JOHN 5:1. e`orth, {A} Strong external evidence favors the anarthrous e`orth, (î66, 75 A B D Q ¦13 28 syrc, p); likewise, the natural tendency of scribes would have been to identify an otherwise indeterminate feast by inserting h` (with a reference probably to Passover), a tendency that accounts al... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 5:2 Bhqzaqa, {C} Of the several variant readings, Bhqsai?da, has strong attestation but is suspect as an assimilation to the town of Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee, mentioned in John 1:44. Bhqesda,, though widely supported, is also suspect as a scribal alteration originally introduced because... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 5:3 xhrw/n {A} Because the man whom Jesus heals appears to have been a paralytic (a word that occurs nowhere in John), after xhrw/n the Western text (D ita, b, d, j, l, r1 geo2) inserts paralutikw/n, which, however, was not taken up in any known later text. A variety of witnesses add, perhaps... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 5:4 _omit verse_ {A} Ver. John 5:4 is a gloss, whose secondary character is clear from (1) its absence from the earliest and best witnesses (î66, 75 a B C* D Wsupp 33 itd, l, q the true text of the Latin Vulgate syrc copsa, bomss, ach2 geo Nonnus), (2) the presence of asterisks or obeli to mar... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 5:17 de. @VIhsou/j# {C} It is difficult to decide whether VIhsou/j was added by scribes in order to provide a subject for avpekri,nato, or whether the absence of the name from î75 a B W _al_ is an Alexandrian deletion prompted by stylistic considerations. As a compromise a majority of the Com... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 5:32 oi=da {A} The Western reading oi;date (a* D ù547 ita, d, e, q syrc arm geo) reflects the desire of copyists to heighten the argument by forcing the Jews to admit that they know the evidence of Jesus’ marturi,a to be true (the textual alteration, however, is contradicted by the implication... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 5:36 mei,zw Instead of mei,zw (accusative case), read by the majority of witnesses (a H K L S U V G D Q P and most minuscules; D reads the alternative accusative form mei,zona), the variant reading mei,zwn (properly the nominative case) is found in î66 A B E G M N W L Y ¦13 33 397 472 579 713... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 5:44 qeou/ {B} Although early and important witnesses (î66, 75 B W _al_) omit qeou/, it seems to be required in the context. The absence of the word can be accounted for through transcriptional oversight; the letters ;=u= (the customary contraction for qeou/) were accidentally omitted from to... [ Continue Reading ]