John 1:3

John 1:3 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]303-304
Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο· καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.

MSS: ℓ339, ℓ859, ℓ1763, ℓ1771?

John 1:3 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q80f1rc1
Παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδ<ε>εν˙ ὁ γεγονεν·

John 1:3 [Codex Alexandrinus (A02) (5th century)]42rc2
Παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρεις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν

John 1:3 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]1349c3
Παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν

John 1:3 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C04) (5th century)]125
… δε εν· ο γεγονεν

John 1:3 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]104v
Παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου· εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν

John 1:3 [Codex Washingtonianus (W032) (5th century)]113
Παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν· ο γεγονεν

John 1:3 [Minuscule 503 (Add MS 19389) (13th century)]1r
πάντα δί αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο· Ṡ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, ὃ γέγονεν·

Critical Apparatus :

(1) χωρις : א, B, D, W, 503, ℓ339, ℓ859, ℓ1763
(2) χωρεις : A

 

MSS: ℓ1 (…τοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν)

Early Church Fathers

 

 

A Textual Commentary On John 1:3

(a) In very ancient MSS. there is no division of words whatever, no accents, no breathing, no iota postscribed (as subscribed it belongs to more recent time), no interpunction, as regular or systematic. The continuous writing led to errors of interpretation ; for some read words wrongly by so dividing the letters as to give them another meaning ; and some read words in a former sentence which others took as commencing that which succeeded. There are, however, very early some traces of interpunction, a dot makes its ap pearance between two words, and it is evident that the copyist was accustomed to divide the sentence at such a place. When such a mark is common to several ancient MSS., we shall rarely find that it is not both in accordance with the sense of the passage, and also upheld by some of the ancient versions. An instance of this variation of interpunction is found in John i. 3, 4. ; where the habitual division in the earliest times was such as to separate between οὐδὲ ἕν and the following clause ὃ γέγονεν. However opposed this is to the modern mode of treating the passage, its prevalence prior to the Macedonian controversy cannot be doubted. The notion of Macedonius and his followers was that the Holy Ghost is included in the expression πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, as though the third person of the Trinity had been a creature, and made διὰ Christ. To limit the πάντα and οὐδὲ ἕν, ὃ γέγονεν was taken from the following sentence in order to exclude the Macedonian interpretation. (there was no dishonesty strictly speaking in this procedure, for many MSS. had no marks of distinction, and it cannot be shown that such divisions were regarded as authoritative. The writer has elsewhere remarked pretty fully on the evidence which bears on the interpretation of this passage. See “An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament,” by S. P. Tregclles, LL.D., pp. 213, 214. (Horne & Tregelles, An Introduction to the Critical Study & Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 4, pp. 25-26)

 

 

This entry was posted in 04. Κατὰ Ἰωάννην. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.