Did Jesus Tell a Lie? (John 7:8) ~ a textual study by Yuri Kuchinsky

Did Jesus Tell a Lie? (John 7:8)

Going to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles...

(as posted to various discussion groups in January 2004)

* PART 5 *

Chrys C. Caragounis, JESUS, HIS BROTHERS, AND THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM (JOHN 7:8-10)", Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 63 (1998)

Reviewed by Yuri Kuchinsky

This is the only serious attempt at a textual evaluation of this passage that I'm aware of, as published in the last few decades. And, overall, it's a pretty good evaluation. 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.

In the first part of his article, Caragounis reviews various Commentaries on John, and how their authors treat this passage. He considers the views of J. H. Bernard (1928/1962), C. K. Barrett (1978), R. E. Brown (1971), L. Morris (1971), R. Schnackenburg (1968-1982), Beasley-Murray (1987), etc.. And, of course, the views of the ancient Church Fathers are also being considered along the way.

In general, the majority of modern commentators (with a few dissenting voices, to be sure) have accepted the originality of OUK reading, and then proceeded to explicate it in various ways. Some of them prefer to pretend that there's no problem there at all (e.g. Jesus just changed his mind). Others say that the contradiction between v. 8 and v. 10 doesn't even exist (but then why do so many critics see a problem there?). Still others suggest that this whole passage should be interpreted on some higher mystical level, as opposed to on the normal mundane level (thus slipping into esoterism).

One might get an impression from all this that, for some of our commentators, it doesn't even make much difference if Jesus deceived his brothers or not! They just don't see it as a big deal -- certainly not big enough to investigate the textual side of this issue in any substantial detail...

Caragounis concludes his review of literature as follows,

"It appears that the above commentators have been at a loss to find an adequate explanation for the contradiction between v. 8 and v. 10, and have resorted to either playing down the difficulty, or dismissing the problem as quietly as possible. None of these solutions is convincing, however ..." (Caragounis, p. 181)

Next, in the second part of his article, Caragounis reviews the textual evidence for this passage. And, in his opinion,

"In respect of date, text quality, and geographical diffusion, the MSS supporting the reading OUPW are clearly superior to the MSS supporting the rival reading OUK. This is also reflected by the uncertainty of the GNT committee indicated by the grade "C" [that they assigned] for the chosen reading OUK. In most other cases, the external evidence for the reading OUPW would have been considered decisive." p. 184

But, according to Caragounis, the arguments based on the Lectio Difficilior rule of TC seem to have carried the day with the majority of modern scholars... Nevertheless, he feels that this has been overdone,

"In the case under consideration, the apparently excellent and decisive explanation that OUPW is a later correction faces a number of difficulties, as well as an in-built improbability." p. 184

Here he cites the analysis by Haenchen, the one recent commentator who argues for the OUPW reading (E. Haenchen, JOHN 1, 2: A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, Hermeneia Commentary Series. 2 vols. Trans. by R. Funk. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). In his analysis, Haenchen relies on the internal criteria -- on the apparent link between verses 8 and 6 -- to argue that OUPW reading was the original.

Next, Caragounis considers in some more detail the two ancient Papyri, P66 and P75, that happen to contain the OUPW reading. According to him, their very early age argues strongly for the originality of OUPW in this passage. Indeed, this is by far our earliest extant evidence for this passage, so it should be taken seriously.

Also, Caragounis offers the following explanation of how the OUK reading may have originated at a later time, based on the OUPW reading.

"The reading OUK could actually have arisen out of the desire for variation after the OUPW of verse 6, without [the scribe] immediately perceiving the contradiction it was creating. It should be observed here that between verses 6 and 8 the word OUPW occurs no less than three times. Worse still, the two brief clauses of one single sentence in verse 8 have each its OUPW, i.e. two instances of OUPW in one sentence of 13 words! This makes for bad Greek style. The reading OUK in verse 8b actually alleviates the problem considerably by smoothing the style. ... It could, therefore, be argued that a scribe changed OUPW to OUK for stylistic reasons." p. 186

(Actually, these arguments by Caragounis seem to be adding some considerable weight to my own argument that the very short reading of MS "l" may represent the original text of this passage. Indeed, this "bad Greek style", as Caragounis puts it, calls for an explanation, and the best explanation may well be that the above mentioned long clause, that would have included OUPW,

I do not yet go up to this feast = egw OUPW anabainw eiV thn eorthn tauthn

was an awkward addition by a later editor.)

In his study, Caragounis also offers some other possibilities as to how the OUK reading could have derived from the OUPW reading.

And this is how he concludes his article,

"Though absolute certainty with respect to the rise of the reading OUK is, in the nature of the case, impossible, it is hoped that the positive evidence presented for the originality of OUPW will lead to a re-evaluation of this reading, which will hopefully lead to its substitution for the currently accepted reading OUK."

In my own view, Caragounis has done a pretty good job summarising how various Johannine exegetes have dealt with this passage in the past. And yet, while I generally agree with his conclusions, I have reached similar conclusions based on rather different considerations.

Indeed, what Caragounis doesn't really do in his study is consider the textual evidence at a greater depth, and this is what I have done in my own analysis. He has simply accepted what the Apparatus of the UBS edition says, without going directly to the original manuscripts. As I have now found out, this turned out to be a rather precarious course of action, because UBS Editorial Committee seems to have misrepresented some of the evidence considerably (but also, if one wishes to put it more charitably, perhaps also misunderstood it to some extent).

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.