There are over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the NT. Most of the time, the manuscripts are identical except for spelling variations. However, occasionally there are passages where different manuscripts have variants–different readings of the same text.
John 6:47 is one such text.
There are two variants of John 6:47:
- He who believes in Me has everlasting life.
- He who believes has everlasting life.
(There is a third reading, “He who believes in God,” but it is found in a Syriac translation, not in a Greek manuscript, so it is not a viable option.) Do you see a significant difference between those two texts? Which one do you think would clearly teach assurance and be appropriate for sound evangelism?
The question is: Did some scribes add the words in Me, or did some scribes omit the words in Me?
There are hundreds of manuscripts from what is known as the Byzantine text type that agree that in Me (eis eme) was in the original manuscript in John 6:47. This is called the undivided majority text.
Eight manuscripts omit in Me (p66, Aleph, B, L, T, W, Theta, and 892).
Several hundred manuscripts include in Me. Eight omit the words. Which do you think is more likely the original?
What about the context of John 6:47? Does inclusion or omission of in Me better fit the context?
The context strongly favors inclusion. Throughout John’s Gospel, the Lord Jesus called for faith in Himself. This is true in the sixth chapter as well. On three other occasions in John 6, the Lord Jesus spoke of believing in Him:
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent” (John 6:29).
And Jesus said to them, “…he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35).
…everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life…” (John 6:40).
Nowhere in John’s Gospel did the Lord say, “He who believes has everlasting life.” Nor did any of the NT writers ever write that.
You might think the evidence is overwhelming that in Me is what John wrote in what we call John 6:47.
However, leading NT scholars strongly disagree. In his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, Bruce M. Metzger rates the omission of in Him as an A reading. Concerning that type of reading he writes, “The letter {A} signifies that the text is certain, while {B} indicates it is almost certain. The letter {C}, however, indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text” (p. 14).
Metzger and his committee of NT scholars are certain that the Lord Jesus said, “He who believes has everlasting life.”
Metzger does not discuss manuscript evidence. Instead, he writes this explanation of why he thinks the text certainly did not have the words in Me:
The addition of eis eme as the object of the verb believe was both natural and inevitable; the surprising thing is that relatively many copyists [eight!] resisted the temptation. If the words had been present in the original text, no good reason can be suggested to account for their omission… (p. 183).
One of the canons of textual criticism is that the harder reading is preferred over the easier reading. I disagree with that. However, here is what Metzger seems to be saying in light of that canon: It is so obvious that the words in Me fit the immediate and broader context of John’s Gospel that these words must not be original.
Does that sound odd to you? It does to me.
Shouldn’t the reading that best fits the context be the original reading, especially if it is the one that has overwhelming support from the vast majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts?
Metzger thinks that “no good reason can be suggested to account for their omission.” Really?
Actually, a number of good reasons have been suggested.
A scribe might have been tired or distracted and might have left out those two words by mistake. Once he omitted them, later scribes would continue the omission since they were copying a flawed copy.
It is also possible that a scribe intentionally left those two words out for some reason. Bednar suggests, “In this verse [John 6:47], eternal life is associated only with the person of Jesus Christ, providing no avenue to associate salvation with the Gnostic notion of release of hidden knowledge & the inner divine self, so this verse would be a likely target of Gnostic meddlers” (see here). That a latter scribe might intentionally remove in Me for his own theological reasons is certainly possible, especially with the Alexandrian scribes.
The Gospel of John is clear. A generic faith in God will not result in anyone’s being born again. Faith in God the Father or in God the Holy Spirit is not saving. Only faith in the Lord Jesus Christ results in the believer’s instantly having everlasting life that can never be lost.
The bullseye in evangelism is beautifully stated in John 6:47. Let’s not leave out a crucial aspect of the saving message. We must believe in the Lord Jesus in order to have everlasting life.
Keep grace in focus.
