Yuri Kuchinsky

DID JESUS TELL A LIE? (John 7:8)

Greetings, all,

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

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

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

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

So what is going on here? It sure looks like our modern biblical scholars, who came up with this "updated" rendering, want to accuse the Lord of lying!

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

"I am NOT YET going up to this feast"

So, according to the traditional Byzantine/Majority text, Jesus says truthfully that he wants to delay his journey to Jerusalem, and does accordingly.

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

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

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

John 7:8:

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

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

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

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

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

[quote]

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

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

[unquote]

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

[quote]

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

[unquote]

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

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


THE SPLIT IN THE ALEXANDRIAN FAMILY

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

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

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

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


THE SPLIT IN "WESTERN" FAMILY

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

But do they really? Well, the actual situation within the "Western" family is a lot more complicated than that, as I've found out on a closer investigation, and we shall return to this later, in the Part 2 of this article. (What we will see there is that the majority of the "Western" textual witnesses actually do not seem to be portraying Jesus as a liar! So a good case can be made that the Editorial Committee has actually misrepresented the evidence of many "Western" witnesses in this case, at least to some extent...)

To sum up, it looks so far like the external attestation in this case is hopelessly divided, or may even be seen as supporting the Byzantine reading. So, since the Hortian philosophy seems to be to dismiss the value of Byzantine text a priori -- "We will support any reading as long as it's non-Byzantine!" -- the scholars of the Editorial Committee will now appeal to the internal evidence.


UBS EDITORIAL COMMITTEE AT WORK

So let us now look at the reasoning that our modern textual scholars will give for their puzzling decision to accuse Jesus of lying. Here are the Comments of the Editorial Committee from the above website.

[quote]

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

[unquote]

So this is it! According to our august Editorial Committee, "several copyists apparently changed "not" to "not yet". But why could they not do it the other way around, and change "not yet" to "not"? According to our great textual authorities, "there would have been no reason" for this... Hmm, but, Why not?

Surely they could have had a reason -- and I will suggest a few below... But, first, let us try to go step by step, and spell out all the unstated assumptions behind this rather terse verdict that the Committee gives us above.

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

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

3. They in effect challenge their opponents to produce the reasons why the more "difficult reading" -- from their perspective -- could have replaced an "easier reading", as found in the Byzantine/Majority text.

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

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

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


LECTIO DIFFICILIOR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, to be sure, originally, this rule was meant to apply only to certain types of grammatical changes commonly made by ancient scribes. For example, if some rare Greek word had been used in the original text, and some later scribe was unfamiliar with this word, he might have been likely to replace it with a more familiar and "smoother" word.

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

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

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

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

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

So this one is a highly paradoxical rule, that must be used only with extreme caution. But, unfortunately, in my experience, I've seen it abused so many times by various commentators, that I would think that, by now, the whole rule is pretty nigh useless... Because, in the larger analysis, it seems to be doing more harm that good.

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


A THEOLOGICALLY LOADED PASSAGE

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

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

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

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

In fact, this whole story, whichever version of it we may wish consider as the most authentic -- and there's quite a lot of variability there among our ancient manuscripts, especially in verses 5 and 8 -- seems to be irrevocably coloured by this supposed tension between Jesus and his "brothers". Clearly, it was so conceived right from the beginning. It is only the _degree_ of tension, as is evidenced by these key verses, that can be discussed and disputed, and this is precisely where our old manuscripts disagree rather significantly, as we shall see in Part 2 of this article.

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

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

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

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

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

The Testimony Of Eusebius

[quote]

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

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

[unquote]

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

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

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

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

And so, the main purpose of this editor or editors would have been, quite simply, to drive a wedge between Jesus and his family! To make an effort to separate Jesus as much as possible from his own Jewish milieu...

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

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


CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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


PART 2 (upcoming)

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

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

All the best,

Yuri.