John 7:39: Early Spirit gloss — footnote separately from vv.37-38 #20

New issue

Open

opened 2026-02-21 15:25:27 +00:00 by grams777 · 0 comments

grams777 commented

2026-02-21 15:25:27 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Summary

John 7:39 should be footnoted as a probable early Spirit interpolation, separate from vv.37-38 which should be restored to the text (see #19).

The Verse

τοῦτο δὲ εἶπεν περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτόν· οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐδέπω ἐδοξάσθη.

"This he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

Three Independent Lines of Evidence

1. Memra internal evidence

V.39 exhibits zero Memra behavioral patterns. The Memra is never equated with the Spirit in 1,416 confirmed hypostatic entries across 8 Targum traditions. V.39 reinterprets a passage rich in BELIEVE IN vocabulary (v.38: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ) through a Spirit lens that has no Targum counterpart.

2. Theological inconsistency

"The Spirit was not yet" contradicts John 4:14 (living water already available to the Samaritan woman)
Contradicts John 1:32 (Spirit already descended on Jesus)
UBS Handbook (Newman & Nida) has to explain away the literal meaning
Calvin has to harmonize it with 1:32
Westcott calls the original wording "obscure"

3. Textual instability (Metzger)

Three independent scribal repair traditions, all trying to make the same verse intelligible:

Added "given" (δεδομένον) — B, Latin, Syriac, Armenian
Added "upon them" (ἐπ' αὐτοῖς) — D*, Gothic
Changed to "not yet came the Holy Spirit" — Ethiopic

This level of independent scribal discomfort across Latin, Greek, Syriac, Gothic, and Ethiopic is extraordinary. By contrast, v.38 has zero variants (no Metzger entry at all).

Early Gloss Theory

The convergence of these three lines points to an early gloss — an explanatory note that entered the text before our earliest surviving manuscripts. This explains why:

It appears in ALL manuscripts (embedded before copying traditions diverged)
Cannot be detected by manuscript evidence alone
CAN be detected by internal evidence: wrong patterns, wrong theology, scribal disturbance

V.39 begins with τοῦτο δέ ("now this") — a classic editorial connective. Grammatically, vv.37-38 stand perfectly without it.

Fits the UPDV Spirit-Interpolation Pattern

The UPDV already identifies systematic Spirit additions across Luke and John (Luke 1:15, 1:41, 1:67, 2:25-27, 4:1, 4:14, 10:21, 11:13; John 14:26, 20:22). V.39 fits this pattern — it reinterprets Memra-vocabulary material through a Spirit lens.

Recommendation

Footnote v.39 as a probable early Spirit gloss. This is consistent with the UPDV's existing Spirit-interpolation methodology but draws the boundary more precisely: the problem is v.39, not vv.37-38. See #19 for restoration of vv.37-38.

## Summary John 7:39 should be footnoted as a probable early Spirit interpolation, separate from vv.37-38 which should be restored to the text (see #19). ## The Verse > τοῦτο δὲ εἶπεν περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτόν· οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐδέπω ἐδοξάσθη. > "This he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified." ## Three Independent Lines of Evidence ### 1. Memra internal evidence V.39 exhibits zero Memra behavioral patterns. The Memra is never equated with the Spirit in 1,416 confirmed hypostatic entries across 8 Targum traditions. V.39 reinterprets a passage rich in BELIEVE IN vocabulary (v.38: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ) through a Spirit lens that has no Targum counterpart. ### 2. Theological inconsistency - "The Spirit was not yet" contradicts John 4:14 (living water already available to the Samaritan woman) - Contradicts John 1:32 (Spirit already descended on Jesus) - UBS Handbook (Newman & Nida) has to explain away the literal meaning - Calvin has to harmonize it with 1:32 - Westcott calls the original wording "obscure" ### 3. Textual instability (Metzger) Three independent scribal repair traditions, all trying to make the same verse intelligible: 1. Added "given" (δεδομένον) — B, Latin, Syriac, Armenian 2. Added "upon them" (ἐπ' αὐτοῖς) — D*, Gothic 3. Changed to "not yet came the Holy Spirit" — Ethiopic This level of independent scribal discomfort across Latin, Greek, Syriac, Gothic, and Ethiopic is extraordinary. By contrast, v.38 has zero variants (no Metzger entry at all). ## Early Gloss Theory The convergence of these three lines points to an early gloss — an explanatory note that entered the text before our earliest surviving manuscripts. This explains why: - It appears in ALL manuscripts (embedded before copying traditions diverged) - Cannot be detected by manuscript evidence alone - CAN be detected by internal evidence: wrong patterns, wrong theology, scribal disturbance V.39 begins with τοῦτο δέ ("now this") — a classic editorial connective. Grammatically, vv.37-38 stand perfectly without it. ## Fits the UPDV Spirit-Interpolation Pattern The UPDV already identifies systematic Spirit additions across Luke and John (Luke 1:15, 1:41, 1:67, 2:25-27, 4:1, 4:14, 10:21, 11:13; John 14:26, 20:22). V.39 fits this pattern — it reinterprets Memra-vocabulary material through a Spirit lens. ## Recommendation Footnote v.39 as a probable early Spirit gloss. This is consistent with the UPDV's existing Spirit-interpolation methodology but draws the boundary more precisely: the problem is v.39, not vv.37-38. See #19 for restoration of vv.37-38.