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
Examination of the external and internal evidence for the reading
of John
clause o[ w}n e]n t&?
ou]ran&?) should be regarded as authentic. This
longer reading has extensive external attestation. Furthermore, tran-
scriptional
probabilities and John's style and theology lend strong
internal support for this reading. Therefore, John 3:13 is a proof of
the omnipresence of the earthly Jesus.
* * *
INTRODUCTION
TEXT-CRITICAL
studies on the Gospel of John have concentrated
mainly on the pericope of the adulterous
woman, which is placed
in modern editions of the Greek NT between
times relegated to the critical apparatus). There is, however, at least
one other major textual problem in John which calls for special atten-
tion.1 The present article examines the text of John
final clause, "who is in heaven" o[
w}n e]n t&?
ou]ran&?, is lacking in
important Greek witnesses to the text of John. It is argued on the
basis of both external and internal considerations that the words were
original and later were deleted to avoid saying that Jesus was simul-
taneously present in
heaven. Hence, the disputed reading in John
should be allowed to stand as an explicit statement of the omni-
presence of the Son of Man, even as he walked on the earth.
1 An exhaustive list of the more problematic textual variants in
John is given by
R. Schnackenburg,
The Gospel According to
Herder,
1968)
give an impression of the need for textual criticism on John" (p.
182). The editorial
committee of the UBS Greek NT has considered 207 places of variation in
John, set-
ting forth the reasons for including certain variants in the text and
for relegating others
to the apparatus. See B. M. Metzger. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament (New York: United Bible
Societies, 1971) 195-258. I am grateful to my
col1eague Harry Sturz for bringing this variant
to my attention. I also acknowledge a
special debt to past teachers Bo Reicke and
Markus Barth for encouraging me to delve
into the textual history of John.
50 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
EXTERNAL CRITERIA
The text of John 3: 13 circulated in the early church in two basic
yet quite distinct forms, one which included the words o[
w}n e]n t&?
ou]ran&?, and
another which lacked them. The former, which has been
traditionally regarded as authentic, is represented by a diversified
array of witnesses, primarily non-Alexandrine in character. The other
form is attested chiefly by the Alexandrian group of manuscripts, in
particular the uncials x
and B, and by early papyrus codices of the
Bodmer collection. This
section examines in greater detail the external
textual evidence for and against the reading o[ w}n e]n t&?
ou]ran&?.
With
the UBS Greek New Testament2 and Tischendorf's
8th Edi-
tion3 serving as sources, evidence from the manuscripts, versions and
Fathers has been accumulated and
segregated under the leading text-
types or groups of witnesses (Table 1).
In assessing
the evidence, the following observations can be made.
First,
considerations of external evidence clearly demonstrate that
readings (3) and (4) are secondary. The former has only versional evi-
dence in support,
while the latter is supported only by two Greek
manuscripts and the Sinaitic Syriac.
Each of these readings is an
apparent attempt, each in its own way, to alter reading (I) to avoid
suggesting that Jesus was at once on earth and in heaven.
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 cen-
tury uncials Sinaiticus (x) and Vaticanus
(B) which are the earliest
and best uncial representatives in John of the Alexandrian text-type.
The testimony of the Coptic and Ethiopic
translations, as well as that
of Origen, add further early versional and patristic support to this
important array of Greek manuscripts. Thus, if the traditional read-
ing be accepted as
original, some attempt must be made to explain
how the words were omitted in such early and noteworthy witnesses
to the text of the NT.
On the other hand, it is also evident that the shorter reading is
supported by a single text-type. In the Greek manuscript evidence,
the omission is found only in the Alexandrian text-type. However,
other Alexandrian witnesses, most notably several manuscripts of the
2Kurt Aland and others, eds., The Greek
New Testament (3d ed.;
United Bible
Societies, 1975) 329.
3C.
Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece (8th ed.;
Druck. und Verlagsanstalt, 1965)
4B.
F. Westcott, The Gospel According to
Eerdmans, 1975) 65.
TABLE 1
Witnesses
to the Text of John
Byzantine Alexandrian Western Caesarean
(1) a]nqrw<pou o[
w]n e]n t&? ou]ran&? 892 copbo
mss Origenlat it
a.aur,b,c,f,ff-2,j,l,q,r2 vg Q f1 f13 28 565 arm geo
A*vid
(omit w}n) A cEFGHKMSU Dionysius syrh
Diatessarona Cyril
VGLPY 050 063 (qeou? for
Hippolytus
Novatian
a]nqrw<pou) 1195
1344 1646 Byz
Lucifer
Lect Eustathius Jacob-Nisibis
Aphraates Epiphanius Basil
Amphilochius Didymus
Chrysostom Nonnus Thedoret
(2) omit p66, 75 xBLTbWsupp Diatessaron carm, v Apollinaris
Cyril
33 1241 copsa.bomss,
eth Origenlat Didymus
(3) o{j h#n e}n t&? ou]ran&?
ite syr c
(4) o[ w{n e}k tou? ou]ranou? 0141 80 syrs
52 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Bohairic dialect, indicate that the o[ w}n e]n
t&? ou]ran&? were also
known early in
the testimony of Origen, an Alexandrian
Father, indicates only that
he was acquainted with the local text as preserved in Greek
witnesses
and versions. Otherwise, ecclesiastical tradition points to the
general
acceptance of the phrase as original. Summarizing, then, it appears
that the strongest evidence in favor of the shorter reading is the
fact
that the words o[
w}n e]n t&?
ou]ran&? are lacking in the early Alexandrian
manuscripts p66, 75, x and B.
The evidence for the inclusion of the words (reading 1) is as
follows. The phrase is found in nearly all the uncial and minuscule
manuscripts of the NT as well as in nearly every ancient version,
including the Bohairic of lower Egypt. Support
for the longer reading
is also found in the great majority of the earliest patristic
witnesses,
including Origen5 himself, whose testimony at this point is
divided
equally between readings (I) and (2). Moreover, this reading is not
limited to manuscripts of only one geographical area, as is its omis-
sion. The reading was
accepted as genuine over a wide geographic
area, encompassing most of the then civilized ancient world:
and the West,
literary capital of
These considerations are significant according to generally ac-
cepted canons of
textual criticism which apply to the external evi-
dence of
readings. Greenlee, for example, states that any reading
supported by one text-type exclusively is suspect since "no ms. or
text-type is perfectly trustworthy.’”6 Conversely, "a
reading which is
supported by good representatives of two or more text-types is gener-
ally preferable to a reading supported by one text-type exclusively.7
This line of thinking favors the longer
reading. The external evidence
shows almost the entire ancient tradition supporting the disputed
phrase {including the Old Latin [Itala], which
establishes the date of
the longer reading as at least the last quarter of the second
century).8
Also significant is the geographical
distribution of the witnesses in
support of the longer reading. Being from such a wide geographical
5 "Non dixit qui fuit,
sed qui est
in caelo" (cited in Tischendorf,
Novum Testa-
mentum,
6 J. H. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (
Eerdmans, 1972) 119.
7 Ibid.
8 Greenlee (Introduction, 46) dates the origin of the Itala "before the second cen-
tury had passed," while
B. M. Metzger (The Text of the New
Testament [
within "the last quarter of the second century," and adds that
"not long afterward
translations were also made in
BLACK: JOHN
area, it is highly improbable that there is any genealogical relation-
ship between them. The testimony of the Greek manuscripts, ancient
versions, and Church Fathers thus forms, as it were, a strong three-
cord strand which is not easily broken, If, therefore, the reading
which is both early and supported by independent witnesses from a
wide geographical area is more likely to be original, as Greenlee sug-
gests, then clearly reading (1) should be preferred.
The retreat
at this point by many scholars, such as Morris,9
to
the early uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is understandable. The
reading of x and B where they agree, and of B alone where they
disagree, has long been accepted as original in places of variation.
However, despite the acknowledged
antiquity and worth of these great
uncials, it has become increasingly common since the days of Westcott
and Hort to question the reading of these witnesses
when they stand
alone. Greenlee writes: "The agreement of B N remains one of the
most highly regarded witnesses to the New Testament text, but it is
generally doubted that the text is as pure as W-H believed it to be."10
Metzger concurs:
A s a rule of thumb, the beginner may
ordinarily follow the Alexandrian
text except in the case of readings contrary to
the criteria which are
responsible for its being given
preference in ?eneral. Such a pocedure,
however, must not be allowed to
degenerate into merely looking for the
reading which is supported by
Band N (or even B alone, as Hort was
accused of doing); in every
instance a full and careful evaluation is to
be made of all the variant readings in the
light of both transcriptional
and intrinsic probabilities.11
All of this does not mean, of course, that
the Alexandrian witnesses
have become less important in the actual practice of textual
criticism.
It does mean, however that the readings of
x and B: even when sup-
ported by early papyri cannot be accepted prima facie, for the Idea of
Hort's "neutral text" is untenable and no longer should be
accepted.
Critics of the text are thus in general
agreement that, in the present
state of research, no single group of manuscripts can be given an
absolute preference.12
9"The words 'who is in heaven' are absent from some of the
most reliable manu-
scripts and they should probably be omitted" (L. Morris, The Gospel According to
John [NICNT:
Harrison (John. The Gospel of Faith [
last clause of verse 13 lacks sufficient manuscript authority to be
accepted as part of
the text."
10 Greenlee, Introduction,86
11 Metzger, Text of the NT,
218
12However, though it claims to be eclectic, there is evidence that
the UBS Greek
NT is a text dominated by N and B,as is argued by J. K. Elliott in "The United Bible
54 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Undoubtedly one's idea of the history of the text and one's
principles of textual criticism will influence his decision in the present
case. My own view, simply stated, is that an early reading supported
by representatives from two or more text-types is preferable to a
reading supported by witnesses of a single text-type, even a text-type
regarded (properly or not) as the best ancient recension.
It seems
highly unlikely that such a localized reading could have a better claim
to originality than a reading which is both early, widespread, and
heavily attested. On the basis of external criteria, it therefore appears
that the disputed words are original.
Greenlee's summary of the Alexandrian text is worth quoting for
those who still may have qualms about rejecting the reading of p66,
75, x
and B: “As such, it is probably the best single text of the local
texts; but
like the others its readings cannot be accepted uncritically but must
be
submitted to the principles of criticism.”13 An important factor
militat-
ing against an uncritical
acceptance of the early Alexandrian manu-
scripts is that they show a capacity to support readings which-even
in the eyes of the editors of the UBS Greek NT -are likely to be
wrong. For example, in I Cor
UBS Greek NT3 is de< but
p46 BI739 Clement read in its place ga<r, a
conjunction which Metzger says "has the appearance of being an
improvement introduced by the copyists."14 Another and more signifi-
cant example is the reading Xristou? in 1 Cor 1:8, which is omitted in
p46 B, as Metzger says, "either accidentally in copying. ..or perhaps
deliberately for aesthetic reasons."15 The short reading of B
1216 in
Matt
pruning unnecessary words.”16 Even in the Gospel of John
itself there
are readings in Alexandrian manuscripts which the UBS Greek NT
editors have attributed to scribal error. The omission of
]Ihsou?j by
p75 x B W in
e]doca<sqh
e]n au]t&? by p66 x* B C* DLW in
substitution of e@ligma for mi<gma by x* B W in
__________________________________________________________________
Societies' Textual Commentary," NovT 17 (1975) 131ff. Elsewhere Elliott speaks of "the
reluctance of the editors to deviate too far from these hypnotic mss. x B" ("A Second
Look at the United Bible Societies' Greek
New Testament," BT 27 [1975] 328). If
Elliott's conclusions are correct, one
could almost speak of the text of x and B as a
modern "Textus Receptus,"
the overthrow of which is as difficult today as it was
during the period of the struggle for a critical text.
13Greenlee, Introduction,
86-87.
14 Metzger, Textual Commentary,
546.
15Ibid., 544.
16Ibid., 34.
BLACK: JOHN
examples.17 The concurrence of these early witnesses behind doubtful
readings raises questions about their integrity as witnesses to the
original text.
Summarizing, then, in this case it appears that, according to
accepted canons of text-criticism, the reading most likely to be orig-
inal on the basis of
external criteria is the one which includes the
words o[ w}n e]n t&?
ou]ran&?. The omission, though early and supported
by the chief representatives of the Alexandrian text, is less likely
to be
original due to the scarcity and geographical limitation of manuscript
support (as well as the possibility that this text-type may not be as
inherently pure as it was once thought to be). Therefore, there appears
to be no conclusive reason based on external criteria for rejecting
the
strong textual and historical testimony in favor of the longer reading.
INTERNAL CRITERIA
In assessing
the text of John 3: 13, one must also take into con-
sideration internal
evidence. This involves two kinds of criteria: tran-
scriptional and
intrinsic probabilities. The former involves evaluating
the kinds of mistakes or alterations a scribe may make as he copied a
text while the latter considers what the author was more likely to
have written. Under transcriptional probabilities, four canons are
generally accepted: (1) the more difficult reading is to be preferred;
(2) the shorter reading is to be preferred except where parablepsis
may have occurred or where a "scribe may have omitted material
which he deemed to be (i) superfluous, (ii)
harsh, or (iii) contrary to
pious belief, liturgical usage, or ascetical practice”;18
(3) the reading
which is verbally dissident is to be preferred to one which is verbally
concordant with a parallel passage; and (4) the reading which best
accounts for the other variants is to be preferred:
Prefer the More Difficult
Preference
for the longer reading established on the basis of
external evidence finds strong internal support in the first of these
17Cf. also the text of 8 L Origen in John
x* 8 in
pisteu<shte). The evidence for
Commentary, 231) writes, "a majority
of the Committee judged that its external attesta-
tion was too limited in
extent, representing, as it does, only a single textual type (the
Egyptian)." Elsewhere. I have argued along similar
lines in relation to the text of
Eph I: I ("The Pecularities
of Ephesians and the Ephesian Address," GTJ 2
[1981]
59-73).
18Metzger, Textual
Commentary, xxvii.
56 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
canons, since it obviously is the more difficult reading. Assuming that
John
reading has Christ saying that he was at that moment present both in
heaven and on earth. The awkwardness of this saying would explain
the origin of readings (3) and (4), which undoubtedly were produced
to make the longer reading less objectionable (it is much more diffi-
cult to assert that Jesus "is in heaven" while speaking to
Nicodemus
than to say that he "was in heaven" or that he "is from
heaven").
Thus Metzger, writing on behalf of the
minority of the UBS Greek
NT editorial
committee, remarks, "If the shorter reading. ..were
original, there is no discernible motive which would have prompted
copyists to add the words o[ w}n e]n t&am