John 10:7
JOHN 10:7 h` qu,ra The reading o` poimh,n (î75 copsa, ach, mf) is an early alleviation of the text, introduced by copyists who found the expression “the door of the sheep” too difficult.... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 10:7 h` qu,ra The reading o` poimh,n (î75 copsa, ach, mf) is an early alleviation of the text, introduced by copyists who found the expression “the door of the sheep” too difficult.... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 10:8 h=lqon @pro. evmou/# {C} It is difficult to decide whether copyists added pro. evmou/, before or after h=lqon, in order to make more sense from a highly compressed statement, or whether they omitted the words in order to lessen the possibility of taking the passage as a blanket condemnati... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 10:11 ti,qhsin {B} Instead of the expression “to lay down one’s life,” which is characteristically Johannine ( John 10:15, John 10:17; John 13:37, John 13:38; John 15:13; 1 John 3:16 _bis_),... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 10:15 ti,qhmi {B} See the comment on ver. 11.... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 10:16 genh,sontai {C} Although both readings are well attested, the Committee judged that the plural genh,sontai has slightly stronger support (î45 ac B D L W X Q Y ¦1 33 565 _al_) than the singular genh,setai (î66 a* A K D P ¦13 28 700 _al_). Furthermore, the singular number appears to be a... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 10:18 ai;rei {B} Although the aorist h=ren (“No one _has taken_ [my life] from me”) has early and good support (î45 a* B), and although it may seem to be preferred as the more difficult reading, a majority of the Committee judged that its external attestation was too limited in extent, repres... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 10:19 pa,lin {B} Although the external evidence for (î66 A D D Q Y _al_) and against (î75 a B L W _al_) the presence of ou=n in the text is rather evenly balanced, the Committee considered it more likely that the word would have been added than omitted in transcription.... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 10:22 to,te {B} Of the four variant readings, de. to,te (1321 copsamss, bo, ach2) can be dismissed as a conflation, and the absence of any particle (¦1 565 1010 1344 ita, b syrs geo1 _al_) is due either to an accident in transmission or to deliberate omission at the beginning of a lection. Bot... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 10:26 evmw/n {B} The two readings, which are almost equally well attested, can be evaluated in different ways. On the one hand, a minority of the Committee explained the absence of the clause kaqw.j ei=pon u`mi/n to be me result of deliberate deletion by copyists who could find in the previou... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 10:29 o] de,dwke,n moi pa,ntwn mei/zo,n evstin {D} In sorting out this nest of variant readings that present all possible combinations of the masculine or neuter relative pronoun and the masculine or neuter comparative adjective, only those readings need be seriously considered which involve t... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 10:38 kai. ginw,skhte {B} Copyists seem to have regarded the reading kai. ginw,skhte, which has early and diversified support (î45, 66, 75 B L (W X ginw,skete) Q ¦1 33 565 _al_), to be pleonastic after gnw/te, and therefore either replaced the verb with pisteu,shte (as in (a pisteu,hte) A K D... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 10:39 evzh,toun @ou=n# {C} The absence of ou=n, a favorite connective in the Fourth Gospel, may be accounted for through haplography (evzh,toun), but its replacement with de, or kai, in other witnesses was deemed by the Committee as sufficient reason to enclose the word within square brackets... [ Continue Reading ]