by Yuri Kuchinsky

(as posted to various discussion groups in January 2004)
 
 

Greetings, all,

This is a most peculiar case. If we follow the traditional KJV, based on Byzantine Greek text, this passage presents no interpretative problems whatsoever.

But if we examine the modern translations, such as the RSV, NRSV, NASB (the Gideons Bible), ASV, and ESV, it looks like they all make Jesus... speak a lie! Indeed, all these versions have Jesus saying he was not going up to the feast of Tabernacles, and then he does go up to  the feast, in any case.

So here's how this passage goes according to our mainstream Revised Standard Version, for example. This is what Jesus says to his brothers, who were preparing to go to Jerusalem,

(John 7:8 RSV) Go to the feast yourselves; I am NOT GOING up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."
(9) So saying, he remained in Galilee.
(10) But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.

On the other hand, the traditional text has the following in verse 8,

"I am NOT YET going up to this feast"

Well, looking at our oldest Greek manuscripts, the basic fact is that they are badly divided here. Some of them, just like the Byzantine family, use the word OUPW (not yet) in this passage, while plenty of others use the negative OUK (not).

So here's how the textual evidence is spread in this case.

http://bible.ovc.edu/tc/lay09jhn.htm

John 7:8:

TEXT: "I am not [OUK] going up to this feast"
EVIDENCE: S D K Pi 1241 most lat vg syr(c,s)
most cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIVn NEB TEV
RANK: C

NOTES: "I am not yet [OUPW] going up to this feast"
EVIDENCE: p66 p75 B L T W X Delta Theta
Psi 0180 f1 f13 28 700 892 1010 Byz Lect two
lat syr(p,h,pal) one cop(north) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASVn
NIV NEBn TEVn

So, as can be seen above, it looks like the divisions go all across our major text types. Both the Alexandrian and the "Western" witnesses are split; as a result the decision of the UBS Editorial Committee is ranked as "C" in this case. This means that, quoting from the Introduction to the UBS edition, "there is considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading". In other words, in making this decision, the scholars were not really so sure about this case, and admitted it... (This Editorial Committee is an elite group of textual critics who actually determine how the standard gospel text should read in Greek.)

And yet, the rank-and-file Christians who are studying their Bibles would not really know about such technicalities. They just read the main text of John, as printed in their Gideons Bible, and see that Jesus deceived his relatives.

This passage has of course created quite an industry of interpretation over the centuries, and especially since the publication of these "modern" translations, that revised the traditional reading. And, needless to say, the atheist critics of Christianity were not slow to note this revised text, and to use it to their own advantage. Here, for example, is a passage from one such critic, Douglas E. Krueger (WHAT IS ATHEISM? A SHORT INTRODUCTION, Prometheus Books, 1998), who wishes to stress that "the bible contains contradictory ethical views" throughout its pages, since it portrays Jesus as a liar.

[quote]

What Is Atheism Review
     http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/krueger_atheism.htm

     "Having been invited to go to the Feast of
     the Tabernacles in Jerusalem, he [Jesus] told his
     followers, 'You go up to this feast. I am
     not going up to this feast, for my time has
     not yet fully come' (John 7:8 [NKJ]). But
     after his followers left Jesus went up to
     the feast 'not openly, but as it were, in
     secret' (John 7:10). This caused people
     there to complain about Jesus and say that
     he 'deceives the people' (John 7:12),
     which, according to the bible, was true."

[unquote]

And then, Krueger continues with a summary of mainstream text critical arguments in support of the "revised" reading, although he obviously doesn't quite understand the textual situation for this passage, and what the early manuscripts really say here (I underlined the problematic parts below)... It looks like our modern Textual Wizards got him all confused! Oh, well...

[quote]

     "Note that some versions of the bible insert
     the word 'yet' between 'not' and 'going' in
     John 7:8 to suggest that Jesus was
     actually saying that he was 'not yet going'
     to the feast, with the possibility that he
     would go later. The word 'yet' was added
     by a copyist _sometime long after the
     writing of John_ to try to make it seem that
     Jesus was not lying. The word is _missing
     from early manuscripts of the book_, so
     scholars know that it does not belong
     there. Some of the more scholarly
     versions of the bible will concede this in a
     footnote. Clearly, Jesus was not always
     honest."

[unquote]

There's no evidence, of course, that the word 'yet' was added by a copyist "sometime long after the writing of John". And this word is certainly _not_ "missing from early manuscripts of the book", as we shall soon see in more detail.

In actual fact, many of the manuscripts that the mainstream scholars see as the earliest -- both the Alexandrian and the Western -- do contain the "not yet" reading. Only the Byzantine text -- which is the text of the overwhelming majority of our old Greek MSS -- is fully consistent for this passage.
 

THE SPLIT IN THE ALEXANDRIAN FAMILY

Among the Alexandrian witnesses, even the Vaticanus MS (abbreviated as "B"), which was a great favourite of Westcott & Hort -- these two Fathers of modern New Testament -- has OUPW here, and thus agrees with Byzantine text.

But especially to be noted is the witness of our oldest Egyptian Papyri of John -- p66 (ca. 200 CE), and p75 (early 3rd century) -- because they also support the Byzantine text in this passage! And yet, according to our modern-day textual wizards, all that is for nothing... (They even somehow managed to confuse Mr. Krueger, who was under the impression that this reading is not found in the earliest MSS!)

So here's a great illustration of how our modern textual critics really treat those oldest Papyri -- what value they are really given in deciding upon the "correct reading" for any given passage... One would have thought that their testimony should be considered as decisive in a case like this, when all the other prised textual witnesses are divided. But no, in actual fact... their testimony is duly noted, and then discarded!

The opinion of the Editorial Committee was still against the Byzantine text, even when it's supported by the oldest Papyri! So it sure seems like the Papyri are only given the lip service when they might appear useful for proving the "originality" of Alexandrian text but, when push _really_ comes to shove, their actual contribution is summarily dismissed without further notice...
 

THE SPLIT IN "WESTERN" FAMILY

As to the "Western" witnesses in this case, we can see above that two of our Old Latin MSS (namely "f" and "q") also support Byzantine text in this passage. And there are also some other "Western" witnesses that happen to go with the Byzantine text here, although most of them are listed as supporting the "modern" translations.

But do they really? Well, the actual situation within the "Western" family is a lot more complicated than that, as I've found out on a closer investigation, and we shall return to this later, in the parts of this article that follow.

What we will see there is that the overwhelming majority of "Western" textual witnesses actually do not seem to be portraying Jesus as a liar! So a good case can be made that the Editorial Committee has actually misrepresented the evidence of numerous "Western" witnesses in this case, at least to some extent...

But, for now, let us proceed on the basis of what the UBS editions of the NT gave us so far. And so, on this basis, it sure looks like the external attestation in this case is hopelessly divided, or, because of the Papyri, may even be seen as supporting the Byzantine reading.

So then why did the Editorial Committee go for the opposite reading -- albeit with considerable reservations -- and thus portrayed Jesus as untruthful? It seems like, in order to do this, they had to resort to the internal evidence -- which, in itself, should already raise the red flag for anyone who is familiar with textual criticism... Because, normally, textual critics see the weight of the external attestation as far superior to any argument that might come from internal evidence. Here's the Fourth Rule of TC, coming straight from Drs. Kurt and Barbara Aland themselves,

"4. Internal criteria (the context of the passage, its style and vocabulary, the theological environment of the author, etc.) can never be the sole basis for a critical decision, especially when they stand in opposition to the external evidence." Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, pp. 275-276.

It sure may seem like the guiding Hortian philosophy is to dismiss the value of Byzantine text a priori. "We will support any reading as long as it's non-Byzantine!" So, given that assumption, who cares about such trifles as the standard rules of textual criticism?
 

A COP OUT BY UBS EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

Unfortunately, we know nothing of the internal deliberations of UBS Editorial Committee in this case. The place where one would normally look for them would be in the following volume,

Bruce M. Metzger, A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT: A COMPANION VOLUME TO THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES' GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, Biblica Druck GmbH: Stuttgart, 1975-2001.

But this is the only thing that we find here on our subject, which basically amounts to nothing,

"The reading OUPW was introduced at an early date (it is attested by p66, p75) in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10." (p. 216)

Sure seems like a bit of a cop-out. Is this all they were going to say about an important passage such as this? They accuse Jesus of lying, and offer no explanation at all for such a strange decision on their part. No evidence of any sort is cited; no rational argument presented.

So let us look again at the above website of Dr. Bruce Terry, the biblical scholar who authored the "Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants", where we'll find at least some arguments in defence of the "modern improved" text,

http://bible.ovc.edu/tc/lay09jhn.htm

[quote]

COMMENTS: Looking past verse 9 ("he
remained in Galilee") to verse 10 ("he also went
up"), several copyists apparently changed "not"
to "not yet" to remove what they thought would
have been a lie told by Jesus. If "not yet" was
original, there would have been no reason for it
to have been changed to "not" in so many
manuscripts.

[unquote]

So this is it! According to Dr. Terry, "several copyists apparently changed "not" to "not yet". But why could they not do it the other way around, and change "not yet" to "not"? According to him, "there would have been no reason" for this... Hmm, but, Why not?

Surely they could have had a reason -- and I will suggest a few below... But, first, let us try to go step by step, and spell out all the unstated assumptions behind what Dr. Terry says.

1. It is clear that he considers the OUK reading as the more difficult one, compared to the OUPW reading, as found in the Byzantine/Majority manuscripts.

2. Clearly, his reasoning is that the more "difficult reading" must have the first claim to originality.

3. He in effect challenges the opponents of the "modern version" to produce the reasons why the more "difficult reading" -- from his perspective -- could have replaced an "easier reading", as found in the Byzantine/Majority text.

Well, actually, it seems to me like the first two of these points are very doubtful.

1. Is the OUK reading really the more "difficult" one in this case? It would depend on your theological perspective, one would think, and we'll return to this below.

2. Should the more "difficult" reading _always_ have the first claim to originality, really? I don't think so, and in fact... hardly anyone else thinks so!
 

LECTIO DIFFICILIOR?

So it may seem like the decision of the Committee in this case has been predetermined in advance by one of the prominent rules of modern Textual Criticism, "lectio difficilior lectio potior" (the more difficult reading is the more probable reading).

Well, there are two big questions that will need to be considered in this connection.

-- How valid is this rule, in general? Can it really be used to provide us with any secure answers in the area of biblical history?

-- Can this "lectio difficilior" rule be applied legitimately to this particular case of John 7:8?

So let's begin with the first question. What is this "lectio difficilior" rule all about, really, and how secure is it? This is how it's usually stated,

"All things being equal, the most difficult reading has the greatest claim to authenticity, since it can be demonstrated that scribes tended to smooth out perceived rough spots, not invent difficulties."

All right, in so far as these things go, such a rule _may_ have some validity in a few isolated cases. But it can certainly never be used mechanically to all cases where there's some perceived difficulty with the text... Otherwise, our reconstructed "eclectic" text will have... nothing but nonsense readings!

Imagine that... So we go around and collect all difficult and nonsensical readings among _all_ the thousands of NT manuscripts that we have. So we collect them all together, because they are the "difficult readings", et voila! We have reconstructed our "new modern" copy of the NT that consists of nothing but gibberish!

Is this really the goal of modern Textual Criticism? Of course not. So, it's clear that this "lectio difficilior" rule can never be applied to each and every problematic reading without some very careful consideration. And, in fact, it can be applied legitimately only to _a very few_ "difficult" readings, perhaps to 1 in 10, and even less!

But don't just take my word for it; here's Dr. Vaganay, one of the great authorities in Textual Criticism, sounding his word of caution,

"But the more difficult reading is not always the more probably authentic. The rule does not apply, for instance, in the case of some accidental errors . . . . But, what is worse, we sometimes find difficult or intricate readings that are the outcome of intentional corrections. A copyist, through misunderstanding some passage, or through not taking the context into account, may in all sincerity make something obscure that he means to make plain." (as cited in Colwell, "The Origin of the Text-types," p. 137)

And we must be _especially_ careful when the "difficult reading" in question might have been theologically motivated, as this reading in John 7:8 certainly appears to be. In such a case, all bets will be off, because it is our own private ideological preferences that will come into play above all, in considering which reading is the more difficult.
 

A THEOLOGICALLY LOADED PASSAGE

So let us now come back to that challenge that Dr. Terry has issued in regard to our passage of John 7:8.

As he has stated, "there would have been no reason" for scribes to change OUPW to OUK in so many manuscripts. Well, I would beg to differ...

What we see in this passage, really, is that the "brothers of Jesus" tend to stand for mainstream Judaism. And furthermore, it seems like they may even stand for Jewish-Christianity.

After all, we see that his brothers are going to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles, so they are observant Jews. They are also said to be rather sceptical of Jesus' power to work miracles, an attitude that the gospels repeatedly ascribe to the Jewish critics of Jesus.

In fact, this whole story, whichever version of it we may wish to consider as the most authentic -- and there's quite a lot of variability there among our ancient manuscripts, especially in verses 5 and 8 -- seems to be irrevocably coloured by this supposed tension between Jesus and his "brothers". Clearly, it was so conceived right from the beginning. It is only the _degree_ of tension, as is evidenced by these key verses, that can be discussed and disputed, and this is precisely where our old manuscripts disagree rather significantly, as we shall see in following parts of this article.

So this story is clearly theologically loaded, any way you look at it, and its main focus is on the attitude that Jesus shows towards the traditional Judaism -- which is, of course, the issue of central importance in so far as early Jewish-Christianity is concerned.

Also, at this point, we must keep in mind that the relatives of Jesus were most likely deeply involved in the early Jewish-Christian movement. We know from various sources, including the canonical New Testament, that James, the brother (or perhaps cousin) of Jesus, was a very influential figure for the early Christians, and presumably especially for the early Jewish-Christians. So this is what this whole story really seems to be about. It's the early Jewish-Christian disputes... So is it any wonder that there would have been some pretty early theological interest in "adjusting" this verse 8, as the political-theological situation kept evolving depending on time and place?

In the early Christian centuries, Jesus' blood-relatives were known as the "desposyni", and they were apparently seen as the persons of some significance within the movement, and especially for various Jewish-Christian groups then still in existence. So this is what our early historical sources indicate.

And these "desposyni" were certainly very much around at the time when the gospels were written and edited.

Desposyni
     http://www.dhushara.com/book/yeshua/desposyn.htm
 

The Testimony Of Eusebius

[quote]

Eusebius and the Early Church
     http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/euseb_ch.html

    III.11: After the martyrdom of JAMES and the
    capture of Jerusalem which instantly followed,
    there is a firm tradition that those of the apostles
    and disciples of the Lord who were still alive
    assembled from all parts together with those who,
    _humanly speaking, were kinsmen of the Lord_ -- for
    most of them were still living. Then they all
    discussed together whom they should choose as a
    fit person to succeed James, and voted
    unanimously that SIMEON, son of the Cleophas
    mentioned in the gospel narrative (John 19:25)
    was a fit person to occupy the throne of the
    Jerusalem church. He was, so it is said, a _cousin
    of the Saviour_, for Hegesippus tells us that
    Cleophas was Joseph's brother.

[unquote]

Thus, considering all these matters above, let us ask once again, Why would have an early editor of the Gospel of John changed OUPW to OUK in John 7:8? Well, if there were some tensions with Jewish-Christian groups at the time, as only seems likely, then this could have well provided the motivation to alter this passage in such a way.

After all, assuming that the "brothers of Jesus" in John 7:5 do stand for the Jewish-Christian groups, and assuming that there were tensions with such groups at the time when this editor was working, then this will provide all the explanation that one needs for such an editorial change. The editor would have been simply retrojecting the existing tensions back into the earthly career of Jesus...

Here's how this editor's reasoning may have gone,

"Why would Jesus need to deceive his relatives? Well, he probably didn't trust them, so, naturally, he didn't want to disclose to them his travel plans! So, under such conditions, it would have been entirely justifiable, from His perspective, to deceive these scoffing unbelievers, some of whom may have even been in league with his Pharisee opponents!"

And there are quite a few other passages in our early manuscripts where the same sort of an anti-Judaic editorial activity is detectable. This one is certainly not an isolated case.

Thus, to summarise, in the cases that are theologically laden, it seems like the "more difficult reading" rule of TC is entirely inapplicable. Because what is a "difficult reading" to some scholar today, may also be an "easier reading" to someone else -- it all depends on our private theological preconceptions, and on the historical context, the particular time and place where these textual changes may have been made... And in this specific case of John 7:8, the passage where Jesus would be more at home in his own Jewish milieu, and fully trusted his relatives and co-operated with them, in fact may have been a rather "difficult reading" to an ecclesiastically oriented editor, working under the conditions of increasing antisemitic tendencies within the Church.
 

CONCLUSION

It is obvious that, in a highly doubtful case such as this, where the external evidence is seriously split, the testimony of the early Papyri should be given the decisive weight. Thus, the Byzantine/KJV reading in this case should be seen as superior, because it is also supported by our earliest Papyri.

Seeing that, in this case, the early textual evidence really favours the Byzantine/KJV reading, any attempt to use "lectio difficilior" rule in support of the other reading, where Jesus is seen as purposefully deceiving his relatives, is entirely without merit.

Jesus was not a liar. It is only the misguided Hortian preconceptions of modern textual scholars that want to make him so.

The whole thing is really quite absurd... In essence, the guiding methodology of the Editorial Committee seems to be, If anything at all derogatory in regard to Jesus can be found _anywhere_ among the thousands of our NT manuscripts, then clearly this must be the earliest tradition...

Indeed, since the assumption is that nothing like this could ever emerge at any later period of time, then let's just define all such dubious material as belonging to the "original NT"!

These, dear friends, are the follies of modern Textual Criticism... These scholars hide behind the cloak of learning, authority, and objectivity but, when everything is said and done, they are really just the babes in the woods. Their political biases are pretty obvious, and this is what seems to pre-determine their decisions in cases like this. They really don't care how illogical they may sound.
 

PART 2 (coming next)

In the second part of this article, I will look in some more detail at how our ancient "Western" manuscripts of John are really treating this passage. There appears to be a serious problem with how UBS Editorial Committee laid out for us the textual evidence above. Based on their presentation, it may seem like all our witnesses are divided pretty evenly into two camps, the ones featuring "not yet" vs. the others featuring "not". But, actually, this isn't the case... There also happens to be a very large "grey area" among various "Western" witnesses, namely, the Old Latin and the Old Syriac, because most of them appear to read somewhere in between these two extremes!

So this seems to provide even more basis for the view that, in the original text of John, Jesus did not deceive his relatives.

Go to any of the other parts of this article.

Go to Yuri's NT Scandals and Controversies Page.

Go to Yuri's New Testament Research Page.