Subject: Re: Jn 9.38 Text

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 11:05:00 -0500

Bennie Crockett, Jr. asked:

>In the UBS 4th ed., an alternate reading for Jn 9.38 occurs that is 
>not cited in the UBS 1st ed., UBS 3rd ed., UBS 3rd corr. ed., 
>N-A, 26th ed., and N-A, 27th ed. [I do not have the UBS 2nd ed. at hand]
>
>Although this eleventh century lectionary reading certainly is secondary,
>I am wondering _why_ the UBS editors might have chosen to include this 
>variant, especially in light of the fact that it is absent from the 
>editions cited above.  Dr. Metzger does not address this issue in his
>_Textual Commentary_.
>
>Also, does anyone know if this reading is included in other critical
>editions as an alternate reading?  If so, which ones?
>
>===========================================================================
=====
>Bennie R. Crockett, Jr. 
>Professor of Religion and Philosophy
>Assoc. VP, Academic Programs
>William Carey College
>Hattiesburg, MS 
>USA
>
>
>
Several points.

First, everyone should remember that both NA (all editions) and UBS (all
editions) are merely _pocket editions_ (in German: Handausgabe), intended to
be the equivalent of a single-volume desk dictionary, as compared with the
Oxford English unabridged (in however many volumes:  20 or more?).  It is
intended for students, for scholars to take with them to the MS rooms in the
major libraries, for use in the classroom.  Its apparatus is, therefore,
always utterly incomplete and inadequate for serious textual study of the
NT.  As a precis (or abstract) of the known variants (the fullest lists of
which are found in Tischendorf, von Soden, and the volumes of the IGNT), a
selection process has been employed.  In conversations with Barbara Aland
and others, the main lines seem to be these:  "significant" variants from
the uncials, from the minuscules and papyri, as well as lectionaries (were
available);  significant _and supporting_ (for the Gk) variants from the
versions;  and variants which are of intrinsic interest on theological or
textual grounds.

Second, in this instance (at John 9.38), I suspect that the reading was
included for two reasons.  (1) As already suggested in a post, a new
collation of the lectionary may have become available;  (2) the variant
seems to be of interest from a textual point of view, for it echoes John
11.27 and is, therefore, an example of
"harmonization"/assimilation/"transposition" (the latter not in the
technical sense of an inversion, but in the sense of taking something from
11.27 and droping it into 9.38).

Third, the variant given in UBS4, from Lectionary 253 (date 1020:  46 years
before Wm. the Conqueror...), _IS_ (in a very similar--but not
identical--form) found elsewhere, although you'd never know it from UBS or
NA.  And this very similar variant _IS_ given in an earlier edition, namely
that of von Soden, on p. 438, where it is found in MS (v.S.) Ir 1083, which,
in Gregory numbers is MS 1187.  1187 is an XI cent. MS now in St. Catherines
(Mt. Sinai);  Lectionary 253 is in St. Petersburg.  One wonders if, because
of this distinctive link between the two and their origin in the same
century, they are not privy to the same tradition, either textual or
liturgical.  It would be interesting to learn of the provenance of L-253.

Fourth, this example shows, once again, the necessity of NEVER ignoring von
Soden, Tischendorf or the IGNT.  I am constantly amazed at the haste with
which so many look at a pocket edition (NA or UBS), and then think they have
the "full picture."  Not so.  Study von Soden or Tischendorf first;  then
take your pocket edition with you.  You will then be amazed how many times
you realize, when using just these pocket editions:  "Oh, yes, but there are
lots of other variants here, and much more MS/versional support for these
readings...  Let me get all the facts together;  then I'll get back to you..."

Petersen--Penn State Univ.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:53:38 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, William L. Petersen wrote:

> editions) are merely _pocket editions_ . . . Its apparatus is, therefore,
> NT. . . .  

> this example shows, once again, the necessity of NEVER ignoring von
> Soden, Tischendorf or the IGNT. . . . You will then be amazed how many times
> readings.

Mr. Petersen is absolutely correct on these points.  I try to keep my 
Tischendorf and Von Soden with me as much as possible because of these 
factors.  

In regard to the John 9.38 reading, now that I know which one it was, I 
am still somewhat surprised that UBS4 would bother including it, since it 
is so obviously secondary, and reflects an "orthodox corruption" which 
harmonizes to a parallel passage, plus is so limited in its support.

> (2) the variant seems to be of interest from a textual point of view,
> for it echoes John 11.27 

The variant also echoes Jn.1:9, and it may have been that more familiar
passage which triggered the scribe to initiate the harmonization and to
leap ahead to the parallel in 11.27 (which may well have been known from
memory). 

> it is [also] found in MS (v.S.) Ir 1083, which,
> liturgical.  

I would not think this likely, but due to the nature of the phrase (being 
a confessional statement), it probably ended up in both MSS as the 
incorporation of a gloss from memory.  That any liturgical tradition 
seriously utilized this confession as part of the lection beyond the 
solitary lectionary cited and MS 1187 (which like most minuscules was 
probably rubricated for lectionary use) is not very likely, given the 
paucity of evidence.  I'll bet that in the churches which used those two 
MSS, however, the extended confessional statement was read regularly. *;-)

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~