Collation of Hodges and Farstad vs. Robinson and Pierpont
The following is a list of differences between the texts of Hodges & Farstad (2nd ed., 1985) and Pierpont & Robinson 1991. This list was prepared by Jonathan C. Borland, who posted it on the TC-List on 2 May 2003. Borland asserts that this list includes all differences, and that he used "R-P's computer edition (2000) for the collation, which is exactly like the original 1991 printed edition, only without a few typos the printed edition had."
Note that the Robinson-Pierpont reading always comes first, followed by the Hodges-Farstad reading.
(NOTE: only variants for JOHN are reproduced here) John (variants between Majority/Byzantine texts)
Note that almost half of the variants between the two published texts fall within the Pericope de Adultera.
The reason for this is that Hodges and Farstad have attempted their own reconstruction of the text here, using Von Soden's data. They have presented their own stemma and genealogical arguments in the introduction of their Greek NT according to the Majority Text. There they also discuss specific variants within the pericope and explain their choices.
From this one thing should be clear: In terms of numbers of variants and the question of possibly needless marginal notes in the apparatus, the issue of what text is adopted as the original is of major importance.
This is why we feel the need to translate Von Soden's original work into English and make it available independantly to scholars and researchers.
A more complete list of the variants between the two very similar Critical Greek texts can be found here:
I promised I would deal with this one variant next:
(13) "plhn .............ei mh " ("except" versus "if not"):
However, I mentioned that this is a grammatical problem.
Up until now, every piece of internal evidence against the authenticity of the passage was really just fluff. And it could be understood as easily in English as in Greek. Appealing to the Greek in those cases was just a smokescreen, which made the pronouncements appear artificially authoritative. Once stripped of their veneer, it became apparent that there was nothing mysterious or compelling to the claims.
This however is a grammatical matter of some complexity and subtlety, so I will have to prepare the reader by offering first a technical article for you to review.
In the end, it will turn out that this case is no different than the others in its lack of value as evidence against the authenticity of the pericope. However, in this case, to be thorough, we will have to learn some grammatical information of no small level of difficulty. If we did not do this, then the analysis would be deficient.
So I will ask the reader here to first absorb all they can from this prepatory article on the 'ei me' construction:
Please understand that we do not necessarily agree with everything in this article, as will become apparent in the ensuing discussion. We are merely acknowledging its thoroughness in presenting the grammatical issues and its evenhandedness and accuracy as to the state of the art in NT Greek grammar.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Okay I'm ready to start a brief grammar lesson in preparation for this last variant:
Originally Posted by NOTE TO EXPERTS
My purpose here is to make the arguments easy to understand for non-professors, and non-grammarians, and non-Greek speakers.
So those who are already experts in these things are asked to relax and may ignore the next bit of introductory talk. Its purpose is to remind or instruct if necessary, some basic facts about grammar. Geniuses may go out for a break and read a book.
Adjectives and Adjective modifiers:
Many common nouns are too inclusive, and ambiguous in typical situations.
If I say "pass the book" in a library, it might be confusing.
To narrow down which book, and exclude others which are irrelevant,
I might simply add an appropriate adjective, forming a phrase: "the green book".
The adjective is the word "green", and it is not merely descriptive, but also exclusive.
In gesturing to a pile of books, "pass the green book" excludes those that aren't green.
With a pile of objects on the table, "pass the book" excludes the objects that arent books,
and with a pile of books on the table, "pass the green book" excludes other books.
In both cases, "the book" or "the green book" do the same job.
They simply identify an object and exclude other objects that might accidentally be included.
These groups of words are called phrases, and they simply act like names, or nouns.
In fact they have a special name, "substantive phrases".
Phrases aren't sentences. They don't really describe actions or tell a story by themselves.
They just identify something, a person, a thing, or even an idea.
"Except" and "But": Words that narrow meaning by exclusion
As well as simple adjectives, like "green" we can have other ways of excluding the objects we don't want to refer to: "Pass all the books except the red ones." Is indeed a sentence,
but the last seven words (underlined) in it all act as one single name, or "substantive phrase"!
The sentence really just says, "Pass something." and that something is a group of objects.
That group of objects could be a bit ambiguous,
so an adjective modifier or "adjective phrase" (another group of words) is added
to exclude some objects we don't want: "except the red ones".
This particular "adjective phrase" is an exclusionary phrase:
it excludes some objects from the group we want to talk about.
This is done with a special connecting word, "except".
This word is normally used just like it is here, and quite often, to build a more specific name out of the common words at hand,
by adding an excluding phrase to the name or substantive phrase.
We also commonly use another connecting word in just the same way:
"Everyone but John went to Jerusalem."
Here again, 'everyone' would be too ambiguous, so an exclusionary phrase, "but John" is added to show who isn't in the group.
"but" is the connecting word making the following phrase exclusionary.
This is just like the case with the word "except".
Both words can connect an excluding phrase to a name, making it more specific,
and both words are often interchangable in ordinary English.
*This usage of these connecting words is simply to join two phrases together,
to make one big (and less ambiguous) phrase, which acts as a noun, or name.
But the group of words formed by these connections are just bigger phrases.
They are NOT sentences in themselves: they will be used as Subjects or Objects later
in a larger structure which has a verb, called a clause or sentence.
*KEY POINT: Notice that in Greek the word for joining phrases to give the exclusive meaning is "plen" (plhn) = "except, but". The other popular word with this function is "alla" (alla) = "but".
"plen" (plhn) = "except, but" is actually a general purpose word, most easily rendered 'but' in most contexts inthe Synoptic gospels, where it appears dozens and dozens of times.
A good example of its use as an exclusive modifier is in Acts 8:1, where not much else other than "except" will fit:
"...and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles."
...panteV de diesparhsan kata taV xwraV thV IoudaiaV kai SamareiaV plhn twn apostolwn. (Acts 8:1)
Allthough this is statistically rarer as a usage generally than plhn as a more general connector of contrasting clauses, it is perfectly normal, and good Greek. The statistical preponderance in the NT really doesn't reflect normal usage as such, so much as it reflects the subject matter, namely the large sections of Jesus' speechs in the Synoptics, where it mostly appears.
Thus ends Lesson One: Phrases with "but" and "except" .
That was the easy part...
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 4th January 2006 at 06:57 PM.
Once again I remind experts that this section is for ordinary people,
so that they can follow what is being discussed.
Those who consider themselves well educated and formally trained in grammar questions
may continue to coast and sip their non-fermented grape-juices.
Please don't criticise these sections for their lack of technical terms,
or some simplifications and inaccuracies regarding 'elipsis', 'apodosis' or 'optative moods'.
This is not the place to impress us with your superior knowledge.
The whole idea in these little excursions is to lay out the basics
WITHOUT introducing a whole pile of needless technical terms.
Thanks in advance - Nazaroo
Okay, lets go to lesson 2:
Simple Clauses and Compound Sentences:
We call a simple statement with a single Subject and predicate (and one basic verb) a 'clause'. This is one step up in size and complexity from a 'phrase', discussed in the previous section. (Recall that 'phrases' are just complicated names of people, objects, places and ideas.)
"The disciples went to Jerusalem." is a simple sentence, i.e., a "clause".
"Jesus stayed behind." is another simple clause.
If we join two clauses together, we get one long sentence:
"The disciples went to Jerusalem, and Jesus stayed behind." - is a "compound sentence".
We can connect two clauses with a variety of words, each with slightly different nuances, but all essentially doing the same basic thing:
"The disciples went to Jerusalem, but Jesus stayed behind." "The disciples went to Jerusalem, yet Jesus stayed behind." "The disciples went to Jerusalem, while Jesus stayed behind."
This allows us to relate two statements or contrast them, in telling a story.
In Greek these functions are handled similarly, with a few connecting words,
like "kai" (kai) = 'and' , "de" (de) = 'but, and', "alla" (alla) = "but" (stronger form).
*KEY POINT: Notice that in Greek these words for joining clauses are different than the word used for phrases (plhn).
(In English there is an overlap in the use of 'but' and even 'except' because these words can do both jobs.)
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 2nd January 2006 at 01:49 PM.
Once again I remind experts that this section is for ordinary people, so that they can follow what is being discussed. Those who consider themselves well educated and formally trained in grammar questions may continue to coast
Conditional Sentences:
Of course if all we could do was make flat statements, stories would be boring, and we would not be able to do much reasoning or science. But we can also ask questions, make exclamations, and most importantly make hypothetical statements and proposals. This allows us to express certain facts and 'truths' which are more abstract, not based on what did or didn't happen, but what 'might' have happened, and what we know about what the consequences might be if this or that happened.
And so we come to 'IF-statements', or Conditional Sentences. A Conditional Sentence has the basic skeleton-form of:
If __(STATEMENT A)__ , then __(STATEMENT B)__.
A Conditional Sentence is a COMPOUND sentence, made up of two clauses, each with a verb. Each clause is a statement of its own right, and asserts an action or state.
On the 'IF' side, we put a hypothetical idea, perhaps something that did happen, or could happen. The actual truth of the statement, whether or not it is a historical fact, either at the time we say the sentence or later, is for the moment irrelevant and put aside.
On the 'THEN' side, we put what we know about the consequences of the statement found for the 'if' side. Let's see how two people can share information that neither of them possesses when they start the conversation(!):
Disiple A: "Did John go to the market?"
Disciple B: "I don't know.
But, IF John went to the market, THEN Judas went to the market.
I know this because Judas has the money pouch."
Disciple A: "Well, I know this: IF Judas went to the market, THEN John went with him.
I know this because Judas said he would not go without John. "
Disciple B: "Well if so, then John went to the market.
I know this because Judas left with John just now."
Using some 'if-statements' (conditional clauses), the disciples were able to share their partial knowledge about the situation and combine it to arrive at a conclusion regarding the actual facts. They were able to do this by considering some hypothetical cases and their consequences.
Elipsis:
Notice that in the third bold Conditional Sentence, the word 'so' appears. It is not a real clause, but acts as a 'place-holder' for the clause that is implied:
"If so (Judas would not go without John), then..."
This 'dropping out' of various ideas, like verbs, or even whole clauses, is a natural time-saver in conversational speech. It is called 'elipsis'. (a skip or hole).
Greek Examples:
In Greek, the 'if - then' conditional Sentence uses the following words:
ei (if) __(hypothetical statement)__ oun (then)__(consequence)__.
"Lord: If he sleeps, (then) he does well." (John 11:12)
"kurie, ei kekoimhtai, swqhsetai."
KEY IDEA: A whole clause (with verb) can be implied, even when it is actually left out, and is assumed by the reader or speaker familiar with these shortcuts and conventions.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 4th January 2006 at 05:08 PM.
Lesson 4: Negative Conditional Sentences and Debate
The most common occurance of the Conditional Sentence in the New Testament is in dialogue (or monologues like Epistles) during an argument or debate, or to prove a point. In this case, the speaker will make an assertion, and then justify it, or prove it by using a NEGATIVE Conditional sense:
"Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God.
(Assertion: God is with you.)
For no one is able to do these signs, if God were not with Him." (John 3:2)
___(Counter-factual Consequence)__, if not ___(Counter-factual premise)__.
Here the basic structure is this:
The speaker makes an assertion, a claim, or a statement of fact.
Then he proves it by pointing to an obviously false consequence that would result if the statement he made were NOT true. The lack of any evidence for the alternative 'if' statement (the negation of the main thesis) proves that the main thesis is true.
The 'Optative' Mood
In a purely hypothetical statement, the speaker can emphasize the hypothetical-ness or falsity of the statement by using a rare 'optative' form of the verb. In English, we use the plural form of the past-tense for this job.
We might say,
"Were John going to the store, he would have taken Judas."
Here we use the plural past tense of the verb 'to be' to indicate the actual falsity or hypothetical status of the assertion in the (in this case abstract) 'if' clause.
Notice that the word 'if' is actually left out completely here. (even 'if' is optional!) The full version is:
"If John were going to the store, he would have taken Judas."
This is an English idiom only, since English doesn't really have an 'optative mood' for verbs, although we accomplish the function of one. This is because English is a much less 'inflected' language, where things like idioms and word order take the place of special verb forms.
The Negative Particle:
In English, the 'negative particle' ("not") floats around and is most comfortable either immediately preceding the verb, or inserted between the parts of a 'compound' predicate.
"John would have no money, if Judas didnotgo with him."
Here we see the word 'not' stuck between the two verb-parts (underlined). Again in English (only), since it is not highly inflected, many special forms like past and future tenses are made by combining a verb with the verb 'to be' or 'will/shall'.
In Greek however, this is not the case. a typical verb has all the information packed into its form.
The negative particle 'mh' ("not") tends to stick to the word 'ei' ("if") and both sit between the two clauses being joined together. At most, sometimes the word 'de' ("but") by force of its own natural place in a sentence in Greek will insert itself between the two.
Basic Form and Examples:
So typically in Greek we will see a three clause grouping:
Often, as in English, the opposing counter-assertion is just left out entirely, by 'elipsis', but it is still there in force, being assumed by the speaker and hearer. It is often represented in English by a simple comma!:
"In my Father's house are many homes. But if not, (that is, "if there were not many homes," )
(then) I would have told you!." (John 14:2)
"en th oikia tou PatroV mou monai pollai eisin. ei de mh[elipsis of counter-assertion], eipon an umin!"
Often, it is not the whole clause that is left out, but just the main predicate, and the Subject (a noun or phrase) functions as the placeholder:
"And no one ascends to heaven, if not the One descending." (that is, "if the One descending does not ascend.") (John 3:13)
"kai oudeiV anabebhken eiV ton ouranon, ei mh o ek tou ouranou katabaV."
Here the phrase is a placeholder for the entire clause or thought.
Almost any part of a complex clause or sentence can stand in for the whole thing, depending upon the emphasis or focus. Just like English, Greek is equally flexible and similar in the thought-construction:
"No one comes to the Father, if not through Me." (that is, "if they do not come to the Father through Me") (John 14:6)
"oudeiV erxetai pros ton Patera ei mh di' emou!"
Here a secondary modifying phrase for the action is standing in for the whole complex sentence. Why? Because this is the essential point and focus of the argument at hand.
We have seen that although the expression 'ei mh' is common in the gospel of John, it almost invariably appears in dialogue, specifically during an argument, debate, or special instruction or teaching.
KEY CONCEPT: In Greek and English, the Conditional Sentence, and especially the Negative form, with 'if not' appears in dialogue, particulary argument and debate, not narrative!
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 4th January 2006 at 05:00 PM.
I've taken the trouble to type in Scrivener's comments here, because he is often misquoted or incompletely quoted:
Scrivener
on the
Pericope de Adultera
An Extract from
A Plain Introduction to the
Criticism of the New Testament
by F.H.A. Scrivener 4th Ed.
Edited by E. Miller
pg 364-368
hand-typed into Microsoft word
by Nazaroo
(pg 364f 2nd para.)
22. John vii..53 - viii.11. On no other grounds than those just intimated when discussing ch. v. 3, 4 can this celebrated and important paragraph, the pericope adulteraeas it is called, be regarded as a portion of St. John's Gospel. It is absent from too many excellent copies not to have been wanting in som of the very earliest; while the arguments in its favour, internal even more than external, are so powerful, that we can scarcely be brought to think it an unauthorized appendage to the writings of one, who in another of his inspired books deprecated so solemnly the adding to or taking away from the blessed testimony he was commissioned to bear (Apoc. Xxii. 18, 19). If ch xx. 30,31 show signs of having been the original end of this Gospel, and ch xxi be a later supplement by the Apostle's own hand, which I think with Dean Alford is evidently the case, why should not St. John have inserted in this second edition both the amplification in ch v.3, 4, and this most edifying and eminenetly Christian narrative? The appended chapter (xxi) would thus be added at once to all copies of the Gospels then in circulation, though a portion of them might well overlook the minuter change in ch v. 3, 4, or, from obvious though mistaken motives, might hesitate to receive for general use or public reading the history of the woman taken in adultery.
It must be in this way, if at all, that we can assign to the Evangelist chh. Vii. 53-viii. 11 ; on all intelligent principles of mere criticism the passage must needs be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by all the critical editors. It is entirely omitted (ch.viii 12 following continuously to ch. Vii 52)
in the uncial Codd. A A 1 B C 1 T(all very old authorities) L X 2 D, but L/ D leave a void space (like B's in Mark xvi.9-20) too small to contain the verses (though any space would suffice to intimate the consciousness of some omission), before which D* began to write ch. vii. 12 after ch. vii. 52.
Add to these, as omitting the paragraph, the cursives 3 12, 21, 22, 33, 36, 44, 49, 63, (teste Abbott), 72, 87, 95, 97, 106, 108, 123, 131, 134, 139, 143, 149, 157, 168, 169, 181, 186, 194, 195, 210, 213, 228, 249, 250, 253, 255, 261, 269, 314, 331, 388, 392, 401, 416, 453, 473 (with an explanatory note), 486, 510, 550, 559, 561, 582 (in ver. 12 palai for palin): it is absent in the first, added by a second hand in 9, 15, 105, 179, 232, 284, 353, 509, 625: while ch. viii 3-11 is wanting in 77, 242, 324 (sixty-two cursive copies). The passage is noted by an asterisk or obelus or other mark in Codd. MS, 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, 34 (with an explanatory note), 35, 83, 109, 125, 141, 148 (secunda manu), 156, 161, 166, 167, 178, 179, 189, 196, 198,201, 202, 219, 226, 230, 231 (secunda manu), 241, 246, 271, 274, 277, 284 ?, 285, 338, 348, 360, 361, 363, 376, 391 (secunda manu), 394, 407, 408, 413 (a row of commas), 422, 436, 518 (secunda manu), 534, 542, 549, 568, 575, 600. There are thus noted vers. 2-11 in E, 606: vers. 3-11 in P (hait ver. 6), 128, 137, 147: vers 4-11 in 212 (with unique rubrical directions) and 355: with explanatory scholia appended in 164, 215, 262 3 (sixty-one cursives). Speaking generally, copies which contain a commentary omit the paragraph, but Codd. 59-66, 503, 526, 536 are exceptions to this practice.
Scholz, who has taken unusual pains in the examination of this question, enumerates 290 cursives, others since his time forty-one mre, which contain the paragraph with no trace of suspicion, as do the uncials D F (partly defective) G H K U G (with a hiatus after sthsantes authn ver. 3): to which add Cod. 736 (see addenda) and the recovered Cod. 64, for which Mill on ver. 2 cited Cod. 63 in error. Cod. 145 has it only secunda manu, with a note that from ch. viii. 3 touto to kefalaion en polloiV antigrafoiV ou keitai. The obelized Cod. 422 at the same place has in the margin by a more recent hand en thsin antigrafhV outwV. Codd. 1, 19, 20, 129, 135, 207 4, 215, 301, 347, 478, 604, 629, Evst. 86 contain the whole pericope at the end of the Gospel. Of these, Cod 1 in a scholium pleads its absence wV en toiV pleiosin antigrafoiV, and from the commentaries of Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopsuestia; while 135, 301 confess they found it en arcaioiV antigrafoiV:
Codd. 20, 215, 559 are obelized at the end of the section, and have a scholium wihch runs in the text;
ta wbelismena, keimena de eiV to teloV, ek twnde wde thn akolouqian exei, and on the back of the last leaf of both copies to uperbaton to opisqen zhtoumenon. In Codd. 37, 102, 105, ch viii 3-11 alone is put at the end of the Gospel, which is all that 259 supplies, though its omission in the text begins at ch. vii. 53. Cod. 237 on the contrary, omits only from ch. viii 3, but at the end inserts the whole passage from ch. vii.53: in Cod. 478, ch. vii 53-viii 2 stands prima manu with an asterisk, the rest later. Cod.225 sets chh.vii. 53-viii.11 after ch. vii.36; in Cod 115, ch. viii.12 is inserted between ch. vii.53 and 53, and repeated again in its proper place. Finally, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346 (being Abbott's group), and 556 give the whole passage at the end of Luke xxi. 37 with John viii.1; and wrqrize Luke xxi 38 with orthrou John vii. 2 5.
In the lectionaries, as we have had to occasion to state before (Vol.I. p 81 note), this section was never read as a part of the lesson for Pentecost (John vii 37 - viii 12), but was reserved for the festivals of such saints as Theodora Sept. 18, or Pelagia Oct.8 (see Vol. I. p 87, notes 2 and 3), as also in Codd. 547, 604, and in many Service-books, whose Menology was not very full (e.g. 150, 189, 257,259), it would thus be omitted altogether. Accordingly, in that remarkable Lectionary, the Jerusalem Syriac, the lesson for Pentecost ends at ch. viii 2, the other verses (3-11) being assigned to St. Euphemia's day (Sept. 16).
Of the other versions, the paragraph is entirely omitted in the true Peshitto (being however inserted in printed books with the circumstances before stated under that version), in Cureton's Syriac, and in the Harkleian; though it appears in the Codex Barsalibaei, from which White appended it to the end of St. John: a Syriac note in this copy states that it does not belong to the Philoxenian, but was translated in A.D. 622 by Maras, Bishop of Amida. Maras, however, lived about A.D. 520, and a fragment of a very different version of the section, bearing his name, is cited by Assemani (Biblioth. Orient. ii 53) from the writings of Barsalibi himself (Cod. Clem.-Vat. Syr. 16).
Ridley's text bears much resemblance to that of de Dieu, as does a fourth version of ch. vii 53 - viii. 11 found by Adler (N.T. version. Syr., p 57) in a Paris codex, with the marginal annotation that this 'suntaxiV' is not in all the copies, but was interpreted into Syriac by the Abbot Mar Paulus. Of the other versions it is not found in the Sahidic, or in som of Wilkins' and all Schwartze's Bohairic copies 6, in the Gothic, Zohrab's Armenian from six ancient codices (but five very recont ones and Uscan's edition contain it), or in a f l (text) q of the Old Latin. In b the whole text from ch vii.44 to viii.12 has been wilfully erased, but the passage is found in c e (we have given them at large, pp.362-3), ff 7 g j l (margin), the Vulgate (even am. Fuld. For san. ), Ethiopic, Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Persic (but in a Vatican codex placed in ch. x), and Arabic.
Of the fathers, Euthymius [xii], the first among the Greeks to mention the paragraph in its proper place, declares that para toiV akribesin antigrafoiV h oux eurhtai h wbelistai dio fainontai pareggrapta kai prosqhkh. The Apostolic Constitutions [iii or iv] had plainly alluded to it, and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.ii 39 fin.) had describe from Papias,and as contained in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the story of a woman epi pollaiV amartiaiV diablhqeishV epi tou kuriou, but did not at all regard it as Scripture. Codd. K M too are the earliest which raise the number of titloi or larger kefalaia in St. John from 18 to 19, by interpolating kef. I' peri thV moicalidoV which soon found admittance into the mass of copies: e.g., Evan. 482.
Among the Latins, as being in their old version, the narrative was more generally received for St. John's. Jerome testifies that it was found in his time 'in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus;' Ambrose cites it, and Augustine (de adult. Conjugiis, lib ii. c. 7) complains that 'nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei, ' removed it from their codices, 'credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari muleiribus suis.' 8
When to all these sources of doubt, and to so many hostile authorities, is added the fact that in no portion of the N.T. do the variations of manuscripts (of D beyond all the rest) and of other documents bear any sort of proportion, whether in number or extent, to those in these twelve verses (of which statement of full evidence may be seen in any collection of various readings) 9 , we cannot help admitting that if this section be indeed the composition of St. John, it has been transmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those connected with any other genuine passage of Scripture whatever. 10
Here are the footnotes Included in Miller's edition:
1. Codd. A C are defective in this place, but by measuring the space we have shown (p. 99, note 2) that A does not contain the twelve verses and the same method applies to C. The reckoning, as McClellan remarks (N.T., p 723), 'does not preclude the possibility of small gaps having existed in A and C to mark the place of the Section, as in L and D.'
2. Yet Burgon's caution should be attended to. 'It is to mislead - rather it is to misrepresent the facts of the case - to say (with the critics) that Codex X leaves out the "pericope de adultera". This Codex is nothing else but a commentary on the Gospel, as the Gospel used to be read in public. Of necessity, therefore, it leaves out those parts of the Gospel which are observed not to have been publicly read' (Guardian, Sept. 10, 1873).
3. The kindred copies Codd. L, 215 (20 has an asterisk only against the place), 262, &c., have the following scholium at ch vii 53:
"ta wbelismena en tisin antigrafoiV oi keitai, oude Apollinariw: en de toiV arcaioiV kei[n]tai mnhmoneuousin thV perikophV tauV kai oi apostoloi, en ais exeqento diataxesin eiV oikodmhn thV ekklhsiaV" The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii.24. 4) as Tischendorf perceives.
4. Yet so that the first hand of Cod. 207 recognizes it in the text, but setting in the margin to de loipon zhtei eiV to teloV tou bibliou (Burgon, Guardian, Oct 1, 1873)
5. A learned friend suggests that, supposing the true place for this supplemental history to be yet in doubt, there would be this reason for the narrative to be set after Luke xxi, that a reader of the Synoptic Gospels would be aware of no other occasion when the Lord had to lodge outside the city: whereas with St. John's narrative before him, he would see that this was probably the usual lot of a late comer at the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. vii. 14). Mr J Rendel Harris thinks that the true place for the pericope is between ch. v and ch. vi, as for other reasons which we cannot depend upon, so from our illustrating the mention of the Mosaic Law in ch. viii 5 by ch. v. 45, 46.
6. Yet on the whole this paragraph is found in more of Bp. Lightfoot's copies than would have been anticipated: viz. In the text of 3, 8, 14, 17, 18, 23, 24, in the margin of 1, and on a later leaf of 20. It is wanting in 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21, 25, 26.
(there is no footnote 7: this was a misnumbering on my part)
8. Similiter Nicon ejectam esse vult narrationem ab Armenis, blaberan einai toiV polloiV ten toianthn akroasin dicentibus.' Tischendorf ad loc. Nicon lived in or about the tenth century, but Theophylact in the eleventh does not use the paragraph.
9. Notice especially the reading of 48, 64, 604, 736 (prima manu) in ver. 8 egrafen eiV thn ghn enoV ekastou autwn taV amartiaV.
10. We are not surprised in this instance at Dr. Hort's verdict (Introd. P.299): 'No interpolation is more clearly Western, though it is not Western of the earliest type.' Dean Burgon has left amonst his papers an elaborate vindication of this passage, from which however the Editor cannot quote.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 9th January 2006 at 06:49 AM.
This next post will gather up some miscellaneous matters that naturally arise in the discussion of the grammar of these passages.
(1) Translation and Dynamic Equivalence
Some readers may already have perceived quite a difference in the renderings for the examples we have been discussing under Conditional Sentences. An explanation is in order.
The differences for the most part reflect that fact that here when carefully examining grammatical issues we will almost exclusively render the Greek components as 'literally' as possible. The purpose here is (1) to directly convey the physical form of the Greek structures as well as the meaning, and (2) to do as little 'interpretation' as possible. It is a 'ground up' process.
Specifically, those familiar with the KJV and most other translations will notice that these translations render the particles "ei mh" ('if not') frequently as "but" or "except", and occasionally as "unless".
This is partially the result of the act of "dynamic equivalence" in translation/interpretation. Here the translators feel that in many cases the literal "if not" gives a more clumsy appearance, and more common English idioms can safely be substituted without loss of meaning, and give a more natural expression.
These arguments are often strong and appealing, but we should be cautioned that they still involve an element of interpretation and assumption of meaning. That meaning may not be present with the same certainty as what the literal rendering offers.
Sometimes a deliberately more inclusive, more general, or more ambiguous choice of words has been made by the original author or the Holy Spirit for a good reason. There is always some compromise or loss of meaning in translation. Here in the minute study of grammar we want to minimize the introduction of artifacts or misleading effects as a result of too free a rendering.
(2) The NON-Equivalence of "if not" and "except"
A really good example of the loss of meaning can be shown in this case with the use of the word 'except' as a substitute for 'if not'.
There is one often critically important piece of meaning completely lost in the substitution of 'except' for 'if not' in a Conditional Sentence: The sentence is no longer conditional! It actually becomes a flat statement of fact. This is often unimportant, and simply hides a Greek idiom or form of expression.
However we should never lose sight of the fact that a Conditional Sentence in Greek or English is NOT a statement of fact. Its a hypothetical statement presented to the reader for consideration. In order to consider the hypothetical truth of a Conditional Sentence, one's current belief or knowledge of the historical facts must often be suspended entirely.
Examples:
Sometimes converting a Conditional Sentence can add things or imply things that may not be true, and are not present in the Greek:
"A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and in his own house." (World English Bible Matt.13:57)
However the Greek only says,
"ouk esti profhthV atimoV, ei mh en th patridi autou kai en th oikia autou." (Matthew 13:57)
"A prophet is not without honour,
(even) if he is not (honoured) in his own country and in his own house." (Literal)
Falsely converted from a conditional sentence to a statement of 'fact', this could be mistakenly applied as a prediction or a test for true prophets: i.e., A true prophet is always rejected by country and family. But this is not what the Greek implies at all.
Again here:
Those whom you have given me I have kept. None of them is lost, except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (Jn 17:12)
ouV dedwkaV moi efulaca, kai oudeiV ec autwn apwleto, ei mh o uioV thV apwleiaV ina h Grafh plhrwqh. (Jn 17:12)
"Those given to Me I have kept, and not even one of them is destroyed, if not the Son of destruction, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled."
That is, "I have kept all those you have given to Me, and not even one of them is destroyed, if even Judas has not been destroyed, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled."
In the original Greek there is still a chance for Judas to repent and be saved, at least at this point in time in the narrative. While this may not be an exciting discovery for those who have already written off Judas, other cases can be more severe.
Often the conversion of a Conditional Sentence into a flat statement can actually introduce a contradiction into the translation, where there was none in the Greek.
"Have ye not read what David did, ... how he ... ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, ... but only for the priests?" (Matt. 12:3-4, Amer.Stand.Ver)
Here the ASV (along with others) has Jesus actually contradicting the O.T. Law, which permitted not only priests, but their wives and children to eat the showbread, i.e., any descendant of Aaron or relative by marriage. (Obviously the families of priests also lived off of the temple offerings. For instance, see Lev. 22:11-13: There could be no laws regulating women eating dedicated food if they were actually forbidden to eat it at all times.)
Left as a Conditional Sentence however, Jesus' statement makes perfect sense withoutcontradicting the Law:
Have you not read what David did?... How... of the showbread he did eat,... which is not permitted for him to eat,... (even) if not for the priests only?" (i.e., "even if it was not only for the priests to eat? " ) (Literal)
That is, the Greek has Jesus correctly pointing out that David's act was not permitted by law, not because only priests could eat the bread, but because David was not a descendant of Aaron, or a family member. There is no need for a rendering which makes Jesus look ignorant or inaccurate.
Nor is it always a 'minor' doctrine: Consider the well-known but often misunderstood verse here, commonly rendered as a flat unconditional statement:
And he said to him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: (Matt.19:17 Noah Webster Bible)
In this rendering, Jesus has inadvertantly excluded Himself from the class of those who are 'good'. (Unless you already know Jesus is God, you will assume He is admitting he is a sinner.) If this is what the Rich Young Ruler thought he heard, then one can understand why he walked away after being asked to hand over his fortune to a confessed sinner!
But the Greek offers no such excuse for a dispute between Christians and others who have lower christological viewpoints:
ti me legeiV agaqon? oudeiV agaqoV ei mh eiV o qeoV. (Matt 19:17 Greek)
Why do you call me good? No one is good, if not One, God. (Literal)
Here Jesus is not saying that other beings cannot be good, (which would leave him contradicting Luke and others) but rather that the source of all goodness is God, including His own goodness. This corrected translation removes at least two difficulties from the typical English rendering.
Summary:
Modern idiomatic or "dynamic equivalent" renderings of these verses that PRESERVE the intent of the Greek without adding anything might run like this:
(1) "Whether or not a prophet is dishonoured in his own country or home, he is not without honour."
(2) "If even the Son of Destruction, Judas is not yet lost, then I have lost none of those given to Me, so that the scripture is fulfilled."
(3) "Didn't you read what David did? How he ate the showbread?
That wasn't allowed for David, even if others besides the priest could eat it."
(4) "Why are you calling me good? If God isn't good, then no one is good!"
Key Point: "except" and "if not" are not equivalent renderings of "ei mh" and important information can be lost or added by a poor choice in translation.
The phrase "ei mh" is not a simple stylism, but is used carefully and intelligently by the Evangelists, including John.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 11th January 2006 at 12:16 AM.
Linear Mode
