N o v u m T e s t a m e n t u m X X I X , 1 (1987)

A NOTE ON THE TEXT OF J O H N 13:10

by
JOHN CHRISTOPHER THOMAS
Cleveland, Tennessee

Fundamental for the understanding of any literary text is the

establishment ofthat text as it stood originally. O n occasion, the in
terpretation of a given New Testament passage is dictated by deci
sions reached on the text critical level. J o h n 13:10 is one such place,
for the decision to include or omit et affects the inter
pretation of the entire passage. T h e United Bible Societies Greek
New Testament identifies seven variants in this verse.
1. exet xpeav et C * W arm Origen
Augustine.
2. xpetav exet et ( ) L II f13 892 1071
1079 1216 1230 1546 1646 I 5 4 7 syrh>Pal
3. xpetav (or xpetav ') et
^,,,',^,,, ypclpQpsa,bo,ach 2

4. xpetav C 3 * ( 1241 ' xpetav)

f1 28 700 1009 1010 1195 (1242* omit )1242 1344 1365 2148
2174 Byz Lect Cyril
5. xpetav e'xet et ( 6 6 e'xet xpetav)
syr s 'P cop b m s geo (Chrysostom)
6. e'xet xpetav it a u r > c v g w w Tertullian Origen
7. xpetav et (see 13.9)
D it d
O n e thing is immediately obvious. T h e seven variants can be re
duced to two basic readings. Readings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have essen
tially the same sense, while reading 6 offers a truly different meaning.
T h e basic question, then, is whether et should be in
cluded or omitted. It is sometimes suggested that the diversity of

A NOTE ON THE TEXT OF JOHN 1 3 : 1 0

47

readings which include the phrase et is a sign that the

phrase is secondary. Lindars notes:
T h e variants in other M S S betray uncertainty T h e textual evidence thus suggests
that they are not original, but have been added in an attempt to clarify the sense 1

However, such a view fails to appreciate the complexity of the

evidence. O n the one hand, despite their disagreements, each of the
witnesses for readings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 contain the words et
. O n the other hand, the kinds of variants attested in these
witnesses are just the sorts of modification one might expect to ap
pear if the phrase were original.
It is one of the basic rules of textual criticism that the shorter reading
is to be preferred. In this case the shorter reading is variant 6,
. The external evidence for this reading is relatively
early and has good distribution. (fourth century) is an Alexandrian
witness. Tertullian (third century), i t a u r (seventh century), it c
(twelfth century) and v g w w (fourth century) represent the Western
family of witnesses. The Caesarean family is represented by Origen
(third century). Even though the witnesses are early and widely
distributed, as a whole the evidence is somewhat scanty.
Realizing the sparse nature of this testimony, a number of com
mentators have looked to internal considerations in an attempt to
support the shorter reading. Several such considerations have been
proposed for preferring the omission of . Basically,
they all are tied to the thesis that the footwashing prefigures the com
plete cleansing (v. 10) accomplished in Jesus' sacrificial death. This
line of argumentation is taken by Barrett, 2 Brown, 3 Bultmann, 4
D u n n , 5 Hoskyns and Davey, 6 Lindars, 7 Marsh 8 and Tasker. 9 This
is underpinned by a number of observations.
1

Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John New C e n t u r y Bible C o m m e n t a r y (Lon

S P C K , 1972) 451
2
C Barrett, The Gospel According to St John (Philadelphia Westminster Press,
1978) 442
3
R a y m o n d E Brown, The Gospel According to John II T h e Anchor Bible (New
York Doubleday & C o m p a n y , Ine , 1966) 567f
4
Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John, trans by G R
Beasley-Murray
(Philadelphia Westminster Press, 1971) 470
5
J a m e s D G D u n n , " T h e Washing of the Disciples' Feet in J o h n 13 1-20 "
Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamenthche Wissenschaft 61 (1970) 250
6
E C Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed by F M Davey (London Faber & Faber
Limited, 1947) 439
7
Lindars, 451
8
J o h n M a r s h , The Gospel of St John (London Penguin Books, 1968) 489f
9
R V G Tasker, The Gospel According to St John ( G r a n d Rapids Eerdmans,
1960) 157f
don

48

JOHN CHRISTOPHER THOMAS

From the conviction that J o h n must be speaking of one washing,

several deductions are made. The stern language of verse 8b (
, ' ) indicates that the footwashing
is no trival event. Several scholars argue that if refers to
a previous washing and not to the footwashing, then the latter
becomes trivial. Hoskyns and Davey conclude:
If the longer reading be regarded as the original, the reference might be to the need
of comparatively trivial washing, represented here by the washing of the feet only,
after the complete purging of baptism
But the action of Jesus here is not even
comparatively trivial 1 0

Dunn concurs: " B y referring to an earlier bathing the significance

of the footwashing is lostas though there could be an earlier, more
effective cleansing than that accomplished by Christ's redemptive
action on the c r o s s . " 1 1 Barrett suggests that even J o h n ' s employ
ment of the two verbs and as synonyms points
toward this interpretation. Consequently, the longer ending could
owe its origin to nondiscerning scribes who saw a difference between
the verbs. 1 2
That refers to the footwashing may be supported on
form critical grounds as well. Bultmann labels the saying in verse
10 as a parabolic saying. 1 3 Lindars agrees with this assessment and
adds that verse 10 is not a direct reply to Peter's statement (v. 9 ) . 1 4
This would suggest that the shorter reading is original.
Another rule of textual criticism states that the reading which best
explains the origin of the other readings is probably original. Lohse
follows this rule and concludes:
O n e would do well to render a j u d g m e n t according to internal probability and to
ask which type of reading will explain the origin of the other H e r e , together with
external reasons, everything speaks against the long text T h e r e is absolutely no
reason why should be missing But it is easy to understand how
so m a n y different forms of an expanded 10 came about O n e felt the short
text presented a difficulty in thought and added an interpretive expansion to solve
the difficulty 1 5

10

Hoskyns and Davey, 439

D u n n , 251 Also cf Barrett (441) and Bultmann (470)
12
Barrett, 44If Also cf Lindars, 451
13
Bultmann, 470
14
Lindars, 451
15
Wolfram Lohse, " D i e Fusswaschung (Joh 13 1-20) Eine Geschichte ihrer
D e u t u n g " Dissertation, Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat zu Erlangen-Nurnberg
(1967) 8
11

A NOTE ON THE TEXT OF JOHN 1 3 : 1 0

49

Most scholars who accept the shorter reading would suggest that the
longer reading originated " . . . when the original meaning of the nar
16
rative was m i s u n d e r s t o o d " . Raymond Brown offers the best sum
mation for this view.
The most plausible explanation is that a scribe, faced with the statement, 'The man
who has bathed has no need to wash', and not recognizing that the bath was the
footwashing, thought that he had to insert an exceptive phrase to show that Jesus
did not mean to exclude the footwashing when he said there was no need to wash. 1 7

Therefore, in spite of its scanty external support, many scholars de

fend the shorter reading on the basis of internal considerations.
Although these arguments in favor of the shorter reading have some
force, they are not decisive. Rather than assuming that variations
in the longer reading suffice to show its secondary character, it is
necessary to explore these variations carefully before reaching a con
clusion about the genuineness of .
Some witnesses (readings 2, 4, 5 and 7) have rather
than . However, this small difference in word order
should not be overly valued. Several reasons can explain such a
change. It may be that the words were transposed for the sake of
euphony. 1 8 While this is possible it is difficult to determine whether
would really sound better than . A bet
ter suggestion is that the change was made for the sake of emphasis. 1 9
By placing in a more prominent position a scribe may have
wished to underscore its importance. (Then , which is appropriate
before the vowel of , changes to when followed by the initial
consonant of ). Or, the transposition may be simply a transcrip
tional error of the mind, whereby the scribe saw but
inadvertantly wrote . Bruce M . Metzger notes, ''Varia
20
tions in the sequence of words is a common phenomenon ... ' ' . Since
this same kind of alteration appears in a variety of places in the New
Testament, it should not seem strange that it happens here as well.
Whatever the actual explanation, only the verb and noun are
transposed; the negative merely conforms to its following vowel or
consonant.
16

Hoskyns and Davey, 439.

Brown, 567f.
18
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United
Bible Societies, 1971) 240.
19
This possibility was suggested by Bruce M. Metzger in conversation.
20
Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford Univer
sity Press, 1968) 193.
17

50

JOHN CHRISTOPHER THOMAS

That is original is also supported by the fact that is found

in no Greek witness until the sixth century. It appears that D is the
first Greek manuscript to give this reading, joined by the third cor
rector of C. It is natural that the rest of the witnesses supporting
are Caesarean and Byzantine, for Caesarean witnesses generally
preserve a " . . . distinctive mixture of Western readings and Alexan
21
drian readings . . . " , and the Byzantine text is generally character
ized by its lucidity and completeness.
T h e other variations are relatively minor, has been inserted
between and in a few witnesses. More than likely this
specification is due to " . . . the influence of the preceding v e r s e " . 2 2
D expands the verse by adding and . Alterations
of this nature are not uncharacteristic of D. The substitution of
for might best be understood " . . . as though the evangelist had
written something like " . 2 3 This reading
is found almost exclusively in Caesarean and Byzantine texts. Since
the differences among the attested longer readings are small and do
not significantly affect the meaning of the phrase, it is legitimate to
take these together in support of .
With this in mind, the major issue may now be considered. When
comparing the witnesses for the shorter reading with those that in
clude one is impressed with the difference. The great
preponderance of witnesses favor the inclusion of .
This reading has the support of the Proto-Alexandrian p 6 6 (secondthird century), (fourth century) and cop s a (third century). Alex
andrian witnesses include: C * ' 3 (fifth century), W (fifth century),
and c o p b o (fourth century). The Western support is strong and early
as well. The witnesses range from D (sixth century) to the versions
syr s (second-third century), it a (fourth century), itb>c>d>e (fifth cen
tury). T h e Byzantine family is represented by A (fifth century) and
E* (sixth century). T h e Caesarean tradition includes: arm (fourthfifth century), geo (fifth century), Origen (third century), along with
some later witnesses. Thus the support for the inclusion of
is strong, early, well-distributed and includes a number of dif
ferent kinds of witnesses. If a decision were to be made on the basis
of external evidence alone, a verdict would have to be rendered in
favor of the longer reading.
21
22
23

ibid , 215
Metzger, Commentary
ibid

A NOTE ON THE TEXT OF JOHN 1 3 : 1 0

51

However, several internal considerations must also be made.

Owanga-Welo, argues that when 13:10 is identified as parabolic, it
supports the longer reading. Against Bultmann, he cites a "prover
b i a l " phrase in Seneca (Epistulae Morales, L X X X V I 12) which men
tions complete bathing and partial washing together. This, he says,
demonstrates the proverbial character of v. 10 and supports the in
clusion of . 2 4 Barrett's argument that and
are used as synonyms is at best a guess and goes against philological
evidence. 2 5 Also, the view that a previous washing (, v.
10) makes additional washing superfluous is not compelling. 2 6
If, then, there are no sound reasons to reject the longer ending,
it is still necessary to explain the origin of the shorter reading. Two
suggestions are quite plausible. The omission may be the result of
" . . . the difficulty of reconciling with the words '
which follow". 2 7 O n the other hand, the omission
may simply be the result of a mistake, 2 8 possibly homoioteleuton.
If either of these suggestions is correct then all objections to the longer
reading can be answered satisfactorily.
Finally, in terms of the internal coherence of the passage the longer
reading makes better sense. As J o h n A. T . Robinson notes:
If alone were missing, it would make sense to say that 'he who has had
a bath only needs to wash', but to say that 'he has no need to wash' cannot be
squared with J e s u s ' insistence on the absolute necessity of the washing (v 8) 2 9

24
Jean Owanga-Welo, The Function and Meaning of the Footwashing in thejohannine
Passion Narrative A Structural Approach, Dissertation, Emory University, 1980, 241
25
It is now obvious that, despite J o h n ' s fondness for double entendre and for
synonyms, and are distinct in meaning They appear together in a variety
of contexts but never as synonyms Owanga-Welo (15-16) points out several cita
tions, overlooked by most scholars, where such distinctions are apparent, cf Testa
ment of Levi 9 11, Tobit 7 9b, and Plutarch Moralia 958B T h e distinction between
(bathe) and (partial washing) is supported by Oepke, " " , Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament IV, ed by G Kittel, trans by G W Bromiley (Grand
Rapids Eerdmans, 1964) 305, and by Hauck, " " , TDNTW,
947
26
C u l l m a n n can argue on internal grounds for the inclusion of et ,
10, which, in his view, refers to the continual cleansing of the Eucharist (109)
27
J Bernard, Gospel According to St John II (Edinburgh & Clark, 1926)
462 Also cf Metzger, Commentary
28
J o h n A Robinson, " T h e Significance of the Footwashing", Neotestamentica et Patristica Supplement to Novum Testamentum Festgabe fur Oscar Cullmann, edited
by Wilder, et al (Leiden E J Brill, 1962) 146 n 1 Also cf Bernard and
Metzger
29
Robinson

52

JOHN CHRISTOPHER THOMAS

Consequently, on the basis of early and well-distributed external sup

port and convincing internal considerations the text which includes
30
may be accepted as original.
T h e most obvious implication of this text critical decision for the
present study is that by retaining the place of foot
washing in the Johannine community must be reconsidered. The
disciples (and in them the community) are told that since they have
bathed, they have no need to wash except the feet, which implies
that their bath (baptism) needs to be supplemented by footwashing.
Such a view coheres much better with the instructions, found in the
discourse (vv. 12-17), to continue the practice. Consequently, if the
longer reading is accepted, the commands of Jesus about footwashing
must be given consideration in and of themselves. Such a reading
opens up the possibility that not only did the Johannine community
believe that Jesus washed the feet of the disciples, but that they too
are to wash one another's feet.
30
This is also in accord with the conclusions of Fernando F Segovia, " J o h n
13 1-20, T h e Footwashing in the J o h a n n i n e T r a d i t i o n " , Zeitschrift fur die
Neutestamenthche Wissenschaft 73 (1982) 44, who offers three reasons for favoring the
longer reading " a the external attestation is much superior, b the reading can
be satisfactorily explained in the context of the Gospel narrative, c the shorter
reading can be readily explained as an attempt to smooth out what could be con
strued as an irreconcilable clash with the following " O t h e r scholars who sup
port the longer reading are J Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to
St John Black's New Testament Commentaries, ed by A Mastn (London
Adam & Charles Black, 1968) 308, and Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John
(Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1971) 618

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.