Jesus THE Saviour THE Christ

[SavedByGrace]

John 4:42

“And said vnto the woman, Now we beleeue, not because of thy saying, for we haue heard him our selues, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Sauiour of the world” (KJV. 1611)

This verse is part of the conversation between Jesus Christ, and the Samaritan woman at the well. In the greater majority of the modern Versions of the Bible, the words, “ὁ χριστός”, have been removed from this verse.

In verse 25, the woman says to Jesus, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ)”, to which Jesus replies, “says to her Jesus, I am Who speaking to you” (verse 26). The woman speaks of the Coming Messiah, and Jesus says clearly that He is The Messiah! The woman then goes to the city, to tells others of “ὁ χριστός” (verse 29), and “And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified” (verse 39), and “many more believed because of His own word” (verse 41). And then we have the testimony, “we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world, the Christ” (literal Greek)

It is evident from the whole account in this chapter, that it was Jesus as THE Messiah, that is the main point, so why remove the all important words, “ὁ χριστός”, in verse 42, when the oldest textual evidence supports it?

“And many believed in him because of his word; and they said to that woman, Now not because of thy saying have we believed in him: we have heard and known that this truly is the Messiah, the Saviour of the world” (Roberts and Donaldson, The Diatessaron of Tatian; also the editions by Hope W Hogg, and Hamlyn Hill).

Tatian lived around 170 AD. His Syriac Version was from “a Greek text of the Gospels of a type current c. A.D. 175 in Rome” (Dr A Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p.51). Frederic Kenyon says that Tatian was “a disciple of Justin Martyr” (The Greek Text of the Bible, pp.112-113). This is a very important witness to the text in the 2nd century, and earlier.

The Old Latin Version, 2nd century

The Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, The manuscript was written shortly before A.D. 400 (Anchor Bible Dict.), both in the Greek and Old Latin (F.H. Scrivener edition, 1864). “It seems that the Latin is derived from a Greek text closely related to D, but not identical with it” (ABD)

Bohairic Coptic Version, 4th century

Codex Alexandrinus, 5th century

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, 5th century

Byzantine text-type, between AD 350-1516

“Now we believe, not because of thy saying, for we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world,” (The homilies of John Chrysostom, at least 7 times. AD 347-407)

“ο σωτηρ του κοσμου ο χριστος” Robert Estienne 1550; Theodore Beza 1598; Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir 1624; John Mill 1707; Johannes Jacobus Wetstein 1751; F. H. A. Scrivener 1894.

“Christ the savioure of the worlde” (Tyndale)

“Christe, the sauiour of the worlde” (Bishops)

“Christ the Sauioure of the worlde” (Coverdale)

“Christ the Sauiour of the world.” (Geneva)

The English Majority Text Version - Hodges and Farstad

The Byzantine Majority Text - Pierpont and Robinson

“this One is truly the Messiah, the Savior of the world!” – Wilber Pickering New Testament

“the savior of the world the Anointed” Emphatic Diaglott, issued by the Jehovah’s Witnesses!

The Diatessaron of Tatian, and the Old Latin, both from the Greek, shows that at the time of Irenaeus, “ο χριστος” did form part of the original Gospel of John.

It is clear that the words “ὁ χριστός”, were removed at a very early time, by those who could not accept that JESUS IS THE MESSIAH!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree absolutely that “ὁ χριστός” belongs in the text of John 4:42. As you say, it is contained in the large majority of Greek MSS as well as the Old Latin and many of the ECFs.
My only slight disagreement would be that I doubt the omission was intentional. As you say, John 4 contains several references to the Lord Jesus as the Messiah; there isn't much point in getting rid of just one of them.

A few weeks ago, I was preaching at my church and I emailed my Order of Service through to a colleague, missing out one line. There was no reason for it; it was just inattention on my part.. I can't think of any circumstances where I would have added a line accidentally, but leaving one out is easy to do.

In the 2nd and 3rd Centuries, Christians were an oppressed minority and copying would have had to be done in secret by amateur scribes. It would have been easy for mistakes to be made. After Constantine, Christianity became much better situated and it would have been possible to employ professional copyists who were trained to go over their work and check it again and again. That is why IMO, the oldest texts are unlikely to be the most reliable.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I agree absolutely that “ὁ χριστός” belongs in the text of John 4:42. As you say, it is contained in the large majority of Greek MSS as well as the Old Latin and many of the ECFs.
My only slight disagreement would be that I doubt the omission was intentional. As you say, John 4 contains several references to the Lord Jesus as the Messiah; there isn't much point in getting rid of just one of them.

A few weeks ago, I was preaching at my church and I emailed my Order of Service through to a colleague, missing out one line. There was no reason for it; it was just inattention on my part.. I can't think of any circumstances where I would have added a line accidentally, but leaving one out is easy to do.

In the 2nd and 3rd Centuries, Christians were an oppressed minority and copying would have had to be done in secret by amateur scribes. It would have been easy for mistakes to be made. After Constantine, Christianity became much better situated and it would have been possible to employ professional copyists who were trained to go over their work and check it again and again. That is why IMO, the oldest texts are unlikely to be the most reliable.

thanks for your interesting input. My reasoning is that while there are other references to Jesus as The Messiah in this passage, it would be impossible for Jesus to be referred to as The Saviour of the world, and not The Messiah, by those who were convinced by Jesus Himself. it is quite possible a copyist error, though there are many references to Jesus that have intentional changes made to them.

 

[Conan]

Information on the Diatessaron.

Versions of the New Testament


Diatessaron
The history of the Syriac versions probably begins with the Diatessaron, the gospel harmony which Tatian compiled (in Greek or Syriac) in the second half of the second century.

Although the Diatessaron was compiled by an editor who had been in Rome (Tatian was expelled from that city in 172), and although it existed more or less from the start in both Greek and Syriac, it was only in the Syriac church that it is believed to have been regarded as "official." Perhaps it was that Tatian's heretical attitudes fit better with the mood of the church there.

The problems of the Diatessaron are deep and complex; they cannot be dealt with here. No Syriac manuscripts of the version survive, and we have no more than a small fragment of the Greek (in the Dura parchment 0212, a gospel harmony thought by some to be Diatessaric, though the most recent editors think otherwise). But the mass of quotations in Ephraem and others, as well as the number of Diatessaric harmonies in other languages, show its depth of influence.

Eventually, however, the Syriac church felt compelled to set the Diatessaron aside. We have reports of bishops ordering churches to replace their copies of Tatian's document with copies of the Four Gospels. The effectiveness of their efforts is shown by the absence of Diatessaric manuscripts in Syriac. The change was not immediate (writers continued to use the Diatessaron for some centuries), but was eventually complete.

We note incidentally that the Diatessaron, and its suppression, has much to tell us about what can happen to a text. Certain scholars, especially Byzantine prioritists, make a great deal of noise about "normal" transmission -- transmission without interference by external factors. Which is all well and good, but there is no reason to believe that transmission is "normal." If it were, we would have many manuscripts of the Diatessaron, because it would have continued to be copied. Instead, we have no substantial copies of the Diatessaron. Its transmission was not "normal" -- and, given the great range of historical accidents that can happen, the onus is on those who which to claim that transmission is "normal

 

[Conan]

Although the words belong, you should always cite the evidence accurately. I noticed you did not quote the words were missing from the majority of the Old Latin.

Textual Variants: John 1:15-8:57


John 4:42:
TEXT: "we know that this is truly the Savior of the world."
EVIDENCE: p66 p75 Aleph(א) B C* Wsupp most lat syr(c)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NRSV ESV NASV NIV NEB REB TEV CSB
CERTAINTY: -
NOTES: "we know that this is truly the Savior of the world, the Christ."
EVIDENCE: A C3 D K L N Gamma Delta Theta Psi ƒ1 ƒ13 33 565 700 892 1241 Byz some lat syr(p,h) some cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV NKJV CSBn

COMMENTS: Added "the Christ" is something that copyists often did. The words are missing from the earliest manuscripts

 

[SavedByGrace]

Information on the Diatessaron.

Versions of the New Testament


Diatessaron
The history of the Syriac versions probably begins with the Diatessaron, the gospel harmony which Tatian compiled (in Greek or Syriac) in the second half of the second century.

Although the Diatessaron was compiled by an editor who had been in Rome (Tatian was expelled from that city in 172), and although it existed more or less from the start in both Greek and Syriac, it was only in the Syriac church that it is believed to have been regarded as "official." Perhaps it was that Tatian's heretical attitudes fit better with the mood of the church there.

The problems of the Diatessaron are deep and complex; they cannot be dealt with here. No Syriac manuscripts of the version survive, and we have no more than a small fragment of the Greek (in the Dura parchment 0212, a gospel harmony thought by some to be Diatessaric, though the most recent editors think otherwise). But the mass of quotations in Ephraem and others, as well as the number of Diatessaric harmonies in other languages, show its depth of influence.

Eventually, however, the Syriac church felt compelled to set the Diatessaron aside. We have reports of bishops ordering churches to replace their copies of Tatian's document with copies of the Four Gospels. The effectiveness of their efforts is shown by the absence of Diatessaric manuscripts in Syriac. The change was not immediate (writers continued to use the Diatessaron for some centuries), but was eventually complete.

We note incidentally that the Diatessaron, and its suppression, has much to tell us about what can happen to a text. Certain scholars, especially Byzantine prioritists, make a great deal of noise about "normal" transmission -- transmission without interference by external factors. Which is all well and good, but there is no reason to believe that transmission is "normal." If it were, we would have many manuscripts of the Diatessaron, because it would have continued to be copied. Instead, we have no substantial copies of the Diatessaron. Its transmission was not "normal" -- and, given the great range of historical accidents that can happen, the onus is on those who which to claim that transmission is "normal

The evidence of Tatian for the reading “ὁ χριστός”, is supported by the three main versions of his Diatessaron, as I have shown in the OP. There is nothing to suggest that this evidence is doubtful, and should be rejected. We are not concerned with the "theology" of Tatian, but his testimony to the reading “ὁ χριστός”, at this early time, in the Greek text. Can you show any version of the Diatessaron that omits the reading “ὁ χριστός?

 

[SavedByGrace]

I noticed you did not quote the words were missing from the majority of the Old Latin.

What difference does this really make in textual studies? the fact that even SOME of the Old Latin read “ὁ χριστός”, shows that this reading was present in the 2nd century, and even earlier. Not many of the early Church fathers quote this verse, the earlist I have seen is Irenaeus, whose quote does not have the words, but this is in the Latin translation of his Greek works, which are not all that reliable.

John would not have written "we know that this is truly the Savior of the world", without the words, "the Christ", or "Messiah", which is the main purpose of this conversation between Jesus and the woman, to show that He and no other, is indeed THE Messiah.

 

[Conan]

What difference does this really make in textual studies? the fact that even SOME of the Old Latin read “ὁ χριστός”, shows that this reading was present in the 2nd century, and even earlier. Not many of the early Church fathers quote this verse, the earlist I have seen is Irenaeus, whose quote does not have the words, but this is in the Latin translation of his Greek works, which are not all that reliable.

John would not have written "we know that this is truly the Savior of the world", without the words, "the Christ", or "Messiah", which is the main purpose of this conversation between Jesus and the woman, to show that He and no other, is indeed THE Messiah.

You were dishonest in the citation of the Old Latin. You are not being honest with the evidence. The fact that the majority of the Old Latin omites the words show it probably wasn't in the Oldest versions of the Old Latin. There were multiple old latin translations, not just one. That's why Jerome had to make a vulgate, because the Old Latin versions were so many. So different. To omite that wasn't fair to the evidence.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You were dishonest in the citation of the Old Latin. You are not being honest with the evidence. The fact that the majority of the Old Latin omites the words show it probably wasn't in the Oldest versions of the Old Latin. There were multiple old latin translations, not just one. That's why Jerome had to make a vulgate, because the Old Latin versions were so many. So different. To omite that wasn't fair to the evidence.

your reasoning shows that you lack understanding of how textual stuidies actually works! You say that I am being "dishonest", which basically means that I have LIED in what I have said, which is an INSULT! You yourself admit in your own words, "probably wasn't in the Oldest versions of the Old Latin", though there ARE present in some Old Latin texts! How can I be "dishonest" when the evidence that I have given in the OP, is very strong? You may not be aware of this, that Jerome's Latin Vulgate does not represent what he actually produced in the 4th century. There is a preface to the Epistles of John, where he says that unfaithful translators omitted the words in 1 John 5:7, referring to the Holy Trinity! Yet the Latin Vulgate that has come down to us, mainly does not have these words! As I have said, the conversation between Jesus and the woman, was not about who is the Saviour, but, Who is The Messiah!

 

[Conan]

your reasoning shows that you lack understanding of how textual stuidies actually works! You say that I am being "dishonest", which basically means that I have LIED in what I have said, which is an INSULT! You yourself admit in your own words, "probably wasn't in the Oldest versions of the Old Latin", though there ARE present in some Old Latin texts! How can I be "dishonest" when the evidence that I have given in the OP, is very strong? You may not be aware of this, that Jerome's Latin Vulgate does not represent what he actually produced in the 4th century. There is a preface to the Epistles of John, where he says that unfaithful translators omitted the words in 1 John 5:7, referring to the Holy Trinity! Yet the Latin Vulgate that has come down to us, mainly does not have these words! As I have said, the conversation between Jesus and the woman, was not about who is the Saviour, but, Who is The Messiah!

Do you understand by not telling people most of the Old Lain omites the words you were not telling the truth? That was misleading of you. You told people on this board only that the Old Latin supported the reading. You did not tell people that it mostly goes against the reading.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Do you understand by not telling people most of the Old Lain omites the words you were not telling the truth? That was misleading of you. You told people on this board only that the Old Latin supported the reading. You did not tell people that it mostly goes against the reading.

So, I did not say in my OP, that the 2 oldest Greek papyri manuscripts omit the words, does this mean that I am misleading anyone? The whole purpose of the OP, is to show the textual SUPPORT FOT the words, “ὁ χριστός”!

It is YOU who says much on the evidence of the Diatessaron, which actually says NOTHING! As you cannot show ONE version of this work, where the words are omitted! I can say that you are being dishonerst!

 

[Conan]

The evidence of Tatian for the reading “ὁ χριστός”, is supported by the three main versions of his Diatessaron, as I have shown in the OP. There is nothing to suggest that this evidence is doubtful, and should be rejected. We are not concerned with the "theology" of Tatian, but his testimony to the reading “ὁ χριστός”, at this early time, in the Greek text. Can you show any version of the Diatessaron that omits the reading “ὁ χριστός?

Three main sources in English? Please give the sources the English authors used. They are all probably from one source. Please name their source? What editions did they use for this? Since you mentioned it. What was their source?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Three main sources in English? Please give the sources the English authors used. They are all probably from one source. Please name their source? What editions did they use for this? Since you mentioned it. What was their source?

the three works are mentioned in the OP quote, all trustworthy works. Problem is, will you accept this evidence, or continue to fight it?

You have thus far failed to show why John would be writing about Jesus as The Messiah, and then in verse 42, speak of the Saviour? Surely both The Saviour and The Messiah (Christ), is what the Holy Spirit told John to write, and for some unknown reason, who are attacking this?

 

[Conan]

the three works are mentioned in the OP quote, all trustworthy works. Problem is, will you accept this evidence, or continue to fight it?

You have thus far failed to show why John would be writing about Jesus as The Messiah, and then in verse 42, speak of the Saviour? Surely both The Saviour and The Messiah (Christ), is what the Holy Spirit told John to write, and for some unknown reason, who are attacking this?

I agree that the words "the Christ" are genuine. It is your citation of evidence i am trying to get you to be more honest about.

Speaking of which, what is the source of the Diatessaron your english authors are using? An Arabic edition? Yes removed many many centuries even a 1000 years removed from Tatians 2nd century Syraic edition? Wouldnt it be honest to admit that? How about Textual Criticism of Tatians Diatessaron?

 

[SavedByGrace]

I agree that the words "the Christ" are genuine. It is your citation of evidence i am trying to get you to be more honest about.

Speaking of which, what is the source of the Diatessaron your english authors are using? An Arabic edition? Yes removed many many centuries even a 1000 years removed from Tatians 2nd century Syraic edition? Wouldnt it be honest to admit that? How about Textual Criticism of Tatians Diatessaron?

so, all your hot air about NOTHING? Do you just like to argue for the sake of it?