John 10:20

An Exegetical Analysis of the Syntactic Challenge in John 10:29 (Codex Sinaiticus)

This exegetical study of ‘The Syntactic Challenge in John 10:29 (Codex Sinaiticus)’ is based on a b-greek discussion from Tue Jul 22 15:29:39 EDT 2008. The initial inquiry addresses the syntactic construction in John 10:29 as found in Codex Sinaiticus, specifically questioning how the article ὁ could function to introduce a substantivized clause in apposition to ὁ πατήρ, drawing a parallel to examples from Plato cited by Cooper.

The main exegetical issue revolves around the grammatical function of the second definite article ὁ in the variant reading of John 10:29, particularly as it appears in Codex Sinaiticus. Influential textual critics like Metzger and Westcott have declared this construction to be “impossible Greek” and “cannot be construed.” This judgment prompts an investigation into whether such a construction can be syntactically coherent within the broader context of Koine Greek or represents an anomaly, a scribal error, or a challenging grammatical feature. The theological implications of different grammatical interpretations, especially concerning the gender of the comparative adjective μείζων (masculine) versus μεῖζον (neuter), are also central to the discussion.

Ὁ πατὴρ [μου] Ὁ δέδωκεν μοι πάντων μείζων ἐστίν (John 10:29, Codex Sinaiticus variant)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• The primary text under discussion, reflecting Codex Sinaiticus (א*), reads Ὁ πατὴρ [μου] Ὁ δέδωκεν μοι πάντων μείζων ἐστίν.
• The SBLGNT (2010) reads Ὁ πατὴρ ὅ δέδωκέν μοι πάντων μεῖζόν ἐστιν.
• Article/Pronoun: Sinaiticus has the masculine definite article Ὁ (following Ὁ πατὴρ) preceding δέδωκεν. SBLGNT has the neuter relative pronoun ὅ.
• Adjective: Sinaiticus has the masculine comparative adjective μείζων. SBLGNT has the neuter comparative adjective μεῖζόν.
• Possessive Pronoun: The bracketed [μου] (my) in Sinaiticus is absent in the SBLGNT reading.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

Textual Criticism (NA28): The variant reading in John 10:29 presents a significant textual challenge. Codex Sinaiticus (א*), the focus of this discussion, reads Ὁ πατὴρ Ὁ δέδωκεν μοι πάντων μείζων ἐστίν. This differs markedly from other major manuscripts and critical editions. P⁶⁶, along with the Byzantine text-type (Byz), supports a reading of ὅς δέδωκέν μοι πάντων μείζων ἐστίν (the Father, *who* has given to me, is greater than all). A corrector of Sinaiticus (א^c) also read ὅς, suggesting an early recognition of the grammatical difficulty in the original scribe’s text. Codex D (Δ) offers yet another variant, ὁ πατὴρ … ὁ δεδωκώς μοι, using a participle instead of a finite verb, indicating a scribal attempt to regularize the grammar.

The NA28 critical apparatus primarily favors the reading with the neuter relative pronoun ὅ and the neuter adjective μεῖζόν, which is also adopted by the SBLGNT: Ὁ πατὴρ ὅ δέδωκέν μοι πάντων μεῖζόν ἐστιν. Metzger’s textual commentary (TCGNT) explicitly labels the Sinaiticus reading (with masculine Ὁ before δέδωκεν) as “impossible Greek” that “cannot be construed.” This assessment underlines the perceived grammatical anomaly of the reading under examination. The principle of lectio difficilior potior (the more difficult reading is stronger) is often invoked in textual criticism, suggesting that scribes were more likely to simplify difficult grammar than to complicate easier readings. However, as noted in the discussion, this principle must be balanced against the reality of scribal “goofs” or unintentional errors, such as mishearing or dropping a letter (e.g., ὅς becoming Ὁ due to a missing sigma).

Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

• πατήρ (patēr): “Father.” (BDAG, KITTEL not directly relevant here for the meaning). In Johannine theology, πατήρ consistently refers to God the Father, emphasizing His supreme authority and unique relationship with Jesus, the Son. Its use here reinforces the divine sovereignty and power.
• δίδωμι (didōmi): “to give, grant, bestow.” The perfect active indicative form δέδωκεν signifies a completed action with continuing results. The immediate context of John 10 (the Good Shepherd discourse) indicates that “what the Father has given” refers to the “sheep”—i.e., the believers entrusted to Jesus.
• μείζων (meizōn) / μεῖζον (meizon): “greater, larger, superior.” This is a comparative adjective. (BDAG s.v. μέγας, KITTEL s.v. μέγας not directly relevant for the distinction).
  • The masculine form, μείζων, if applied to Ὁ πατὴρ, strongly affirms the Father’s supreme authority and power over all things (including those who would snatch the sheep). This aligns with a dominant Johannine theological theme.
  • The neuter form, μεῖζον, as found in SBLGNT, poses an interpretive challenge. If it refers to “what the Father has given” (i.e., the sheep/believers), then the statement “what the Father has given me is greater than all” is considered “impossible Johannine theology” within the discussion, as it would suggest the believers are greater than the Father or Christ, which is heretical. Alternatively, it could refer to “the *act* of giving” or the *power* demonstrated in the giving, or the *security* of the given, which is a more plausible (though still difficult) theological reading.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The variant Ὁ πατὴρ [μου] Ὁ δέδωκεν μοι πάντων μείζων ἐστίν from Codex Sinaiticus presents several grammatical interpretations:

1. Reading the second Ὁ as an irregular Relative Pronoun: This is the most common interpretation proposed by those who find the Sinaiticus reading construable, even if “improbable Greek.” In this view, Ὁ functions in place of ὅς, acting as a masculine nominative relative pronoun. This would mean: “The Father, *who* has given [them] to me, is greater than all.”
   Grammatical Analysis: While the article rarely functions as a relative pronoun in NT Greek with a finite verb (Turner, BDF §§267, 395), there are instances in Classical Greek and some scholars argue for its possibility in Koine, particularly in contexts where the relative pronoun is unambiguous.
   Rhetorical Analysis: This reading strongly emphasizes the Father’s identity and His active role in “giving” the believers to the Son, underscoring His supreme power as the ultimate source of security for the sheep. The masculine μείζων unequivocally refers back to Ὁ πατὴρ, thus affirming divine sovereignty.
2. Reading the second Ὁ as an Article with a Substantivized Appositive Clause (original inquiry): The initial proposal was to consider the second Ὁ as an article that substantivizes the clause δέδωκεν μοι, which then stands in apposition to Ὁ πατὴρ. This would imply something like “the Father, the one-who-gave-to-me, is greater than all.”
   Grammatical Analysis: This construction is highly unusual for NT Greek and, as noted in the discussion, does not align with the examples from Plato where an article substantivizes a clause (usually neuter) or where it introduces a clause that further defines a preceding noun (e.g., “the hypothesis, *that there are many things*”). Here, πατήρ is not a noun that requires definition by a subsequent verbal content clause in the same way. The absence of a conjunction (like εἰ or ὅτι) further differentiates it from the Classical parallels.
   Rhetorical Analysis: If grammatically possible, this would still highlight the Father’s identity through His action of giving, reinforcing His authority and connection to the Son’s mission. However, its awkwardness would detract from its rhetorical force.
3. Reading ὅ (neuter relative pronoun) and μεῖζόν (neuter adjective) (SBLGNT reading): This interpretation, favored by modern critical editions, understands ὅ as “what” or “that which,” referring to the “all” that the Father has given (i.e., the sheep/believers). Thus, “The Father, what He has given to me, is greater than all.”
   Grammatical Analysis: This is grammatically regular for the use of a neuter relative pronoun with a finite verb. However, the neuter μεῖζόν then causes semantic and theological challenges. If μεῖζόν refers to the “what” (the sheep), it implies that the sheep are greater than all, which is theologically problematic.
   Rhetorical Analysis: This reading shifts the emphasis from the Father’s absolute greatness to the greatness or security of the Father’s gift. While it might underscore the inviolable nature of the sheep, the theological discomfort of asserting the *gift* (or the believers) as “greater than all” (possibly implying greater than Christ, or even the Father in some contexts) has led many to reject this variant on theological grounds, often prioritizing content over transcriptional probability.
4. Reading ὅς (masculine relative pronoun) and μείζων (masculine adjective) (P⁶⁶, Byz reading): “My Father, *who* has given to me, is greater than all.”
   Grammatical Analysis: This is grammatically sound and theologically clear. The masculine relative pronoun refers to the masculine antecedent πατὴρ, and the masculine adjective μείζων agrees with πατὴρ.
   Rhetorical Analysis: This reading unequivocally affirms the Father’s supremacy and power as the one who gives and protects, which is a consistent theme in John’s Gospel. It also makes a clear connection to the following verse, which speaks of the Father’s inability to be snatched from. This is generally considered the *lectio facilior* due to its clarity.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The grammatical analysis of the Codex Sinaiticus reading of John 10:29 (Ὁ πατὴρ [μου] Ὁ δέδωκεν μοι πάντων μείζων ἐστίν) reveals a construction that, while deemed “impossible” by some authorities, was likely understood by scribes as functionally equivalent to a relative clause. The syntactic challenge lies in the use of Ὁ instead of ὅς. The theological ramifications are significant, especially when considering the gender of the comparative adjective, which determines whether the Father or the gift is declared “greater.” The broader Johannine context strongly supports an affirmation of the Father’s supreme authority and power.

1. The Father, *who* has given [them] to me, is greater than all.
   This translation interprets the second Ὁ as an irregular masculine relative pronoun, referring to the Father. This prioritizes the theological coherence with the masculine μείζων, affirming the Father’s sovereignty.
2. My Father, the one who gave [them] to me, is greater than all.
   This attempts to construe the second Ὁ and subsequent clause as a substantivized participial-like phrase or a descriptive apposition, acknowledging the grammatical difficulty but maintaining the Father as the subject of “greater.”
3. The Father, *what* he has given me, is greater than all.
   This translation reflects the SBLGNT reading (neuter ὅ and μεῖζόν). It poses a theological challenge if “what” refers to the sheep, but could be understood to emphasize the *magnitude* or *security* of the gift from the Father rather than the inherent greatness of the sheep themselves.