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: B, E, G, K, L, M, X (f3rc1), Y, Ψ, Ω, 503, 2359 (f3v), 2761 (f1r), 2867 (f2rc1), 2963, ℓ2, ℓ5, ℓ17, ℓ339, ℓ640, ℓ859, ℓ865, ℓ866, ℓ868, ℓ869, ℓ888, ℓ1086, ℓ1763, ℓ1771?

ουδε εν· ο γεγονεν.

G, C (..δεεν· ο γεγονεν), K, M, 2761, 2867, 2963 (f114r), ℓ17, ℓ181

ουδε εν ο γεγονεν. εν αυτω


ουδε εν ο γεγονεν εν αυτω.


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 Boreelianus (F09) (9th century)]179rc2
…οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.

* lacunae from Jn 1:1

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, E, G, K, L, M, W, X, Y, Ψ, Ω, 1, 503, 1582, 2359, 2761, 2867, 2963, ℓ2, ℓ5, ℓ17, ℓ339, ℓ640, ℓ859, ℓ865, ℓ866, ℓ868, ℓ869, ℓ888, ℓ1086, ℓ1763
(2) χωρεις : A
(3) χορις : ℓ181, ℓ867,

(4) ουδε εν : א, A, B, D, E, F, G, K, L, M, W, X, Y, Ψ, Ω, 503, 1582c, 2359, 2761, 2867, 2963, ℓ2, ℓ5, ℓ17, ℓ181, ℓ339, ℓ640, ℓ859, ℓ867, ℓ865, ℓ866, ℓ868, ℓ869, ℓ888, ℓ1086, ℓ1763
(5) ουδεν : 1, 1582*,




(i) ℓ1 (…τοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν)



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 appearance 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)

(b) PUNCTUATION is a subject on which, generally speaking, editors have thought themselves at liberty to act according to their own discretion : because there is no proof that the stops were any part of the original documents, and thus their introduction has been regarded as simply marking the sense affixed by the copyist (or by those whose exposition he followed) to the sacred Text. But although it is fully owned that authoritative punctuation does not exist, yet there are, in many of the ancient MSS., marks of distinction, which serve as pauses ; and where there is any uniformity in their collocation, a supposed necessity should be very great which leads to a departure from them. To this may be added  that, at times, early writers distinctly show how they connected words, and where they introduced pauses ; and this, in such a case, may be called authority, as far as it goes. Pauses are indicated in some MSS. by a simple dot* between two words, accompanied at times by a small blank space : and, after stichometry was introduced, the division of the lines, with or without a dot, served the same purpose. It will generally be found that these ancient pauses answer to some of our stops, because language is more frequently definite than the contrary ; and though it sometimes happens that sense may be made of a passage with variety of interpunction, yet such a case is the exception : it commonly holds good, that he who understands the subject will be able to supply the pauses, even when no stops are marked : ** and so the sense of most Greek writers enables an intelligent editor to introduce the modern notation of stops as we use them.
The great aim in the interpunction of the New Testament, ought to be so to place the pauses as not to hinder the sense from being apprehended. Where an editor must determine how he will connect words, he has to examine the scope of the passage, and to avoid, on the one hand, adhering to a traditional division unless it is supported by both sense and grammar, and on the other he should not reject an ancient interpunction, when it can be proved to be such, provided it involves no impropriety ; even though it may differ from what has been usual ever since the sacred text was printed.
Thus, in John i. 3, 4, the habitual ancient division is presented thus : — πάντα δι ‘ αυτού εγένετο, και χωρίς αυτού εγένετο ουδε έν. “Ο γέγονεν εν αυτώ ζωή ήν, και η ζωή ήν το φως των ἀνθρώπων. “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made. That which was in him was life, and the life was the light of men.” The modern practice has been to disjoin ὃ γέγονεν from the latter sentence, and to connect it with the former, and this our English version follows. But the other connection is that of Irenæus, Clem. Alex., Theophilus, Ptolemy, Heracleon, and Theodotus, in the second century ; Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian, and Origen, in the third ; and subse quently Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius, Athanasius, Marcellus, Eunomius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hilary, Ambrose, both Gregories, both Cyrils, Augustine, and other Latin writers. This is sufficient proof that this mode of dividing the sentence was To this the best ancient MSS. (which have any interpunction) adhere, as A C D L (B has not any distinction in the whole passage), and also more recent copies, such as 1, 33. And although versions are on such points liable to change in course of transcription, this mode of distinction is found in some which we still possess in ancient MSS., such as the Old Latin, excellent MSS. of the Vulgate and the Curetonian Syriac, and also the Thebaic. To depart, therefore, from this ancient and widely diffused mode of dividing this sentence, must be regarded as the innovation, and adhering to it (in spite of modern editions), must not be so deemed.*

* Farther than this we cannot go in our definitions ; an endeavour has been made to distinguish between the powers of such a dot, according to its place in the middle, the top, or the bottom of a line, as indicating a greater or less pause. This theory, however, is untenable ; and all that can be said is, that a dot indicates some pause, so that the words included between such dots were meant to be taken together in reading, whether much disjoined from the rest of the sentence or not. Stichometrical writing was intended for the same purpose, -namely, to aid the reader, who might often have found difficulty in reading aloud the Greek as written without even word-divisions : hence the orixou were in part dependent on the reader’s breath, and in a long sentence they would indicate often much smaller pauses than in a short one. The divisions into στίχοι very often answer to the place of a dot in previous use.

(S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 212-214)


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

Comments are closed.