APPENDIX G
A DIFFERENT STEMMA FOR JOHN 7:53-8:11
Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD
The criticisms of The Greek New
Testament according to the Majority Text that I have seen have almost
invariably fastened upon the genealogical[1] reconstruction of John 7:53-8:11 (among
other things). They note that sixteen
times, out of 27 (where the MSS are significantly divided, as reported in the
apparatus), the preferred reading is a minority one. Eleven of those times the
minority is less than 30%! They discover that the discussion of the variant
readings is redolent of Hort—minority readings are preferred against majority
readings on the basis of internal evidence. Such a procedure sets aside the
argument from statistical probability (which is usually associated with
Majority Text Theory). They point out the discrepancy between theory and
practice and wonder what went wrong. Can it be that when confronted with
reasonably complete collations of the extant MSS the theory just won't work? In
any event, why say the text is "according to the Majority" when it
isn't?
In the Apocalypse we are presented with a
situation where a clear majority is frequently unavailable. Where a majority
reading does not exist we are obliged to use a minority reading, and defend our
choice as best we may.[2] John 7:53-8:11 is quite different—out of
33 significant variant sets only one lacks a clear majority reading. If the
stemma offered on page xxv of the "Introduction" (H-F Majority
Text) were incontrovertible then I suppose we should all loyally accept the
consequences, but I find both the stemma and the discussion of the 21 variant
sets to be less than convincing. Since the author of the
"Introduction" recognizes that the stemmatic reconstruction (of Jn.
7:53-8:11) needs to be "searchingly evaluated", and this "calls
for the cooperation of many minds" (p. xxxii), I venture to offer the
following alternate reconstruction as my bit of "cooperation".
This article is based on a careful check of von Soden done by W.G. Pierpont (personal communication). My reconstruction of the text will be based exclusively on Soden's seven MS groups. Their relative size is as follows:
7 = a. 260 MSS, which = 29% of the total
6 = 246 MSS (216
"relatively pure" + 30 others), which = 27%
5 = a. 280 MSS,
which = 31%
4 = 29
} = 45
3 = 16 }
} = 118 MSS, which = 13%
2 = 50 }
} = 73
1 = 23
With this background I now present the 33
variant sets upon which this study is based. The total is sometimes 99% or 101%
because I used whole numbers. Groups M4,3,2,1 are frequently internally divided, and their
constituent MSS often go astray with a variety of added variants which are not
recorded on the following chart, which is why the groups do not always add up
to 100%. I use [ ] for 1-20%, ( ) for 21-95% and the whole # for 95+%.
# | vs. |
variants | M7| M6 | M5| M4 | M3 | M2 |
M1 | %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01| 7:53| aphlqen |
7 | 6
| - | (48%)| [6%]| [4%]|
[9%]| 57
| | aphlqon |
- | -
| - | (48%)| [12%]| [4%]|
(22%)| 2
| |
VS
| | eporeuqh
| - | - | 5 |
- | (76%)| (24%)| [4%]| 34
| | eporeuqhsan
| - | - | - |
[3%]| [6%]| (66%)| (65%)| 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02| 8:1 | hsouV de |
7 | -
| 5 | - | (76%)| (68%)| (65%)| 67
| | VS
| | kai o IhsouV
| - | 6 | - |
[3%]| [6%]| (26%)| (22%)| 29
| | kai IhsouV |
- | -
| - | 4 | [18%]|
- | - | 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03| 8:2 | - - - | 7 |
- | 5 | (86%)| 3 |
(90%)| 1 | 73
| | VS
| | baqewV | - |
6 | - | [14%]| - |
[10%]| - | 28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04| 8:2 | paregeneto |
7 | -
| 5 | [7%] | 3 | (90%)| (70%)| 67
| | paraginetai
| - | - | - |
- | - | - |
(22%)| 1
| | VS
| | hlqen o IhsouV
| - | 6 | - |
- | - | [10%]| - |
28
| | hlqen | - |
- | - | (93%)| - | -
| - | 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05| 8:2 | proV auton
| 7 |
6 | - | (45%)| 3 | 2 |
(83%)| 66
| | VS
| | - - - | -
| -
| 5 | - |
- | - | [17%]| 32
| | (omit 8:2bc) | - |
- | - | (55%)| -
| - | - | 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06| 8:3 | proV auton |
7 |(53%)| 5 | [14%]| (69%)| [16%]| (61%)| 78
| | VS
| | - - - | -
|(47%)| - | (86%)| (31%)| (84%)| (39%)| 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07| 8:3 | epi
| 7 | 6 | - |
4 | 3 | 2 |
(74%)| 68
| | VS
| | en | - |
- | 5 | -
| - | - | (26%)| 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08| 8:3 | kateilhmmenhn
| 7 | 6 | - |
4 | 3 | 2 |
(61%)| 68
| | VS
| | katalhfqeisan
| - | - | 5 |
- | - | - |
(30%)| 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09| 8:3 | en
| 7 | - | 5 | [7%] | - | (78%)| 1 |
67
| | VS
| | en tw | -
| 6
| - | (93%)| 3 | (22%)|
- | 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10| 8:4 | legousin | 7
| -
| 5 | - |
- | (78%)| (91%)| 67
| | VS
| | eipon | - |
6 | - | 4
| 3 | (22%)| [9%] | 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11| 8:4 |
- - - | 7
| 6
| - | (93%)| 3 |
2 | (35%)| 67
| | VS
| | peirazonteV
| - | - | 5 | [7%] | - | - |
(57%)| 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12| 8:4 | authn | 7
| 6
| - | - |
- | - | - |
56
| | VS
| | auth h gunh
| - | - | 5 |
4 | 3 | 2
| 1 | 44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13| 8:4 | euromen | 7
| 6
| - | - |
- | - | [13%]| 56
| | VS
| | katelhfqh
| - | - | 5 | [17%]| - | [8%] | - |
31
|
| eilhptai | - |
- | - | (76%)| 3 |
(80%)| [13%]| 9
| | kateilhptai
| - | - | - | [7%] | - | [12%]| (74%)| 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14| 8:4 | moiceuomenhn
| 7 | 6 | - |
- | - | -
| - | 56
| | VS
| | moiceuomenh
| - | - | 5 |
4 | 3 | 2
| 1 | 44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15| 8:5 | hmwn MwshV
| 7 | 6 | - |
- | (50%)| 2
| - | 62
| | hmin MwshV | -
| -
| - | 4 | (50%)|
- | (20%)| 5
| | MwshV | - |
- | - | -
| - | - | (23%)|
| | VS
| | MwshV hmin
| - | - | 5 |
- | - | - |
(57%)| 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16| 8:5 | liqoboleisqai |
7 | -
| 5 | - |
- | - | (48%)| 61
| | VS
| | liqazein | - |
6 | - | 4
| 3 | (88%)| (52%)| 38
| | liqazesqai
| - | - | - |
- | - | [12%]| -
| 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17| 8:5 |
- - -
| 7 |(39%)| 5 | - | - |
(24%)| (48%)| 73
| | VS
| | peri authV
| - |(61%)| - | 4 |
3 | (76%)| (52%)| 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18| 8:6 | ecwsi | 7
| 6
| 5 | - | (31%)| (26%)| [13%]| 90
| | VS
| | scwsi | - |
- | - | - |
(69%)| (74%)| [13%]| 5
| | ecousi | - |
- | - | 4
| - | - | -
| 3
| | eurwsi | - |
- | - | -
| - | - | (73%)|
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19| 8:6 | kathgorian kat
| 7 | 6 | - |
4 | 3 | 2 |
(35%)| 67
|
| VS
| | kathgorein
| - | - | 5 |
- | - | - |
(65%)| 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20| 8:6 | mh prospoioumenoV |
7 |(45%)| 5 | - |
- | - | (48%)| 73
| | VS
| | - - - | -
|(55%)| - | 4 |
3 | 2 | (52%)| 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21| 8:7 |
erwtwnteV
| 7 | - | 5 |
4 | 3 | (62%)|
1 | 71
| | VS
| | eperwtwnteV
| - | 6 | - |
- | - | (38%)| - |
29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22| 8:7 | anakuyaV | 7
| -
| 5 | [10%]| [12%]| (30%)| (61%)| 65
| | anekuye kai
| - | - | - | (90%)| (70%)| (66%)| [17%]| 8
| | VS
| | anableyaV
| - | 6 | - |
- | [18%]| [4%] | (22%)| 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23| 8:7 | proV autouV
| 7 |[4%] | 5 | - |
- | - | (39%)| 61
| | VS
| | autoiV | - |
6 | - | 4
| 3 | 2 | (61%)| 38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24| 8:7 | DO
| IO | V |
| | t. l. | e. -h | b. | | 7
| -
| - | - |
- | - | - |
29
| | VS
| | DO
| V | IO |
| | l . | b. | e. -hn | | - | 6 |
- | -
| [19%]| - | [9%] | 27
| | VS
| | IO
| DO | V |
| | e. -hn | t. l. | b. | | - | - |
5 | -
| - | - |
- | 31
| | e. -h | t. l. | b. | | - | - | - |
- | (25%)| - |
(48%)| 2
| | e. -hn | l. | b. | | - |[4%]
| - | [3%] | - | [14%]|
- | 2
| | VS
| | IO
| V | DO |
| | e. -hn | b. | l. | | - | - | - |
4 | - | (42%)| (43%)| 7
| | e. -hn | b. | t. l. | | - | - | - |
- | - | [16%]| -
| 1
| | e. -h | b. | t. l. | | - | - | - |
- | (56%)| (28%)| -
| 2
| | - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| | there is a clear
majority for t. l. =
65%
| | there is a clear majority for e. -hn = 68%
| | there is a clear majority
for DO in first place =56%
| | there is a clear majority
for V in last place = 64%
| | —so IO
must be in the middle. So presumably the majority reading is
|
| t.
l. e. -hn b. (a patchwork quilt!)
25| 8:9 | kai upo thV s. e. | 7
|(46%)| 5 | (21%)| - | (24%)|
- | 74
| | kai | - |
- | - | (79%)| - | -
| - | 2
| | VS
| | - - - |
- |(54%)| - | - |
3 | (76%)| 1 |
24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26| 8:9 | ewV twn escatwn | 7
| 6
| - | 4 |
3 | (88%)| - |
62
| | VS
| | - - - | - | - | 5 |
- | - | [12%]| 1 |
38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27| 8:9 | monoV o IhsouV |
7 |(38%)| 5 | - |
- | (48%)| (78%)| 74
| | monoV | -
| -
| - | - |
- | [10%]| (22%)| 2
| | VS
| | o IhsouV monoV
| - |(62%)| - | (24%)|
- | (28%)| - |
19
| | o IhsouV
| - | - | - | (72%)| 3 | [14%]| -
| 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28| 8:10| kai m. q. p. thV g.
| 7 |[4%] | 5 | - | (31%)| [14%]| - | 63
| | VS
| | eiden authn kai
| - | 6 | - |
4 | (69%)| [10%]| - |
32
| | VS
| | - - - |
- | -
| - | - |
- | (76%)| 1
| 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29| 8:10| auth | 7 |[3%] | 5 | - | - | - |
(65%)| 62
| | VS
| | gunai | - |
6 | - | - |
(35%)| [16%]| - | 28
| | VS
| | auth gunai |
- | -
| - | 4 | (65%)| (84%)| - | 9
| | th gunaiki | - |
- | - | -
| - | - | (26%)|
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30| 8:10| ekeinoi oi k. sou | 7 |(35%)| 5 | - |
- | [4%] | - |
69
| | VS
| | oi k. sou | - |(65%)| - | (66%)| 3 |
(48%)| (74%)| 27
| | - - - |
- | -
| - | (31%)| - | (48%)| (26%)| 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31| 8:11| eipen de auth o IhsouV
| 7 | 6 | - |
- | - | (27%)| (48%)| 59
| | eipen de ---- o IhsouV | -
| -
| 5 | - |
- | (63%)| (26%)| 35
| | VS
| | o de IhsouV eipen auth | - | - |
- | (62%)| 3 | [10%]| [13%]| 5
| | o -- IhsouV eipen auth | - |
- | - | (35%)| -
| - | - | 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32| 8:11| katakrinw | 7
| 6
| - | 4 |
3 | 2 | 1 |
69
| | VS
| | -
- - |
- | -
| 5 | - |
- | - | - |
31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33| 8:11| kai apo tou nun | 7
| 6
| - | [10%]| (82%)| 2 | (57%)| 64
| | VS
| | kai | - |
- | 5 | (66%)| [18%]| - |
(39%)| 34
| | - - - | - | - |
- | (24%)| - | - | [4%] |
1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will start with some general comments about the MS groups. Based on the 33 significant variant sets (significant for the reconstruction) we observe the following:
1)
7 is never alone, except for the one time when 5, 6
and 7 go separate ways (#24).
2)
7 and 5 are the only groups that never divide (according
to von Soden).
3)
5 and 6 each stand alone against the rest of the stemma—a
condemning circumstance. 6 does so three times (3, 21, 22), plus two
more times where it influences group 4 (2, 4). 5 does so four
times (5, 7, 8, 32), plus four more times where it influences group 1
(11, 15, 19, 26).
4)
5 and 6 (entire) never agree (where one of the three major
groups diverges)—they are the extremes (which makes it unlikely that either one
stands closest to the Autograph).[3]
5)
3,4 and 1,2 evidently form groups at the
next level up, which are themselves closely related.
6)
1 is fairly close to 5 but far from 6, while 4
is just the opposite.
Going into more detail, I will start with
groups 1-4. It is obvious that they are by no means monolithic, and one
has to wonder if Soden's assigning of individual MSS to these groups was
altogether felicitous. Ignoring solitary MS deviations from a group:
4 divides 14 times (2 being three-way splits),
3 divides 10 times (2 three-way),
2 divides 21 times (5 three-way
and 3 four-way!),
1 divides 24 times (7 three-way),
within our 33 variant sets—they each have further
divisions.
However, it seems clear that four such groups do exist and it is generally possible to determine the reading of the exemplar. So I next ask how these four groups interrelate:
unique agreements total agreements
4,3 5 + 1(not
among the 33) 23 + 1
4,2 1 18
4,1 -- 10
3,2 1 23
3,1 1 15
2,1 7 20
It is evident that 2,1 form a group
and 4,3 form a group; that together they form a larger group is clearly
demonstrated by the next chart. The seeming closeness of 3,2 is because
they are the steadier members of their sub-groups, 4 and 1 being
more erratic (4 has five singular readings plus assimilating to 6
three times; 1 has two singulars plus assimilating to 5 five
times; while 3 and 2 have none). Where 3,2 agree they
preserve the reading of the grandparent. The parent of 2,1 I call j,
and that of 4,3 I call k. The parent of j and k I
call h.
The following chart makes it easier to see
the pattern. The reading of 7 is always "x"; if 6
differs it is always "y"; if 5 differs it is always
"z". "w" is used for any variant distinct from the first
three. Brackets are used when a variant is clearly derived from another. Braces
are used for a second derived variant. Parentheses are used to indicate separate
groupings. Backward slant lines are used when a grouping is anomalous. A
question mark means that I don't know what is going on. The "="
column gives the reading followed by h, and demonstrates that h
had a mixed text.
7 6
5 4 3 2 1 h =
01) x x z
x/[x] z [z] [z]
3[2,1] z
02) x
y x [y]
x x x 3,2,1 x
03) x
y x x
x x x 4,3,2,1 x
04) x
y x [y]
x x x 3,2,1 x
05)
x x z
x/w x x x
/,3,2,1 x
06) x
x/y x y
x y x
\4,2\\3,1\ ?
07) x
x z x
x x x 4,3,2,1 x
08) x
x z x
x x x 4,3,2,1 x
09) x
y x y
y x x
(4,3)(2,1) y/x
10) x
y x y
y x x
(4,3)(2,1) y/x
11) x
x z x
x x z 4,3,2 x
12) x
x z z z z z 4,3,2,1 z
13) x
x z [z]
[z] [z] {z}
[4,3,2]{1} z
14) x
x z z
z z z 4,3,2,1 z
15) x
x z [x] x/[x]
x z [4]/,2 x
16) x
y x y
y y x/y 4,3,2,/ y
17) x
x/y x y
y y x/y 4,3,2,/ y
18) x
x x [w] w w
{w} [4]3,2{1} w
19) x
x z x
x x z 4,3,2 x
20) x
x/y x y
y y x/y 4,3,2,/ y
21) x
y x x
x x x 4,3,2,1 x
22) x
y x [x]
[x] [x] x
[4,3,2]1 x
23) x
y x y
y y y 4,3,2,1 y
24) x
y z w
w w z/w 4,3,2,/ w
25) x
x/y x w
y y y 3,2,1 y
26) x
x z x
x x z 4,3,2 x
27) x
x/y x w
w x/? x (4,3)(2,1) w/x
28) x
y x y
y w w
(4,3)(2,1) y/w
29) x
y x w
w w x
4,3,2 w
30) x
x/y x y
y y/w y
4,3,/,1 y
31)
x x z
w w z
x/? 4,3 w
32)
x x z
x x x x
4,3,2,1 x
33)
x x z
z x x x/z ?,3,2,/ x
The crucial question for our stemma is the
interrelationship of the four main groups: 7,6,5 and h. That h
follows "x" 13 times, follows "y" 6 times, "z" 4
times and "w" 3 times shows that it has a life of its own and must be
treated as a separate group. We observe the following:
7 and 5 agree 17 times (ignoring #18).
7 and 6 agree 14 times (ignoring #18), plus six
further times where a significant part of 6 goes with 7 and 5
(53%, 46%, 45%, 39%, 38%, 35%).
7 and h agree 14 times.
6 and h agree 11 times.
5 and h agree 9 times.
5 and 6 (entire) never agree (except in #18
where 7,6,5 all agree—I included #18 as an added illustration that h
has a life of its own).
So, 5 and 6 are the extremes
and 7 and h are candidates for mixed texts—and yet they do not
depend directly upon each other, for 7 and h never agree unless 5
or 6 is with them. However, 6 and h agree alone two times
(+ eight further times when one or the other is divided), while 5 and h
agree alone four times; further, h splits, going with both 5 and 6
four times. Since 7,6,h agree nine times and 7,5,h agree five
times (+ four further times when h is divided), we must posit nodes
above 5 and 6 but which are separate from 7. A careful
scrutiny of h makes clear that it is a mixed text, drawing from the
exemplars of 5 and 6. Since 6 has seven singular readings
and 5 has five it is clear that each has corrupted its exemplar and
neither can stand closest to the Autograph. 7 gives no evidence of being
mixed; it has only one singular reading, precisely in set 24 where each of the
four main groups has a different reading.
I conclude that 7 is independent and
at the same rank as the exemplars of 5 and 6. This accords with a
normal transmission where rarely will more than one copy at a given rank create
a variant at the same point, and almost never will two make the same mistake
independently (except for very easy and common transcriptional ones).
Perhaps a design will help to visualize the options.
Consider:
7,6,5 31
sets (-18,24) = either a) or b)
(7) (7) (5)
(6)
17 14+(6) 17
14 17 14
(5)--------(6) (5)
(6) (7)
0 + (6)
If 7 is viewed
as a mixture of 5 and 6 the even selection is strange, plus a
total lack of conflations. The six splits in 6 plus the fact that 6
has seven singular readings and 5 has five singular readings, while 7
has only one singular (precisely where all three disagree), point to a) as the
best interpretation.
6,5,h 29 sets (-18,24,29,31)=either a) or b)
(h) (h) (5) (6)
9+(5)
11+(9) 9 11 9 11
(5)---------(6) (5) (6) (h)
0
Since h has
obvious secondary readings, including two conflations, plus a deal of mixture,
b) seems to be the required interpretation. Evidently h drew more
heavily from the ancestor of 6 than from the ancestor of 5.
I now offer a stemma that I believe
matches and accounts for the statistical evidence just described. The Autograph
is represented by "A". The letters f,g,h,j,k designate
reconstructed archetypes. The numbers within nodes are those of Soden's MS
groups. The numbers beside the nodes refer to the variant sets in which the
node introduces an error (such errors vindicate the positing of a node,
especially the reconstructed ones): thus f introduces five errors, 7
introduces none, g introduces thirteen, etc. The solid lines indicate
linear descent; the broken lines indicate occasional influence (smaller dashes
= lesser influence). The symmetry is arbitrary, as is the chronology. I am not
concerned to defend the chronology, but I do happen to think that it is
"in the ballpark"—a possible, even reasonable, approximation.
(A)
date
* 150
* *
Latin
1,12,13,14,24 * f (7) g * 6,9,10,16,17,20 Egypt 250
23,24,25,27
28,29,30
5,7,8,11,15,19 (5) h * 13,18,22 (6) 2,3,4,21,22 350
26,31,32,33 24,29
1,28 * j k * 15,27,31 450
13,18,24
(1) 30 (2) (3) (4) 2,4,5,18,24,25 550
Before returning to the variant sets to
discuss transcriptional probabilities, I wish to comment on the stemma. 7, f and g are
independent of each other, yet only one abandons the original at any point
(except for #24 where two of them [or all three] do, in separate directions).
This is just what we would expect in a normal transmission, where the
archetypes at a given rank are independent (of each other). With the exception
of #24 there is always a clear majority, of which 7 is always a part. I
consider that 7 has faithfully preserved the Autograph,[4] including in #24 (see the discussion of
transcriptional probabilities below). f is tolerable, but g is a maverick, as is 5. h has a mixed text. (The placing of
"Latin" and "Egypt" is deliberate: it appears to me that 6
and 4 reflect "Egyptian" influence, whereas 5 and 1
reflect "Latin" influence.)
And now for the probabilities. The variant sets are
taken in linear sequence, beginning in 7:53:
1) 7 and g preserve the original;
6 influences 4. f
creates a variant and influences h; j changes h.
Presumably the plural forms were unthinking assimilations to the Subject in
verse 52. The reading of 3,5 is possibly a harmonization with the same
verb in the next line.
2) 7, f and g preserve the
original. 6 creates a variant
and influences 4. Since the main participant or focus changes from 7:53
to 8:1, the de is required (a norm of Koine discourse
structure). 6 has an inept
stylistic change. 4 follows 6
but drops the article.
3) 7, f and g preserve the
original. 6 creates a variant.
We may never know what got into 6 here and in the next example. In Luke
24:1 it really was "very early" (still dark) but here there were
already people in the temple. That "very" separates the adverb
"again" from its verb is awkward. Anyway, it is scarcely credible that
6 could be right against the whole stemma.
4) 7, f and g preserve the
original. 6 creates a variant
and influences 4. Since there is no ambiguity the repetition of
"Jesus" is unnecessary, if not grammatically bad. 4 seems to have replaced the verb of
his exemplar with that of 6.
5) 7, f and g preserve the
original. 5 creates a variant,
as does (4). Just why 5 dropped the prepositional phrase here is
hard to say, but that is not sufficient reason to prefer it against the whole
stemma.
6) 7 and f preserve the original;
g creates a variant and is followed by 6 and h. 7 influences (6); 5
influences (1); if (3) was influenced by 7 or 5 it
is the only such case—perhaps it managed a lucky gloss on its own. The omission
was probably thought to improve the style. For someone to supply the words
would also be easy. External evidence
must decide the issue.
7) 7, f and g preserve the
original. 5 creates a variant,
attempting a stylistic, or grammatical, "improvement".
8) 7, f and g preserve the
original. 5 creates a variant
and influences (1). This variant evidently goes with the preceding one.
I see nothing sufficient to overturn the external evidence.
9) 7 and f preserve the original;
g creates a variant and is followed by 6 and h; 5
influences j. The article may have been thought to be stylistically
better. When mesoV is part of a prepositional phrase and is
modified by a genitive construction no article occurs; without the modifier an
article frequently occurs, but not always—as in v. 9 below. External evidence
must decide.
10) 7 and f preserve the original;
g creates a variant and is followed by 6 and h; 5
influences j. This verb is parallel to the one that begins v. 3, so the
present tense is appropriate. The aorist tense is presumably a superficial
assimilation to the participle a few words before.
11) 7, f and g preserve the
original. 5 creates a variant
and influences (1). The gloss seems officious. I see nothing sufficient
to overturn the external evidence.
12) 7 and g preserve the
original. f creates a variant
and influences h. This set and the next two go together. The change here was deliberate, but it is
hard to know what the motivation may have been. Perhaps the demonstrative
pronoun was felt to be too scornful.
13) 7 and g preserve the
original. f creates a variant
and influences 5; h corrupts f; 1 conflates j
and 5. The confusion within h does not inspire confidence. 5 could represent a stylistic
"improvement", making the verb (of f) more graphic (in which
case 5 would create the variant and h reproduce f).
14) 7 and g preserve the
original. f creates a variant
and influences h. The choice here is controlled by the choice in 13).
15) 7, f and g preserve the
original; k corrupts h. 5
creates a variant and influences (1). This could have gone either way, though
perhaps "our law" is more typical of John. External evidence decides.
16) 7 and f preserve the original;
g creates a variant and is followed by 6 and h; 5
influences (1). The passive seems more appropriate. I would say that our
Lord's subsequent use of the words liqon baletw reflects precisely the scribes' liqoboleisqai.
17) 7 and f preserve the original;
g creates a variant, followed by 6 and h; 7
influences (6); 5 influences (1). The absence of the phrase is stylistically
and semantically better. An officious but not very perceptive copyist thought
he was filling in implied information, but "her" does not match the
plural "such".
18) 7, f and g preserve the
original. h creates a variant,
as do 4 and 1. h's
exemplar may have had a weak cross stroke in the epsilon so he read it
as a sigma.
19) 7, f and g preserve the
original. 5 creates a variant
and influences 1. The infinitive is the more awkward form, sufficient
reason for modern critics to prefer it, but the external evidence seems clear.
20) 7 and f preserve the original;
g creates a variant, followed by 6 and h; 7
influences (6); 5 influences (1). Is it a gloss or an omission? It could have
happened either way. Perhaps g felt that "not paying
attention" made Jesus seem impolite, especially considering the prominence
of His interrogators.
21) 7, f and g preserve the
original. 6 creates a variant;
if it influences 2 it is the only time—(2) may have made the same
stylistic change independently, having done something similar in the preceding
sentence. The heightened form was
probably a stylistic "improvement". In any event, it is scarcely credible
that 6 could be right against the whole stemma. Notice that (2)
also heightened the verb in the preceding clause.
22) 7, f and g preserve the
original; h corrupts g; 5 influences 1. 6 creates a variant. It is clear from the text that Jesus
squatted and stood up twice, but 6 has Him squatting twice without
standing up in between—if a scribe didn't notice that Jesus squatted twice he
might have decided to remove the "inconsistency" of His standing up
twice. The finite form could be a stylistic retouching.
23) 7 and f preserve the original;
g creates a variant, followed by 6 and h; 5
influences (1). A toss-up, although the prepositional phrase seems to be
more dramatic, delightfully appropriate.
24) This is a tough one, the only time that the
three major groups go separate ways. That is doubtless why this set has the
most variants and confusion. There are three variables: the Case of the
pronoun, the article, and constituent (word) order. They all have different
alignments:
authn—(1),(2),4,5,6 VS
auth—(1),(2),3,7
liqon—(1),(2),4,6 VS
ton liqon—(1),(2),3,5,7
IO,V,DO—(1),2,(3),4 VS
IO,DO,V—(1),5 VS DO,V,IO—6 VS DO,IO,V—7
The line-up is the
same for the first two variables, except for 5 which switches. It goes
with 6 to give the accusative majority status, but goes with 7 to
give a majority to the article. The constituent order seems to be hopelessly
confused, but it may be noted that there is a clear majority for the direct
object in the first position (and therefore for the relative sequence DO,IO
within the clause) and for the verb in the last position (which leaves the
middle position for the indirect object). But how can we explain the
fluctuating alignments?
I reconstruct the sequence of transmissional history
thus:
7 = ton liqon ep auth baletw
g and 6 = -- liqon baletw ep
authn
f = ep auth ton liqon baletw
5 = ep authn ton
liqon baletw
h,j,k,3 = ep
auth baletw ton liqon
4 = ep authn baletw -- liqon
1 = ep auth ton liqon baletw
Being freely interpreted this means:
a) 7 preserves the original.
b) g, followed by 6, creates
a variant: changing the case, dropping the article and inverting IO and V.
c) f creates a variant, inverting
DO and IO.
d) 5 modifies f, changing
the case (independently—epi takes both).
e) h, followed by j, k
and 3, creates a variant (building on f), moving DO to last place
(while preserving case and article).
f) 4 changes the case and drops the
article, presumably influenced by 6 (a frequent occurrence).
g) Four of the sixteen M3 MSS invert V and DO (while retaining the
case and the article); another three assimilate to 6.
h) 2 splinters: 28% staying with j,
16% changing only the case, 42% changing the case and dropping the article,
with 14% going beyond the 42% to invert V and DO besides. (Again one wonders if
von Soden correctly assigned some of the MSS.)
i) As for 1: 48% retain the case
and article of j but invert V and DO, presumably influenced by 5
(a frequent occurrence); 43% retain the word order of j but change the
case and drop the article (presumably influenced by 6, since two M1 MSS assimilate to 6 completely).
This reconstruction gives a reasonable
explanation for the peculiar range of attestation for the Dative case. It also
accounts for the range of attestation for the article. In fact, it pretty well
accounts for the whole snarl of variation. M7 preserves the original at every point.
Assuming that 7 is right all the
other times, it has far and away the best "credibility quotient". If
we start with 7, 6 would be a stylistic "improvement",
dropping the article and placing the indirect object last (perhaps he took
"first" to be modifying "stone", as a number of prominent
English versions have done). Why f would put the indirect object first
is not clear, unless it be for emphasis.
h devised a new constituent order, which was retained by all its
descendants, except for (1) which was influenced by 5.
Considering the fluctuating alignments throughout the variant sets it would
appear that copyists frequently had access to more than one exemplar and were
not above picking and choosing—it seems reasonable to suppose that they would
be most willing to do so when confronted with confusion in the tradition.
The split of (1),(2),3
for the article and (1),(2),4 against it is stemmatically
anomalous—I feel obliged to conclude that a lot of picking and choosing took
place in this case. The same split for the dative versus the accusative is also
anomalous, although since epi takes both cases this particular change
could have happened independently more than once. It is not my custom to prefer
"harder" or more awkward readings, but perhaps this is an appropriate
place to cash that check. If 7 is stylistically more awkward than some
of the other variants then it may have given rise to them.
25) 7 and f preserve the original;
g creates a variant, followed by 6 and h; 7
influences (6); 4 creates a variant. Surely it would be easier to
omit a clause of this sort and size than to invent it, especially if it
occupied just one line. 4 is
wild; speculation is pointless.
26) 7, f and g preserve the
original. 5 creates a variant
and influences 1. The omission could be the result of homoioteleuton. In
any event, 5 could scarcely be right against the stemma.
27) 7 and f preserve the original;
g creates a variant, followed by 6 and h; k
corrupts h and 5 influences j. A toss-up, unless it be
that g dropped "only", followed by h, and in subsequent
efforts to fix it (6), (4) and (2) replaced it but in the
wrong order. In that event 7 influenced (6).
28) 7 and f preserve the original. g creates a variant, followed by 6
and h; j omits. The solution here involves the following set as
well. Faced with a lacuna before eipen gunai, if someone felt the need to create a
gloss like the longer reading would he also change "woman" to
"to her"? It is much more likely that he would supply something like
the shorter variant and leave "woman" intact. But on the face of it the
longer reading is not the sort that a copyist would concoct out of nowhere. If
we start with the longer reading it is easy to see where someone could be
troubled by the seeming contradiction—it says that Jesus "saw nobody"
except the woman when in fact there was a crowd taking in the proceedings. So
he "solves" the problem by replacing it with the innocuous shorter
reading; but now he has two pronouns too close together, so he changes the
second one to "woman". It may be instructive to combine sets 28) and
29):
kai
mhdena qeasamenoV plhn thV gunaikoV eipen auth 7,5
kai mhdena qeasamenoV plhn thV gunaikoV eipen gunai (3)
eiden
authn kai eipen gunai 6
eiden authn kai eipen auth gunai 4(3)
eipen auth gunai 2
eipen
auth 1
The descendants of g
are evidently confused, which tends to diminish their credibility. Whether the
longer reading was accidentally dropped (if it occupied a full line) or
deliberately changed, there is no "internal evidence" sufficient to
set aside the clear external evidence.
29) 7 and f preserve the original;
g creates a variant; h conflates f and g; 5
influences 1. (3) drops the pronoun independently. See the
discussion above.
30) 7 and f preserve the original;
g creates a variant, followed by 6 and h, which (4),
(2) and (1) omit. 7
influences (6). If the shorter reading were original, who would have
thought of adding the demonstrative? The shorter form is very nice the way it
is! If the longer reading were original someone might well have felt that the
demonstrative was scornful and unbecoming. Or the demonstrative could have been
dropped through parablepsis. (4),(2),(1) evidently
perpetrated a further omission, whether wittingly or not is impossible to say.
31) 7, f and g preserve the
original; k corrupts h (varying the word order but keeping the
pronoun). 5 creates a variant,
and influences j. The external evidence for the word order is
overwhelming. 5 dropped the
pronoun, either by accident or as being superfluous.
32)
7, f and g preserve the original. 5 creates a variant. This omission by
5 has little to recommend it.
33) 7, f and g preserve the
original. 5 creates a variant
and influences (1); 4 makes the same mistake. The prepositional
phrase could have been thought to be redundant, or lost through parablepsis.
Presumably 5 and the archetype of 4 omitted independently; later
(4) also dropped "and".
I confess that I find discussions of
probabilities to be wearisome and frustrating. It is seldom possible to rise
above mere speculation. However, perhaps we can glean a few reasonably solid
tidbits from the foregoing exercise. I would say that in #2 group 6 is
clearly wrong, grammatically bad. In #3 group 6 is unacceptable; it is
also inferior in #4. In #11 and #12 the reading of 5 is unacceptable. In
#16 group 6 is unacceptable, as also in #22. In #32 group 5 seems inferior. Group 4 is erratic,
but is not a serious contender in any case. Group 1 is badly splintered,
and is not a contender. I submit that our exercise confirms that neither 6
nor 5 can stand closest to the Autograph.
So, what have we learned with reference to our larger concerns? To my mind, rather than constituting an embarrassment John 7:53-8:11 confirms the validity and workability of Majority Text Theory. The transmission was "normal" in the main. In a normal transmission the copyists of a given generation would almost never commit the same error independently, and seldom would more than one introduce an error at any given point—thus the true reading should have majority attestation at all levels. In spite of a rather high incidence of variation (considering that "Alexandrian" and "Western" witnesses were excluded to begin with—thereby avoiding most of the results of the "abnormal" transmission) the pericope vindicates our expectation. Even though it evidently passed through more turbulence than any other passage in John's Gospel, still the original text is attested by a clear majority of the MSS.
To conclude, if the essential thrust of my
discussion is convincing to my peers, I earnestly recommend that in any future
reprinting of the H-F Majority Text the text of John 7:53-8:11 be
corrected to reflect the majority attestation. (The same holds for the R-P Byzantine/Majority
Textform.)[5] It would also be necessary to revise the
corresponding discussion in the "Introduction". To the extent that
our theory is viewed as a threat to the Establishment it will certainly be
attacked, that we know, but I see no virtue in giving them gratuitous ammunition.