"A" Feast or "the" Feast? (A Response to Ijaz Ahmad on the textual variant in John 5:1)

 

Ijaz Ahmad wrote an article on a somewhat well-known textual variant in John 5:1 (though not as well-known as the variants in Mark 16:9-20 or 1 John 5:7). He claimed that this could lead to a questioning of the reliability of the authors of the Gospels, so I thought I would make a response. First, we need some background information:

"After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." (John 5:1 ESV)

NA28 Greek Text:  Μετὰ ταῦτα ἦν ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ ἀνέβη Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα

The variant here is at the word ἑορτὴ (translated "[a] feast"). Is it anarthrous (lacking the definite article) or is the original reading ἡ ἑορτή (translated "the feast")? That is the background question that needs to be recognized in order for anyone to have a meaningful discussion on this particular textual variant.

I won't quote the entirety of Ijaz's article for the simple reason that if it is established that ἑορτὴ is the original reading of John 5:1, his entire argument falls apart (we will see why later). Ijaz Ahmad's words will be in red, and my response will be in black. 

Can one letter make a difference?

It depends on what the letter is and the context in which it occurs. Sometimes there are simply orthographical differences in manuscripts, which as far as I know, are usually not a big deal (with both the New Testament as well as the Qur'an).  I am very confident that Ijaz is familiar with the one-letter difference in Surah 3:158, between "you will be gathered" and "you will not be gathered". The latter reading is attested by only one manuscript (as far as I know). Now I would not use this as my single argument against the Qur'an, since textual studies on the Qur'an is not a field in which I would call myself an expert in any sort. Since the New Testament is what I believe to be God's inspired Word, its textual history is rightly of more importance to me (as I would assume the Qur'an is for Ijaz). So to answer Ijaz's question briefly, yes, sometimes the difference of a letter can indeed make a difference. However, any rational person knows that this would depend on the context. All of those one-letter case should be taken individually. 

Over the years I have demonstrated various textual issues with the New Testament. One of the more common questions I am frequently asked is to what extent a variant of one letter can impact the reliability or lack thereof, of the New Testament. Today I’d like to answer this question with a simple example.

The letter η (eta) is a defining article.

Consider the case of saying “the boy” and “a boy”, in the case of the letter η (eta) it means “the”, which specifies a noun. The car, the boy, the house all refer to something specific and not something general. Thus, we read from John 5:1 (NIV) –

“Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for one of the Jewish festivals.”

The vast majority of modern translations of this verse I could get a hold of all say "a feast". Here is a link to where you can view these translations. 

Some translations render the section in bold as “a feast”, however there is a variant in Codex Sinaiticus which renders the text as “the feast”, thus specifying this feast as not a general feast but as a specific feast. By inserting the letter η (eta) before the noun “feast” (ἑορτὴ), the context of this passages changes entirely. The NET Bible’s commentary explains:

“The textual variants ἑορτή or ἡ ἑορτή (Jeorth or Jh Jeorth, “a feast” or “the feast”) may not appear significant at first, but to read ἑορτή with the article would almost certainly demand a reference to the Jewish Passover.”

There are multiple commentators and scholars which address this particular variant. It is not only the Passover which has been suggested as a possible feast to which "the feast" refer. However, in order to even get into the issue of which feast it might be, one must first establish with reasonable certainty that ἡ ἑορτή is the original reading. Here are what some of the most well-renowned commentaries on John have said regarding this issue:

“After these things” (Μετὰ ταῦτα) is a rather indefinite (though frequent Johannine) chronological marker, and John’s mention of “a Jewish feast” does not clarify matters substantially beyond this; for him, both Passover (6:4) and Tabernacles (7:2) are called “the Jewish feast.” The unidentified feast of 5:1 has been identified with Purim, Pentecost, Tabernacles, or perhaps Rosh Hashanah, since many early manuscripts omit the article. If “the feast” is read, Sukkoth is surely in view; but since no special associations with Sukkoth appear (unlike John 7–9), it is probable that the “feast” is simply an explanation for why Jesus has returned to Jerusalem, since he makes the journey to Jerusalem only for the feasts (cf. also 2:13; 10:22–23; 12:12). That John does not specify the particular festival, however, but merely uses it to locate Jesus in Jerusalem is probably deliberate. The real calendrical issue in this chapter is not an annual feast, but the Sabbath (5:9; as in the parallel 9:14), and Jesus’ claim to divine authority as God’s shaliach to adapt Sabbath rules." (Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols.), pgs. 635-36)

"John repeatedly ties his narrative to various Jewish feasts: cf. 2:13 (Passover); 6:4 (Passover); 7:2 (Tabernacles); 10:22 (Dedication); 11:55 (Passover). This is the only one that is not identified more precisely. A variant reading makes it ‘the feast of the Jews,’ which would probably suggest Tabernacles or Passover; but the anarthrous reading is better attested. If Passover is intended, it might be argued that Jesus’ public ministry extended to a period of about three and one-half years; if not, there is no particular reason why two and one-half years would not suffice. Some have strongly advocated Rosh ha-Shanah (the Feast of Trumpets, Lv. 23:23–25); but the strongest defence of this view, that of Guilding (pp. 70–92), depends in part on the inversion of chs. 5 and 6, and on rather late sources for the thesis that the lectionary of Jewish synagogues was full of judgment themes at that time of the year, themes parallel to those in John 5. The view that this unnamed feast is Purim, established in connection with the deliverance the Jews experienced in the time of Esther,  depends on too many speculative connections to be considered plausible. The truth of the matter is that we do not know what feast John has in mind. If the other feasts are named, it is because the context in each case finds Jesus doing or saying something that picks up a theme related to it. By implication, if the feast in John 5 is not named, it is probably because the material in John 5 is not meant to be thematically related to it. Mention of a feast of the Jews in that case becomes little more than an historical marker to explain Jesus’ presence in Jerusalem." (D.A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, pgs. 240-241)

"Some time later came a feast which is not further defined in this verse. If this chapter be held to follow chapter 6 it will most certainly refer to the Passover mentioned in 6:4. If not, there seems no way of identifying it with certainty.  John commonly adds "of the Jews" to such a reference for the benefit of his Gentile readers. Jesus followed the practice of the pious men of His day by going up to Jerusalem to observe festivals. Indeed John's indefinite reference to "a feast "may be intended to convey as much (it may imply that it was not only for specific, outstanding feasts that Jesus went up)." (Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John [1971 edition], pg. 299)

In a footnote on the same page (pg. 299), Leon Morris clarifies his stance on this issue more clearly:

"For a discussion of the whole question see Westcott's Additional Note (pp. 204-7). He favors the Feast of Trumpets but few have been found to support him. Most commentators favor Purim or Passover. The theological context of John's treatment of the theme does not help us for the thought of judgment, which is prominent in this chapter, is associated with no less than four of the feasts. Thus we read: "At four times in the year is the world judged: at Passover, through grain; at Pentecost, through the fruits of the tree; on New Year's Day all that come into the world pass before him like legions of soldiers, for it is written, He that fashioneth the hearts of them all, that considereth all their works; and at the Feast (of Tabernacles) they are judged through water" (Mishnah, RH 1 : 2). Some manuscripts have the article, "the feast", notably KCL fl co. If it be accepted the feast will probably be Tabernacles, if. 7 : 2 (though some think the Passover). The article is however omitted by P66, P75, ABDWΘ fl3 al. There seems little doubt that we should read "a feast". But it does not seem possible to identify the feast with any certainty. " (ibid. pg. 299 n.6)

"1. ἑορτή, P66 P75 B D W Θ cur: ἡ ἑορτή, א ω λ 33 sah boh. The agreement of P66 P75 B D W Θ and the old Syriac (sin is not extant at this point) is a strong argument in favour of the reading without the article; so also is the fact that nowhere else in the gospel is ἑορτή anarthrous. It would be natural to assimilate this passage to, e.g., 6.4; 7.2. Moreover, if we translate 'a feast', the rendering corresponds with the fact that neither in this verse nor in the ensuing narrative is there anything to indicate what feast is meant. Those who transpose chapters 5 and 6 (see Introduction, p. 23, and on 6.1) take the feast referred to in this verse to be the Passover which is said in 6:4 to be near, but it is more probable that Passover is mentioned in chapter 6 in order to provide an appropriate setting for the discourse on the Bread of Life. Guilding, who transposes chapters 5 and 6, says that this feast must be either Pentecost or Rosh ha-Shanah, and concludes for the latter (69-72). So too does Lightfoot, referring to H. St J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, 1921, 80-1 II. It seems however that John here introduces a feast simply in order to account for the presence of Jesus in Jerusalem. The article was added out of the desire to supply further definition and precise information (as were the further supplements contained in isolated MSS.-τῶν ἀζύμων, ἡ σκηνοπηγία). If the article is read, the reference might be to the Passover or to Tabernacles, which was often known as 'the Feast'..." (C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary with Notes on the Greek Text, pgs. 250-251)

"Also "a feast" [footnote: At least if one follows most (and the most important) manuscripts.] is very general. If one follows the transposition hypothesis, 5:1 might refer back to 6:4. But the striking reference to "a feast of the Jews" (see the comments on 2:13) does not so much assume a non-Jewish readership as the temporal and material distance that had developed at the time of this Gospel between the Christian church and the situation to which the story takes us. The character of the feast remains obscure throughout the story and all efforts to identify it and to establish a material connection between the feast and the story lack a solid foundation. At stake in what follows is rather the issue of the sabbath (cf. comments on vs. 9b), an issue that was undoubtedly still relevant to the first readers." (Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, pg. 184)

As we have seen, a multitude of monumental Johannine commentators recognize the fact that for one thing, ἑορτή is and has been established with good certainty to be the original reading. It is attested in the best Johannine manuscripts. In general, the gospel of John has good and early textual support:

"Although chance may have played a role in it, what we can be certain about is that the text of the Fourth Gospel is the best attested text from the second and third centuries. This can be said for two reasons. First, due to the volume of manuscripts and the extent of the transmitted text (there is no chapter of the Gospel of which we do not have a testimony prior to the large uncials of the fourth century); second, one codex has preserved practically the entire Fourth Gospel, and another manuscript partially preserves about two thirds of the Gospel. Despite these two factors, our current evidence does not necessarily bring us any closer to the original text than in the case of other books of the New Testament. What the evidence does confirm is the diversification of the text associated with the copying process in early manuscripts. However, the extant manuscripts point to scribes, who in the process of copying, attempted to remain as faithful as possible to the exemplar. If they did not achieve their goal it might have been because (a) the scribes’ intentions of accuracy did not always coincide with the quality of their copying and (b) there was not a uniform criterion on what a faithful copy should be." (Juan Chapa, "The Early Text of John", in The Early Text of the New Testament, edited by Michael J. Kruger and Charles E. Hill, pg. 140)

Here is a comment from Bruce Metzger:

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pg. 207

                                                             

And finally, here is the entry on this variant from the NA28 apparatus:

As you can see, the majority of manuscripts clearly advocate the reading of the anarthrous ἑορτή (without the definite article). However, that manuscripts must be weighed rather than counted is a rather basic principle of NT textual criticism. Juan Chapa in his essay (quoted above) provided a helpful chart of some of the early manuscript witnesses for the Gospel of John:

The Early Text of the New Testament, pg. 141

(I do apologize for the somewhat bad quality of the above image)

This chart shows that p66 is the earliest Greek manuscript which contains John 5:1, and it (p66) attests to the anarthrous reading:

https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace

Ijaz then appealed to Codex Sinaiticus (designated as א) which did indeed contain the definite article. But again, it must be noted that the above cited commentaries and books from NT scholars clearly show that the evidence strongly favors against the presence of the definite article. Not only that, but the earliest manuscript containing John 5:1 also does not have the definite article, thus reading as "a feast". And, as shown above by a few commentators, even if the original reading were "the feast", this wouldn't necessarily refer to the Passover. 

It seemed that Ijaz's main argument was this:

The initial problem is that if this feast refers to the Passover it would mean that Jesus preached for 4 years and not 2 1/2 years....Thus, it would either mean that the timeline presented for Jesus’s ministry according to the Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark and Luke exclude one year of Jesus’s ministry or that the Gospel attributed to John has created an additional 4th year (more than 3 years) which would stand against the testimony of the other Gospels. If the former is true it would mean that the authors of the synoptic Gospels chose to exclude and ignore an entire year’s worth of teaching by Jesus, thereby bringing into question the reliability of their collective testimony. Why would his followers want to exclude an entire year of his public ministry? Surely if he chose to preach at that time it must have been for a reason, therefore on what grounds can an author ignore or prevent other Christians from reading and learning from 25% of Jesus’s ministry?

However, if the latter is true, it would mean that the authors of the Gospel attributed to John created and attributed an additional year of preaching to Jesus’s ministry. This would then indicate that the Gospel attributed to John lies about Jesus and thus brings into question its authenticity, reliability and accuracy.

Again, the above information shows that the foundation of Ijaz's argument collapses once we realize that the anarthrous reading has serious good evidence in its favor, and that scholars have noted that even if the definite article were original, this would necessarily mean that the feast referred to the Passover specifically. As for Irenaeus, his view is not completely decisive in this issue either (the same goes for the commentaries from the 1800s that Ijaz appealed to, a time when manuscripts such as p66 had not yet been discovered). He was not infallible. One example of his ability to err was his view that Jesus lived to around 50 years. 

We could apply the same standard to the variant in Surah 3:158, but again Ijaz would rightly say that there is no good evidence for "they will not be gathered" being the original reading. The same thing goes with this textual variant in the New Testament.

Thus, we have seen that Ijaz's claim is in error because it does not recognize the following points:

- There is not any good evidence for ἡ ἑορτή being the original reading.

- A number of NT scholars such as Bruce Metzger recognize the above point

- As the above commentators have shown (Carson, Keener, Barrett, Morris, etc.), even if ἡ ἑορτή was the original reading, it would not necessarily refer to the Jewish Passover.

Thus, there is not any problem for Bible-believing Christians here whatsoever. I hope that this article brought some more clarity to this issue in order to correct misinformation.