Verses omitted from Alexandrian-type manuscripts

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark_David
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mark_David

Guest
John 5:4, Acts 8:37, most of 1 John 5:7, etc… these are all missing from modern Bible translations, because (as far as I know) they’re based on Alexandrian-type manuscripts - and the consensus is that these manuscripts are more reliable because they’re “older”. But, outside of KJV-Only cranks, are there any serious arguments that any of these verses are in fact authentic and not later embellishments?
 
It is true that the Alexandrian are the oldest extant manuscripts. But this doesn’tt mean they are really the oldest. The question is whether the copyists omitted these passages or whether they were added by later copyists. I tend to believe they were present in the originals, mainly because most of this material is quoted by the Early Church Fathers in the 2nd, 3rd & 4th Centuries.
 
Ah, 1 John 5:7 does not appear in the Church Fathers, nor is it quoted in the Arian controversy.
 
Ah, 1 John 5:7 does not appear in the Church Fathers, nor is it quoted in the Arian controversy.
“The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one.” (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, point 6)(circa 250). I would say that is pretty close to be a coincidence.
 
“The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one.” (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, point 6)(circa 250). I would say that is pretty close to be a coincidence.
This is true. But - though I’m very fond of the Johannine Comma - it would be pretty strange that it wasn’t invoked at least once more by the Church Fathers. On the other hand, omitting the Comma from the text reads awkwardly to me on a purely intuitive level. Either way, I dislike the omission - it’s too presumptuous. It’s better to err on the safe side with God’s word. At least italicize it - rather than relegate it to the footnotes or, worse yet, fail to feature or mention it at all.
 
This is true. But - though I’m very fond of the Johannine Comma - it would be pretty strange that it wasn’t invoked at least once more by the Church Fathers.
Actually it was, by Jerome in 390.
In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e., of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father, and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic (i.e. universal) faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is confirmed." (390 AD, Prologue To The Canonical Epistles)
I am definitely not a KJV-only type. The bible I read most frequently is the New American Standard. Yet I really believe many, perhaps not all, of these “omitted” passages were deleted by people who didn’t like what they said. John 5:3b-4 is an example. Take out the part about the waters being stirred by an angel and the passage makes little sense. Leave it in, however, and you have sacred scripture talking about how angels intervene in natural events.
 
“The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one.” (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, point 6)(circa 250). I would say that is pretty close to be a coincidence.
Just my two cents. Note how Cyprian writes “written of,” rather than “written that,” suggesting allusion rather than a direct quotation. The current standard critical editions of the New Testament (NA27 and UBS4) in fact consider Cyprian a witness against the Comma. Personally I think that Cyprian is a witness to how the text was interpreted

For the record, no Syriac NT manuscript contains the Comma, and neither do the Coptic or Ethiopian versions. It is really only found mainly in copies of the Latin Vulgate: it is only found in two late Vetus Latina versions, the Codex Monacensis (6th or 7th century) and the Speculum, an 8th- or 9th-century collection of New Testament quotations. The Comma appears only in nine late Greek manuscripts (most of which dates from the 16th century and later!), four of which have the words in a marginal note. The earliest of these, Codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest manuscript with the Comma with in its text is from the 14th century (Minuscule 629), but the wording here departs from all the others in several places.

The first work to actually quote the Comma as an actual part of the text appears to be the 4th century Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, probably written by Priscillian of Ávila (died 385), or his close follower Bishop Instantius. Of course the majority opinion nowadays was that the Comma was originally a marginal note that afterwards crept its way into the text. From Liber Apologeticus we then find it worked into Vulgate manuscripts.
 
“The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one.” (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, point 6)(circa 250). I would say that is pretty close to be a coincidence.
Among textual critics of the Fathers, that is a well known addition to the text.

See, Patristic Textual Criticism: Part 1 (Illinois Classical Studies Supplement) by Miroslav Marcovich for documentation of this fact.

:o
 
III.— Comments on the First Epistle of John.
Ver. 8. “For there are three that bear witness, the spirit,” which is life, “and the water,” which is regeneration and faith, “and the blood,” which is knowledge; “and these three are one.” For in the Saviour are those saving virtues, and life itself exists in His own Son.
newadvent.org/fathers/0211.htm
earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-fragments.html

On Re-Baptism (Anonymous)
  1. And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism in a threefold manner, let us come also to the proof of the statement proposed, that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment, and with rashness. For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: “This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one; ”1 John 5:6 — that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that men’s own blood is wont to confer the Spirit, and that the Spirit Himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was poured out by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and none the less in their own blood, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, men may be baptized. For Peter says: But this is that which was spoken by the prophet; It shall come to pass in the last days, says the Lord, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh: and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy, and their young men shall see visions, and their old men shall dream dreams: and upon my servants, and upon my handmaidens, will I pour out of my Spirit; Acts 2:17-18 — which Spirit we discover to have been communicated in the Old Testament, not indeed everywhere nor at large, but with other gifts; or, moreover, to have sprung of His own will into certain men, or to have invested them, or to have been upon them, even as we observe that it was said by the Lord to Moses, about the seventy elders, “And I will take of the Spirit which is upon you, and will put it upon them.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0515.htm

On the Holy Spirit (Book I) chapter 6
  1. And so these three witnesses are one, as John said: “The water, the blood, and the Spirit.” 1 John 5:8 One in the mystery, not in nature. The water, then, is a witness of burial, the blood is a witness of death, the Spirit is a witness of life. If, then, there be any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the presence of the Holy Spirit.
  1. Do we live in the water or in the Spirit? Are we sealed in the water or in the Spirit. For in Him we live and He Himself is the earnest of our inheritance, as the Apostle says, writing to the Ephesians: “In Whom believing you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, Who is an earnest of our inheritance.” Ephesians 1:13-14 So we were sealed by the Holy Spirit, not by nature, but by God, for it is written: “He Who anointed us is God, Who also sealed us, and gave the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.”
newadvent.org/fathers/34021.htm

Since these texts are about baptism, it would be natural for them to quote I John 5:7 for the baptism formula. Why do these texts not do that if I John 5:7 is genuine?
 
Actually it was, by Jerome in 390.
Quote:
In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e., of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father, and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic (i.e. universal) faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is confirmed." (390 AD, Prologue To The Canonical Epistles)
That is interresting, I will have to look into it.

Why does not any council on the Trinity quote I John 5:7?
 
John 5:3b-4 is an example. Take out the part about the waters being stirred by an angel and the passage makes little sense. Leave it in, however, and you have sacred scripture talking about how angels intervene in natural events.
I have to agree with this as well. What else could this “movement of the water” be referring to? Why do the physically sick wait for this stirring? I’ve only ever heard explanations about John 5:3b-4’s “insertion” as with the Comma: “it was originally a marginal note.” What’s the earliest manuscript to contain it within the text?
 
I have to agree with this as well. What else could this “movement of the water” be referring to? Why do the physically sick wait for this stirring? I’ve only ever heard explanations about John 5:3b-4’s “insertion” as with the Comma: “it was originally a marginal note.” What’s the earliest manuscript to contain it within the text?
Some of the earliest manuscripts of John, such as Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 (late 2nd-3rd century), as well as Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Borgianus (4th-5th centuries) do not have the text. This is also not found in say, [Minuscule 821](Minuscule 821), as well as the Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian translations.

The majority of later manuscripts which have John 5:3b-4 meanwhile include Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th century) - actually, Ephraemi did not originally have the text in its version of John; it was added by a later third corrector - Codex Coridethianus (9th century) and Codex Athous Lavrensis (9th/10th century), as well as Uncial 078 as well as Family 1 (aka the Lake Group) and Family 13 (aka the Ferrar Group) minuscules and the Majority Text.

There are also other manuscripts which only have either verse 3b or verse 4. Codex Alexandrinus is technically considered to be the first occurrence of John 5:4, though it originally lacked verse 3b (it was later added). Codex Bezae and Codex Washingtonianus as well as many early manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, by contrast, only has 3b (though the Clementine Vulgate does include the following verse). There is also variance among the various Vetus Latina translations: many have verse 4, but some lack it.

The reason why many scholars think this verse is not authentic is because aside from the fact that many early surviving manuscripts don’t have the text, is because (1) the verse has a vocabulary and syntax that is un-Johannine (i.e. it is not in keeping with the vocabulary and syntax of the rest of the Gospel); (2) several of the manuscripts that include the verses mark them with an asterisk or obelisk as if to mark it as spurious (for example, Codex Petropolitanus from the 9th century); and because as we have seen, there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses.
 
From a natural POV, the Pool of Bethesda operated like this.

In digs conducted in the 19th century, a large tank situated about 100 feet north-west of St. Anne’s Church was discovered, which was identified as the Pool of Bethesda. Further archaeological excavation in the area, in 1964, discovered the remains of churches built during the Byzantine and Crusader periods, as well as a temple to Asclepius and Serapis built during Hadrian’s remodelling of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina, the small healing pools of the asclepieion, the other of the two large pools, and the dam between them. It was discovered that the Byzantine construction was built in the very heart of Hadrian’s construction, and contained the healing pools.

There were two large basins: the northern pool, measuring 53 x 40 meters, which served as a reservoir (otṣar) for collected rainwater, and the southern pool (47 x 52 meters) which served as the ritual pool (miqveh). The two pools would have been surrounded by porticos on all four sides, with an additional portico extending across the massive 6-meter barrier wall separating the two basins (cf. John 5:2 “Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes”). This wall was partly hewn into the rock and partly built of alternating courses of well-dressed header-and-stretcher ashlars with smoothed exteriors.

A flight of steps facilitated access down to the very base of the pool, depending on the amount of water available there for bathing. These extended down along the entire western side of the southern pool (53 meters in length), with sets of steps in groups of one to six extending between landings. The landings at different intervals would have been used for the placing of the beds of disabled people.

Within the massive barrier wall was a vertical shaft which led to a horizontal tunnel with a sluice gate at the bottom, which meant that the water of the otṣar to the north could easily have come into contact with with the water of the miqveh to the south by simply lifting the sluice gate. Further on, at the lower level of the tunnel, there was a covered trough in which more than 1 cubic meter of valid water could have ‘mingled’ with the added water, before then rising and replenishing the waters of the southern pool. A sluice gate was opened at the far end of this trough when necessary, which then, in turn, led to a covered channel that helped drain surplus water away to the south.

It is thought that the pool would have bubbled and frothed when the water was drained into the southern pool, which was what John was describing when the waters were “stirred up.” In addition, layers of bright red soil trapped between geological layers, seen within the lower part of this area, may have contributed to the picture provided by early Christian writers such as Eusebius and Eucherius regarding the color of the stirred-up waters (Eusebius describes it as “of a ruddy color,” while Eucherius calls it “reddish”).
 
Thanks for the info. Oh well, I suppose it is what it is then. But I do hope that this trend of exclusivity doesn’t continue - eg: the longer ending of Mark gets snipped. We won’t have a Bible left at that rate!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top