Editing the Gospel of John

August 17, 2009

18.5 and a movable Jesus

Filed under: Uncategorized — igntp @ 11:51 am

At 18.5, the subject of the second sentence, Jesus, causes a few problems. Most MSS read απεκριθηϲαν αυτω ιν̅ τον ναζωραιον λεγει αυτοιϲ ο ιϲ̅ εγω ειμι ειϲτηκει δε. But P60, P66 (possibly) and 05 omit it, as do some versions. 03 transposes it, to read λεγει αυτοιϲ εγω ειμι ιϲ̅ (I think the Nestle apparatus is misleading here to treat it as an omission with P60 and 05 followed by an insertion). So instead of taking ιησους as the subject of λεγει, the text in 03 makes it part of the answer. Then we find an Old Latin MS, 3 (Vercellensis), which reads dixit illis ego sum ih̅s aute̅ stabat. This is a reading which seems to start with a Greek text like 03 and then puts Jesus in the next phrase, as part of the subject of ειστηκει. The interesting point is that it is further attestation for the reading in 03, which casts light on the question whether ο ιησους should be in the text. It would be fairly obvious to think that the text originally read απεκριθηϲαν αυτω ιν̅ τον ναζωραιον λεγει αυτοιϲ εγω ειμι ειϲτηκει δε, and that ο ιϲ̅ was added to make it clearer. But the situation may be more complicated. The fact that both 01 and 03 read ιησους without the article is possibly significant but needs exploring. P60 shows a general tendency to omit which weakens its support here. The case for an addition seems strong, but one will need to consider the idea that ιησους was originally present.

It is rather typical of the way textual variation is inconsistent that there is virtually no variation in the Greek in verse in the phrase απεκριθη Ιησους in verse 8.

Advertisements

3 Comments »

  1. Interesting variant!
    Compare the discussion in the online commentary:
    http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John.pdf
    (page 397-8)
    Note also that B and especially 01 are not very reliable regarding the article.

    Comment by Wieland Willker — August 17, 2009 @ 1:30 pm | Reply

  2. “no variation in the Greek in verse in the phrase”

    The case for omission seems strong.

    Comment by White Man — August 21, 2009 @ 8:56 pm | Reply

  3. You wrote: “The case for an addition seems strong, but one will need to consider the idea that ιησους was originally present.”
    Yes, right. This variant is a good example of the kinds of instances where the CGBM might well be of help in making a decision.

    Comment by Michael Holmes — September 9, 2009 @ 2:51 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: