Again, I'm not entirely sure why this is an argument against the use of Sinaiticus in and of itself - feel free to enlighten me further.
As we already discussed, the book was found in the garbage.
I don't buy that the monks were too stupid to know what they had.
I suspect they knew what it was and treated it as such.
Let's put the full passage up, so we can better deal with the issue you raise
In the above passage, I have underlined every instance where belief (or the accompanying metaphor, eating of bread) is brought up. It is quite clear in context that belief is in the context of belief in Christ, and it states in multiple other places explicitly aside from v.47 that belief in Jesus singularly is required for eternal life. Putting aside whether the earliest manuscripts are right or the majority text is right for the time being, it is clear that it doesn't change the thrust of the text, and it only matters if you use v47 as a proof text in complete isolation from the rest of John.
In other words, it seems to me that the objection posed by KJV-onlyists at this point only stems from poor exegesis and a proof text based approach to Scripture that is actually only quite recent, and hasn't existed for most of the time of the existence of the Church (or ISrael for that matter). It's worth remembering, of course, that the original texts did not include verse numbers or chapter breaks, and for the most part don't even have punctuation! The text just runs together. So the texts were intended to be read in full, not verse by verse. In short, we rely too much on individual verses to prove things, and don't read the Bible as it was meant to be read, in large chunks.
In any case, I think there's a perfectly logical explanation for the discrepancy between the critical and majority texts. The words "on me", as per the earliest texts that we have (which realistically are the best physical proofs we have as to the original text), were probably inserted at a later date to clarify and harmonise the text. Some scribe who thought he could do a better job with Scripture, perhaps. But the reality is that the words don't really change the doctrine of the passage at all. Take them out or leave them in - John 6 is clear that belief in Jesus is required for eternal life.
The inverse, that the words were taken out, makes much less sense for precisely the same reasons. To take out "on me" at that point, and leave the clear christological nature of belief everywhere else in John 6, would not erode the doctrine. If someone were trying to corrupt the text, you would expect a much larger amount of redaction in chapter 6 then there actually is. Hence why it makes more sense that the added words were added in to clarify, rather than taken out to corrupt. While I'm happy to say that there's no theological problem with the addition of the words, it seems safe to say that they were not a part of what John originally note, which I'm sure we can agree is what's important in the biblical text.
Thanks for that thoughtful and laborious response.
You eviscerated my position pretty well.
Nothing more I can say concerning that.
A few posts after yours, I think HomewardBound clubs me over the head with John 3:16?
I didn't read through it thoroughly yet because he reminded me of another important difference
in the KJV and almost all other versions, and I wanted to address it now while I was thinking of it.
KJV
For God so loved the world, that he gave his
only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
NKJV
For God so loved the world that He gave His
only begotten Son,
that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
NASB
For God so loved the world, that He gave His
only begotten Son,
that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
RSV
For God so loved the world that he gave his
only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
NIV
For God so loved the world that he gave his
one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
You seem partial to the NASV, which lines up with the KJV here,
but do you have a problem with, for instance, the NIV's "one and only son".
Doesn't that create several contradictions in Scripture, e.g. Gen. 6:4,
not to mention seemingly excluding the rest of mankind from being God's children?
Seems like no small issue to me.[/QUOTE]
