It is of more than passing interest that the one Gospel which has an explicit statement of purpose should also be the Gospel for which there has been such little agreement within scholarship as to its purpose. Part of the reason for this lies with the richness of content in the Gospel itself, with its wide variety of internal hints as to possible life settings; and part of it lies with the statement of purpose in 20:30-31, which has both textual and denotative ambiguity. So much is this so, that the current attitude toward the text and grammar of v. 31 is that it does not really matter too much one way or the other.¹ This paper is written in response to this deferential attitude toward the text and grammar of this passage.¹² I do not hereby propose to solve the mystery of purpose, nor even to suggest that the resolution of its text and grammar is the key to such a solution. My purpose rather is twofold: (1) to suggest that the textual question of 20:31 can be resolved with a much greater degree of certainty than is often allowed; and (2) to propose grounds for believing that the original text (πιστεύητε, present subjunctive) is grammatically meaningful for John.³ I am delighted to offer the study, modest as it is in comparison with his own work on John’s Gospel, to Professor Neirynck with appreciation for friendship and collegiality in the common enterprise of Gospel study.

I. The Textual Question

D. Carson represents the majority opinion with regard to the text of 20:31: “The external evidence is very finely balanced, but probably a majority of recent commentators prefer the present subjunctive.”⁴ What degree of doubt remains (as, for example, Schnackenburg), is related to Carson’s suggestion that “the external evidence is very finely balanced,” which in turn reflects the ambiguity set in motion by the UBS Greek New Testament⁵ and its companion Textual Commentary.⁶ In one of its less scintillating moments textually, the UBS committee decided to make no choice at all on the variation in John 20:31. Thus, despite the “C” rating, they present the text with brackets, ϊνα πιστεύ[σ]ητε. The comment in the Textual Commentary is especially puzzling. An opening sentence spells out one dimension of the difficulty: “Both πιστεύητε and πιστεύσητε have notable early support.” But thereafter the comment has little to do with textual criticism per se, and notes instead the possibilities of these two readings in terms of meaning for the Gospel. Without mention of transcriptional or intrinsic probabilities or the relative value of the external evidence, the comment concludes: “In view of the difficulty of choosing between the readings by assessing the supposed purpose of the Evangelist (assuming that he used the tenses of the subjunctive strictly), the Committee considered it preferable to represent both readings by enclosing σ within square brackets” (italics mine). Thus we are not only left with no textual reasons for what appears in the text, but we are not even given the Committee’s choice in this case.⁷

I submit that we can do better than that. The two readings are well known, and have the following support:

Related to this is the reading in 19:35, one of two other places where the author of the Gospel speaks directly to his readers, in this case in language very much like that of 20:31:

Before looking at this evidence in detail, some words are needed about the readings of P⁶⁶, because along with Origen on 19:35, this MS places this reading firmly in Egypt at the end of the second century. In the case of 20:31 the videtur is in deference to textual conventions, which insist that only totally visible readings be listed as such in an apparatus. But there can be no question of the reading of P⁶⁶ in this case.⁸ Even though πιστεύηται⁹ is partly lacunose, the letters that remain and are plainly visible make this reading certain. Both the τ (partly rubbed out) and the η are plain. The partial lacuna between them is capable of sustaining only two letters in this scribe’s ordinary hand; and the visible remains of those two letters are clearly the left side of an ε and the tip end of the right “arm” of an u.¹⁰ The reading at 19:35 can only remain videtur, since the beginning mat and concluding t are on two different scraps of the MS. Thus the crucial portion remains lacunose; nonetheless, when one lines up these two pieces both verso and recto (they are much too far apart in the photograph), the amount of available space cannot possibly exceed five letters (thus ευητα, not ευσητα). Thus, it is certain that P⁶⁶ supports the present subjunctive in 20:31, and relatively certain that it does so in 19:35.

What this means, of course, is that, contrary to what is implied in the Textual Commentary (that “both [readings] have notable early support”), in fact the only “notable early support” is for the present subjunctive. Here the primary Egyptians (P⁶⁶א B, the earliest and best of the MSS for this Gospel [P⁷⁵ is lacunose]),¹¹ plus some secondary witnesses from this tradition (0250 892) and the non-Egyptian Θ, form a ⁸^{9 10 11} considerable combination of evidence in favor of πιστεύητε. As a general rule in the textual criticism of the Fourth Gospel, one chooses against this combination of evidence only on fairly strong intrinsic or transcriptional grounds. But in this case, as we shall note momentarily, these criteria also favor the present, not the aorist, subjunctive. On the other hand, the earliest evidence for the aorist is a group of witnesses from several textual traditions from the fifth century (A C D W), which have in common that they are frequently the earliest witnesses to readings, usually patently secondary readings, that form the basis of the Byzantine textual tradition. All of this to say, then, that the external evidence is not even; rather, it weighs significantly in favor of the present subjunctive.

So also with the questions of intrinsic and transcriptional probability. Since the matter of intrinsic probability can be especially treacherous waters—particularly in a case like this one where one’s exegetical proclivities toward the whole Gospel can play such a significant role—I will hold that discussion until the next section on “significance and meaning.” But one can make some general observations about scribal proclivities that lean heavily in favor of the present subjunctive as the original.

Two matters are significant here. First, since final iva-clauses are one of the certain stylistic features of this Gospel,¹² one can measure the author’s own proclivities regarding Aktionsart in such clauses, and have a broad enough sampling so as to insure relatively reliable conclusions.¹³ Second, one can check the manuscript tradition against the subjunctives in these clauses to see if there are clear tendencies in one direction or the other when scribal errors are made with these subjunctives.

First, then, the data from the author of the Gospel (on the basis of the textual tradition where it is firm). According to Hendriksen’s tabulation, there are 101 final iva-clauses (with 110 subjunctives) in the Fourth Gospel, plus 40 non-final (with 49 subjunctives). The number of aorists in final clauses is 77 (26 presents), giving a ratio of 3:1, which increases to 4:1 in the non-final clauses (37/9).¹⁴ Two general observations about these data can be made: (a) The predominance of aorists in the subjunctive mood is quite in keeping with ordinary Greek prose; in contrast to the way the language is learned by us, the aorist would be the normal tense in the nonfinite moods, and either fixed usage or a good reason prevails when the present occurs. (b) But that very fact suggests also that there is a much higher incidence of the present tense in the Gospel of John (35 in all) than one would expect in normal prose. We will note the possible significance of these data momentarily.

Second, as to what the copyist(s) may have done, there are basically three options: (a) we are dealing with a simple inadvertent error (the adding or dropping of a σ); (b) the copyist(s) made a deliberate change, because he (they) considered tense to be meaningful, i.e., to have significance as to the purpose of the Gospel; or (c) he (they) made a deliberate change, but did not consider it meaningful, i.e., he (they) made it on other grounds, such as uniformity or common usage or grammar. Although reason (b) can be shown as the probable cause in some cases of present/aorist interchange in this Gospel,¹⁵ reason (c) can be shown to be far more likely. In which case, one can further show that the direction of change would almost certainly have been from the present to the aorist. Several data support this conclusion:

(1) While one must always be open to the possibility of an inadvertent error (in the sense of a slip of eye or ear), an analysis of the copying tradition in the iva-clauses in the Gospel suggests that such did not happen very often.¹⁶ Of the 159 verbs in iva-clauses, there are variants in only 16. Seven of these involve variations other than tense.¹⁷ The remaining nine (4:34; 5:20; 6:29, 38, 50; 13:19; 17:21; 19:35; 20:31) involve variants between aorist and present subjunctives, three of which require changes in the stem (4:34; 6:38, 50) and therefore cannot be accidental in the sense we are now using the term. The other six, five of which involve the verb πιστεύειν (6:29; 13:19; 17:21; 19:35; 20:31), allow for the slip of an eye involving a σ. Several factors suggest that this is not the cause of the five instances of variation with πιστεύειν. (a) This is in fact the best explanation for the θαυμάσητε of P⁷⁵ and 1241 in 5:10; and the slip, it should be noted, is toward the aorist; (b) the three interchanges that require stem changes, where there is significant support for both readings, indicate that scribes tended to be thoughtful about this matter; (c) there are several other places where such a slip might easily have occurred, but did not (e.g., 1:17 [λύσω]; 9:39 [βλέπωσιν], a most logical place for such an “error”!). All of this to say that it seems highly unlikely that the aorist/present interchange in five of eleven appearances of πιστεύειν should have been accidental; moreover, even if one or two of them were, the evidence is heavily weighted toward the addition, not the omission, of a σ.

(2) That the variation is most likely deliberate and in the direction of the aorist from the present is supported by another significant piece of textual datum. In all five instances involving πιστεύειν, D and the Byzantine tradition always read the aorist, while B and supporting Egyptians always read the present. This is quite in keeping with a singular textual phenomenon in John’s Gospel. As is well known, there are several kinds of grammatical and stylistic features of this Gospel, which are Johannine peculiarities and which also run at crosscurrents with more standard

Hellenistic Greek (e.g., anarthrous personal names; the abundance of asyndeton; the redundant nominative personal pronoun; the idiom άπεκρίθη ^,Ιησούς και ειπεν αύτ[ω]; the vernacular possessive). In all of these cases, the Johannine idiom is certain; it is also the case that the Egyptian tradition is generally faithful to John’s idioms while D and the Byzantines regularly conform John’s Greek to more standard usage.¹⁸ The present interchange seems to be a case in point.

(3) The evidence is overwhelming in the textual tradition that changes such as these generally move in the direction of more common, less idiosyncratic Greek. That makes the present subjunctive the lectio difficilior in this case.

All of this together, therefore, suggests most strongly that in John 20:31 the author wrote iva πιστεύητε, and that later scribes changed it to iva πιστεύσητε, either because they thought such a sentence leaned toward the notion of “coming to faith” or because the aorist subjunctive would have been a more common idiom for them. This suggests further that the indecision on the part of the UBS editors should be put to rest. The reading πιστεύητε may be confidently placed in the text, and I would think with a “B” rating.

II. Is the Present Subjunctive “Meaningful”?

This question in effect is two-pronged. The first is whether one can demonstrate that John used Aktionsart in a meaningful way. Assuming a positive answer to that question, the second is whether the present subjunctive in 20:31 has “meaning,” and if so, what, or how much? It is probably illusory to think that the present tense in itself demonstrates that the Gospel was intended for the believing community; on the other hand, the question is open as to whether it might lend support to such a notion if other evidence were also present. In any case, an analysis of the 159 subjunctives in iva-clauses in John suggests that John tended to be sensitive to this Greek idiom, so much so that it is worth one’s while always to ask if the use of the present subjunctive was purposeful.

First, as to the aorist subjunctive, it should be noted that by the very nature of the language one is hard pressed to find “significance” in most instances of this tense.

That is, the aorist is what an author would be expected to use if he had no specific “kind of action” in mind. Thus, it occurs in iva-clauses in this Gospel on a regular basis and very often has no further significance at all. Many of these are fixed phrases (e.g., 23 are passives, which are always aorist, including eight instances of iva πληρωθη); most of them are strictly punctiliar, and would make no sense in any other tense. Some of them are undoubtedly constative, as in 1:8, for example, where the Evangelist seems interested only in the concept of the Baptist’s bearing witness to Jesus; it would be pushing the use of tense all out of proportion to suggest that he had a specific moment in mind. Here he could well have used the present tense to suggest “over a period of time,” but there is no reason why the aorist could not also bear that sense—that is, John bore witness to Jesus in a variety of ways, all of which are summed up in this aorist. Moreover, there are certain verbs that one can expect always to appear in the aorist in the subjunctive, simply because the sense of the verb is aoristic (e.g., λαβ[η], 6:7; 10:17; βαλ[η], 5:7; δ[ω], 1:22; 13:29; 17:2; or “eat,” “die,” “raise up”).

This feature of the language in itself should cause one due caution as to whether an aorist in 20:31 would be “meaningful” in some way. If it were original, it could be ingressive, of course, but it could also refer to the simple act of believing, without making a point of when.

But it is otherwise with the present subjunctive. To be sure, some are fixed expressions, where the verb itself carries a durative sense (e.g., εχειν is always present [8*]. Others could perhaps fall into this category, such as “love” and “bear [fruit],” but in this case these would also fit with what appears to be a strong sensitivity to the significance of this tense.

The certain evidence that for John the use of the present tense could have meaning, of course, is the oft-noted clause in 10:38, iva γνώτε και γινώσκητε, which can only mean something like, “that you may come to know and keep on knowing.”¹⁹Similarly, and now outside the subjunctive, the imperative combination αρατε ... μή ποιείτε seems to show sensitivity to Aktionsart (cf. the imperatives in 5:8). What this demonstrates, of course, is that John knew the significance of tense; what it does not demonstrate is that he therefore always used the present tense with this kind of significance.

A close look at several of the present subjunctives in iva-clauses, however, suggests that John shows a general sensitivity to Aktionsart, when choosing to use this tense. This phenomenon first occurs in the narrative of the Samaritan woman. John’s narration of her reply to Jesus’ offer of living water is: “Give (aorist) me this water, iva μή διψώ μηδέ διέρχωμαι ένθάδε άντλεΐν.” The present subjunctives suggest the iterative sense of not continuing to go thirsty, nor needing to come out to this well on a daily basis. Similarly, the present έρωτα in 16:30 implies that Jesus needs no one to “keep on asking.” In 5:20, on the other hand, it is unlikely that the present θαυμάζητε carries this sense; i.e., it is probably pedantic to suggest “in order that they may continue to marvel.” Even so, the present in this case suggests sensitivity to the sense of the sentence. Jesus’ word that he will do greater works than these implies ongoing mighty deeds, and in each case they will marvel, hence iva ύμεΐς θαυμάζητε. So also with the concept of “honoring the Son” in 5:23.

Of still greater significance to this study is the group of present subjunctives appearing in the Last Supper Discourse (chs. 13-17), which are best explained in terms of long-term discipleship, a concern which the discourse itself seems intended to address. Thus in 13:15, the disciples are expected to keep on doing (tva ποιήτε) what Jesus has done (aorist); above all they are to keep on loving one another (13:34; 15:12, 17); likewise they are to continue bearing fruit (15:8, 16); and Jesus prays that they might continue to know and behold his glory (17:3, 24).

In light of this usage, therefore, there are two sets of interchanges that hold special interest, because they apparently stem from the author himself. Very likely there is significance here as well. One of these is found in similar clauses about Jesus’ doing the will of his Father. Thus:

4:34 (UBS) έμον βρώμα έστιν iva ποιήσω τον θέλημα του πέμψαντός με

και τελειώσω αύτου το εργον ποιήσω P⁶⁶ P⁷⁵ B C D K L N W Θ Ψ 083 1 33 al

ποιώ

6:38 (UBS)

ποιώ

ποιήσω

on καταβέβηκα άπο του ούρανού ούχ iva ποιώ το θέλημα το έμον άλλα το θέλημα του πέμψαντός με P⁶⁶ P⁷⁵ B rell א D L 1010 pc

At first blush this may appear to lend support to the demurrers, that John “does not use tenses with ... precision.”²⁰ But on closer look, this usage may be more precise than first meets the eye. The present tense in 6:38 makes perfectly good sense: while it is true that a (constative) aorist could have given the same meaning,²¹ the present suggests that the sentence has to do with Jesus’ earthly ministry as a whole. All of his words and works constitute a continual “doing” of the Father’s will. This likewise explains the change to the present tense in the Byzantine tradition at 4:34. Indeed, the (almost certainly original) aorist²² in this case can also be explained as “meaningful.” On the one hand, it could be constative; more likely, in keeping with the τελειώσω that follows, this whole clause looks forward to the one specific moment, hinted at often in the Gospel, when Jesus “finishes” the will of the One who sent him—namely, on the cross.²³ In this case, the aorist not only makes sense, but very likely gives insight into John’s intent. While this exegesis falls short of “proof’ as to the point at hand, when one begins—on the basis of such usage as in 10:38—with the assumption that Aktionsart is probably meaningful, it will not only affect the exegesis of such texts as these, but can also provide possibly helpful insight into John’s intent.

Much the same can be said of the similar interchange of the present and aorist of πιστεύειν in 13:19 (UBS): άπ’ άρτι λέγω ύμΐν προ του γενέσθαι, iva πιστεύσητε δταν γένηται δτι έγώ ειμι

in light of 14:29 (UBS): και νυν ειρηκα ύμΐν πριν γενέσθαι, iva δταν γένηται πιστεύσητε (no variation).

If the UBS is correct on 13:19, then there is little to be said; the aorist subjunctive is what one might well expect in conjunction with the clause δταν γένηται. But in this case the UBS is almost certainly wrong, for several reasons, not especially different

from those in 20:31: (1) the reading of the present subjunctive is altogether unlikely as an inadvertent error, since such errors in this direction (dropping a letter) are rare in the textual tradition in comparison to additions; in any case (2) scribal proclivities would go the other direction, thus arguing for the present tense as original, which (3) is made the more certain both because of the textual character of the readings of B and because the δταν γένηται makes the reading of the present tense the undoubted lectio difficilior.²⁴

If, then, the Egyptian tradition once again preserves the Johannine original, these two very similar sentences suggest subtleties of usage with this idiom that are quite in keeping with that of 10:38. The present tense in 13:19 is to be accounted for in light of the object clause, on έγώ είμι. It is not the moment of believing “when it happens” (which alone accounts for the textual variation) that here concerns John, but that the disciples will thereafter continue to believe that “I am,” after what Jesus has said beforehand is fulfilled.²⁵ However, even though similar in language and structure, the opposite prevails in 14:29, where the concern is simply with “believing” at the time that “it happens.” This may seem like overly subtle exegesis to some; but John himself is the one who sets us up for such subtleties. It is not that he is trying to “make a statement” by the use of the present in these texts, but that he shows considerable sensitivity to the subtleties of Aktionsart inherent in the language itself.

These various texts seem to suggest a clear sense of nuanced usage in the Gospel whenever John uses the present tense with iva; to test this suggestion further, a brief look at all of the iva-clauses with πιστεύειν may prove instructive, again not in the sense that one can squeeze a great deal of “meaning” out of his choice of the present subjunctive, but in the sense that such usage is almost certainly deliberate and sensitive to Aktionsart.

There are 11 such clauses in the Gospel (1:7; 6:29, 30; 9:36; 11:15, 42; 13:19; 14:29; 17:21; 19:35; 20:31); six are aorist subjunctive; there is textual variation in the other five (6:29; 13:19; 17:21; 19:35; 20:31), although the present is almost certainly original in each case. The six instances in the aorist all refer to general or specific instances of “belief’ within the “historical” situation of the narrative. Thus in 1:7 (iva πάντες πιστεύσωσιν δι’ αύτοΰ) the context is clearly that of people coming to believe through the witness of John. The aorist is to be expected. So also in the several specific instances of belief, as for example in the reply to Jesus of the man born blind (“Who is he, in order that I might believe [πιστεύσω] in him?”). Our interest lies with the five instances of present tense:

6:29-30. Here is another case of apparently subtle awareness of tense that should be taken into account in the exegesis of this dialogue. When Jesus is asked “what should we be doing (ποιώμεν) so that we might be performing (έργαζώμεθα) the works of God?” his answer is in keeping with the question, except for the significant change from “works” to “work”: “This is the work of God, that you believe (πιστεύητε) in him whom (εις ov) that one sent.” The implication of their question is not that they are asking about what single thing they might do to please God, but what kind of “works” over the long run they should be doing so as to be living in keeping with God’s will. Jesus’ answer, therefore, quite in keeping with the perspective of the

Gospel, also does not have to do with a call to faith in Christ, but with that single “work” that all should be doing over the long run, namely (a lifelong) believing in Jesus, the one whom the Father sent. All of this is nicely captured in Barrett’s comment: “The present (continuous) tense of πιστεύητε is perhaps significant: not an act of faith, but a life of faith.”²⁶ It is the failure to catch John’s own nuances and the influence of the next question (in v. 30) that caused the later textual tradition (D K W Γ Δ 0145 f¹³ 28 700 892 1241 Byz) to change this present to an aorist. But precisely the opposite prevails in v. 30. Here, in light of the implications of his answer to their question in v. 29, they want to know what sign he does so that “we might see (ίδωμεν) and believe you (πιστεύσωμέν σοι).” The clear implication, both of the aorist subjunctives and the context, is that they are asking about coming to believe; and since such people never become true disciples in John’s view, the usage is “believe him,” not “believe in him.”²⁷

17:21. On the surface this passage seems a bit more difficult for the position being argued here. But again, that is only at first blush; if one begins with the presupposition that John used the present tense meaningfully, then this one too can be shown not only to make good sense, but also to caution interpreters of John that they should at least begin their exegesis by assuming that John knew what he was about. Here Jesus prays that his followers and those who follow them might be one, so that “the world might believe (πιστεύμ) that you sent me.” It is no wonder that the later textual tradition

changed this present to an aorist (the present is read by P⁶⁶ א* B C*). But here all of John’s linguistic subtleties and grammatical sensitivities are at work. In this prayer there are three clearly distinct groups: the disciples, their disciples, and the world. The world is no longer the arena of salvation (as in 3:16-17), but refers to those who do not—and never will—believe in him (in the sense of having faith in Christ).²⁸ Hence the issue here is not in their coming to faith; just as in v. 23 which follows (iva γινώσκμ ο κόσμος ότι...), conversion is not in view. The world will continue to be the world, but on the strength of Christian unity, it will have to take seriously that the Father sent Jesus into the world. Again, as in some earlier instances, it would be pedantic to translate, “keep on believing.” But the tense is the proper one for what John here intends; this is what the world will come to believe and know about Jesus (over the long haul), not in the sense of coming to faith, but in the sense of their knowing it as long as the world endures.

19:35 and 20:31. In light of all of these passages, it seems altogether likely that the Evangelist also had such a nuance in mind in these two instances where he directs his words to the readers of his Gospel. Since the present tense is clearly to be preferred in both cases, and since, if one assumes that what is clear in some instances (e.g., 10:38) is also likely in others, one can make good sense of Johannine usage throughout the Gospel, then there is no good reason to think otherwise in these two instances.

But how much “meaning” one should thereby give to the present tense is another matter. It is possible, of course, that John intends something maximal, that he has written his Gospel for the believing community in order that, in light of defections or external pressures, they “may continue to believe”—as though the Gospel were intended to keep people from drifting away from faith in Christ. Although I think this case could be made on other grounds, I for one would be reluctant to press for that much intent in the use of tense alone. But I would argue that the use of the present subjunctive is both original and “meaningful” in the sense that it presupposes a document intended for those who are already members of the believing community.²⁹In this more minimalistic view, the present tense simply fits the pattern of this usage throughout—that John does not so much “mean” anything by it, but that he is sensitive to this usage; and for a Gospel written for believers, this is the usage that fits (just as with the world in 17:21). After all, those who “confess” Jesus in this Gospel in the language of this sentence (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God) are not coming to faith, but represent those from within a context of faith who must be encouraged to a deeper measure of that faith, in the sense of deepened understanding (e.g.,

In sum: There can be little question that the present subjunctive is the original text in both 19:35 and 20:31. Although not all will be convinced by the evidence adduced in this paper, it also seems clear that John had a good sense of the distinctions between the aorist and present tenses and that he regularly used the present tense in iva-clauses in the Gospel with awareness of its implications and sometimes in quite “meaningful” ways. It therefore seems altogether likely that in 20:31 John used the present tense in this sense.

Such a conclusion does not mean that one has thereby solved the issue of purpose for this Gospel; but it does add its own weight to those several studies in recent years that see the Gospel as making most sense as having been produced within, and for the sake of, a believing community that stands over against various forces from within and without, with the meaning and significance of Jesus as the central point at issue.

CHAPTER 4

Textual-Exegetical Observations on 1 Corinthians 1:2, 2:1, and

2:10

I take this opportunity to honor Dr. Greenlee by elaborating on three textual questions in 1 Corinthians, beyond what I was able merely to outline in my commentary (Fee 1987). In each case the textual issue has bearing on the exegesis of the particular passage—and therefore on its proper translation—as well as on some larger questions of meaning in 1 Corinthians as a whole.¹ In pursuing such questions I hope to illustrate by example a major concern of Dr. Greenlee’s: that textual criticism is not an end in itself, but must ultimately be brought to bear on the meaning and message of the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 1:2

The textual variant in question is a matter of word order. Did Paul write “to the church of God which is in Corinth, sanctified in Christ Jesus” (variant 1: supported by

p⁶¹ א A D^c Maj lat sy^(p) co), or “to the church of God, sanctified in Christ Jesus, which is in Corinth” (variant 2: supported by p⁴⁶ B D* F G b m Ambrosiaster)? In relating the divided opinion of the UBS committee, Metzger (1971: 543) says that variant 2,

though supported by a notable combination of witnesses ..., appeared to the majority of the Committee to be intrinsically too difficult, as well as quite un-Pauline in comparison with the style of the salutations in other Pauline letters. The reading apparently arose through the accidental omission of one or more phrases and their subsequent reintroduction at the wrong position.

On this point the majority of the committee were influenced by Zuntz (1933: 9192), who had previously argued:

This is really more than a mere variation of order. As arranged in p⁴⁶ &c., the clauses make a jumble which defies interpretation. This jumble cannot have come about, at this place, by mere scribal slips in these outstanding witnesses. . Variants of this kind arise through the insertion of additional or the reintroduction of omitted words. At some very early stage, or even originally, one of the two clauses must have been absent from the text. . [The] impossible reading [of p⁴⁶] is most easily accounted for if the “sanctified”-clause is supposed to have been absent from some ancestor manuscript; it could penetrate into the text at this unsuitable point if in some less distant ancestor it had been added above the text or in the margin.

Zuntz goes on to argue that the “sanctified” clause is probably not original with Paul, since “οί ήγιασμένοι is not a Pauline term to describe believers.”

The external evidence strongly favors variant 2, which is also, as Zuntz himself recognized, decidedly the lectio difficilior. Indeed, this combination of earliest and best manuscripts both east and west supporting the harder reading would ordinarily be decisive. Again, as Zuntz has rightly seen, the combination of p⁴⁶ and the western evidence puts this reading back very early and must be accounted for. On the other side, the evidence for variant 1 is basically Egyptian and Byzantine.³⁰³¹ In any case, it is

arguable that one would need considerable and good reasons to overturn the ordinary canons of NT textual criticism for this variant. The question is whether the proffered arguments are that weighty.

2. The primary reason for rejecting the lectio difficilior comes under the rubric of intrinsic probability—it seems too difficult. By this is meant that one can scarcely imagine Paul to have written variant 2. To this Zuntz adds the alleged evidence of Paul’s not referring to believers as “the sanctified,” thus casting suspicion on the phrase altogether.

3. Zuntz has the integrity to admit that variant 2 is equally difficult to account for under the ordinary canons of transcriptional probability. No scribe would intentionally have created variant 2 from variant 1. Therefore, it must have been accidental, but not by any one of the scribes responsible for our present witnesses, since any mere scribal slip “in these outstanding witnesses ... would have been quickly mended” (Zuntz 1953: 91). Thus Zuntz resorts to a three- or four-stage process:

b. Very early on one or the other of the phrases, or both, was dropped accidentally.

c. Another scribe, having the text of step b in hand, but also aware of the text of step a,

d. The text of step c had a very early and very wide circulation but was finally overcome

But there are considerable difficulties with this view of things. First, as to transcriptional probabilities: It is nearly impossible to account for any direct corruption moving in the direction of variant 1 to variant 2. That is, variant 2 simply cannot be explained on the basis of variant 1 alone. On the other hand, the opposite is perfectly explicable. Any number of scribes could have—indeed would have— “corrected” variant 2 if it had been original. It is inevitable that variant 1 should finally triumph.

Therefore, in order to get from variant 1 to variant 2, Zuntz must theorize the unlikely possibility of a double error of rare kinds,³²³³ and then argue that the text based on the double error had such widespread early circulation that it took years for the original to overtake it—although it had to have existed side by side—and that the intermediate stage (the text with the omission, which makes perfectly good sense) had no further known existence. No wonder Zuntz himself ultimately preferred the intermediate-stage text as the Pauline original.

Finally, since someone had to create the text of variant 2, either Paul or a subsequent scribe, why is it inherently more probable for a scribe to have done it than Paul himself? In the final analysis, one will either believe that a scribe “corrected” in this bizarre fashion or else that Paul himself did the “bizarre” thing in the first place.

The rest of this analysis will try to give a plausible reason for Paul’s being responsible for it.

Is the lectio difficilior impossible for Paul to have written? The answer is no, on two counts. First, one must always be careful about asserting too quickly what an author may or may not have done, especially in matters of style in ad hoc documents. There are just enough instances of unusual word order in this letter to give one reason to pause before announcing that variant 2 is impossible.

Second, and more importantly, both the phrase itself and the word order may significantly reflect the urgency of this letter. Paul’s basic problem with this church was their emphasis on being πνευματικοί “spiritual” and possessing higher σοφία “wisdom” and γνώσις “knowledge,” which at the same time had been rather largely divorced from Christian behavior. Part of his own response to this is to describe Christian conversion, as well as community life, with άγιος “holy” words. There are three significant texts in this regard: 1:30; 3:17; 6:11.

In 1:30, in contrast to their enchantment with σοφία and on the basis of what he had earlier said in v. 23, that Christ crucified is God’s only wisdom, Paul says again that God has made Christ to become wisdom for us. Ulrich Wilckens and others to the contrary, σοφία is not a christological word,³⁴ but a soteriological word, as is evidenced by the appositives, δικαιοσύνη “righteousness/justification,” αγιασμός “sanctification” and άπολύτρωσις “redemption.”³⁵ All of these are soteriological metaphors, and, in the case of the first two, Paul is using metaphors that seem clearly to be moving over into the ethical sphere as well. Thus God made Christ himself to become “sanctification” for them; that is, through him they were saved (“set apart”) for God’s purposes, to be his holy people in the world.

Likewise in 6:11, when describing how the wicked will not inherit the kingdom, and thereby warning them of the same, he describes their conversion in these terms: “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified,” etc. Again, each verb can be shown to be a soteriological metaphor, each appropriate to describe the ethical dimension of the new life that is expected in Christ. You were “washed” from your former wickedness (described in vv. 9-10); you were “set apart” for a life different from before; you were made “right” with God so that you could be “righteous” (δίκαιος) rather than “wicked” (άδικοι).

So also 3:17. By their pursuit of wisdom, with its consequent strife over their teachers, they were destroying the church, God’s temple in Corinth. In a prophetic word of judgment, Paul announces that God will destroy those who so destroy the church, because his temple is to be άγιος “holy,” set apart to be his eschatological people, living out the life of the future in stark contrast to all that was Corinth.

Given this kind of emphasis and usage within the letter, it is not quite precise for Zuntz to suggest that the language of οί ήγιασμένοι “who have been sanctified” is not used by Paul to describe believers. This is in fact thoroughly Pauline language; and in this letter—especially in significant theological texts—it is crucial language used to describe the believers’ new existence in Christ. Thus it should not come as a surprise that this is the first note struck in the salutation. “To the church of God,” Paul writes; but before he goes on to locate them geographically, he first describes them in terms of who they are in Christ. Thus, “to the church of God, sanctified in Christ Jesus, which is in Corinth—called to be saints,” etc.

Variant 2, therefore, is explicable as a Pauline phenomenon, whereas it is nearly impossible to account for, had Paul actually written variant 1. But if this be the case, then it also presents a special problem for translators. On the one hand, if we follow the ordinary principles of dynamic equivalence and translate as though variant 2 were original after all, we may thereby also eliminate a Pauline emphasis; on the other hand, if we follow Paul’s original word order, we end up with a kind of awkwardness that, if left unexplained, leaves the modern reader wondering. I for one would be willing to argue a case for the latter.

1 Corinthians 2:1

The choice here is between μυστήριον “mystery” (supported by p⁴⁶ א* A C 88 436 pc a r sy^p bo Epiph Ambst) and μαρτύριον “testimony” (supported by B D F G P Ψ 33 81 614 1739 Maj b vg sy^b sa arm). On this variant Metzger (1971: 545) has written: From an exegetical point of view the reading μαρτύριον τού θεού, though well supported ..., is inferior to μυστήριον, which has more limited but early support. . The reading μαρτύριον seems to be a recollection of 1.6, whereas μυστήριον here prepares for its usage in ver. 7.

But that will hardly do, since scholarship has been largely divided on this question, and one may read elsewhere (Zuntz 1953: 101):

The latter assumption [that μαρτύριον is original] can alone account for all the data of the problem. The variant μυστήριον in ii.1 is explicable as being due to assimilation to ii.7.

The questions are two: (1) Did Paul write μυστήριον in anticipation of the argument in vv. 6-16, or did he write μαρτύριον, referring to his preaching as bearing witness to what God had done in Christ crucified? (2) Did a scribe change μυστήριον to μαρτύριον under the influence of 1:6, or μαρτύριον to μυστήριον under the influence of v. 7? Despite the swing of contemporary opinion to the contrary,³⁶ the evidence seems overwhelmingly in favor of μαρτύριον in answer to these two questions.

On the matter of transcriptional probability, two things need to be noted. First, the two words are so similar that this is less likely a deliberate change than it is a simple case of a scribe’s seeing one word and having the other called to mind. The question then is which would be the more common term for a scribe in the early church; that is, which one would he tend automatically to see, no matter which one was before him? A simple glance through Lampe’s Patristic Lexicon will reveal that the former had become common stock for talking about the gospel, as well as the sacraments, whereas μαρτύριον is seldom so used. It does no good in this regard to appeal to the commonness of the word μάρτυς “witness” for martyrdom during the second century, since to be a μάρτυς is one thing, but to call the gospel itself μαρτύριον “testimony” is quite another; and the latter simply does not happen in the early church.

Second, both the distance and the relative obscurity of 1:6 make it extremely unlikely that a scribe would recall that text, having μυστήριον before him here, since the scribe himself well knows what is coming in v. 7. But that is what could easily have happened if μαρτύριον were before him. He saw μαρτύριον, but thought μυστήριον, in light of what was about to be said.³⁷

The issue of intrinsic probability is more highly subjective in this case, since no one questions whether or not either variant is Pauline. The real question then is the appropriateness of either word at this point in the argument.³⁸ Metzger and others have argued that μυστήριον here “prepares for its usage in ver. 7.” If original, it would surely do so, but the question is whether Paul himself would have done so at this point. The actual flow of Paul’s argument suggests otherwise.

Up to this point, and through 2:5, Paul has had a singular concern: to set out in stark contrast his own gospel of Christ crucified over against the self-styled σοφία “wisdom” of the Corinthians. They are prating wisdom; he is reminding them that the gospel of a crucified Messiah is the divine contradiction to wisdom humanly conceived. Thus in three paragraphs (1:18-25; 1:26-31; 2:1-5) he reminds them of three realities from their original experience of the gospel as Paul preached it that give the lie to their present stance. First, the message itself, with its central focus on Christ crucified (which, he argues, is in fact the true wisdom of God), stands in contradiction to that σοφία (1:18-25); as does, second, the fact that God chose them, not Corinth’s beautiful people, to become his people in that city (1:26-31). In this third paragraph Paul now reminds them that when he came among them, his preaching was both materially and formally consonant with such a gospel. The emphasis in this paragraph, therefore, is still on the contradictory nature of the gospel of a crucified Messiah, not on the heretofore secret nature of that gospel. Just as in 1:6, he is recalling here his original preaching, in which he did not engage in rhetoric and philosophy, but rather bore “witness” to God’s saving activity in Christ. In such an argument μαρτύριον is a most appropriate—and natural—expression, while “mystery” would be much less so, since Paul’s first preaching was not in terms of revealing God’s secret, but of bearing witness to what God had done in Christ.

At v. 6, however, there is a decided turn to the argument. In 1:18-2:5 Paul has twice pointed out that the message of Christ crucified is God’s wisdom (1:24, 30), because it was God’s power at work doing what worldly σοφία could not, namely bringing salvation to the perishing. In 2:6-16 Paul has two concerns: (1) to point out that the gospel of Christ crucified is recognized as God’s wisdom because it has been so revealed by the Spirit, whom we have received; and (2) to nudge them gently to recognize their own inherent contradiction: they think of themselves as πνευματικοί “spiritual”; Paul’s point is that if they truly were so, then they would have recognized that what the Spirit has revealed, namely salvation through the divine contradiction of

Christ crucified, is God’s wisdom indeed. It is in this context, then, that in v. 7 he now speaks of this wisdom as “hidden,” “in mystery,” unknown to the important people of the present age, whom God used to carry out his foreordained plan. God’s wisdom can only be known as such by revelation of the Spirit; hence until that revelation it was “in mystery.” Thus “mystery” is as appropriate to the argument here as it would have been inappropriate in vv. 1-5.

Finally, it should be noted that the absolute use of μυστήριον as a synonym for the gospel is otherwise unknown in the earlier Paul. The first clear usage is found in Colossians 1:26-27. This does not mean, of course, that he could not have done so earlier; the question is, given the variety of early uses of this word, whether he did in fact do so. Most likely it is this usage in Colossians that had become so popular in the early church, which, along with the usage in v. 7, caused some early scribes to alter Paul’s original μαρτύριον in favor of the more familiar (to them) μυστήριον.

1 Corinthians 2:10

The variants in this case are δέ “but” (א A C D F G P Ψ 33 81 Maj latt sy Epiphanius) and γάρ “for” (p⁴⁶ B 6 365 1175 1739 al Clement Spec). Although the interchange of one conjunctive signal for another may not seem terribly significant for exegesis or translation, here is a case where quite the opposite prevails. One’s understanding of both the meaning of v. 9 and its relationship to the rest of the paragraph hinges on this exegetical choice. In fact, a prior commitment to an understanding of that relationship is the only plausible explanation as to how the UBS committee in this instance abandoned its better text-critical judgment for the secondary reading.

Of this interchange Metzger (1971: 546) says: “The loose use of the connective δέ ... is entirely in Paul’s manner, whereas γάρ, though strongly supported ..., has the appearance of being an improvement introduced by copyists.” Zuntz (1953: 205) concurs, adding that “the opposite change, from γάρ to δέ, is rare.” But in this case these arguments lack force. Indeed, I hope to show that the situation is exactly the opposite of what Metzger has argued.

First, even though the external evidence is basically limited to Egypt, it has the advantage of being the earliest (Clement p⁴⁶) and best (p⁴⁶ B 1739) of this evidence. Here this external evidence is supported by both transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities, and in this case the questions of Paul’s style and intent offer a way through some of the difficulties in understanding this notorious crux.

Despite Metzger and Zuntz to the contrary, transcriptional probabilities are all in favor of γάρ. Except for sheer carelessness, which is not easy to account for (and in any case would favor γάρ over δέ as original),³⁹ it is difficult to imagine any circumstance under which a scribe, faced with δέ in this text, would have substituted γάρ. This is especially so, since, as the history of translation and interpretation makes plain, an adversative force to this sentence in contrast to “what eye has not seen,” etc. in v. 9 seems to make such good sense. On the other hand, for that very reason one can understand how any number of scribes, who failed to make sense of Paul’s γάρ, might have expunged it for what seemed to them to be the more natural adversative sense; all the more so, given the fact that the next two sentences also are joined by an explanatory γάρ. Is one to argue that a scribe deliberately created three consecutive uses of γάρ, especially when the first one made such little sense?

Given, then, that γάρ is easily the lectio difficilior and is supported by the best of the Egyptian tradition, can one make sense of it in Paul’s argument? An affirmative answer to that question, I hope to show, not only resolves the textual question but also offers help for understanding v. 9, which reads literally:

Besides the question of the source of the quotation, which does not concern us here, there are two basic problems with this verse. (1) The sentence itself is an anacolouthon: the problem has to do with the double a “what things” and how one is going to understand what Paul intended to be the subject and object of the sentence. (2) How does the quotation function in the argument itself? Is it the conclusion of vv. 6-8, or does it begin a new direction to the argument? On these matters interpreters and English translations differ considerably.

With regard to the first item there are basically three options. (a) Omit the first a and translate the second as “what,” so that line 4 functions as the object of the three verbs in lines 1-3 (NIV: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him”; compare NAB and Montgomery).

(b) The opposite of that: Omit a in line 4, so that lines 1-3 function as the object of the verb “has prepared” in line 4 (GNB: “What no one ever saw or heard, what no one ever thought could happen, is the very thing God prepared for those who love him”).

(c) Make both occurrences of a coordinate and the whole of the quotation function as the object of the verb άπεκάλυψεν “has revealed” in v. 10 (RSV: “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him, God has revealed to us through the Spirit”; compare NEB).⁴⁰ These latter assume a text with δέ, but then proceed to run roughshod over it, as if conjunctive signals were irrelevant.

The second question gets equally diverse treatment. (a) Some avoid the question by simply translating all of vv. 6-16 as a single paragraph—which it is, but one cannot thereby tell how v. 9 functions in the argument. (b) NIV and NEB see the first subparagraph to be vv. 6-10a. In the scheme of NIV, v. 9 is adversative to vv. 6-8 (“however”), although it is not at all clear how so: in the scheme of NEB, v. 9 is also adversative to vv. 6-8, but because they treat it as part of v. 10a, the whole of vv. 9-10a expresses the revelatory character of what the “rulers” did not understand. (c) By adding a comma after the strong adversative (άλλά) that begins v. 9, RSV and GNB take this verse to begin a new subparagraph (RSV: “But, as it is written,” etc.). This comes out at the same place as NEB, even though the paragraphing is different. That is, in all such cases, even though the quotation in v. 9 touches on the subject matter of vv. 6-8, its real role is to set up the contrast that begins the new subject matter of vv. 10-13.

I would like to suggest another alternative, which sees γάρ in v. 10 as intentional on Paul’s part and therefore as an integral part of his argumentation.¹¹

First, although it will not be argued for here, the linguistic and contextual evidence overwhelmingly favors “the rulers of this age” as referring to the human rulers responsible for the death of Jesus,⁴¹⁴² who thereby also represent for Paul the “leaders” in terms of σοφία that is merely of this age. Thus he sets them up as those who represent the σοφοί (“wise”) whom the Corinthians would now emulate in their feverish pursuit of σοφία.

Second, the stylistic clue to this passage lies with the introductory formula, άλλα καθώς γέγραπται “but even as it stands written.” Most translations take this to be an independent clause, the whole of which is adversative-supportive of vv. 6-8. This exact formula, however, appears two other times in Paul, in Romans 15:3-4 and 15:20-21, and in both cases άλλα “but” functions with the preceding sentence, as part of an ού/άλλά “not/but” contrast. Thus:

It should also be noted that in the case of 15:3, the succeeding sentence is connected with γάρ and is clearly explanatory of the citation. This stylistic feature suggests (a) that v. 9 is intended to provide support for vv. 6-8, as the adversative to the negatives in v. 8 (“The rulers did not understand, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, but ...”); (b) that v. 9 thus belongs with vv. 6-8, which together form the first subparagraph of the argument; and (c) v. 10 therefore begins a new subparagraph by means of an explanation of v. 9.

Third, the argument of vv. 6-9, therefore, goes something like this. In v. 6 Paul has argued that, despite his pejorative treatment of wisdom in 1:17-2:5, there is nonetheless true σοφία for the believer (God’s σοφία), which is not available to the leaders of the present age—because they pursue wisdom that is merely human (of this world, of this age). The divine σοφία, he goes on to explain in vv. 7-8, which was held “in mystery” and “once hidden” in God, was destined by God for our glory. Such wisdom, Paul repeats in v. 8, was not known by those who thought they had wisdom. That he intends nothing new or esoteric here is demonstrated by the next clause: had

That is, divine wisdom is once more joined to Jesus Christ and him crucified, as in 1:23, 1:30, and 2:2. Right at this point, he adds a contrast: “But even as it stands written.” Thus: “Had they known, they would not have crucified him, but as it is written, what things eye has not seen,” etc.

Fourth, this leads, then, to some clues about the structure of the quotation. First, the two parts of the quotation, lines 1-3 and 4, support the two emphases in vv. 6-8. Lines 1-3 correspond to the rulers who did not understand, for if they had, they would not have crucified Christ (note especially line 3, “the heart of άνθρώπου [man] has not conceived”); line 4 corresponds to “what God has determined from before the ages for our glory.” Second, since the quotation functions as a contrast to the rulers of this age, its whole point aims at line 4: what God has prepared for those who love him. Third, since the aim of the quotation is line 4, this suggests that both occurrences of a be understood in a way similar to Moffatt’s translation, where the second a functions something like ταΰτα “these things.” This means that the second a is best understood as in apposition to the first and that both function as the object of the verb “has prepared.” Thus: “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and the heart of man has not conceived, these things God has prepared for those who love him.” Therefore, even though it gives scriptural support for the lack of understanding by the rulers of this age, the quotation also picks up the motif of those who do understand. What Paul will now go on to explain in v. 10 is how we understand, the key to which of course is the Spirit.

10a begins the new subparagraph that gets to the point of the whole section—our being able to understand what the rulers could not, because we have the Spirit while they do not. The first three sentences begin with an explanatory γάρ, each of which explains the former sentence.⁴³For to us God has revealed by his Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God; for [by way of analogy] who knows the mind of man, etc.

The first γάρ functions as the explanatory conjunction to the quotation in v. 9, especially as it climaxes with line 4. Thus Paul says, “What things were not formerly known are the things that God has prepared for those of us who love him; for to us God has revealed them by his Spirit.” In this view, not only is sense made of the lectio difficilior of v. 10, but also v. 9 is placed in its proper role in the argument, to bring support and closure to vv. 6-8 as well as to lead into vv. 10-13.

I trust that these brief exercises in textual criticism, as it impacts exegesis and translation, will not only be an honor to Dr. Greenlee, but will also help us better to understand God’s Word, to which task all of Dr. Greenlee’s academic labors have been devoted.

References

1967 “μυστήριον.” Vol. 4: pp. 802-27 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

1968 The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress.

1987 The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

1900 “St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians.” Vol. 2: pp. 727-953 in The Expositor’s Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

1985 “The Enigmatic ΑΛΛΑ in I Corinthians 2.9.” New Testament Studies 31:603-11.

1966 “Word and Word in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16.” Pp. 275-305 in Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God. New York: Harper & Row.

1976 “1 Corinthians.” Vol. 10: pp. 173-297 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited

1971 A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies.

1975 Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1979 La Premiere Epitre de Saint-Paul aux Corinthiens. Neuchatel: Delachaux & Nestle.

1977 The New Testament Concept of Witness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1914 “Die gottliche Weisheit der Juden und die paulinische Christologie.” Pp. 220-34 in Neutestamentliche Studien: Georg Heinrici zu seinem 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Hans Windisch. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

1953 The Text of the Epistles. Schweich Lectures 1946. London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.

Lindars, Schnackenburg, and Beasley-Murray are representative: B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB) (London: Oliphants, 1972); R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium: III. Teil (Freiburg: B. Herder, 1975); ET: The Gospel According to St John, vol. 3, trans. D. Smith and G. A. Kon (New York: Crossroad, 1987); G. R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC 36) (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987). Each of them notes the uncertainty of the text, although Lindars notes that the majority lean toward the present subjunctive, and makes common disclaimers as to the grammar. Thus, Schnackenburg: “The tense used is no worthwhile argument in this matter” (p. 338); and Beasley-Murray: “A decision like this can hardly rest on a fine point of Greek grammar, not least in view of the fact that the Evangelist does not always keep the rules in his use of tenses” (p. 387). So also the most recent article on this passage by D. A. Carson, “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered,” JBL 106 (1987): 639-51, who says of the textual and grammatical question: “In short, the text-critical evidence is not determinative, not only because it is evenly balanced but also because both the present subjunctive and the aorist subjunctive can occur both in the context of coming to faith and in the context of continuing in faith” (p. 640).

Cf. K. Wengst, Bedrangte Gemeinde und verherrlichter Christus. Der historische Ort des Johannesevangeliums als Schlussel zu seiner Interpretation, Biblisch-theologische Studien 5 (Neukirchen, 1981), pp. 32-35, who takes a much more vigorous stance on this matter than I am ready to do.

So that I will not need repeatedly to use such circumlocutions as “the author of the Fourth Gospel,” I will call the author “John” with no intent of speaking to the question of authorship or the source of the traditions in the Gospel.

Purpose (n. 1), p. 640; cf. Beasley-Murray (n. 1): “the evidence is evenly balanced” (p. 387).

B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London-New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 256.

The unfortunate use of videtur in this instance can be seen by the reluctance of some to include P⁶⁶ in their list of supporting evidence (e.g., Lindars [n. 1]).

This is one of many e/ai interchanges in the MS; see Appendix D in G. D. Fee, Papyrus Bodmer II (P⁶⁶)—Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics, Studies and Documents 34 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1968), pp. 13136.

If one has access to the superior photographs in the editio princeps (V. Martin and J. W. B. Barns, Papyrus Bodmer II, Supplement, Evangile de Jean chap. 14-21, Cologny-Geneve, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1962, plate no. 145), one might note (1) the same combination of τε in the line immediately above, where the scribe (regularly) elevates the ε following a τ or π (he apparently concluded the τ or π with the top stroke, and then followed the same plane and made the median of his ε before finishing with the half circle); and (2) that the only visible u on this page (line 1) also (typically) ends mid-letter to the a that follows.

For this judgment, based on stylistic, grammatical, and transcriptional considerations, see G. D. Fee, “P⁷⁵, P⁶⁶ and Origen: The Myth of Early Textual Recession in Alexandria,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. R. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), pp. 19-45, repr. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993). The significance of P⁶⁶ in this case must not be overlooked. Although this MS is the earliest representative of the Egyptian text-type, it is less pure in this regard than either P⁷⁵ or B; and when it deviates from its basic tradition, it does so in the vast majority of instances toward a smoother, more readable variant. In fact, in the matter of present/aorist interchanges in moods outside the indicative, it picks up the secondary reading (always the aorist) in nine instances, but never does so the other way about (see Fee, Papyrus Bodmer II [n. 9, 46-47]). That it reflects its basic tradition in these two readings, therefore, is the certain evidence that this is not the creation of the scribe of P⁶⁶, and is in fact the only way these passages were known early on in Egypt, in a tradition that has been demonstrated not to be “recensional” in any meaningful sense of that term, but rather that has preserved a relatively pure line of very ancient text (Fee, “Myth,” p. 44).

Cf. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922), p. 69: “[This is] one of the most remarkable phenomena in this Gospel.”

The most useful tabulation of these clauses, in terms of statistical data, can be found in W. Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), pp. 45-53. For the grammar itself, see E. A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar (London, 1906), pp. 369-89, whose analysis of the aorist and present subjunctives is still the absolutely basic starting point for this discussion; it is of some wonder that so many are willing to speak to grammatical points in this Gospel as if Abbott had never written a thing. See also cf. H. Riesenfeld, “Zu den johanneischen iva-Satzen,” Studia Theologica 19 (1965): 213-20, who, however, must finally resort to usage in 1 John to make his point stick. Carson, Purpose (n. 1), p. 641 n. 6, also has a convenient tabulation, which differs slightly from the one used here; but these are minor matters.

The ten occurrences of είμι have been excluded from the count of present subjunctives, since the verb has no aorist.

E.g., in 13:19, if the πιστεύητε of B C is original, the change to πιστεύσητε would most likely have been a “sense” variant, based on the implications of the following “when it happens.” To “believe when it happens” seems to beg for the aorist, which not only makes the reading of B C the lectio difficilior, but leaves one little confidence that a σ was accidentally omitted from their exemplar. Cf. the discussion below.

Some may object to looking only at iva-clauses, but a random checking of other kinds of interchanges, plus the large number in this sampling, indicated that some general conclusions may be based on this evidence.

1:19; 4:15; 6:28; 8:56; 10:38; 15:8; 17:2. Several of these are changes from subjunctive to indicative; two involve substitutions of other words.

For a demonstration of these matters see Fee, Papyrus Bodmer II (n. 9), pp. 36-56; for a full demonstration of the use of the article with personal names, see G. D. Fee, “The Use of the Definite Article with Personal Names in the Gospel of John,” NTS 17 (1970-71): 168-83.

This has been changed to read iva γνώτε και πιστεύσητε in א (πιστεύητε) A K Byz pler. This is secondary on all counts (it is impossible to imagine the circumstances in which a scribe would have changed this reading to the compound of γινώσκω); this is another “C” rating in Metzger’s Textual Commentary (n. 6) that defies explanation.

Lindars, Gospel, p. 617 (n. 1). I have purposely left out Lindars’s word “absolute,” since this may very well be true; but the demurrer seems clearly intended to suggest that the problem is more widespread than simply at 20:31. Cf. Beasley-Murray, John, p. 387.

Which, along with scribal proclivities toward the aorist in this mood, explains the reading of א D L 1010 pc.

Although C. K. Barrett, without explanation, prefers the present (The Gospel According to St. John [Philadelphia: Westminster, ²1978], p. 240); cf. the puzzling comment by Schnackenburg, St. John I (n. 1), p. 447 n. 81, who first says, “the present seems to bring out better the present nature of the action,” but concludes, “Hence ποιώ should be preferred, as the lectio difficilior.” These two sentences are textually non sequitur. The first sentence offers the reason for the change on the part of scribes, which makes the aorist in the case the lectio difficilior.

Cf. Beasley-Murray, John (n. 1), p. 63: “The entire ministry of Jesus is represented by the Evangelist as obedience in action, which leads him finally to the surrender of himself in death.”

Contra R. Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi) (AB 29A) (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970), pp. 554-55.

Cf. Hendriksen, Exposition (n. 13), pp. 239-40, who is one of the rare commentators to note the significance of this present subjunctive and the textual variation.

Cf. Barrett, Gospel (n. 22), p. 288: “πιστεύειν is no longer constructed with εις; but with the dative; that is, the Jews contemplate no more than putting credence in the words of Jesus.”

Although not so earlier, κόσμος is used exclusively in a hostile sense in the Abschiedsreden (chs. 14-17). This has been set up by the clear line of demarcation in the double conclusion to the Book of Signs in 12:37-50.

This conclusion stands over against that of Carson, Purpose (n. 1), who tends to dismiss the significance of this clause and argues on other grounds that the primary purpose of the Gospel is evangelistic. The major flaw in his argument, and one that he himself notes that others have argued (p. 648), is his reliance on L. C. McGaughy’s Toward a Descriptive Analysis of EINAI as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek (SBLDS 6) (Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1972), in which McGaughy’s observations are made on the basis of the verb είναι, without adequate attention to John’s own usage of the article with proper names. On this matter, see Fee, “Use” (n. 18), where it has been demonstrated that Johannine usage in particular and NT usage in general favor an anarthrous personal name in on-clauses when the name precedes the verb (p. 179). This especially Johannine feature would seem to be of more significance than “syntactical links to έστίν.” Thus, while it is possible that Ίησοΰς is the predicate noun in this sentence, this cannot be demonstrated on the basis of its being anarthrous. Johannine usage on the whole suggests that Ίησοΰς functions as the subject in this clause.

The variants have further in common that they are three of nineteen instances where

1 have opted for a text different from that found in the modern “standard text”

(UBS⁴⁴—NA²⁶). They also represent the (only) two instances where I differ with both UBS⁴⁴—NA²⁶ and Zuntz 1953.

It is doubtful whether the “lat” of NA²⁶ is a useful siglum, since it represents the

“translational” variant, such as one would tend to find in any modern English translation of variant 1.

That is, omission of a considerable piece of text, followed by its reintroduction at the wrong place. On the one hand, there is no easy way to account for either phrase’s having been dropped out accidentally; and why would anyone have done so on purpose? On the other hand, reintroduction from an interlinear correction or marginal note is explicable; but in its position in variant 2? Why should something “impossible” for Paul be somehow easier for a scribe—especially since Paul arguably would have been dictating, and thus open to such disjunction, whereas a scribe might be expected to show more care?

Wilckens (1959: 68-76) sees it in terms of an alleged Gnostic redeemer myth; compare Windisch (1914), who sees it in terms of Jewish speculative wisdom.

Thus Paul has moved σοφία from the sphere of philosophy and rhetoric to that of the history of salvation. “Wisdom” is what God has done to effect salvation for his people through the work of Christ.

Interestingly enough, this is less so in commentaries (Orr and Walther 1976, Mare 1976, and Senft 1979 are exceptions) and translations (GNB and Williams are exceptions), as in a variety of other studies, many of whom, it should be pointed out, have a vested interest in Paul’s use of “mystery” language. See, inter alia, Bornkamm 1967: 819; Brown 1968: 48-49; Wilckens 1959: 45; Funk 1966: 295; Schutz 1975: 91; Trites 1977: 203; Kim 1981: 75.

Zuntz argued that the interchange of Χριστού “Christ” and θεού “God” in 1:6 is a related matter, which it probably is. That is, the change from the unquestionably original Χριστού to θεού was probably influenced by the reading μαρτύριον τού θεού in 2:1. But that admittedly says little as to whether the latter is original here, only that such a text was predominant and influenced the scribe(s) who made this interchange.

It is of some interest that scholars on both sides have argued for the appropriateness of either word with καταγγέλλω “I proclaim.” Findlay (1900: 774), for example, says, “[μαρτύριον] suits better καταγγέλλω,” while Bornkamm (1967: 819, n. 141) says, “Since ... the linking of μαρτύριον with καταγγέλλειν ... is unusual in the NT, μυστήριον is to be preferred.” Bornkamm’s is less than impressive argumentation, since μαρτύριον itself as a word for the gospel is rare in the NT (only at 1:6, here, and in 2 Thess. 1:10), and καταγγέλλω is nowhere used with μυστήριον!

For the very reason noted in Metzger: that the use of δέ here would be “entirely in Paul’s manner,” which is why a scribe could have carelessly so conformed it, whereas no amount of carelessness could account for an interchange in the other direction.

JB has taken the opposite stance of this one, by reworking the introductory formula so that the quotation becomes the object of γέγραπται “it is written” (“We teach what scripture calls: the things that no eye has seen and no ear has heard, things beyond the mind of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him”).

Frid (1985) offers a slightly different solution, which has a similar net result. He sees the sentence in v. 9 as elliptical and would add the verb “we know” from v. 8. Thus: “None of them knew, but, as it is written, what things ., these things we do know.”

The oft-repeated assertion that this term refers to demonic powers, either on their own or behind the earthly rulers, needs to be laid to rest. The linguistic evidence is decisive: (1) the term άρχοντες “rulers” is never equated with the άρχαί “principalities” of Col. 1:16 and Eph. 6:12; (2) when αρχών “leader” appears in the singular it sometimes refers to Satan; but (3) there is no evidence of any kind, either in Jewish or Christian writings until the second century, that the term was used of demons; furthermore, (4) in the NT in the plural it invariably refers to earthly rulers and unambiguously does so in Paul in Rom. 13:3; and (5) it is used regularly by Luke to refer to those responsible for the death of Jesus. It has been argued that the case for demonic powers rests on the addition “of this age,” as in the singular “ruler of this world” in Eph. 2:2 (cf. John 12:31). But that still will not work in this case, since the phrase of this age comes directly from 1:20-21, where the Jewish expert in the law and the Greek philosopher are further styled “the disputer of this age.”

This compounding of explanatory γάρ is a unique feature of 1 Corinthians (see, e.g., 1:18-21; 3:2-4; 4:15; and 9:15-16).

Vulgate and two Old Latin manuscripts (a [9th cent.] and r [6th/7th cent.]). This may reflect later influences or may be of little value at all, since it could easily be a

On the Text and Meaning of John 20:30-31

(1992)