Jesus is a Liar in the OLD Bible - A Critical Study of a Textual Problem That Undermines Christian DoctrinE
Praise be to Allah, we praise Him, seek His aid and ask His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evils of our souls and the wickedness of our deeds. He whom Allah guides, none can misguide, and he whom He misguides, none can guide. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, alone, without partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. I bear witness that Jesus, son of Mary, is the servant and Messenger of Allah, and His Word which He bestowed upon Mary and a spirit from Him.
Now then;
“ O Allah, Lord of Gabriel, Michael, and Israfil, Creator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, You will judge between Your servants concerning that over which they used to differ . Guide me to the truth concerning that over which they used to differ, by Your permission. Indeed, You guide whom You will to a straight path.” (Sahih Muslim 1847)
What is the science of textual criticism?
It is the science known in English as (Textual Criticism) which aims to identify and delete errors from the text of copies of a literary work whose original has been lost, in an attempt to return it to the closest image to the original. Or in simpler words, it is the science concerned with studying copies of any written work, about whose original copies we know nothing, with the aim of identifying the original text written by the author. But what if the original itself that we are seeking is corrupt? What if we find, after examining and investigating all existing copies and through the texts found in all manuscripts, trying to extract the closest possible image to the lost original, that what we have reached in the end can never be acceptable? That is the disaster!
There is a need to apply textual criticism to the Bible [1] for two main reasons:
The first reason: the loss of all original copies.
The second reason: that all existing copies of the Bible differ from each other; Therefore, the critic must study these many different versions, in an attempt to reach what he thinks is the original text, or in other words, he tries to extract the truth from the pile of falsehood found in the manuscripts; to compare between the many differences; to choose from among them the closest to the truth. But sometimes what you think is the truth, is the greatest evidence of corruption and distortion!
The manuscripts of the Bible are many, and among them are many differences, some of which leave scholars in great confusion, and they cannot reach the truth they seek after applying the rules of textual criticism. Among these difficult problems is a very famous problem among Bible scholars found in the text of the Gospel of John 7:8 (I am not yet going up to this feast), as the word in red is disputed among the manuscripts of the Bible; is this word fixed and from the original book? Or is it a word added by some who tampered with the manuscripts of the Bible?
At first glance, the reader may think that this problem is trivial and unworthy of appreciation and attention, but when we read the context of the texts in which this text appears, we will fully realize the extent of the serious problem we are dealing with now!
When you read the seventh chapter, you will find that the time of the Feast of Tabernacles is approaching, and according to the Van Dyke translation circulated in Egypt, you will find that Jesus said to his brothers in verse eight: (I am not yet going up to this feast), meaning that he will not go to the feast at this particular time. Therefore, we are not surprised when we find that Jesus has already gone up to the feast in verse ten.
To better understand the importance of the word “ after ” in the context, we will shed some light on the words of the commentators, including the commentator Antonius Fikry [2] who explained the importance of the word “after”, saying: And Christ says to his brothers: You go up to celebrate the feast as you wish, I am not going up yet = meaning : I am not going up now with you, for he went up after them, but not to celebrate like them, or to show himself as they wanted, rather he went up in secret, for he is not showing off his strength, nor does he want to provoke the Jews, for the time of the cross has not yet come. And notice Christ’s precision, for he did not say : I will not go up, but rather I am not going up yet = meaning I will not go up now . Look at how he emphasized the word twice in one sentence, which indicates his great keenness to deny the accusation of lying about Jesus.
The importance of the word “yet” is not disputed by any Christian who wants to refute the accusation of lying against Jesus. Adam Clarke [3] mentioned in his commentary a response to one of the most famous attackers of Christianity, Porphyry [4] who quoted the text, but in another form without the word “yet”, and on this basis Jesus was actually accused of lying. Adam Clarke says: Porphyry accuses our blessed Lord of lying ; because he said here : I will not go up to this feast, but later he went up , and some commentators have made more than necessary noise, in order to correct what they saw as a contradiction . For me, the whole thing is simple and normal. Our Lord did not say, I will not go up to this feast only, but he said: I will not go up yet (ουπω) or: I will not go at the present time. The solution was simple for Adam Clarke! But what if Christ had actually said: (I “ will not ” go up to this feast)? He would have undoubtedly lied! So where is the truth? Did Jesus lie or not? What are the original words of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of John? This is the work of the textual critic.
A simple look at the different Arabic translations shows the clear difference;
[ Al-Fandyk ] You go up to this feast. I am not going up to this feast yet ; for my time has not yet come.
[ Simplified Arabic ] You go to the feast; I will not go to this feast now ; for my time has not yet come.
[ Holy Bible ] You go to the feast; I am not going up to this feast now ; for my time has not yet come.
[ Life Translation ] You go up to the feast; I will not go up to this feast now ; for my time has not yet come.
[ Jesuit Translation ] You go up to the feast; I am not going up to this feast ; for my time has not yet come.
[ Common Arabic ] You go up to the feast,For I do not go up to this feast , for my time has not yet come.
[ Paulian ] You go up to the feast; but I do not go up to this feast , for my time has not yet come. [ Good News ] You go up to the feast, for I do not go up to this feast , for my time has not yet come. There are four Arabic translations that make Jesus true, and an equal number of translations that make Jesus a liar. Where did this disagreement come from?! Which versions bear the truth? Is it the one that makes Jesus a liar? Or the one that saves him from the accusation of lying? In order to know the truth, we must examine the sources of the text from Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, and quotations from the fathers, in what critics call external evidence [5] . Then we begin to ask some questions such as; Which readings raised the copyist’s fears? Which readings are likely to be changed? With the application of some other rules in what textual critics call internal evidence [6] . The word “variant” in the terminology of textual criticism simply means “difference.” For example, when we extract the text of John 7:8 from the Sinaiticus Codex, we will read ( I do not go up to this feast ), but when we extract the text from the Vaticanus Codex, we will read ( I am not yet going up to this feast ). The difference between the Greek manuscripts is in two words: the first reading [7] : I am not going up to this feast; ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην The second reading [8] : I am not yet [9] going up tothis feast; So the textual critic must decide whether the original Gospel of John contained the word ( οὐκ – not) or the word ( οὔπω – not yet)? When the textual critic begins to study the external evidence for a textual problem like this, he identifies the readings he has, and in our case we have only two readings (οὐκ – not) and ( οὔπω – not yet) – then he places beside each reading the evidence that supports it, and this evidence is divided into three corners; the Greek manuscripts, the ancient translations, and the quotations of the fathers. In some critical Greek versions of the New Testament, there are estimates placed next to the reading to indicate the confidence of the committee in place [10].
The Greek version is that this reading is the original. These estimates are either A, B, C, or D, depending on the textual problem under investigation. These estimates in themselves demonstrate our inability to rely on textual criticism to reach the original text, and that despite all the efforts made by scholars and specialized committees responsible for issuing standard versions of the New Testament, there are still very critical readings, in which the critic cannot decide which reading is the original.
One of the most famous standard versions used around the world is the Greek New Testament, the fourth revised edition. In the introduction to the book [11] , the committee responsible for the version gives definitions for the four estimates, which are as follows:
{A} The committee is certain that the reading is original.
{B} The committee is almost certain that the reading is original.
{C} The committee had difficulty choosing which reading to put in the text of their version.
{D} The committee had great difficulty in reaching a decision.
If we want to look at the text of John 7:8 from the fourth revised Greek New Testament version [12], we will find it as follows (ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην). This means that the committee placed the reading ( οὐκ – no) that makes Jesus a liar in the text of their version. If we look at the bottom of the page in the margin, we will find a detailed explanation of the evidence for each reading. However, what is suspicious is that the committee placed an estimate of {C} for the reading ( οὐκ – no), meaning that the committee found it difficult to choose which reading to place in the text of their version, but in the end they arrived at the conclusion that ( οὐκ – no) is the original reading that John wrote it in his Gospel, making Jesus a liar.
At this point we must ask ourselves a question; why did the committee find it difficult to choose a reading? This question is very important, and will lead us to very dangerous concepts about the Bible and its manuscripts, and the answer to the question is that there is a severe conflict between internal evidence and external evidence about determining which readings are the original. Before studying the external evidence - that is, studying the manuscripts that contain the text - we must know that scholars have identified some manuscripts, and placed them under the name of “the best Greek witnesses”, meaning that they believed that these manuscripts contain the best Greek text, and the closest to the original and the best Greek witnesses for the Gospel of John are Papyrus 75 , Papyrus 66 , and the Vatican Codex , and the surprise is that these manuscripts that contain the best Greek text for the text of John 7: 8 are in favor of the reading ( οὔπω - not yet) that does not make Jesus a liar!
At this point, both Muslims and Christians may be amazed and ask themselves: Why is it so difficult to choose then? We say: The difficulty comes from two aspects:
First: There are many ancient manuscripts and translations in favor of the reading ( οὐκ – no) which makes Jesus a liar.
Second: There is unlimited support from internal evidence in favor of the reading ( οὐκ – no) which makes Jesus a liar! So what is the internal evidence?
Internal evidence – as we explained earlier – is the answer to some questions that make us reach an assessment of which readings are the original, such as: Which readings raised the scribe’s concerns? Which readings are likely to be changed? With the application of some other rules, such as: (The most difficult reading is preferred as original), and (The reading that explains the reason for the appearance of the rest of the readings is preferred as original). These questions and rules help us reach which readings were the original. Now to the practical application.
When evaluating the readings ( οὐκ – not) and ( οὔπω – not yet) in terms of internal evidence, we ask and say: Which readings raised the scribe’s concerns? Which readings are likely to be changed? Meaning: When the scribe read the Sinaiticus manuscript, for example, and found that it reads: (I am not going up to this feast) which makes Jesus a liar, would he accept this reading? Would he abandon it? Or will this reading provoke him, and he will try to defend Jesus and refute the accusation of lying about him? Of course, he will try to change it in order to exonerate Jesus and not distort his image, and this is what scholars said when studying the text from the perspective of internal evidence. Scholar Bruce Metzger [13], a member of the Fourth Edition Greek New Testament Codification Committee, said in his commentary on the text of John 7:8; The reading (after) was introduced at a very early time (supported by Papyrus 66 and 75) in order to alleviate the contradiction between verse 8 and verse 10. That is, the reason for the distortion is to remove the contradiction in Jesus’ sayings; Since he said in verse 8: (I am not going up to this feast), then in verse 10 we find that he has already ascended, so the word ( οὐκ – not) was changed to ( οὔπω – not yet) so that Jesus’ saying would become (I am not going up to this feast)! So then he would not be lying!!
The German scholar Wielend Felker [14] also said this in his textual comments on the Gospel of John: It is possible that the copyist changed ( οὐκ – not) to ( οὔπω – not yet) in order to remove the contradiction between verse 8 and verse 10.
With this we have learned the reason for the distortion, and it remains for us to present the commentary of the famous textual critic David Palmer [15] , who has his own English translation of the New Testament from the Greek with critical comments in the margin. He provided a rich commentary on the text; He has collected many of the critical opinions received on this problem, and has given the reading ( οὐκ – not) a grade of B, commenting: The current theory about the reading “I am not yet ascending” is that it was inserted early in the transmission of the text (P66, c. 200 AD), to mitigate the apparent contradiction between the eighth text and what Jesus actually did in the tenth text. We can understand that the copyist wanted to defend Jesus, to prevent him from appearing a liar. However, I say: If this was their goal, they failed to achieve it!
First: Because Jesus is still a deceiver; because he ascended not openly but secretly, as in v. 10Even without the word “ not yet , ” Jesus is still deceiving his brothers, and those in Jerusalem who want to kill him . It is morally permissible to lie to those who are trying to assassinate you.
Second, the presence of the word ( οὔπω – not yet) is not necessary for the third time in this context, for the purpose of defending Jesus from the charge of deception; since we see that Jesus said it twice in verses 6 and 8, and therefore did not deny outright that he would never go up to the feast. On the other hand, since the reading ( οὔπω – not yet) is found in the oldest manuscripts, including those currently thought to be the most reliable, and is found in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, we can understand why the UBS committee gives this reading only a C. As for me, I have not seen any convincing argument as to why the scribes who produced the manuscripts that do not contain the reading ( οὔπω – not yet) deleted it? It is much easier to explain why the scribe added the word ( οὔπω – not yet) than to explain why he deleted it !
I can only say: This comment is very wonderful, although I have some comments on it, but overall it is a frank and strong comment, which explains the problem of this text accurately.
Although David tries to show Jesus in a better light, his justifications do not concern us as much as his critical comments on the problem. The issue here with every textual critic is: the comparison between the best witnesses of the Gospel of John and the internal evidence. But why, in the end, does the critic prefer the internal evidence over the best Greek witnesses? The answer is simply in order to lift the charge of deliberate destruction from the manuscripts of the New Testament!
What is this dangerous talk? Yes, this is the truth. Every Christian critic believes that all the errors in the manuscripts and all the changes made in the copies of the book were with good intentions, that is, in order to correct what he thinks is wrong, and not for deliberate corruption.
But if we say: The reading ( οὔπω - not yet) found in the oldest manuscripts is the original, this means that some copyists deliberately replaced the word ( οὔπω - not yet) with ( οὐκ - not), and why this strange act?
The only answer, which every Christian critic rejects and cannot accept, is: The copyist wanted to corrupt the book and distort the image of Jesus with premeditation and deliberation! There is no other explanation, so you find the critic accepting the reading that makes Jesus a liar while he is humbled, and he is forced to say that the reading ( οὔπω – not yet) found in the oldest and best witnesses of the New Testament, is not the original reading, and that the reading ( οὐκ – not) found in the Sinaitic and Bezinian manuscripts and the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, and Slavonic translations and also found in the church’s reading books is the original reading!
Is the reading that makes Jesus a liar the original? Yes.. This is much easier than the critic saying: There are copyists who deliberately corrupted the manuscripts, and wanted, while in full control of their mental faculties, to distort the image of Jesus, and make him break one of the most important commandments, which is: Do not lie!
From this textual problem, we find that the textual critic chose to say in his own words: The oldest and best evidence of the New Testament was corrupted very early, and that unfortunately it does not contain the original reading. Not only that, but the overwhelming majority of the manuscripts of the New Testament contain corruption, and do not contain the true reading that makes Jesus a liar.
This is the problem that has baffled scholars, the problem that has made us certain that this book has nothing to do with the Lord of Lords, the problem that has exposed the oldest and best manuscripts of the New Testament, and rendered them all useless, the problem that has humbled the Christian textual critic, buried his nose in the sand, and forced him to say that Jesus is a liar in the original book!
(O People of the Scripture, why do you mix truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?) [Al Imran: 71]
Praise be to God, by whose grace good deeds are accomplished.
Finally, we ask you to pray for me and for Sheikh Arab, may God protect him.
A unique reading of the manuscripts of St. Catherine's Monastery
I knew for sure that these wonderful manuscripts would contain what we had not seen in the Greek manuscripts, and my intuition was correct and I found in them what amazed me, a reading of the text of John 7:8 that is not found in any manuscript at all! The Arab Christian has always had a special position in confronting biblical problems and this became clear to me when I saw the reading presented by this manuscript.
John 7:8 Go up you to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast , for my time is not yet full. The great textual critics have come to an agreed-upon understanding of the problem of John 7:8, which is that the original text read (ουκ αναβαινω – I do not ascend) and when the copyist found a contradiction with Jesus ascending to the feast in verse 10, the copyist changed (ουκ αναβαινω – I do not ascend) to (ουπω αναβαινω – I have not yet ascended) in order to remove the contradiction, but this did not happen in the St. Catherine’s Monastery manuscript of the four Gospels, so this wonderful manuscript provides us with a new solution, and here is the picture:
The manuscript reads: Go up to this feast, for my time has not yet come
. What is this! Where is Jesus saying (I am not yet going up to this feast)? Did he say ( I am not yet going up ) or ( I am not going up )?
They deleted the entire phrase?! They relieved their minds of the problem? What is this that we see in the manuscripts of the Holy Book?
I will not comment more on the picture, and I will leave the comment to you... Special thanks to Brother Abu Jassim
Yes, he lied according to the science of textual criticism
in response to the topic (Did Jesus lie to his disciples?) by Murad Salama.
Praise be to God, we praise Him, seek His help and ask His forgiveness, and we seek refuge in God Almighty from the evils of our souls and the badness of our deeds. He whom God guides, none can misguide, and he whom He misguides, none can guide. I bear witness that there is no god but God alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger, the chosen one among His creation and His intimate friend. He conveyed the message, fulfilled the trust, and advised the nation, so God removed the distress through him, erased the darkness, and strove in God’s cause as He should have until certainty came to him. I bear witness that Jesus, son of Mary, is the servant and Messenger of God, and His word which He bestowed on Mary and a spirit from Him.
Now then;
“ O Allah, Lord of Gabriel, Michael, and Israfil, Creator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, You will judge between Your servants concerning that over which they used to differ. Guide me to the truth concerning that over which they used to differ, by Your permission. Indeed, You guide whom You will to a straight path. ” (Sahih Muslim 1847)
The topic of colleague Murad Salama was directed to me by one of my Muslim friends - may Allah bless him - and I found it to be a short topic written in three pages, so I decided to respond to it for no reason other than to enrich the topic and discuss a thought that defends Christ - may the best prayers and peace be upon him - from what he thinks is an Islamic attack on him, but by Allah, who is the only god, the attack only came from the Christian book called the New Testament.
As soon as colleague Murad began to respond, he clarified the importance of the word (after) in the Arabic text, and this is what we explained in the original topic, and that without this word Jesus falls into the sin of lying, and thus the commentators gathered and we took Antonius Fikri as an example, and here is the text of Murad’s words:
Then Professor Murad says something very strange that has nothing to do with scientific research:
The New International Version
You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come.
Now we must realize something basic about the Bible versions:
First: There are Bible versions called traditional versions, meaning that they are based on the Greek received text, and the basis of this received text is the Greek text of Erasmus [1] which he published in 1516. This Greek version was the original of the King James Version (KJV), and also the famous Van Dyck version! Therefore, we find a great similarity between the two translations, and some may think that the Van Dyck translation is an Arabic translation of the King James Version, but this is not true.
Second: There are other Bible versions called critical versions, meaning that they are based on a critical Greek text, meaning after applying textual criticism to the Bible manuscripts, and these versions differ greatly from the traditional versions, and among these critical versions is the (RSV) version, which Professor Murad and his group do not recognize! Also among these critical versions is the joint Arabic translation, which is written in its introduction that it was prepared by a committee composed of biblical scholars and theologians belonging to various Christian churches, including Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical! This wonderful translation is based - as is also written in the introduction - on Nestle-Aland Critical Version No. 26 (NA26) and Edition No. 3 published by the Bible Societies (GNT3rdEd). For your information, this version also makes Jesus a liar, as we explained in the original topic!
Now that we know the different versions of the Bible, we clearly see that Professor Murad tends towards the unscientific received text and does not recognize the critical versions that are based on the science of textual criticism in determining the original reading! The beautiful thing about the topic is that Professor Murad says in his place that he will teach Arab critics how to raise the doubt and claims that the problem lies in the translations only! God is our helper.
Now we will present the critical Greek versions that make Jesus a liar and then the English translations:
Nestle- Aland
26th /27th edition τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται. Tischendorf 8th Ed. ὑμεῖς ἀνάβητε εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν· ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται. Greek New Testament 4th RevisedEdition ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται. Samuel Tregelles Greek New Testament ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται.
26th /27th edition τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται. Tischendorf 8th Ed. ὑμεῖς ἀνάβητε εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν· ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται. Greek New Testament 4th RevisedEdition ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται. Samuel Tregelles Greek New Testament ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται.
This is a picture of the Greek-Arabic New Testament between the lines, which bears the Nestle-Aland Greek text, version 27, and in the margin we find the joint Arabic translation. We find that Jesus is a liar in both versions!
Now we present to you some other versions that Professor Murad will not recognize either:
American Standard Version
Go ye up unto the feast: I go not up unto this feast; Because my time is not yet fulfilled.
The English Darby Bible
Ye, go ye up to this feast. I go not up to this feast, for *my* time is not yet fulfilled.
The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
Go you up to this festival day, but I go not up to this festival day: because my time is not accomplished.
ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”
The New American Standard Bible
“Go up to the feast yourselves; “I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.”
The NET Bible, Version 1.0
You go up to the feast yourselves. I am not going up to this feast because my time has not yet fully arrived.
New Jerusalem Bible
Go up to the festival yourselves: I am not going to this festival, because for me the time is not ripe yet.'
New Living Translation, second edition
You go on. I'm not going to this festival, because my time has not come yet.”
New Revised Standard Version Bible
Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”
Revised Standard Version of the Bible
Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”
Go ye up unto the feast: I go not up unto this feast; Because my time is not yet fulfilled.
The English Darby Bible
Ye, go ye up to this feast. I go not up to this feast, for *my* time is not yet fulfilled.
The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
Go you up to this festival day, but I go not up to this festival day: because my time is not accomplished.
ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”
The New American Standard Bible
“Go up to the feast yourselves; “I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.”
The NET Bible, Version 1.0
You go up to the feast yourselves. I am not going up to this feast because my time has not yet fully arrived.
New Jerusalem Bible
Go up to the festival yourselves: I am not going to this festival, because for me the time is not ripe yet.'
New Living Translation, second edition
You go on. I'm not going to this festival, because my time has not come yet.”
New Revised Standard Version Bible
Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”
Revised Standard Version of the Bible
Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”
Now we come to the creativity and genius in the scientific presentation that I have never seen before!
Professor Murad displayed the manuscripts that contain the reading (not yet oupw) and said with utmost simplicity:
Masha Allah, Tabarak Allah, you have identified the original reading with such ease?! Does merely presenting the manuscripts that attest to a certain reading prove that it is the original without another reading? Frankly, this is a scientific method that Professor Murad has uniquely adopted, and God knows that I do not like to make the subject personal, but he is the one who said that he will teach Arab critics how to raise doubts in those who are ignorant of the methodologies of textual criticism in determining the original reading!
First: We have presented the opinions of the great scholars and critics on this issue and we learned that they have favored the reading that makes Jesus a liar, so Professor Murad must respond to all of these scholars first, but how can he respond when he is the one who does not acknowledge a problem when he is faced with it and the issue is over!
Second: Let us present the manuscripts that make Jesus a liar and see whether they are manuscripts that have value and weight or not?
א Codex Sinaiticus 4th century Alexandrian text
D Codex Pisa 5th century Western text
1071 12th century Byzantine text
1241 12th century Byzantine text
l 672 ecclesiastical readings 9th century Byzantine text
l 673 ecclesiastical readings 12th century Byzantine text
l 813 ecclesiastical readings 11th century Byzantine text
l 950 ecclesiastical readings 12th century Byzantine text
l 1223 ecclesiastical readings 13th century Byzantine text
it a Old Latin 4th century Western text
it aur Old Latin 7th century Western text
it b Old Latin 5th century Western text
it c Old Latin 12th century Western text
it d Old Latin 5th century Western text
it e Old Latin 5th century Western text
it ff_2 Old Latin 5th century Western text
Vg Latin Vulgate 5th century Western text
syr c Syriac Catharic 3rd century
syr s Syriac Sinaitic 4th century
cop bo Coptic Bohairic 4th century Alexandrian text
Arm Armenian translation 5th century Caesarean text
Eth Ethiopian translation 6th century
Geo Georgian translation 5th century Caesarean text
Slav Slavonic translation 9th century
Diatessaron Tatian 2nd century
So, we find that we have a fair amount of manuscripts that start from the 2nd century AD until the 13th century! And these manuscripts are from all Greek texts (Alexandrian - Byzantine - Caesarean - Western), meaning that there is a beautiful geographical distribution of the reading that makes Jesus a liar around the world! We know very well that the best Greek manuscripts do not make Jesus a liar, but the question that has puzzled all textual critics is: How do we explain the presence of the reading (not ouk) in all these manuscripts? There is no explanation! I am completely ready to accept that the reading (not yet oupw) is the original, but the Christian must admit that the New Testament manuscripts have been corrupted and distorted intentionally in order to show Jesus in the worst possible light. Will the Christian accept that?!
So the suspicion - according to Professor Murad - is based on solid iron ground. In fact, scholars have admitted that Jesus lied, as we mentioned in the original topic. Not only that, but the accusation that Jesus lied has been around since the fourth century AD! Where the heretic Porphyry accused Jesus of lying when he read this text about Jesus! This accusation is conveyed to us by the great interpreter Adam Clarke when he wrote his commentary on the text in question:
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
I go not up yet unto this feast – Porphyry accuses our blessed Lord of falsehood , because he said here, I will not go to this feast, and yet afterwards he went.
We have not brought anything new, but the suspicion has existed since ancient times. Now we present the opinions of contemporary critical interpretations about this problem:
A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. John
If we read οὐκ, His words would seem to convey to His hearers that He was not going up at all to this particular feast; and in that case He changed his plans afterwards.
Translation: If we read (no ouk). His words sound to the listener as if Jesus is saying that he will never go up to this feast, in which case he later changed his words.
The College Press NIV commentary (Jn 7:8)
I am not yet going to this Feast… has a textual note in the NIV. It is probable that the original text read “I am not going to the feast” (cf. NRSV). “Not yet” seems to have been added by a later copyist to avoid the apparent contradiction of having Jesus make this statement in verse 8 and then proceed to go to the feast in verse 10.
Translation: I am not yet going up to this feast… There is a critical note in the NIV. It is likely that the original reading of this text is “I am not yet going up to this feast.” “Not yet” seems to have been added by scribes to avoid the apparent contradiction when Jesus says this in verse 8 and then actually goes up to the feast in verse 10.
John. Life application Bible commentary
7:8 “I am not yet going up to this feast.” NIV This reading is from the earliest manuscripts; however, other manuscripts read, “I am not going to this festival” (nrsv). Despite the early testimony for the inclusion of the word yet, most scholars consider the inclusion to be an addition made by scribes trying to clear the text of any contradiction (ie, Jesus says he will not go to the feast, but then he goes—7:10). If the shorter wording “I am not going to this festival” is original, it very likely means: “I am not going up to the feast until the Father tells me to do so.”
Translation: 7:8 (I am not yet going up to this feast), this reading is found in the oldest manuscripts but there are other manuscripts that read (I am not going up to this feast) Despite the testimony of the oldest manuscripts that carry the reading (not yet), most scholars say that the word was added by scribes trying to remove any contradiction in the text (Jesus said that he would not go up but he did go up). If the shorter reading is the original (I am not going up to this feast), it could mean (I am not going up to this feast until the Father gives me permission).
Of course, this is a desperate attempt to extract Jesus from the lie, to explain what God authorized.
The New American Commentary
Although a majority of the ancient manuscripts read “I am not yet going” (houpō; cf. NIV) at 7:8, the omission of the “yet” from major manuscripts (such as Sinaiticus and Bezae) strongly suggests that the word was added by a scribe who was trying to protect Jesus' integrity, since Jesus did in fact later go to Jerusalem (cf. 7:10).
Translation: Although there are many ancient manuscripts that read (I am not yet ascending) in Numbers 7:8, the word (not yet) is not found in important manuscripts (such as Sinaiticus and Bezaeum), which strongly suggests that the word was added by scribes who tried to protect the integrity of Jesus. Since Jesus did indeed ascend to Jerusalem later.
Thus we see how strong the problem is, and how interpreters struggle to explain this contradiction. We say very simply, if there was no problem, we would not have found readings in the manuscripts. The difference in the manuscripts is evidence of the problem, otherwise no scribe would have thought of changing the text. We ask God Almighty to guide our Christian friends to the Book that falsehood cannot approach from before it or behind it, a revelation from the Wise, Praiseworthy.
And our final supplication is that all praise is due to God, Lord of the Worlds .
[1] The Text of the New Testament Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
Fourth Edition by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman – Preface to the First Edition P.XV
[2] Commentary of Antonius Fikry – Church of the Virgin Mary in Fagala
Gospel of John (Chapter 7) Verses (8-10) – p. 191 http://www.arabchurch.com/commentari...ntonios/John/7
[3] The Adam Clarke Commentary – New Testament – John Chapter 7
Verse 8. I go not up yet unto this feast http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/vi...oh&chapter=007
[4] History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. AD 100-325 – by Schaff, Philip
Porphyry and Hierocle http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.vvviii.html
[5] Hearing The New Testament , Strategies for Interpretation http://books.google.com.eg/books?id=hyagcHhk9C0C
Textual Criticism of the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman – External Evidence P.131
[6] Ibid. Internal Evidence P.135
[7] Nestle-Aland 26th/27th Edition Greek New Testament
[8] Greek New Testament (Majority Text) of the Greek Orthodox Church
[9] The New Testament Greek-Arabic Between the Lines – Paul El-Feghali – p. 471
A Greek-Arabic Dictionary of New Testament Words and Early Christian Writings – Monks of the Monastery of Anba Macarius – p. 98
[10] The Committee of The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition – Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger
[11] The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition P.3* – The Textual Apparatus – The Evaluation of Evidence for the Text
[12] The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition P.342 – John 7:8
[13] A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition by Bruce M. Metzger – John 7:8 – P.185
[14] A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 4 John by Wieland Willker – TVU 97
[15] A new translation from the Greek by David Robert Palmer
Alternating verse by verse with the ancient Greek text – John 7:8
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment