Re: PISTEUSHTE in Jo 20:31 P66
Have you considered that 1 John 5:13 gives textual support to πιστευητε (PISTEUHTE)? On p. 649 of his Textual Commentary on the New Testament, Metzger writes that "the Textus Receptus, following K L P most minuscules, reads TOIS PISTEUOUSIN EIS TO SWMA TOU ThEOU INA EIDHTE OTI ZWHN EXETE EIWVION KAI PISTEUHTE EIS TO ONOMA TOU OIOU TOU ThEOU/. Although one could argue that the shorter reading arose in order to remove the redundancy of TOIS PISTEUOUSIN... INA PISTEUHTE, it is more likely that the reading of the earlier witnesses (a* B syr) is original, especially since INA PISTEUHTE seems to have arisen as a scribal assimilation to the statement in Jn 20.31." (My emphasis).
What interests me here is the assimilation itself to John 20:31. It seems likely that the copyist would have inserted the text as he found it in John 20, rather than amending it. Therefore, if the longer reading in 1 John 5:13 has PISEUHTE instead of PISTEUSHTE, this supports that John 20:31 read PISEUHTE instead of PISTEUSHTE.
Of course, this is not a "slam-dunk" argument. All it means is that the reading that was known to the copyist of 1 John in P, Psi, 323, 1739 (as amended), 1881, and Maj. (according to the apparatus of NA27). The earliest witness of these is P, from the 9th Century. So, support for this reading in 1 John is late. That also allows for the assimilated reading in John 20 to be commensurately late.
However, I would recommend at least considering that 1 John 5:13 supports a reading of PISTEUHTE in John 20:31.
If I were studying this out for myself, my next step would to do a morphological search to see the statistics for total Johannine usage of aorist versus present forms of PISTEUW, particularly in INA constructions. In fact, do the Johannine writings show any tendency to prefer present tense after INA as a rule, over against aorist verbs in INA clauses?
I think those statistics would make or break your case for which reading to adopt in John 20:31 (assuming that the numbers show such a preference).
Anyway, this is my "off the top pf my head" answer. I should probably take a look at your full argument at the link you provided. :-)
> I should probably take a look at your full argument at the linkWould you have done so, you would have noticed that I only tackled the comparatively minor question of what P66 is reading here. :-)
> you provided. :-)
But thanks for noting 1.Jo 5:13! An interesting (and also difficult) case.
PISTEUHTE may be a reminiscence to Jo 20:31, but more probably is simply a conformation to the preceding EIDHTE.
Interestingly even here a few minuscules have PISTEUSHTE.
Regarding P66 one might add that at the places where a PISTEUHTE/ PISTEUSHTE variation occurs, P66 always reads PISTEUSHTE: 8:24 (against P75), 10:38 (alone!), 13:19 (against B).
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany