Changes

|39

|39

|<span id="7:39"></span>(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

|<span id="7:39"></span>(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

|He was talking here about the Spirit, which those who believe in Him would receive. At this time the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

|(He was talking here about the Spirit, which those who believe in Him would receive. At this time the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.)

|P66, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus, as well as most of the Byzantine family all say "Holy Spirit" in the second clause. P75, Sinaiticus, and some of the Byzantine family do not have "Holy" in the second clause. Oddly enough, a later corrector of P66 scratched "holy" out, which is very unusual for a corrector (most corrections added words to the text). That means the evidence for and against inclusion is mixed at best. Since many early manuscripts did include it, and the context is CLEARLY about the Holy Spirit, there is no reason not to err on the side of clarity and include the word "holy" in the text.

|This verse is in parentheses because its authenticity is doubtful. Its grammar is complete, and its style is that of an editor's comment rather than being original to John.  It also omits the key word "given", and modern translations simply fill in that gap despite its omission.

<br>P66, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus, as well as most of the Byzantine family all say "Holy Spirit" in the second clause. P75, Sinaiticus, and some of the Byzantine family do not have "Holy" in the second clause. Oddly enough, a later corrector of P66 scratched "holy" out, which is very unusual for a corrector (most corrections added words to the text). That means the evidence for and against inclusion is mixed at best. Since many early manuscripts did include it, and the context is CLEARLY about the Holy Spirit, there is no reason not to err on the side of clarity and include the word "holy" in the text.

|-

|-

|40

|40