Subject: Re: John 1:3 Punctuation

From: DC PARKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:02:47 GMT

There is no punctuation in Alexandrinus before or after ho gegonen.  I 
have just checked the reduced collotype facsimile.
DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL [email-masked]

---

From: Alan Repurk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:30:07 -0800

> E-MAIL [email-masked]

Thanks, I checked that yesterday too. I have summarized the information
on the site, to make it easier for someone to help me with this
question. Please let me know if this issue is not one of interest
to the list. 

I guess my question now relates to how does one determine if a correction
made to a manuscript is to be prefered to the original and how much
weight is to be given to the fact that Anti-Nicene Fathers (on both sides of
the Christology issue) took 'hO GENOMEN' to be part of John 1:4 ?

  <http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/text_crit.html>
 
I summarize the 8 manuscripts that they compare.   The issue is
how to translate based upon if 'hO GENOMEN' is taken with John 1:3
or John 1:4.   

                          Punctation
Century     Codex         before          Two Witnesses ?
                          'hO GEGENON' ?  (changes made)
-------------------------------------------------------
200CE        P66               N           N
175-225CE    P75               Y           Y
350CE        Vaticanus         N           N
350CE        Sinaiticus        Y           Y
500CE        Bezae             Y           Y
400/600CE    Washintonesis     Y           Y
400CE        Alexandrinus      N           N
1100/1200    666               Y           Y

In none of these manuscripts, except for Codex 666 which is a miniscule
from the 12th or 13th century did the original punctuation support
the KVJ rendering (with 'hO GENONEN taken with John 1:3).  This was
corrected to put a stop before 'HO GENOMEN'.  If Bruce Metzger is
correct as to the ancient interpretation, this manuscript was clearly
written in disregard of older manuscripts and later corrected to
conform to the proper translation.  Interestingly, the corrector did not
bother to remove the 'offending' punctuationm, and as it stands this
manuscript cannot be translated in any meaningful way.

In the Washingtonesis the punctuation is clearly the original with
plenty of space around it (which shows it was originally placed),
although the portion of this manuscript for the book of John was
added in the seventh century and is later that the rest of the text.
This punctuation corresponds to the NRSV translation which takes
'hO GENOMEN with John 1:4.

As to the punctuation in the Bezae (corresponds to NRSV) it is not
certain if it was the original or whether it was corrected.  From the
GIF, by my eye, it looks like it matches the previous text quite well.

The P75 appears to have been corrected to correspond to the NRSV
rendering because there is not much space between the letters as
if it was inserted at a later date. ( It is concievable that it was
punctuated by the original scribe )

-lars