africa - the Byzantine text does not exist in the four centuries and then arose locally in the north of the Levant) 2If the spread of the book was unable to correct the distorters for 700 years (until the eighth century, when the text changed from the different local to the unified global), this means that it was even more unable to protect the book in an unknown, dark early period when the spread was not strong immediately after the composition of these books… I wonder what happened to the book?

Conclusion

1The oldest Greek manuscripts that testify to the deletion reading precede the Greek manuscripts for the addition reading by 600 years!! 2The spread of the addition reading is chronologically late, after the ninth century, so it is worthless 3The diversity of text families that support the addition reading is caused by the phenomenon of digestion, dissolution and parasitism known about the Byzantine text.

4The best types of texts in favor of reading the deletion “the Alexandrian text

5Whatever the correct reading, the distortion has been proven in one of the two directions before the fourth century and after it (the localization of the distortion) or (the expansion of the distortion)… and this demolishes the criterion (the spread protected the book from distortion).

6The occurrence of distortion in the localities of the fourth century raises fears of the occurrence of destruction in the localities of the first century

TOP