JOHN 6:1 th/j Galilai,aj {A} The clumsiness of the two successive genitives, both identifying the same sea, prompted some copyists to omit th/j Galilai,aj (0210 1242* 1344 2174 ù184), and others to add after Galilai,aj either kai, (V goth) or eivj ta. me,rh (D Q 892 1009 1230 1253 itb, d, e, r1 ge... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:14 o] evpoi,hsen shmei/on {B} Although the combination of î B ita in support of a] … shmei/a is impressive, the plural seemed to the Committee to have arisen from scribal assimilation to John 2:23 and John 6:2. The addition of o` VIhsou/j was made by copyists in the interest of clarity.... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:15 avnecw,rhsen {A} While it is possible that avnecw,rhsen (a word frequently used by Matthew but which occurs nowhere else in John) may have been substituted by copyists for feu,gei (because flight would seem to be unbecoming for Jesus), a majority of the Committee was impressed by the anc... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:22 e[n {A} In order to clarify the evangelist’s statement about the boat, copyists added, in one form or another, the explanation that it was the one “into which his [Jesus’] disciples had entered.” The variety of wording of the addition condemns it as secondary, just as the age and variety... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:23 a;lla h=lqen ploia,@ria# evk Tiberia,doj {C} Amid the multiplicity of variants, the text of î75, supported by several other widely scattered representative witnesses, was regarded by a majority of the Committee as the reading that best explains the origin of the others. As for the variat... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:27 u`mi/n dw,sei {A} Several witnesses (a D itd, e, ff2, j syrc, pal Chrysostom) read the present tense, which appears to be the result of assimilation to di,dwsin u`mi/n in ver. John 6:32. The reading u`mi/n dw,sei, which is strongly supported by î75 A B W Q ¦1 28 33 565 700 _al,_ is clear... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:36 @me# {C} A few witnesses (a A ita, b, e, q syrc, s) lack me. It is possible that this is the original reading and that me has crept into the other witnesses from the context. In this case Jesus’ statement, “I said to you that you saw and yet do not believe,” clearly refers to the signs t... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:47 pisteu,wn {A} The addition of eivj evme, as the object of the verb “believe” was both natural and inevitable; the surprising thing is that relatively many copyists resisted the temptation. If the words had been present in the original text, no good reason can be suggested to account for... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:52 @auvtou/# {C} Since external evidence for and against the presence of auvtou/ is so evenly balanced, and since considerations of internal probabilities are not decisive, the Committee decided to retain the word enclosed within square brackets.... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:56 auvtw|/ After auvtw|/ codex Bezae adds what appears to be a homiletic expansion, kaqw.j evn evmoi. o` path.r kavgw. evn tw|/ patri,) avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( eva.n mh. la,bhte to. sw/ma tou/ ui`ou/ tou/ avnqrw,pou w`j to.n a;rton th/j zwh/j( ouvk e;cete zwh.n evn auvtw|/ (“As the Fathe... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:58 oi` pate,rej {A} Since the evidence for oi` pate,rej is predominantly Egyptian, one might argue that the absence of u`mw/n is the result of Alexandrian pruning. On the whole, however, it is more probable that, owing to the statement oi` pate,rej u`mw/n e;fagon evn th|/ evrh,mw| to. ma,nn... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:64 ti,nej eivsi.n oi` mh. pisteu,ontej kai, {B} The omission of these words from several witnesses (î66* 1344* ite syrc, s) is no doubt the result of oversight in transcription, occasioned perhaps by homoeoarcton (ti,nej … ti,j). The omission of mh, by a Xcomm _al_ is less easy to account f... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:69 o` a[gioj tou/ qeou/ {A} The reading adopted for the text, decisively supported by î75 a B C* D L W _al,_ was expanded in various ways by copyists, perhaps in imitation of expressions in John 1:49; John 11:27; and Matthew 16:16.... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 6:71 VIskariw,tou Several witnesses (a* Q ¦13 syrhmg gr) interpret “Iscariot” as avpo. Karuw,tou, that is, tAYrIq. vyai _(ish Qeriyyot(h))_ “man of Kerioth” [a town in southern Judea]. On the basis of preponderant external evidence (î66, 75 B C L W Y 33 _al_) the genitive case VIskariw,tou, ag... [ Continue Reading ]