John 3:13 do the words which is in heaven belong

John 3:13 do the words which is in heaven belong

In the KJV of John 3:13 we read the words “which is in heaven” at the end of the verse.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

However, many modern versions of the Bible do not include these words as part of the text. (I shall cite the NIV and ESV as examples)

John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. NIV 

John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. ESV

This certainly isn’t simply a KJV reading, there are also many modern versions that also read as the KJV does. I shall cite the ISV and ASV here.

John 3:13 “No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven. ISV

John 3:13 And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven.ASV

All major English translations that preceded the KJV include the words, including the Wycliffe Bible that was translated from the Vulgate not the Greek

John 3:13 And no man stieth in to heuene, but he that cam doun fro heuene, mannys sone that is in heuene. Wycliffe Bible

John 3:13 And no man ascendeth vp to heaven but he that came doune from heaven that is to saye the sonne of man which is in heaven.
Tyndale Bible

John 3:13 And no man ascendeth vp in to heauen, but he that is come downe from heaue, (namely) the sonne of man which is in heauen.
Coverdale Bible

John 3:13 And no man ascendeth vp to heauen, but he that came doune from heauen, that is to say, the sonne of man which is in heauen.
Matthews Bible

John 3:13 And no man ascendeth vp to heauen, but he that came doune from heauen, euen the sonne of man whych is in heauen:
Great Bible

John 3:13 For no man ascendeth vp to heauen, but he that hath descended from heauen, that Sonne of man which is in heauen.
Geneva Bible

John 3:13 And no man ascendeth vp to heauen, but he that came downe from heauen, euen the sonne of man which is in heauen.
Bishops Bible

It is also the reading of the Latin Vulgate

John 3:13 et nemo ascendit in caelum nisi qui descendit de caelo Filius hominis qui est in caelo
And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

So, like with many of the textual variants, this is not a KJV only argument.

The longer reading of this verse is found in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts including A (Alexandrinus) , E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi,

It is also found in Old Latin copies a, aur, b, c, f, ff2, j, l, q, r1

It is also the reading of the Syriac Peshitta and Harkelian

The Sinaitic Syriac (sy-s)  reads the “Son of man which is from heaven.”

While the words are not exactly the same, “from” instead of “in” This manuscript does have the longer form.

The Curetonian (sy-c) reads “was from heaven”, again while a slightly different reading still has a longer form.

It is likely that these different renderings are attempts at “fixing” a difficult reading. The removal of the words being the “easier” way of dealing with them.

So we see that the longer reading has a wide field of attestation.

For those that believe that we should automatically follow the oldest manuscripts, it must be pointed out there are many occasions when this is not done. James Snapp Jr makes note of some of the different readings in the surrounding context of this verse found in these older manuscripts that are not followed by modern versions

“(Those who would object, “But we should follow the oldest manuscripts” are advised to notice that Papyrus 75 reads πιστεύετε (not πιστεύσετε) at the end of 3:12, and in nearby 3:31, the scribe of papyrus 66 initially omitted the word ἐρχόμενος, and also in 3:31, the scribes of Papyrus 75 and Sinaiticus both did not include the final phrase ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν; the compilers of the UBS/NA texts obviously felt no obligation to follow the oldest manuscripts unthinkingly.  Nor should we.)”
The Text of the Gospels: John 3:13: The Son of Man Who is in Heaven

Bruce Metzger made a similar statement regarding the authority of the readings of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, especially when they disagree with the weight of evidence

As a rule of thumb, the beginner may ordinarily follow the Alexandrian
text except in the case of readings contrary to the criteria which are
responsible for its being given preference in general. Such a pocedure,
however, must not be allowed to degenerate into merely looking for the
reading which is supported by Band N (or even B alone, as Hort was
accused of doing); in every instance a full and careful evaluation is to
be made of all the variant readings in the light of both transcriptional
and intrinsic probabilities.
Bruce Metzger, Text of the New Testament, P218

It was the belief of Westcott and Hort that the text of these manuscripts, especially Vaticanus, was to be considered the superior text. This is just not the case.

As Dr Black pointed out in his article on the variant of John 3:13

All of this does not mean, of course, that the Alexandrian witnesses
have become less important in the actual practice of textual criticism.
It does mean, however that the readings of x and B: even when supported by early papyri cannot be accepted prima facie, for the Idea of
Hort’s “neutral text” is untenable and no longer should be accepted.
Critics of the text are thus in general agreement that, in the present
state of research, no single group of manuscripts can be given an
absolute preference.
THE TEXT OF JOHN 3:13 Dr DAVID ALAN BLACK

Dr Black also stated that the longer reading is more likely able to explain the other readings. The text being rejected for some reason.

The absence of the words in the Alexandrian witnesses would be due either to
accidental omission (though this is improbable) or to their rejection
because they were found objectionable for some reason. This is more
likely than Schnackenburg’s explanation that the longer reading is
attributable to the work of a glossator. Therefore, the longer reading
best accounts for the rise of the other readings

THE TEXT OF JOHN 3:13 Dr DAVID ALAN BLACK

A very important early witness to this reading can be found in the Diatessaron dating to the 2nd century.

“And no man hath ascended up into heaven, except him that descended from heaven, the Son of man, WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.”
Tatian Diatessaron

This reading precedes any manuscript evidence that we have avalable for this verse.

The fact that this is included in the Diatessaron and is not part of a non-Johannine source, such as one of the synoptic Gospels is vitally important, as it cannot be argued that the words have been included from one of these sources. The words are only found within the Johannine Gospel itself.

We also have early church father attestation to the longer reading of this verse, some of which are also early than any manuscript evidence that we have for this verse.
Hippolytus of Rome a late 2nd -early 3rd century writer quoted the words in a writing against  Noetus of Smyrna around the turn of the 3rd Century.

“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
Hippolytus Against Noetus

“Not any one hath ascended into heaven save He who came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.”
Novatian, Trinity 13 (3rd Century) 

“How, then, does the Lord say, If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before, and again, No man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven?”
Theodoret, Dialogue 3 (4th-5th Century) 

Chrysostom and Augustine also cite the longer reading.

“For He saith, No man hath ascended up to Heaven, but the Son of Man, which is in heaven.”
Chrysostom, Homily 27, 54

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven”
Augustine, Anti-Pelagian 1.59, 1.60

The Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament omits the longer reading, however, its apparatus gives its reader no knowledge of the early church father attestation to the longer reading. Either they are somehow ignorant of the evidence or have deliberately excluded it.
Eithetr way I would suggest that such a source should be aware and include all the evidence so readily available. 

Further attestation can be found in the Armenian, certain Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic and Bohairic versions. The longer reading was used and accepted as scripture by a wide and diverse range of the ancient Christian world from Rome to Syria, Greece and even Egypt. 

There are actually rather few Greek manuscripts that omit the words although most of these are the usual Egyptian (Alexandrian) line such as Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, P66 and P75. Of course, these manuscripts are given great weight by modern textual scholarship, especially when they are in agreement on a reading as they are in agreement with each other. What we can safely say, and this should not be understated,  is that the Greek witnesses of the shorter ending are all found within one text type. As we have seen though, with witnesses such as the important witness of Alexandrinus, not all manuscripts of this particular line have the shorter reading. So while all Greek witnesses to the shorter ending are Alexandrian text types, not all Alexandrian text type manuscripts support the shorter reading.

Some Coptic and Ethiopic versions also omit the words.

Bruce Metzger stated that the reading was a later interpolation, reflecting later Christological development.

“The majority of the Committee, impressed by the quality of the external attestation supporting the shorter reading, regarded the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ as an interpretive gloss, reflecting later Christological development.”
Bruce Metzger,Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,

Of course, this must mean later but not any later than the quotation by Hippolytus, so this can only mean “later” in a non original sense but clearly still a very early interpolation.

So we see that despite the few Egyptian manuscripts that do not contain the words, the longer reading is very well attested to in all other lines of transmission and in early church fathers who quote the longer reading.

The words “which in heaven” actually are the harder, more difficult reading.

Internally the longer reading is clearly the harder reading and there is no reason
why the words should have been added. Metzger says it could be an
“interpretative gloss, reflecting later Christological development”, but is this
probable? It seems more probable that scribes omitted the difficult words or
changed them as 0141, Sy-S and e, Sy-C did. The evk in 0141 et al. probably
comes from the previous evk in the verse.
WIELAND WILLKER

This then should be a reason that modern scholarship accepts the words rather than rejecting them, based on the modern textual criticism rule that the harder reading is usually the more likely.

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membershiphere