Distortion of the text of John 13:3 and the phrase (the Son of Man who is in heaven). An example of the difficulty of restoring the lost original text.

 A series of textual problems in the New Testament:

distortion of the text of John 13:3 and the phrase (the Son of Man who is in heaven).

⚜* This textual problem is an example of the difficulty of restoring the original text of the New Testament. Perhaps we have ever seen a Christian say (even if there are some non-original paragraphs in the Bible, today, thanks to textual criticism, we have become able to identify the original texts from the fake ones and have the ability to restore the original text). Perhaps we have ever seen or heard someone claim this, and therefore this textual problem under investigation is considered one of the most eloquent examples of the invalidity of this claim and its demolition for the following reasons:
🔸️1- The critical versions themselves disagreed with each other in deciding which of the two readings is correct. We find the versions of Kenstell-Aland, UBS, Westcott, and Hort agreed to delete this addition, while we find other versions that added it, such as the version of Samuel Triggles and Tischendorf, for example.
🔸️2- The existence of a difference between the critical versions = there is great difficulty in deciding which of the two readings is correct, and then the scholars themselves become divided and disagree with each other.
🔸️3 - Even if we assume for the sake of argument and concede and consider that what they have reached is the original and correct text, the existence of other scholars who have weight and influence in this field reject such results and disagree with them is in itself eloquent evidence of the impossibility of reaching and restoring the original text. In today's example, we will find that the scholar Kvilind Felker erred in the decision of Nestle-Aland's version and considered their choice incorrect.
If this is the case of the great scholars of textual criticism and its masters from the most prominent people in charge of the most famous critical versions, then what about you, you simple Christian with little knowledge?!

✅Summary:____
When you hear a Christian say the sentence (We can / We were able to reach the original text - We have become able to determine the correct reading from the fake) ..... Let your responses to him include what I mentioned previously in addition to your use of the textual problem that I will present in this research as a model and a living example of the error of this claim and its refutation 👌


👌 Let us begin the research and presentation of this textual problem (distortion):____

🔴 First 👈 The Arabic versions: _

💧* A / The Van Dyke version: (Traditional text)
And no one has ascended to heaven except He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man 👈 who is in heaven. 👉(John 3:13)


💧B/ The Arabic versions that were based on a critical text (a text based on manuscripts and edited and prepared by leading specialized scholars).

* The common Arabic version:
No one has ascended to heaven except the Son of Man who descended from heaven.

* The Jesuit (Catholic) version:
No one has ascended to heaven except He who descended from heaven, that is, the Son of Man.

* The simplified Arabic version:
No one has ascended to heaven except He who descended from heaven, that is, the Son of Man.


🔴 Second 👈 English versions: _
💧A/ * KJV: (King James Version = Traditional Received Text = Van Dyke Text)
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man 👉which is in heaven

*CEB:_
No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Human One.


💧B/ The English versions that were based on a critical text (a text based on manuscripts and edited and prepared by leading specialized scholars) are divided over the number.
* ASV:_
And no one has ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, 👉who is in heaven

. * ESV:_
No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

*NET Bible:_
No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.

* LEB:_
And no one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.

* NRSV:_
No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.


🔴 Thirdly 👈 Greek versions:_
💧a/ Copying the received text Textus receptus (Traditional Text - Erasmus Text - Vandyke Text - King James):

καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν ὐρανὸν ὁ ὤν
Note: The word after the sign means the phrase (who is in heaven) .


💧B/ Critical text's (copies based on the science of textual criticism and the study of manuscripts, which were supervised by senior specialized scholars): ⚜

#Note - The text ends after the reference and the phrase Son of Man, and there is no addition (who is in heaven)
* UBS version, 5: (does not contain the addition) From
the

numismatic apparatus of the UBS version,5 we read:
ἀνθρώπου 𝔓νθρώπου 𝔓66, 75 א BLTWsupp 083 086 33 1010 1241 copsa, bopt, ach2, fay geo2 Diatessaron Origen lat 2/4 Eusebius Adamantius Gregory-Nazianzus Apollinaris Gregory-Nyssa Didymus Epiphanius3/4 Cyril14/16 (Cyril1/16 θεοῦ) Theodoret1/4; Jerome1/3.

The text ends with the phrase “the Son of Man” and there is no phrase “who is in heaven”, as it is not contained in Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, the Sinaiticus, the Vatican, the Coptic Upper Egyptian, the Diatessaron, nor in the quotations of the Fathers, such as the quotations of Origen in Latin, Eusebius, Adamantinus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius, Cyril, and Jerome. * Nestlé Aland version 28: ( does



not contain the addendum)
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς,👉 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου

* Westcott_Hort version:(does not contain the addition)

και ουδεις 👉ο υιος του ανθρωπου


* Michael Holmes' version:(does not contain the addition)
John 3:13 (SBLGNT): Yes μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. * Tschendorf 's
version: (contains the addition)
οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ
* Samuel Triggles version: (contains the addition).
ὐδεὶς καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.




* The text is transcribed from the Sinaiticus manuscript (the oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament) and does not contain the addition

και ουδειϲ αναβεβηκε ειϲ τον ουρανον.



🔴 Fourth 👈 Textual comments on this issue by leading textual criticism scholars: __ ♦️ The legend of textual criticism Bruce Metzger and his book atextual guide to the

Greek new testament commenting on the text of John 13:3 and the decision of the UBS version 5 He says:

“The words (which is in heaven) at the end of the verse are most likely an interpretative commentary by the copyist reflecting a later Christological development. On the other hand, the longer reading may be original because the shorter reading is almost completely supported by the Egyptian evidence. The variation in The readings may mean that the scribes found the expression (the Son of Man who is in heaven) difficult and therefore

The words ὁ ὥν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (who is in heaven) at the end of the verse are most likely an interpretative comment by a copyist . reflecting later Christological development. On the other hand, the longer reading may be original since the shorter reading is supported almost entirely by Egyptian witnesses. And the diversity of readings may imply that copyists found the expression ὁ υἱός τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ difficult and changed it either by omitting the participial clause, or by changing it so as to avoid suggesting that the Son of Man was at that moment in heaven.

_________


♦️
COMMENTARY on THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN by, EZRA P. GOULD, Professor of the New Testament Literature and Language, Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Philadelphia T&T CLARK
Commenting on the text of John 13:3:_


{The Son of Man The text ends there in both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, Regis, Moralt, Washington, but also the phrase who is in heaven is added in both the Alexandrian, Petropolitanus, Chendorff, Delta
Theta, and some Syriac manuscripts (but not the Diatessaron).
If this phrase were It is part of the original text

, so it is not easy to find a justification for deleting it. So אBLTW 33, but the clause ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is added by ANΓΔΘ, with the Lat. and some Syr. vss. (not Diatessaron). If the clause were part of the original text, it is not easy to account for its omission.



__________


♦️ The famous scholar Daniel Wallace's comment in his marginal notes to his Net Bible on the textual problem of John 13:3:
A New Approach to Translation, Thoroughly Documented,With 60,932 Notes,By The Translators and Editors:_



{The witnesses normally considered the best, along with several others, lack the phrase in its entirety 𝔓66, 75 א BLT Ws 083 086 33 1241 pc co).
The reading “who is in heaven” thus seems to be too hard. All things considered, as intriguing as the longer reading is, it seems almost surely to have been a marginal gloss added inadvertently to the text in

the
process of transmission.}


____

♦️ Commentary by the scholar Philip Comfort on the textual problem of John 13:3 in his book
New TESTAMENT T€XT AND TRANSLATION COMMENTARY , PHILIP W. COMFORT: _


{It is difficult to determine whether the phrase (the one in heaven) was original and written by John or was added by later copyists. The shorter reading (Westcott and Hort, Nestle and Ubis) _ i.e. the deletion reading _ has excellent early witnesses _ from papyri, Alexandrian manuscripts with capital letters, the Diatessaron, and the Coptic versions, and was also known to many church fathers such as Origen, Didymus, and Jerome, while the longer reading appears in some late Greek manuscripts and was also known to many early church fathers (Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius, Hezekiah, Hilary, Lucifer It is difficult to determine if the words ( ὁ ὥν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) ("the one being in heaven") were originally written by John or were added later by scribes.

The shorter reading (WH NU) has excellent and early support—from the papyri, the early Alexandrian uncials, the Diatessaron, and Coptic versions. The shorter reading was also known to many church fathers, such as Origen, Didymus, and Jerome. The longer reading appears in some later Greek manuscripts, was known to many early church fathers (Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius, Hesychius, Hilary, Lucifer, Jerome, Augustine), and was translated in some early versions (primarily Old Latin and Syriac). From a documentary perspective, the shorter reading is more trustworthy.


__________

♦️ I will conclude with the German giant Willind Felker and his commentary on the textual problem of John 13:3 and the decision of the Nestle-Aland version
, A Textual Commentary ,on the Greek Gospels ,Vol. 4, John, BY WIELAND WILLKER: _

After he addressed the problem and discussed it through internal and external evidence, he put his evaluation of it and of Nestle Aland’s decision, where he said that based on his evaluation of the internal evidence, Nestle Aland’s decision regarding deleting the phrase (who is in heaven) is considered a wrong or inconclusive decision, and regarding his evaluation of the external evidence based on the weight of the manuscript evidence, the decision is also inconclusive.


Rating: 1? or - (NA probably wrong or indecisive)
External Rating: - (indecisive)
(after weighing the witnesses)

End
#####
Attached to the research is a picture of the text from the Sinaiticus manuscript .