NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS
J. RAMSEY MICHAELS
THE prologue of John’s Gospel contains several well-known and controversial textual variations : e.g. the punctuation problem in
I : 3-4, the singular ‘was born’ in some ancient witnesses to
I : 13, and the question of whether v& or BE& is original in I : 18.
A considerable body of literature exists on each of these passages, but almost nothing has been written on the equally perplexing questions posed by the text of I : 15. A glance at the bibliographies of Metzger and Malatesta uncovers not one article dealing with the textual problems of this verse,’ and a survey of more recent periodical literature does not change the picture. What little has been done has come mostly from textual editors themselves, and from a few of the commentaries.
The three main variants can be set forth as follows :
I. John testifies about him and has cried out, saying, ‘This was he of whom I said (O&OS + 0”~ E&OV), “The one coming after me has taken precedence over me, because he existed before me” ‘. (pss p7s Nb A B3 D” K L 0 j&r.)
II. John testifies about him and has cried out, saying-this was he who said (O&OS fb 0’ EMV) ‘The one coming after me has taken pre- cedence over me, because he existed before me’. (B* C* Origen Cyril-Alexandria, and probably Ka) 2
III. John testifies about him and has cried out, ‘This was the one coming after me, who has taken precedence over me, because he existed before me’. (H* Eusebius)s
I B. M. Metzger, Index to Periodical Literature on Christ and the Gospels (NTTS 6;
Leiden: Brill, 1966); E. Malatesta, St. John’s Gospel: xgzo-x9-965 (AnBib 32; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, I 967).
2 For Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) see A-cad. 183 (ed. E. Schwartz, Acta Con- ciliorum Oecwnenicorum I. I .5, p. log. 18). The lemma of his Commentary on John (Pu=y 3, 145.6) reads 0”~ rfirov; unfortunately the phrase is not cited in the text of the commentary itself. For this reference (here and in n. 2x), for the reference to Eusebius in n. 3, and for the references to Epiphanius in n. 34, I am indebted to my colleague, Gordon D. Fee.
3 For Eusebius, see e.th. 1.20 (GCS 4, 82.33).
88 J. RAhlSBk MiCHABLS
The UBSGNT3 adopts text form 1 with an ‘A’ rating. In discussing the variants, the Textual Comm&ary concludes: ‘The awkwardness of the reading 0370s 4~ 6~ &OV
c l . 8$well as the absence of a previous mention of Johdi t&&&y, prompted more than one copyist to make adjustments in the text’. It is easily shown how this is the case with text fom III
: ‘N*rewrote the passage, omitting the relative clause and adding & after
@~+lJOS’ to produce a smoother reading. But in the case of
text form II, it is tacitly admitted that the awkwardness has not been entirely removed: ‘Several other witnesses
. . .,less successful in their adjustment of the text, changed 6~ &OV to 6 &Cf5Y’ .4 The Textual Commentary’s effort to translate text form II (‘.
. .and cried, saying-this was he who said [it+“He who comes after me ranks before me
. . .” ‘)5amply demonstrates that this is anything but a smooth or easy reading. Both i%
&OV
and d EMV are difficult readings, each in its own way.
The brief remarks in the Textual CommGntory are therefore not conclusive in justifying the ‘A’ rating given to text form I.
Although virtually all translations and critical editions of the Greek NT agree with the Bible Societies’ text in accepting 6~
&TOV as the
correct reading, there is one notable exception.
The WH text favoured 0’ &&, with C% &OV noted as an alter- native in the margin.6 Not even WH’s closest followers (e.g. ERV,
ASV) followed them at this point, and the editors unfortunatelydid not discuss the variant in their ‘Notes on Select Readings’ (the Appendix to their second volume). It is strange, not that their decision was set aside, but that it was set aside so confidently and unanimously and with so little discussion in subsequent litera- ture. The matter deserves a second look.
Text form III can safely be eliminated from consideration, both on the basis of external evidence and because the arguments in the Textual Commentary for its secondary character are con- vincing. As for text forms I and II, the most obvious difference between them is that text form I makes John
I :15 a self- citation of John the Baptist, while text form II makes it an identi- fication formula supplied parenthetically by the evangelist.
*
B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on th Greek tiw Testament (London/New York: United Bible Societies, rg7r), 197-8.
5 Ibid., 198.
6 7% Jvew Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882), 187.
Origen and the Text of John I: 15 89
If C% &rov is the correct reading, the Baptist is represented as quoting something he has said earlier, essentially the same statement which he cites again in
I : 30. The earlier occasion,however, on which John had uttered the words, ‘The one coming after me has taken precedence over me, because he existed before me’, is never described directly in the Fourth Gospel. This is the difficulty which, according to the Text& Commentary, text form II is attempting to remove.7
It is not at once clear how text form II should be translated.
What is clear is that the clause in question
(O&OS ijv 0’ d7dv)is not part of John the Baptist’s testimony, but serves instead to identify him as the speaker: ‘this was he who said [it]‘. WH chose to set these words off by dashes, so as to make John
I :15
a direct, straightiorward statement by the Baptist that ‘the one coming tier me has taken precedence over me, because he existed before me’, only with a parenthetical (and redundant) assurance to the reader that John actually was the speaker.*
The Textual Commentary, as we have seen, reads the text in the same way. The few commentators who discuss the variant offer little help in the translation of it.9 For the time being, the trans- lation assumed by WH and by the Textual Commentary will be assumed here as well, but it is a question to which we will have to return. In any event, the point at issue in the two variants is whether we have in John
I : 15a se&citation or a parenthetical identification formula. Whether, or to what extent, this difference affects the interpretation of the last part of the Johannine pro- logue (i.e. vv. 14-18) has not been adequately assessed by the commentators because (in spite of WH) they have not regarded text form II as a real option.
The great antiquity of text form II is shown by its occurrence
r Textwai Cbmmentary, rg7; cf. R. BuItmann, 1171s Go@ of John: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, rg7 I), 75.
* B. F. Westcott in his own commentary (even though he departed from the WH text at this point!) gave clear expression to this way of reading text form II:
‘ . . . this reading gives an intelligible sense by emphasising the reference to the Baptist’8 testimony:
words” ‘. “this John, and no
other, was
he who spake the memorable I .66. TAC GospGl According to St. John (2 ~01s.; London: John Murray, I go8), 9 In spite of regarding it as a correction to remove a difficulty, Bultmann (John, 75) calls it ‘meaningless’, while J. H. Bernard (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the GospGr according to St. John [ICC; 2 ~01s.; Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, x928], x.27) speaks of it as an ‘impossible’ reading.
90 J . R A M S E Y M I C H A E L S
twice in Origen’s Commentary on the Gas-l ofJohn. Unfortunately, Origen’s formal exposition of John r
:15 in its normal sequence is not extant, except in fragments (presumably it came in Book V). But he deals with the text in Book II, in connection with his exposition of
I : 7,and in Book VI, in connection with his exposition of I: 19. In all, there are three passages in Origen’s commentary that are immediately relevant: II.35
;VI.3
;and VI.6.10 The second and third of these contain the reading
O&OS + 6 dmh.
In all three instances, Origen is involved in an argument as to where in John
I : 15-18 thequotation of John the Baptist ends, and the comment of the evangelist begins. In II.35 and VI.6, the dispute is with an indefinite group, designated only as ‘some’ (T&S) or by the expression ‘they jump to the conclusion’
(T&U r&p +7juovub). These opponents end the Baptist’s statement at v. 15 and assign w. 16-18 to the evangelist. In VI.3 the dis- pute is with Heracleon in particular, who assigns w.
I5-17 to the Baptist and only v. 18 to the evangelist.11 Against both of these, Origen argues that John
I : I5-18 in its entirety is to be under- stood as a testimony of John the Baptist. This is a dead issue for the majority of modern commentators, who with few exceptions agree with Origen’s T&S in limiting the Baptist’s testimony to v.
I5, and reading w.
16-18as the evangelist’s theological reflection.12 What is important fbr the moment, however, is not the merits of the respective cases, but Origen’s method of argumentation and the extent to which he makes exegetical use of his distinctive textual reading
0370s +jv 0’ clncjv. The threepassages in Origen’s Commentary must be examined one by one.
(
I) 11.35. In discussing John
I : 7,Origen links the statement that John the Baptist came to bear testimony about the light with w.
I5-18, which he quotes in full as the first of six specific testimonies of the Baptist to Jesus (the other five being w.
1~23,26-7, 29-3
I,32-4, and 36). He dismisses briefly the argument of
‘0
The references throughout are to E. Preuschen, GCS 4 (1908).11 C. Blanc (Origkne: Comma&ire SW Saint Jean. Tome II [SC 157; Paris: Cerf, 19701, 154) incorrectly states that the dispute is with Heracleon in VI.6 as well.
12 Among recent commentators, only C. K. Barrett (2% G’osfiel according to St. John [2nd edn.; Philadelphia: Westminster, r 9781, 168) holds open a serious possibility that the Baptist’s testimony may extend beyond v. 15 (in which case the
‘we’ of v. 16 refers to the prophets), but he regards the other alternative as more likely. Z. C. Hodges, however (‘Grace after Grace-John I : x6’, BSuc 135 [Ig78], 34-45), not only ascribes vv. 16-18 to John the Baptist, but accepts them as historically authentic.
Origm and the Text of John I: 15
91
‘some that only v. 15 comes from the Baptist himself, and proceeds to the second testimony in his sequence (i.e. w. 19-23)
:‘In addition to the previously-mentioned testimony of the Baptist (beginning with “The one coming after me has taken precedence over me” and reading as far as “he has declared him,‘),
this(after
that one) is the second testimony of John when he con-
fessed to those who sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem’?
Both in quoting w. 15-18 in ml1 and here where he quotes only the beginning and end of it, Origen omits entirely the textually disputed phrase and begins the Baptist’s first testimony with the words 0’ &low ,UN +&ms. His full quotation of
I :x5-1 8, in fact, begins rather loosely with an abbreviated paraphrase of v.
15a (0”s /uqnwpGu KkKpUyE +0V, ‘0 &rlmtJ /LOU . . .)linking
I :7 to
I :15-18.
This passage therefore has no
directbearing on the textual problem of John
I :15. It does suggest that Origen considered the phrase in question not as words of John the Baptist, but apparently as part of the introduction to the testimony, and therefore as something dispensable. Origen does not represent the Baptist as quoting something he had said earlier (as in text form I), but as testifying directly and immediately to Jesus.
This is consistent with text form II, even though the passage cannot be adduced in explicit support of that reading.
(a) VI.3. As he comes to speak in more detail about the ‘second recorded testimony of John the Baptist about Christ’, Origen finds occasion to look back at ‘the first’ (+j
vpodpa),which begins, he says, with O&OS +J d &r&v ‘0 &~law ,UQU
~~&.MVOSand continues as far as the words ~.~ovoy+s 0&s d dv ENS &
KdhOV 700 7m-p& hKE&OS &$jmmoP