by Yuri Kuchinsky

(as posted to various discussion groups in January 2004)

In this fourth part of my article, I will be focusing on some additional textual evidence for this passage -- the evidence that is found in the Old Latin, as well as in a number of Greek MSS. There actually exist some very interesting readings there, that may cast considerable light on the history of this passage.

Unfortunately, none of this (or almost none) appears in our modern editions of the Greek NT, that are normally consulted by the mainstream biblical scholars in the course of their research. (Or at least by those of them who are capable of understanding such textual evidence -- perhaps only a minority of the mainstream NT scholars today.)

So what we observe is that the UBS Editorial Committee has oversimplified their presentation of this passage in their mainstream editions of GNT to such an extent that a false impression seems to be created as to what is really happening with this passage, if one actually bothers to examine our early manuscripts of John. According to the UBS presentation, only two possibilities are there -- either to accept the OUK reading, or the OUPW reading. But the actual textual picture is far more complex, as we shall soon see.

Thus, I will suggest that _neither_ of these two readings, as presented in our mainstream editions of GNT, may have been the earliest. Because there actually exist two more important variant readings for this verse -- the readings that may well be more original than the ones presented in GNT...

Also, later on, we will take a brief look at John 7:5, because this verse is clearly related to John 7:8 -- both these verses reflect on the relationship between Jesus and his family and, thus, both are heavily laden theologically. And, as it turns out, there are also somewhat similar textual difficulties with verse 5, as well. So it seems like the very same editors who left their marks on verse 8 also may have been at work on verse 5.
 

THE MUCH SHORTER READING OF THE OLD LATIN MS "l"

Let us begin with a very interesting reading in yet another Old Latin manuscript, "l" (MS Rhedigeranus) -- also supported in part by the OL MS "q" -- that, in my opinion, may well be representing the original text of this passage. This Old Latin variant is not listed anywhere in the modern Aland's editions, although it can still be found in the Apparatus of the old Von Soden edition of Greek NT.

The remarkable thing about this "l" reading is that it is very short. Below, you can compare the Vulgate version with what "l" has here. The underlined part is missing in "l".

(John 7:8 Vulgate)  Vos ascendite ad diem festum hunc. _Ego non ascendo ad diem festum istum_, quia meum tempus nondum impletum est.

(John 7:8 OL MS "l")  Vos ascendite ad diem festum istum, quia meum tempus nondum impletum est.

"Go you up to this festival day, because my time is not yet accomplished."

And what is especially interesting is that these omitted words,

Ego non ascendo ad diem festum istum = I do not go up to this feast = egw oupw anabainw eiV thn eorthn tauthn

Von Soden lists 8 Greek MSS here that feature this much shorter reading, and thus fully support the reading in "l". Although he marks this as an omission through "homoioteleuton", this cannot be so readily assumed.

Homoioteleuton is a technical term that means a type of an accidental scribal omission of a whole phrase -- in those cases when some word is repeated twice in a given passage,

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/ShortDefs.html#homot

But, of course, what is an accidental omission to one commentator can also be an intentional interpolation to another -- often there is no easy way to tell the difference...

After all, it is very hard to imagine that the scribes of each of these 8 Greek MSS, plus of an Old Latin one, all made such a mistake in this same place. So it is certainly possible that this shorter reading represents a very early text of John 7:8.

And, actually, these 8 Greek minuscules are not normally classified as belonging to the same text-type or group of MSS; according to Von Soden's classification, they in fact belong to a number of text-types. Which, of course, makes it very likely that this variant reading goes back to a very early period of time indeed.
 

THE SHORTER READING OF THE OL MS "q", ALSO SUPPORTED BY MS 69

And, in addition, what really argues against an unintentional omission here is that an Old Latin MS "q" (MS Monacensis) -- also supported by a Greek minuscule MS 69 -- omits some of these same words, as well... So this makes it very clear that this passage _was_ purposefully edited in ancient times! A homoioteleuton type of a mistake in this particular case is an impossibility.

In "q" and in MS 69, the following words are missing,

ad diem festum istum = to this feast = eiV thn eorthn tauthn

"Go you up to this festival day; I do not [yet] go up, because my time is not yet accomplished."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-52.htm#P2615_885181

To my knowledge, the only commentator who shows awareness of any of these textual complexities is Rudolf Bultmann (R. Bultmann, THE GOSPEL OF JOHN: A COMMENTARY, tr. by G. R. Beasley-Murray, Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1971). Nevertheless, this testimony of "q" and of MS 69 is also listed in Von Soden, although he neglects to mention the Chrysostom parallel...

As Bultmann states, this omission of /eiV thn eorthn tauthn/ removes the textual difficulty due to which Jesus would have been seen as untruthful. According to Bultmann, if such an omission is accepted,

"/Anabaivw/ then loses its future sense, and only refers to the present moment." (p. 289)

THE SHORTER READING IS TO BE PREFERRED?

Of course, one of the major rules of textual criticism is that, in general, the shorter reading should be preferred (lectio brevior potior). So, one would assume, the professional textual critics, and major commentators should have been very happy to accept the originality of the above variant reading in "l", and in 8 Greek minuscules... Except that it is completely disregarded in every Commentary on John that I have yet seen!

One really gets an impression that our modern biblical scholars have some special predilection for seeing Jesus as a liar... Otherwise, how to explain such a conspicuous lack of interest on their part in the _real_ textual situation for this verse, that argues strongly for the priority of a text where Jesus is not saying anything inappropriate? It is a sure bet, I think, that none of them actually went and examined what the old manuscripts of John say here; instead they simply accepted the highly problematic Apparatus notes, as supplied by the UBS Editorial Committee, and thought they had done enough.

But perhaps the real explanation for this mystery lies elsewhere... It seems to me that the real explanation may have to do with the general decline of NT Textual Criticism in the second half of the 20th century -- the decline that probably started even prior to that.

In my experience, the recent generations of professional NT scholars really don't know much about Textual Criticism. At this time, this whole important area is mostly left in the hands of the specialists, and the number of such specialists has been very small indeed, and declining steadily. It is not for nothing that, in 1979, one very competent modern textual critic, Dr. Eldon J. Epp, entitled one of his articles as follows, NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM IN AMERICA: REQUIEM FOR A DISCIPLINE.

How far the mighty have fallen... alas.

Anyone who is interested in this subject, and in the reasons why the textual criticism has declined so much in recent decades, will do well to read this article Dr. Epp (Journal of Biblical Literature 98, March 1979).
 

THE CASE OF JOHN 7:5

So let us now examine the textual situation for this verse, as well. Both the Byzantine and the Egyptian Greek texts read the same here,

(John 7:5) Oude gar oi adelfoi autou episteuon eiV auton.

(John 7:5 Young's Literal Translation) For not even were his brethren believing in him.

And here's the Latin Vulgate,

(John 7:5 Vulgate) Neque enim fratres eius credebant in eum.

(John 7:5 Douay Rheims Bible) For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Aland's SYNOPSIS lists one substantial variant for this verse. According to it, some "Western" manuscripts [D (it SyCS) pbo] add the Greek word TOTE (/tunc/ in Latin) to this sentence.

As an illustration of this, here's the reading from the Latin Bezae,

(John 7:5) Neque enim fratres eius crediderunt _tunc_ in illum.

"For neither did his brethren, _as yet_, believe in him."

(Aramaic John 7:5) For _till then_ not even his brothers had believed in him.

In general, there seem to be 3 basic renderings of this verse, that are attested in our ancient manuscripts,

1. His own brothers did not believe in him.
2. _Even_ his own brothers did not believe in him.
3. _Even_ his own brothers did not _as yet_ believe in him.

In my view, in so far as the editorial history of this passage goes, the most natural progression here would have been from #1 to #3. But one thing is absolutely clear, this verse certainly attracted considerable theological interest over the centuries, just like the verse 8 following it.
 

CONCLUSION

And so, coming back again to John 7:8, our main subject of investigation, it should be perfectly clear by now that the stark either/or choice that the UBS Editorial Committee wishes to confront us with -- either the "not" reading was the original, or the "not yet" reading -- doesn't really reflect the full complexity of the textual evidence before us. Indeed, why could it not be possible that the original reading may have been something pretty close to what the Curetonian MS says, i.e. something in between these two choices?

In such a case, both the "not" and the "not yet" readings can be seen as having derived from such a middle ground, although this is admittedly somewhat speculative.

Yet another possibility would be to accept as original the very short reading of "l", and of 8 Greek minuscules that support it. In this case, the TC rule that the shorter reading is more original seems to make good sense.

And there's also the third possibility, as suggested by Rudolf Bultmann, to accept the reading of the Old Latin MS "q", that is also supported by MS 69.

All this adds even more weight to my thesis that, in the original version of John 7:8, Jesus did not deceive his relatives, just as the Byzantine/KJV text testifies.

The fifth, and the final, part of my study will a review of Chrys C. Caragounis, JESUS, HIS BROTHERS, AND THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM (JOHN 7:8-10), Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 63 (1998). In this recent article, Caragounis argues that, in this passage, the "not yet" reading was the original one and, thus, the author of John did not see Jesus as a deceiver.

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.