The Last Chapter of Romans: Greetings to More Brothers, Sisters, and Households (Romans 16:8-13)

“Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord” (Romans 16:8, ESV). 

The comparatively rare Latin name “Ampliatus” [Grecized Ἀμπλίατος] (NA²⁸/UBS⁵), meaning “enlarged” or “ample,” and its contracted form “Amplias” [Grecized Ἀμπλίας] (BMT/TR), was evidently created for slaves during the period of Augustus and generally remained in the lower class. It is linked in sepulchral inscriptions with the imperial household, inclusive of slaves freed by Claudius and Nero (cf. Phil. 4:22),¹ with evidence of a Christian family called Ampliati.² The one to whom Paul sends greetings appears to have been a prominent figure (leader?) in Rome’s early Christian community.³

The very personal descriptor “my beloved” [τὸν ἀγαπητόν μου], without added qualifiers, is applied to Epaenetus and Stachys (vv. 5b, 9). Here, however, the phrase “in the Lord” is appended,⁴ suggestive of brotherly comradery⁵ but shy of a more intimate friendship. Either way, “Paul was a man who gave himself to the people among whom he served and to those who worked alongside him.”⁶

“Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys” (Romans 16:9). 

An interesting parallel to the names grouped together in this and the previous verse is a list of imperial freedmen on an inscription dated 115 that includes the names Ampliatus and Urbanus.⁷ The Latin “Urbanus” (Grecized Οὐρβανός), a combination of urbs (“city”) + anus (“pertaining to”), essentially means “of a city” or “city dweller,” conceivably worn by a native of Rome.⁸ In contrast to the very personal “my beloved” (vv. 5, 8, 9b) and “my fellow workers” (v. 3), Urbanus is described here as “our fellow worker” [τὸν συνεργὸν ἡμῶν] “in Christ” [ἐν Χριστῷ], i.e., “in the service of Christ.”⁹ This gives the impression of Paul’s indirect knowledge of Urbanus as a faithful worker in the brotherhood but not necessarily within the Pauline circle.¹⁰

The relatively uncommon Greek name “Stachys” [Στάχυς] is from the noun στάχυς, meaning “a head of grain.” It has been found in eleven Roman inscriptions approximating Paul’s time period, showing probable eastern origin, plausible slave origin, and possible linkage to the imperial court.¹¹ Stachys, like Epaenetus, is regarded by Paul as “my beloved” [τὸν ἀγαπητόν μου], a very personal expression betraying a close friendship.¹²

“Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus” (Romans 16:10).  

“Apelles” [Ἀπελλῆς] was a fairly common Greek name in the Roman world, etymologically indeterminate,¹³ associated with slave ancestry, the imperial household, and eastern provenance.¹⁴ Paul says of Apelles that he is “the” [τὸν] “approved in Christ” [δόκιμον ἐν Χριστῷ].¹⁵ The only other use of the adj. δόκιμος in the letter (14:18) is applied to one who is nonjudgmental, loving, considerate, and peaceable in serving Christ and fellow human beings (vv. 13-19).¹⁶

The next greeting is not sent to an individual but to “those who belong to the family of” (lit. “the ones from the ones of”) [τοὺς ἐκ τῶν] a man named “Aristobulus” [Ἀριστόβουλος],¹⁷ whose Greek name means “best-counsel.”¹⁸ Similar to the wording of v. 11b and 1 Corinthians 1:11, this apparently refers to his family members or slaves or more generally his household.¹⁹ Since Aristobulus is not greeted personally, and nothing positive or spiritual is said about him, he was presumably deceased and/or not a Christian.  

There is a potential link here—considering the next person greeted in Paul’s list, an ethnic Jew named Herodion (v. 11)—with Herod the Great’s grandson Aristobulus the Younger, who lived and was educated in Rome²⁰ and died approximately seven years before the writing of Romans. He was the younger brother of Agrippa I (11 BC – AD 44)²¹ and a friend and supporter of the emperor Claudius (10 BC – AD 54).²² His family and slaves would have been designated οἱ Ἀριστοβούλου (“of Aristobulus”) in Greek or Aristobuliani in Latin, inclusive of Jews and perhaps Christians. Upon his death, the people of Aristobulus would have maintained the name while absorbed into the imperial household. It is surely possible that this was “one of the channels through which Christianity infiltrated the capital,”²³ providing the nucleus of one of multiple household-based churches.

“Greet my kinsman Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus” (Romans 16:11). 

The Greek name “Herodion” [Ἡρῳδίων], derived from the dynastic moniker “Herod” [Ἡρῴδης],²⁴ would be applicable to a slave or freedman of the Herodian dynasty.²⁵ Contextually Paul may be drawing attention to a member of Aristobulus’s household (cf. v. 10). In addition to Andronicus and Junia(s) (v. 7), Herodion is the only other Christian in Rome explicitly identified by Paul as his ethnic “kinsman” [συγγενής] (cf. 9:3-4),²⁶ among what appears to have been a Jewish minority in a predominately Gentile community.

The next greeting is directed to “those in the Lord” [τοὺς ὄντας ἐν κυρίῳ]²⁷ “who belong to the family of …” (lit. “the ones from the ones of …” [τοὺς ἐκ τῶν]), alluding to family members, slaves, or the household in general. “Narcissus” [Νάρκισσος], whose name is of Greek origin,²⁸ is not greeted personally, so he was probably deceased and/or not a Christian. He may have been an emancipated slave, seeing that the name has been found among the relics of ancient Rome as a slave’s name on about fifty inscriptions.²⁹ His people (family, slaves, freedmen) included Christians who potentially comprised one of Rome’s multiple congregations. 

A couple of years before Paul wrote this letter, a wealthy and influential freedman named Narcissus was forced by Nero’s mother Agrippina to commit suicide soon after Nero’s accession.³⁰ He had been the secretary of Nero’s predecessor Claudius,³¹ and his household would have then become the property of the new emperor.³² Along with the people of Aristobulus (v. 10) and others, they could very well be among the ones referenced by Paul a few years later from Rome as “those of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22).³³

“Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord” (Romans 16:12). 

Three women are greeted here, who, along with Mary (v. 6),³⁴ are the only ones in this chapter to whom Paul applies the verbal κοπιάω, denoting laborious and exhausting effort.³⁵ He says of Mary and Persis that each “worked hard” or “labored much” [πολλὰ ἐκοπίασεν], the aorist tense providing a snapshot of their work ethic. Regarding the other two ladies, the present participle “laboring” [κοπιώσας] conveys persistent, habitual activity, which is noteworthy considering their names.

“Tryphaena” [Τρύφαινα] and “Tryphosa” [Τρυφῶσα] are feminine Greek names derived from the same root word [τρυφή], meaning “soft,” “delicate,” “dainty,” or “luxurious,” suggestive of sisters (perhaps twins) from an aristocratic background.³⁶ In the first-century Greco-Roman world, toilsome labor was indicative of underprivileged slaves, yet these ladies operated well beyond societal expectations, routinely expending dutiful effort “in the Lord” [ἐν Κυρίῳ], i.e., in the Lord’s service.³⁷

Another hard worker “in the Lord” is “Persis” [Περσίς], a feminine Greek name that means “of Persia.” Based on contemporary inscriptional evidence, eastern origin is probable, with the prospect of her having been a slave or freed person.³⁸ Considering the westward movements of those from the middle-eastern Parthian Empire (modern-day Iraq/Iran),³⁹ not to mention prisoners from the Roman–Parthian wars, it is not unlikely that she or her ancestors came from that part of the world.  

Referring to Persis as “the beloved” [τὴν ἀγαπητήν] uses an affectionate expression less intimate than “my beloved” (vv. 5, 8, 9). No doubt Paul was sensitive to her gender (perhaps also her age and possible singlehood), avoiding the appearance of impropriety.⁴⁰

“Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well” (Romans 16:13). 

The name “Rufus” [Ῥοῦφος], from the Latin rūfus (“red,” “reddish,” “ruddy”), was not an exceptional name. In fact, as a Roman cognomen it was one of the most common,⁴¹ occurring around 374 times in Roman inscriptions, only eight per cent of which represent (former) slaves.⁴²

Paul refers to Rufus as the “chosen in the Lord” [τὸν ἐκλεκτὸν ἐν κυρίῳ]. The adj. “chosen” [ἐκλεκτός], when used in the plural (as in 8:33) most often refers to God’s chosen ones in Christ.⁴³ Only once is it employed in the NT in singular form for “a chosen people” (1 Pet. 2:9). When applied to an individual, however, the concept of “chosen out” for special service or recognition is conveyed in the sense of “select” or “choice,” used in reference to Christ (Luke 23:35; 1 Pet. 2:4, 6) and the “chosen” lady and her sister (1 John 1:1, 13).⁴⁴ The awkwardness of an individual singled out as “the chosen in the Lord,” even though he is just one of many (8:33), gives credence to the idea that Rufus is simply recognized for his valuable contribution in the Lord’s service.⁴⁵

Included in the greeting is Rufus’s “mother, who has been a mother to me as well.” Obviously Paul knows this family personally, having received hospitality and care from the family’s matron,⁴⁶ implying an eastern connection. On the possibility of these being the wife and son of Simon of Cyrene, see K. L. Moore, “The Legacy of Simon the Cyrenian,” Moore Perspective (27 May 2020), <Link>.⁴⁷

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Along with the full name Ti[berius] Claudius Ampliatus, inscriptions preserve the name Ampliatus of a Roman soldier and certain ones who accumulated enough wealth to own their own slaves and function as patrons (see J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians  173-77; P. Lampe, “Ampliatus” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:217; “Roman Christians” 228; From Paul to Valentinus 173; cf. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 424).

     ² C. H. Dodd, Romans xxii-xxiii; J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 39. Dating late-first to early-second century, the name has been found twice among inscriptions in the Domitilla Catacombs of Rome, constructed by the imperial family of Flavia Domitilla – the name worn by Vespasian’s first wife (“the Elder”), mother of Titus and Domitian, as well as Vespasian’s granddaughter (“the Younger”), niece of Titus and Domitian, married to Vespasian’s grandnephew Titus Flavius Clemens. Accused of “atheism” along with Jews rejecting the Roman pantheon (Cassius Dio, Hist. 67.14.2), Domitilla the Younger and Clemens were reportedly Christians (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.18.5). 

     ³ W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 424-25. Later tradition counts Amplias as one of the seventy(-two) disciples of Luke 10:1, bishop of Diospolis, who died as a martyr.

     ⁴ The comparable “in [the] Lord” [ἐν Κυρίῳ] (vv. 2, 8, 11, 12, 13) is a sphere of reference connoting “Christian” [χριστιανός] (M. J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology 130).

     ⁵ On an even larger scale, the term is descriptive of God’s affection toward the saints at Rome (1:7) and the people of Israel (11:28), and of Paul’s affection toward the Roman saints (12:19).

     ⁶ E. F. Harrison, “Romans” 164-65. 

     ⁷ J. Denney (“Romans” 720) cites E. H. Gifford’s The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (1886); cf. also J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians 174; B. Witherington III and D. Hyatt, Romans 393. Approx. ninety-five Roman inscriptions bear the name Urbanus, about a quarter of which are slaves or former slaves, although Paul’s recognition of Urbanus as συνεργός (“coworker”), along with Prisca and Aquila, may be indicative of a freeperson (P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 181-83; “Urbanus” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 6:767).

     ⁸ F. F. Bruce, The Pauline Circle 86; J. Murray, Romans 230. An alternative meaning is “refined,” “cultivated,” or “elegant,” descriptive of a city person.

     ⁹ M. J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology 124. On “fellow worker” [συνεργός], see also vv. 3, 21.

     ¹⁰ D. J. Moo, Romans 924; W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 425.

     ¹¹ P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 169-70, 180; “Stachys” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 6:183; J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians 174; W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 425.

     ¹² According to later tradition, Urbanus (alleged bishop in Macedonia, martyred) and Stachys (alleged bishop of Byzantium) were among the seventy(-two) disciples of Luke 10:1.

     ¹³ Latin derivation has also been suggested. Apelles of Kos was a fourth-century BC artist known to Alexander the Great (cf. Pliny the Elder, Natural History 35.36).

     ¹⁴ P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 169-70, 179; “Apelles” in Anchor Bible Dictionary1:275; J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians 174.

     ¹⁵ On the phrase “in Christ,” cf. also vv. 3, 7, 9; and the comparable “in the Lord,” vv. 2, 8, 11, 12, 13.

     ¹⁶ See also 1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Cor. 10:18; 13:7; 2 Tim. 2:15; Jas. 1:12; cf. 1 Cor. 9:27. J. Murray surmises, perhaps in light of these other passages, that Appeles “is accorded this distinction because of peculiar trials and temptations perseveringly endured and proven thereby” (Romans 230; cf. also D. J. Moo, Romans 924).

     ¹⁷ Later tradition includes Apelles (alleged bishop of Heracleia) and Aristobulus (alleged bishop in Britain, martyred) among the seventy(-two) disciples of Luke 10:1.

     ¹⁸ Combination of the verb ἀριστεύω (to “be best”) + the noun βουλή (“determination” or “counsel”). The name appears only twice in Roman inscriptions (P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 164-65; “Roman Christians” 222).

     ¹⁹ A household was typically a patriarchal institution consisting of a male head (paterfamilias) and those subject to his authority, including the wife, children, multigenerational extended family, slaves, and freedmen.

     ²⁰ Compare Josephus, de bello Judaico libri 2.11.6 and Antiquities of the Jews 20.1.1-2 concerning Aristobulus and his brother “Agrippa, junior.” In addition to a second-century BC Jewish priest (2 Macc. 1:10), the nine persons called Aristobulus in Josephus’s Antiquities were all from the east: (a) oldest son of John Hyrcanus I (13.10.2); (b) younger son of Alexander Jannaeus of the Hasmonean dynasty (14.3.1); (c) grandson of Aristobulus II and brother of Mariamne, wife of Herod the Great (15.3.1-3); (d) son of Herod the Great and Mariamne (15.10.1); (e) son of Herod, king of Chalcis (20.7.4); (f) son of Joseph and Mariamne (18.5.4); (g) son of Aristobulus and Herod the Great’s granddaughter Bernice (18.5.4); (h) father of Agrippa (18.5.4); and (i) brother of Agrippa (18.5.4).

     ²¹ Cf. Acts 12:1-23. Agrippa’s rule in Judea (41-44) approximates the period between Acts 9:31 and 12:23. On either end the Christian movement “multiplied” (9:31) and “the word of God increased and multiplied” (12:24). 

     ²² Cf. Acts 11:28-30; 18:2. Claudius’s reign (41-54) approximates the period between Acts 9:31 and 19:20. On either end the Christian movement “multiplied” (9:31) and “the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily” (19:20).

     ²³ P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 164-65. See also J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians 174-75; W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 425.

     ²⁴ The Idumeans were forced to convert to Judaism when conquered by Judas Maccabeus in 163 BC and subdued by his nephew John Hyrcanus in 125 BC. Antipater, a Judaized Idumean loyal to Rome, was named governor of Judea, and his son Herod the Great ruled as a client king 37–4 BC (Matt. 2:1-19). Herod’s kingdom was passed on to three of his sons: (Herod) Archelaus (Matt. 2:22), Herod Antipas (Mark 6:14), and (Herod) Philip (Mark 6:17). His grandson was Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-23), granddaughter Herodias (Matt. 14:3), and great-grandson Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25:13–26:32). The Herodians (Mark 3:6; 12:13) were presumably political supporters of Herod Antipas. The Herodion or Herodeion [Greek Ἡρώδειον; Lat. Herodium] was a palace-fortress on Mt. Herodes south of Jerusalem, built by Herod the Great and named after himself.

     ²⁵ See J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians 175. Pointing to the probability of eastern provenance, the lengthened version Herodianus is preserved in six Roman inscriptions, but only one is contemporaneous. It pertains to a former slave of Herod who became the possession of emperor Augustus and was later set free. Additional evidence indicates that other Herodian ex-slaves ended up in Rome (P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 170, 177-78; “Roman Christians” 226; “Herodion” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 3:176).

     ²⁶ J. D. G. Dunn claims “it is very probable” that Prisca, Mary, Rufus and his mother “were also Jews” (Theology of Paul the Apostle 683 n.54) but offers no solid basis for this opinion. 

     ²⁷ The phrase “in the Lord” (vv. 2, 8, 11, 12, 13), comparable to “in Christ” [ἐν Χριστῷ] (cf. vv. 3, 9, 10), is equivalent here to “Christian” [χριστιανός] (M. J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology 124, 130).

     ²⁸ In Greek mythology Narcissus was an attractive young man enamored with his own appearance, the origin of the English word “narcissism” and alternative designation for the daffodil plant.

     ²⁹ F. F. Bruce, “Some Roman Slave-names” 56; P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 165; “Narcissus” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 4:1022-1023. 

     ³⁰ Tacitus, Annals 12.57, 65; 13.1; Cassius Dio, Hist. 61.34.4-6.

     ³¹ Suetonius, Claudius 28; Cassius Dio, Hist. 60.14.3–61.34.5.

     ³² C. H. Dodd, Romans xxii; W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 425-26.

     ³³ See J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians 173-77.

     ³⁴ Note also Philippians 4:2-3.

     ³⁵ Cf. Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 4:12; 15:10; 16:16; Gal. 4:11; Eph. 4:28; Phil. 2:16; Col. 1:29; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 4:10; 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:6.

     ³⁶ E. F. Harrison, “Romans” 165; with inscriptional evidence linking the names to the imperial household (J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians 175-76), albeit with possible slave origins (P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 179-80; “Roman Christians” 228; “Tryphaena and Tryphosa” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 6:669).

     ³⁷ M. J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology 130. On the prepositional phrase “in the Lord,” see also vv. 2, 8, 11, 13.

     ³⁸ P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 169-74; “Persis” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 5:244; cf. D. J. Moo, Romans 926; W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 426.

     ³⁹ Cf. Matt. 2:1-13; Acts 2:5-10. Christianity in that part of the world was likely introduced by Jewish converts returning home (Acts 2:9; 8:4). According to tradition, the apostle Thomas accepted the responsibility of evangelizing Parthia, with the help of Thaddeus (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 1.13.4-22; 3.1.1). The early-third-century Acts of Thomas recounts the apostle’s missionary endeavors as far east as India.

     ⁴⁰ H. A. W. Meyer, Romans 569.

     ⁴¹ Josephus records this name worn by a commander of Herod’s troops (Ant. 17.10.3; Wars 2.3.4); an Egyptian-born Roman soldier (Wars 7.6.4); a Roman officer, Terentius Rufus, left in command of troops in Jerusalem after its destruction (Wars 7.2.1); Annius Rufus, prefect of Judea during the years 12-15 (Ant. 18.2).

     ⁴² P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 181; “Roman Christians” 226; “Rufus” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 5:839. Inscriptions include a crescent-shaped brick stamp (dating 69-79) of the estate of Lucius Iulius Rufus, consul during Vespasian’s reign (P. Setälä, Private Domini in Roman Brick Stamps of the Empire 40); a marble gravestone (late first century BC or early first century AD) of a slave owned by consul L. Tarius Rufus (H. L. Wilson, “Latin Inscriptions” 259-61); a stamped lead pipe from Rome with the inscription Gaius Iulius Rufus, procurator under Antonius Pius (John Hopkins University’s collection of epigraphic materials, unpublished).

     ⁴³ Note also the noun form ἡ ἐκλογή (“the elect” or “the chosen”) in Rom. 9:11; 11:5, 7, 28.

     ⁴⁴ In John’s case, this could be a metaphorical allusion to a local church and a sister congregation.

     ⁴⁵ On the phrase “in the Lord,” see also vv. 2, 8, 11, 12. Later tradition places Rufus among the seventy(-two) disciples of Luke 10:1 and alleged bishop of Thebes.

     ⁴⁶ Note also Acts 9:11-19; 16:15, 34; 17:6-7; 18:1-3; 20:11; 21:4, 7-10, 16-17; 24:23; 28:13-14; Rom. 15:24; 16:23; 1 Cor. 16:6; Gal. 1:18; Philem. 22.

     ⁴⁷ Some might wonder, if the Rufus of Romans 16 was the son of an African father, how is it that he had red hair? First of all, being from the multiethnic city of Cyrene does not in itself confirm one’s skin and hair color. Even if Rufus’s father was dark-skinned, the mother would have also contributed to the gene pool. Moreover, the Latin term rūfus essentially means “red,” whereas “red-headed” is merely a secondary connotation. Since the name Rufus in the Roman world was such a common cognomen, inherited rather than descriptive, and red-headedness is comparatively rare, it is most unlikely that all who wore the name literally had red hair.

Related Posts: Andronicus & Junia(s) (Rom 16:7), Greetings Churches of Christ (Rom 16:14-16)

 

Image credit: https://wallpapers.com/wallpapers/inclusive-friendship-clip-art-5czs03pb2ntb6o9d.html

Jesus’s Alleged Deception

In John 7:8-10 did Jesus mislead his brothers, or simply change his mind, or is there something about the account we might be missing? The greatest challenge in our attempts to understand this passage is the ambiguity of what it actually says due to variant readings among the Greek manuscripts. 

Contextually in the 7th chapter of John’s Gospel, Jesus and his disciples are in Galilee as the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles draws near, and the Lord’s unbelieving brothers tell him to go ahead and make the pilgrimage to Judea. His verbal response, in part, is recorded in v. 8, followed by a report of his seemingly capricious actions in v. 10.

The ESV reads: “‘You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come’ …. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.” 

The NKJV reads: “‘You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come’ …. But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.”

The Textual Issue

The first ambiguity is created in v. 8 by the presence in some manuscripts of the adverb οὐκ (“not”),¹ whereas in others οὔπω (“not yet”) occurs.² If the former reading is correct, why did Jesus say he was not going to the feast but then he went? If the latter reading is correct, it was just a matter of timing (a delayed departure), but how is the more difficult variant to be explained? If the scribal amendment was intentional, it makes no sense to replace a fairly harmonious reading with an apparent discrepancy.

The other ambiguity is created in v. 10 with the positioning of the phrase, “up to the feast.” In some manuscripts this is descriptive of the Lord’s brothers, while in others it applies to Jesus. If the former reading is correct (as in the ESV), then Jesus simply went up to Jerusalem but not necessarily to the feast in which his brothers were participating. If the latter reading is correct (as in the NKJV), then Jesus did attend the feast, albeit later and in a different manner than his brothers expected.

Tackling the Textual Issue

The problem for text critics, translators, and exegetes is weighing the external documentary evidence against the internal evidence, while trying to account for textual variation in the transmission process. If each of these factors is granted equal value, we seem to be at an impasse.  

Reasoned transmissionalism considers both internal and external information, giving more weight to the documentary evidence. The earliest extant confirmation (closest in time to the original) supports the reading οὔπω (“not yet”) in John 7:8. Documents inclusive of this version of the text, dating back as early as the 2nd century,³ have been recognized as the “best witnesses.”⁴

Reasoned eclecticism considers both internal and external information,⁵ giving more weight to internal evidence. Proponents of this approach regard the reading οὔπω to have been “introduced at an early date … in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10.”⁶ Leon Morris, for example, reasons, “If the original read οὔπω, why should anyone alter it to οὐκ? I cannot find any convincing answer, so I incline to the reading οὐκ.”⁷ Philip Comfort adds further, “the variant [οὐκ] is the more difficult reading (Jesus eventually went to this festival) and therefore a candidate for being the original wording.”⁸

In seeking to trace the transmissional history of any textual variant, of paramount concern is which reading best explains the existence of the others. Preference is usually given to the more difficult reading, the assumption being that copyists would ordinarily prefer smoothness, harmony, and clarity over a presumed inconsistency and have little to no apprehension about altering the biblical text. It further assumes the changes were on purpose, even though unintentional scribal error was all too common. 

There is no solid consensus among NT scholars as to what was first penned and subsequently changed in John’s text. Since the manuscript evidence can be more objectively scrutinized than the somewhat subjective evaluation of internal issues, I tend to lean in favor of the οὔπω (“not yet”) reading in John 7:8. At the same time, however, I struggle to come up with a reasonable explanation for the scribal change to οὐκ unless it was accidental rather than determined (i.e., confusion of letters in the uncial script). Perhaps the best exegetical approach is to consider the question from all angles and find a solution that is consistent with what we know about the integrity of Christ and the biblical record. 

A Parabolic Play on Words?

It has been suggested that the tension between vv. 8 and 10 of John 7 is simply one of multiple occasions in John’s Gospel of two levels of meaning.⁹ Thus the words, “not going up to this feast” (v. 8), were intended parabolically rather than literally. The Lord’s brothers, as earthly-minded unbelievers, may have inferred the uphill climb toward Jerusalem, but since Jesus did in fact make the journey in v. 10, this is not what he meant in v. 8. The real meaning, as the argument goes, concerns the timing of his death, resurrection, and subsequent return to heaven (vv. 1-8, 19, 25, 33-34). In other words, it was not going to happen at the upcoming Feast of Tabernacles (vv. 30, 44; cf. 8:59). As a play on words, the “going up” in v. 8 is a veiled allusion to his ascension to the Father (cf. 3:13; 6:62; 20:17), perhaps even including his elevation on the cross (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). 

As insightful and creative as this explanation is, however, it does not readily correspond to the actual wording of the text. Jesus’s reference to “going up,” whether parabolically or topographically, was not “at” or “during” the feast but εἰς (“to,” “unto,” “toward”) the feast. It would be less of a stretch, granting the words “not yet” and “this feast,” to take the Lord’s statement as anticipatory of “the next paschal journey,” when “the time was fulfilled.”¹⁰   

Operating on His Own Timetable?

If the original text of John 7:8-10 included “not yet” and “he went up to the feast,” there is no inconsistency between Christ’s words and actions. He intentionally delayed his departure from Galilee because of impending dangers (vv. 1, 6-9), arriving in Jerusalem by “the middle of the feast” (v. 14). The harmony of the text supported by the weight of manuscript evidence makes a solid case for this interpretation. The only nagging concern, then, is how to account for the textual variant.   

Did Not Necessarily Attend the Feast?

The prepositional phrase “to the feast” in v.10 has been mispositioned in a number of manuscripts. If the biblical record states, “his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up,” Jesus made his way to the city of Jerusalem but not to engage in the festivities. This is consistent with what he told his brothers in v. 8, particularly if οὐκ is the original wording. 

The Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths) started on the 15th day of the 7th month (Tishri = September/October), lasted seven days, and officially ended on the 8th day (Lev. 23:34-36). John reports that Jesus was in Jerusalem “about the middle of the feast” (John 7:14), as well as “the last day” (v. 37), presumably having missed the first few days. While others were celebrating, Jesus was about his Father’s business, teaching in the temple, and avoiding a premature death (John 7:10–8:59). Even if credence is given to the textual variant, “he went up to the feast,” he apparently did not go up as one who kept the feast.¹¹

Conclusion

This is one of those passages I wish was more straightforward than it actually is. Nonetheless, any alleged incongruity is easily resolved, albeit with multiple possibilities. The primary concern, at least for Bible believers, is that the integrity of our Lord and the biblical record remains intact. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ This is the reading of the standard text of NA²⁸ and UBS⁵. See ASV, ESV, H/CSB, NASB, NET, NIV(2011), N/RSV.

     ² This is the reading of the Byzantine Majority Text and Textus Receptus. See ERV, N/KJV, NIV(1978), WBT, WEB, YLT. Despite the English translation in more recent editions, the NT text upon which the NIV was originally based favors οὔπω (see R. J. Goodrich and A. L. Lukaszewski, A Reader’s Greek New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003]: 221).

     ³ In addition to the 2nd-century Bodmer papyri P⁶⁶ and P⁷⁵, the following also support the οὔπω reading: codices Vaticanus (B), Borgianus (T), Washingtonianus (W), as well as L X Γ Δ Λ Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 f¹¹³ Maj syr^h,p cop^sa,ac2.

     ⁴ Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XII), AB (NY: Doubleday, 1966): 307. See K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the NT: Study and Lecture Notes (Henderson, TN: Hester, 2006): 26-32. Proponents of the more extreme historical-documentary eclecticism would rely almost exclusively on the external textual evidence.

     ⁵ The οὐκ reading is supported by the 4th and 5th century codices Sinaiticus (א) and Bezae (D), as well as K M Π it syr^c,s cop^bo. Based on this reading, Porphyry of Tyre (ca. 234-305) accused Jesus of vacillation.

     ⁶ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994): 185. Advocates of the more extreme thoroughgoing or rigorous eclecticism rely almost exclusively on the internal evidence.

     ⁷ Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Rev. ed. NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995): 354 n. 21.

     ⁸ Philip Wesley Comfort, A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2015): 257.

     ⁹ See R. Brown, op. cit. 308; R. H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957): 175-76.

     ¹⁰ B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (London: James Clarke, 1958): 117; also F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877): II: 270-72. Another textual variant is the dual usage of the pronoun ταύτην (“this” feast) in the Byzantine Majority Text, supported by א* Γ Δ Λ, along with eight uncials, numerous miniscules, and some ancient versions, whereas a lone appearance in NA²⁸ and UBS⁵, based on א a b B D K L T X Π, along with a number of minuscules and quotations.

     ¹¹ B. F. Westcott, op cit. 117. J. H. Bernard offers as a possibility that Jesus merely altered his plans (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1953]: I:270).

 

Related Posts: Interpretive Ambiguities, John 5:3-4, John 7:53-8:11  

 

Image credit: adapted from http://www.ngkfgcs.com/Blog/November-2018/Stay-vs-Go-6-HQ-Location-Strategy-Trigger-Factors