Majority Text Variants & Link.............................................#41
Critique of Davidson(cont.) &link to ei mh article.............#42 Link to independant analysis of 8:1-11.............................#43 Grammatical Discussion..............................................#44-47 Scrivener's Textual notes............................................#48-49 More Grammar..................................................................#50
D.A.Carson's Confession of duplicity............................#101 Connection between John and Revelation!..................#102-103 Culpepper on the evolving structure of John................#104 Links between John 8:1-11 & John ch.6.......................#105 Symbolic Interpretation of 8:1-11..................................#106 Chiastic Structures surrounding 8:1-11.........................#107 Chiastic Connection to Revelation.................................#108-110
More Chiastic Structure around 8:1-11....................#112 John's Use of Prophecy...........................................#113 Anderson's Two Edition Theory & Critique ............#114-118 Deep Chiastic and 'Seven' patterns in John...........#119-120
Page 13: messages 121-130
Critique of Two Edition Theory (cont.).............................#121-125 Johannine parallels with 8:1-11........................................#126 Bultmann's Rearrangement of John................................#127-...
Page 14-15: messages 131-150
Analysis of Bultmann's Rearrangement (cont.)...............#132-150
Page 16: messages 151-160
Analysis of Bultmann (finish)............................................#151-152 POV (Point of View) Analysis of John.............................#153-156 Content analysis................................................................#157 Neyrey on John 21 and its significance...........................#158-160
Page 17: messages 161-170
Nature of the Addition of John 21....................................#161-163 Pickering's 'Textual Cleansing' & statistics.....................#164-170
Page 18: messages 171-180
The Missing Link: the Lectionary Stream.........................#171-175 Link to Discussion of Bultmann.........................................#174 Link to Reconstruction of Text for John 8:1-11................#176 Dead Sea Scrolls support Early Fathers!.........................#179
Greetings. I hope to consider your post and chart more thoroughly. I believe that this passage is part of the record and also in its correct location. This is verified by the local circumstance that this was at the end of the Feast of Tabernacles. The Sanhedrin had been meeting deciding the fate of Jesus. At the end of their meeting, which was also the end of the Feast of Tabernacles it says: John 7:53 (KJV): "And every man went unto his own house."
Part of the requirements of the Feast was that they had to dwell in booths, a temporary residence to remind them of their wilderness wanderings, when their dwelling was with God, in tents. The Sanhedrin had conspired against Jesus because they felt that their status and "permanent" position was threatened. They may have kept the feast in externals, dwelling in booths or tabernacles, but they had not reflected this in their attitude to God, or in their pilgrimage.
In contrast, Jesus whose dwelling was with God, who had nowhere to lay his head: John 8:1 (KJV): "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives."
The contrast is even more prounced in some translations: John 7:53-8:1 (1901 ASV): "And they went every man unto his own house: but Jesus went unto the mount of Olives."
Connection to Daniel.....................................................#181-182 Link to John Paul Heil on Internal Evidence.................#183 Link to Davidson (1848).PDF on Jn 8:1-11.........#184 Commentaries on John 8:1-11.........................#185 Lightfoot and Hoskins......................................#186-188 Willker's "Lukanisms" evaporate.........................#189 Morris' "internal evidence" empty........................#190
Page 20: messages 191-200
C.K. Barrett's evidence slim................................#191 Brown offers a few points...................................#192 Lindars dissappoints..........................................#193 Tasker has little to add.......................................#194 Keener gives no insight......................................#195 Contributions of Commentators summarized..........#196 Burge shows the poverty of modern scholarship.....#197 A good hard look at 'DE' as 'evidence'...................#198-200
Page 21: messages 201-210
Jerome and Constantine..Hort vs. Reality...............#201 Real source and direction of transmission..............#202 Jerome in proper perspective................................#203 Link to Scrivener on Syriac version.......................#204 Link to Analysis of Hort's mishandling evidence.......#205 Constantine the Murdering Dictator.....................#206-207 Eusebius under Constantine's thumb....................#208 Davidson & Hort misconstrue Euthymius...............#209 Davidson, Hort, Metzger botch Didymus................#210
Page 22: messages 211-220
Link to Cadbury on 'Lukan Origin' theory...............#211...
Excellent points. The intimate connection with the preceding and following material is again serious internal evidence for the authenticity of the passage.
"The evidence that the passage is a very early addition is overwhelming."
Not in my view, obviously. Lets leave the external evidence aside for now. Most of the external evidence is not evidence germaine to the authenticity of the passage at all. It's just evidence concerning the subsequent history of the passage *after* its obvious existance. That evidence must be interpreted in the light of the history of the political, social and doctrinal views of the people manipulating the textual stream of transmission in the 4th and 5th centuries.
The internal evidence is overwhelming for its authenticity as part of John's gospel. Although as long ago as 1848 Samuel Davidson made as good a case as could be made against its authorship, based upon an analysis of vocabulary and phraseology, but it was extremely flimsy. (An Introduction to the New Testament Vol 1 1848 pg 359-360.)
But with the passage removed from the gospel, its entire structure from macro to micro -level falls apart. No less compelling is the quality and genius of the passage itself. Obviously you've been lied to about the nature and meaning of the evidence. You have my sympathy.
I have uploaded one of my charts: shown is the 'Sitz im Leben' of the Pericope, its placement in the Gospel of John. This pericope is given a queenly throne second only to the Great Commandment itself. The chart is part of my book and is copyrighted by me the author, however fellow Christians are freely granted an unlimited licence to use it for their study and edification, and reproduce it for teaching purposes.
This is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the internal evidence entrenching the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery in the gospel of John.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 3rd December 2006 at 11:38 AM.
This is verified by the local circumstance that this was at the end of the Feast of Tabernacles. The Sanhedrin had been meeting deciding the fate of Jesus. At the end of their meeting, which was also the end of the Feast of Tabernacles it says:
This is all fine and dandy except that the feast was finished -- they would not go back to their booths. Moreover, the text reads οικον "home" not σκηνοπηγια, "tabernacle" (cf. 7:2).
Lets leave the external evidence aside for now. Most of the external evidence is not evidence germaine to the authenticity of the passage at all. It's just evidence concerning the subsequent history of the passage *after* its obvious existance.
Agreed. But nevertheless, it's the only non-subjective data we have on the topic. You know, since you like to make a deal about subjectivity.
That evidence must be interpreted in the light of the history of the political, social and doctrinal views of the people manipulating the textual stream of transmission in the 4th and 5th centuries.
What evidence do we have of this history? I do hope you'll explain more.
The internal evidence is overwhelming for its authenticity as part of John's gospel. Although as long ago as 1848 Samuel Davidson made as good a case as could be made against its authorship, based upon an analysis of vocabulary and phraseology, but it was extremely flimsy. (An Introduction to the New Testament Vol 1 1848 pg 359-360.)
I sincerely dislike it when someone without a name comes a long and bashes an established and well-regarded author with almost no evidence.
I have uploaded one of my charts: shown is the 'sits enleben' of the Pericope, its placement in the Gospel of John.
German, sitz.
This is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the internal evidence entrenching the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery in the gospel of John
I hope so, because we're going to need more:
1. Group 1, The "Common Introductory Formula" --> probably a very poor choice of words since John begins entirely unlike the rest of the gospels. Moreover, in the other gospels it is the narrator who quotes the verse, not John himself.
2. Group 1, Ps. 69:9 [10] --> might as well be about Zeal as about Jesus. But I get your point.
3. 1:51 contains a conglomerated quote from Genesis.
4. Group 2, Ps. 78.24 is also a quote from Exodus 16. Also, the quotation is NOT about Jesus. Jesus replies it is about the Father, regardless of who/what the bread is meant to represent here.
5. Group 2, Ps. 82:6 -- not really about the people, is it?
6. Forgot John 12:27
7. 12:40 is about the people only, not Jesus.
8. 13.18 is about Judah/s and the disciples, not "the people."
9. 15.25 is about the people only, not Judas.
10. Again, "the people" is a hard case here -- "the people" in John is a special category. Here the phrase is about the soldiers...
11. 19.36,37 are about Jesus only, not the people.
Generally, it's a creative piece of work. But the methodology and conclusions are stretched and you display an ignorance -- whether of knowledge or by choice -- of the work that has previously been done on the structure of the Fourth Gospel. Moreover, structure in ancient texts is not marked the way you have attempted to do here -- and anyway your 'structure' is rather unwieldy in terms of regularity and symmetry.
But the methodology and conclusions are stretched and you display an ignorance -- whether of knowledge or by choice -- of the work that has previously been done on the structure of the Fourth Gospel. Moreover, structure in ancient texts is not marked the way you have attempted to do here -- and anyway your 'structure' is rather unwieldy in terms of regularity and symmetry.
Your points about the individual quotations are quite reasonable.
I haven't displayed any ignorance of the work of redactional and form criticism of John, as far as I know.
This is just ONE MORE layer of structure built into the gospel, obviously unknown to you. It displays exactly the level of 'fuzziness' it should, given the author of John isn't going to reduce the prophetic fulfillments he has in mind just to make the hidden O.T. structure more symmetrical or sharper in definition. This would reduce the gospel to a repetative cartoon style of gospel, much like a sunday school coloring book.
By the way, contrary to your assertion, I have identified very clear O.T. structures in all four gospels and Acts. They were alll laid out according to the plan of their respective authors/editors.
I sincerely dislike it when someone without a name comes a long and bashes an established and well-regarded author with almost no evidence.
Well, you're going to be extremely unhappy for a long time on this planet. And I'm sure you're going to dislike it even more when your dislikes are considered wholly unimportant and irrelevant to scientific matters.
That looks like a lot of hurting, until you lose some ego.
Interestingly, there are so many 'established and well-regarded authors with almost no evidence' that its hard to avoid them.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 16th December 2005 at 11:04 AM.
I have uploaded one of my charts: shown is the 'sits enleben' of the Pericope, its placement in the Gospel of John.
Just to be clear: the phrase is German, but it is Sitz im Leben, and means "situation in life or setting".
In Christ's love,
filo
__________________ For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Ignore the argumentative nature of this poster. He is old and can't engage
in meaningful dialog very long. Management asks that you at least humor him. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Just to be clear: the phrase is German, but it is Sitz im Leben, ...
sorry about the typo, which seems to have caused such unecessary distraction. Normally I catch most of the typing errors. Of course this completely undermines my credibility as a typist in these matters.
peace
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 16th December 2005 at 11:06 AM.
Well, you're going to be extremely unhappy for a long time on this planet. And I'm sure you're going to dislike it even more when your dislikes are considered wholly unimportant and irrelevant to scientific matters.
That looks like a lot of hurting, until you lose some ego
It's simply etiquette, man. You don't get articles published with a sentence like that. Honestly. It wasn't too long ago when I wrote like you do (at least in terms of rhetoric) -- but I had a mentor who wouldn't let me get away with it. And for that I am thankful.
By the way, contrary to your assertion, I have identified very clear O.T. structures in all four gospels and Acts. They were alll laid out according to the plan of their respective authors/editors.
I have added two photos of Codex Bezae,
showing John 7:53 - 8:11 in situ.
This ancient uncial is one clear witness to the inclusion of the verses in their traditional setting of John, without any 'brackets', scholia, or marginal notes by the original scribe(s) to indicate in any way that the passage was not recognized as genuine.
The Codex Bezae is a dual-language bible. On the left is Greek, and on the right Latin. The scribe who executed the copy was clearly bilingual, and understood both sides of the manuscript (Greek and Latin). It is clear that occasionally he allowed his bilingual skills to influence both the transcripting of the Greek and the Latin. Because of this, in some areas the manuscript is more like a paraphrase or an Amplified NT. However, the text of John here is very stable and close to the traditional Byzantine (majority) text type.
Codex Bezae is admitted to be about as old as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, with all three approximately dated between the 4th and 5th centuries in their manufacture.
All these files are printable versions, jpgs at 8x10 inches in size at about 150dpi, and only about 100k each in size on disk. Download them, print them, and enjoy!
EDITED: I have moved these offline to save space for diagrams. You can find them on TC-Alternate-List (Yahoo Groups).
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 7th August 2006 at 11:01 PM.
There doesn't seem to be a decent translation of Von Soden's work from the German into English, so I am going to try to take on the task myself here.
Von Soden's work is critically important in assessing and understanding the evidence concerning John 7:53-8:11, because he was the only textual critic who could and did hand-collate the thousands of manuscripts available that are extant for this passage. From this massive project, which he took on in order to accurately reproduce the gospel of John for his critical edition of the New Testament, he reconstructed a very detailed genealogical tree for the manuscripts,which allowed him to evaluate the variants using a very fine and subtle scale.
No one has duplicated this feat since. Early on, John Burgon, Dean of Chichester had hand collated several thousand manuscripts and fragments, and later Scrivener, who produced a fantastic and detailed two-volume Introduction to the New Testament describing the major manuscript evidence. This was to be followed by another careful researcher, Colwell, on a more modest scale.
But only Von Soden really knew the manuscript evidence concerning John so intimately. Textual critics studying the Byzantine text-type rely heavily upon Von Soden's work, and in spite of minor complaints about it being out of date, even those publishing modern critical editions,like the Hodges-Farstadd text, find his exhaustive collations essential.
Of course, being able to read Von Soden in English would make his work available to a wide audience. The basic problem is that it is not just 'German' but a very technical German in a specialized field, and so requires special care and expert knowledge to properly translate.
I am offering a preliminary translation here, without claiming it to be definitive. Just to open up Von Soden's work to English researchers.
-------------- EDIT: I have started a new thread for Von Soden's work in this section.
I will continue with that translation there.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 17th January 2006 at 11:46 AM.
Previously Unconsidered Evidence for John 8:1-11 
Linear Mode
