Question about textual difference

Yes, the NA/UBS omit both phrases.

Because the primary manuscripts NA/UBS is based on omits the phrase. Aleph, B, D, L, W, Xi, family 13, 33, 579, and 892 (correctors hand), omit the phrase.

A, Delta, Theta, Psi, 010,2 0233, family 1, 28, 157, 180, 205, 565, 597, 892 (corrector), 1006, 1010, 1071, 1241, 1243, 1292, 1342, 1424, 1505, and all the Byzantine manuscripts of Luke (including the great Byzantine Uncials E, F, G, and H), contain the reading. And, of course, the OT from with it is quoted contains the reading.

As to Romans 8, the phrase is missing from the original reading of Aleph but it is present in a correctors hand, B, C (in the hand of the second corrector, the original being damaged and illegible), D (original, but corrected), F and G but both of them leave space to contain the phrase, 6, 424 (correctors hand), 1506, 1739, and 1881.

The reading is present in A, D (first correctors hand), Phi, 81, 256, 263, 365 (with a variant), 1319, 1573, 1852, 2127, in the second correctors hand of Aleph, D, 33 (but it is poorly preserved and the reading is not certain), 104, 424 (before correction), 436 with a variant, 459, 1175, 1241, 1912, 1962, 2200, 2464, and all the Byzantine manuscripts including the ancient Byzantine Uncials K, L, and P.

If you would like my opinion on the reliability of the readings I will gladly give it and the reasons for that opinion.

 

Well, at least somebody is!

I believe both the phrases are canonical and belong in our English Bibles.

I have several reasons for believing so.

1. Number. The majority reading will most likely be the correct reading and both phrases are in the majority of manuscripts.

2. Age. A & D are both 5th century and they contain the phrases, and John Chrysostom cited the passage in his writings in the 4th century.

3. Acceptance, or historicity. The churches all down through the ages of church history have accepted the phrases as part of the canon as evidenced by the writings of the church fathers which include, in addition to Chrysostom cited above, Victorinus (Rome), Jerome, Pelagius, Speculum, Cyril.

4. Geography. The churches in the region the book of Romans was addressed to accept the reading as canon.

5. Agreement. The variety of witnesses concur with the readings. There are almost as many Alexandrian witnesses that include the phrases as there are that omit them.

6. Credibility. The witnesses to the readings are more credible than the witnesses that omit the readings.

7. Context and other internal considerations. And this is an overwhelming testimony to the inclusion of both phrases.

The Luke phrase, which is a quote from the OT, includes the phrase simply because it is in the OT canon and has never been contested as being part of the OT canon.

The Romans phrase is in keeping with the context. In Romans chapter 7 Paul is lamenting his inability to live his life as he knows the Lord would like him too. He says that which I would, I do not, and that which I would not, that I do. Then he really beats himself up for not living the Spirit filled life by saying "Woe unto me! Who will deliver me from this body of death." He was saved but powerless, joyless, and useless (in his own estimation) to the Lord. Paul is engaging is self-condemnation for not being able to do as he knows he should.

Chapter 8 answers his question! "There is therefore now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit."

The solution to Paul's problem of self-condemnation is 2 fold. Be in Christ and walk in the leading of the Spirit. In chapter 7 he only had it half right, he was in Christ. But in chapter 8 he got it all right, he was in Christ and he was walking after the Spirit.

The evidence is, in my opinion, overwhelming, but, just look down to verse 4 where Paul repeats the formula for successful Christian living, "So that the righteous demand of the law (which he was not able to do in chapter 7) might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (he now, through the power of the Holy Spirit, is able to do)."

 

1 John 5:7-8.

This is one of the really tough verses to deal with. As you know, if you read the other thread in which I posted my personal guidelines for doing (lower) textual criticism, I have some things I look at to help me understand why a reading is present or absent in the published texts.

1. The first thing I look at is the number of witnesses. It is clear, at first glance that the comma is only represented by about 10 witnesses, the oldest of which, 221, is a 10th century mss with the comma included in the margin as a variant reading. 2318 can be disregarded as it dates to the 18th century. 61 (16th century) and 629 (a diglot containing both Greek and Latin versions and usually dated to the 14th or 15th century) contain most of the comma but omit part of it. That leaves us with 88, which only contains the comma as a marginal variant, 429, which does the same thing, and 636 which also contains the comma as a marginal variant. 918 contains the reading in the text but with minor variants. The reading is contained the some lectionaries as published in Apostoliki Diakonia, and is in the Clementine Vulgate. The comma is also contained in the Arminian version as quoted by one of the Patristics. It is also found in the Latin lectionary q and is quoted by Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, Priscillian and other Patristics. That is not a lot of manuscript evidence, even bearing in mind that copies of 1 John older than the 12th century are some of the rarest mss of any book. So, on "Number" the jury is still out and will probably come in as a hung jury.

2. Age. The most ancient cites date to the 4th century but none are older than that. Still no verdict.

3. Historicity. Also mixed. No compelling evidence.

4. Geography. Both the majority of the Byzantine mss and the majority of the Alexandrian mss omit the verse. No compelling evidence.

5. Agreement. Mixed. The Greek Patristics omit it and the Latin Patristics include it.

6. Credibility. Again, mixed.

7. Grammar, syntax, and immediate context. This is where the most compelling evidence in support of the comma is found. There are three nouns in the Greek which are all neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). But, they are followed by a masculine participle. Verse 6 has the same participle, but it is neuter, which, in the context of verse 6 is correct Greek grammar. But, to have a masculine participle in verse 8 and three neuter nouns is an error in Greek grammar. However, if you include the two masculine nouns from the comma, "Father" and "Son," followed by the neuter noun "Spirit" the participle rightly follows the masculine gender of the two controlling nouns and is masculine. And this is not a new argument being used as far back as the 4th century AD. In my opinion, the first 6 guidelines present mixed evidence, but the 7th is the clincher. Either the comma belongs or God made a grammatical error when He inspired 1 John.

(And I know that John seems to have deliberately violated this rule of Greek grammar in John 16:13-14 but that is, in my opinion, not a violation but John is referring back to verse 7 and using "'o paraklhtos" in verse 7 as the antecedent, not "pneuma" of verse 13. This is a classic example of the principle of "the remoter antecedent" at work in Greek grammar. Such is not the case in the comma for no such remoter antecedent exists.)

 

Because, with just a couple minor exceptions, the oldest Greek manuscripts all date to the 4th century. And even then those exceptions don't contain 1st John. P9 (3rd century) only contains parts of 1 John 4. The epistles of John are the least represented in the oldest manuscripts.

 

Because it is true?

 

Excellent question. There are several theories why, if the comma is, in fact, canonical, how it could have dropped out of virtually all of the manuscripts. We know two things for sure. The first is that old copies of the epistle of 1 John are among the rarest of all NT manuscripts, and, second, there are a few manuscripts which contain the comma. These would be 61 (Montfortianus; 16th century); 629 (14th or 15th century); 918 (16th century); 2318 (18th century). There are others which contain the coma as a variant and would include 88 (12th century); 221 (10th century); 429 (16th century); 636 (15th century).

So, there is so little manuscript evidence one way or the other in manuscripts from the 4th century, let's look at some possible causes of this corruption (if, indeed, it is a corruption).

There are 6 causes recognized by textual critics that can introduce an accidental corruption into the text.

1. Haplography - the accidental omission of a letter.

2. Dittography - the accidental repetition of a letter.

3. Metathesis - the reversal of two letters.

4. Homeoteleuton - the omission of words as a result of the script losing his place in the exemplar.

5. Kakiagraphy - misspelled words.

6. Itacisms - mistakes due to the similarity in sounds of Greek vowels and diphthongs.

If those 6 causes of copyist corruption number 4 seems to be the most likely candidate.

As the scribe copied the Greek text, "oti treiv eisin oi marturountev en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi marturountev en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin" he would read and write the first phrase "oti treiv eisin oi marturountev" then he would look back to his exemplar for the next phrase, but would look to the second "marturountev" instead of the first one and copy "to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin" leaving out "en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi." Granted this theory also necessitates his leaving out "en th gh" but those variants are found in some Greek manuscripts so the original copyist probably included them and a later copyist, seeing they made no sense, and believing them to be the result of a copyist error, left them out and thus even the minor variant disappeared from the subsequent manuscripts. It must be remembered that among Greek manuscripts which omit the comma, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10th century and later so "it is only contained in late manuscripts" can be countered with "it is only absent from mostly late manuscripts too."

But, if we look at the most ancient translations we see four Old Latin manuscripts which contain the comma, four Syriac editions, as well as Slavic and Armenian manuscripts and at least eight Church Fathers (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258) which cite the comma. Not to mention thousands of Vulgate manuscripts. We must ask ourselves the question, if so many early witnesses attest to the comma, where did those early witnesses get that reading? The early vernaculars were translated from the earliest Greek manuscripts (some saying as early as 150 AD) and it is those early vernaculars which attest to the inclusion of the canon.

The evidence is not conclusive in either case, but there is one other thing to consider, does the inclusion of the comma introduce an error of doctrine into the biblical text? No, for the Triunity of the Godhead is well attested to in many other passages, so, as the evidence is mixed I would include it on the basis of the ancient versional witnesses and because including it does not introduce a doctrinal error but does correct a grammatical error in the text.