In the middle of John 7:39, there are two significant units of textual variation, both of which impact translation. Jesus’ statement here is translated as follows in nine English versions:
“for the Holy Ghost was
not yet given.” – King James Version
“for the Holy Spirit
was not yet given.” – New
King James Version – with a footnote:
“NU omits Holy.”
“For the Holy Spirit
was not yet given.” – World English Bible (digital edition)
“For the Holy Spirit
had not yet come.” – Evangelical Heritage Version – with a footnote:
“Some witnesses to the text omit Holy.
“for
the Spirit had not yet been given.” – Christian Standard Version – with
two footnotes: “Other mss read Holy Spirit” and “Lit the
Spirit was not yet.”
“for as yet the Spirit
had not been given.” – English Standard Version
“for the Spirit was not
yet given.” – New American Standard Version
“Up to that time the Spirit had not been given.” – New International Version
“But the Spirit had
not yet been given.” – New Living Translation – with a footnote: “some manuscripts read But as yet there was no [Holy] Spirit.”
“for as yet there was no Spirit.” – New Revised Standard Version – with a footnote: “Other ancient authorities read for as yet the Spirit (others, Holy Spirit) had not been given.”
The renderings in
these versions, if considered apart from the rest of Scripture, allow starkly different impressions of the meaning of the
phrase: readers of the NRSV’s “for as yet there was no Spirit”
might think that there are here grounds for imagining that John is
saying that the Holy Spirit did not yet exist.
Meanwhile, readers of the ESV and NIV might think that nothing here
could conceivably suggest such a thing.
Let’s investigate the first variation-unit first: some MSS say “Holy Spirit” while others simply say “Spirit.” “Holy Spirit” is quite an early reading, and quite widespread – found in Papyrus 66, B. L, W, N (as a correction), S, X, Y, Δ, 0105, 0141, f1, 33, 565, 700, 1241, 1424, and in the very many manuscripts (both continuous-text and lectionaries) representing the Byzantine Text, as well as most Old Latin copies, the Gothic version, and patristic writers such as Athanasius, Didymus the Blind, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodoret, and, Hugh Houghton has observed (in Augustine’s Text of John, 2008), the Old Latin text in Palatinus, Veronensis, Bezae, Brixianus, and Monacensis. (The Greek text of Codex D also reads πνα ἄγιον, with το added above the line between πνα and ἄγιον.) The non-inclusion of “Holy” (ἄγιον) is supported by P75, a correction in P66, À, K, N (as the initial reading), T, Θ, Π, and Ψ, as well as the Sinaitic Syriac, the Curetonian Syriac, the Peshitta, the Armenian version and the Ethiopic version.
If one uses the principle
lectio difficilior potior as a sort of filter, it ought to be pretty
clear, although “Holy” is found in a diverse array of evidence, that “Holy” (ἄγιον)
originated as a benign scribal addition, added in order to convey precisely
that the Holy Spirit was being referenced.
Nevertheless, the editors of the
Tyndale House GNT have, somewhat incredibly, adopted ἄγιον after πνεῦμα –
dissenting from the “A” rating (conveying, as the Introduction to the UBS GNT
explains near its outset, “that the text is certain”) given to the shorter
reading in the UBS compilation.
Now let’s investigate the pertinent evidence regarding John
7:39’s second variation-unit.
John 7:39 in GA 114 Notice the margin-note! |
The diversity of
renderings in modern English versions is nothing new: ancient manuscripts and ancient versions also
varied. Although some copies of the
Vulgate support δεδόμενον (reading “erat spiritus datus”), the shorter
reading appears to be the Vulgate’s initial reading. Codex D
includes, after ἄγιον, ἐπ’ ἀυτοῖς, which was cleverly corrected to ἐπ’ ἀυτους
by turning the “I” into the trunk of a large “Υ.” The
text of Gothic Codex Argenteus appears to correspond to D’s initial Greek
reading; according to Willker it supports “but not yet was the Holy Spirit upon
him” (in the word-order “but not yet was spirit the holy on him”).
The resistance of the
transmission-line of K and Π against scribal expansion here in John 7:39 ought
to be contrasted with Codex Vaticanus: B
has ἄγιον, and B has δεδόμενον. Κ and Π support
neither of these readings, and Codex Macedonianus
(Y) has ἄγιον but not δεδόμενον. 2474,
and 72,
like most Byzantine MSS, also have ἄγιον but not δεδόμενον. 114
and 265
(a manuscript in which the majuscule text of Eusebius of Caesarea’s guide to
the Eusebian Canons, Ad Carpianus, is framed within a quatrefoil) agree
with K and Π, lacking both ἄγιον and δεδόμενον.
Some members of Family Π certainly deserve more attention than they have
received from the editors of the Nestle-Aland/UBS compilation.John 7:39 in GA 265
The text of Κ and Π is
very much commended by its reading in John 7:39. There is no discernible reason why the
scribes of K, Π, 114, 265, et al (or a scribe of an ancestor-MS shared
by all three) would omit ἄγιον and δεδόμενον, while there are very clear motives for
the addition of ἄγιον and δεδόμενον.
The NET has the
following interesting footnote to John 7:39:
“Grk for
the Spirit was not yet.” “Although only
B and a handful of other NT MSS supply the participle δεδομένον (dedomenon), this is followed in the
translation to avoid misunderstanding by the modern English reader that prior
to this time the Spirit did not exist. John’s phrase is expressed from a human
standpoint and has nothing to do with the preexistence of the third Person of
the Godhead. The meaning is that the era
of the Holy Spirit had not yet arrived; the Spirit was not yet at work in a way
he later would be because Jesus had not yet returned to his Father. Cf. also Acts 19:2.” (NET Copyright Ó 1996-2005
Biblical Studies Press)
The NET’s editors’ candid preference
for the inclusion of δεδομένον on grounds of its clarity – colliding with lectio
difficilior potior – is probably illustrative
of the motivations of many translators, ancient and modern, in their treatment
of the second half of John 7:39.
No comments:
Post a Comment