Previously Unconsidered Evidence for John 8:1-11

[Nazaroo]

After nearly a century of intense study of the Egerton 'Gospel'
fragments, the dust has pretty much settled about the actual nature of
the document.

It is probably not an unknown '5th gospel', but rather an interesting
piece of creative writing, a 'harmony' of sorts of at least three
canonical gospels (possibly by a student, or practicing
writer/preacher).

It is now virtually admitted that the 'author' used canonical John
among other documents (and not vice versa for instance), based upon the
nature of the internal evidence in the document.

This has made the Egerton papyrus perhaps one of the earliest
significant textual witnesses to the existance and circulation of the
Gospel of John.

However, the use of John being reasonably settled, little thought has
apparently been spent upon its possible importance as a witness to the
early existance (and location in John) of the Pericope de Adultera.

Admittedly, the evidence is very slender and tentative. But it is a
remarkable coincidence, that two phrases are placed in close proximity,
in the correct order (the same as in the Pericope), namely,

"rulers...the crowd..."

"Teacher! (didaskale)" ...

"Go...and sin no more!"

In particular, the combination of "Teacher"...(cf. Jn 8:4) and "Sin no
more" (Jn 8:11) are eerily reminiscent of the Pericope de Adultera.

But if we admit that the Egerton author had John in front of him
already, the next question might be, not that he himself connected the
conversation of Nicodemus ("Rabbi" Jn 3:2) with that of the cripple in
Judea ("Sin no more" Jn 5:14), but rather,

"Did the Egerton author use the Pericope de Adultera as an enclosing
template for his Leper story?"






Note especially that in John's Gospel Nicodemus uses 'Rabbi', not 'Didaskale', and so Jn 3:2 is less plausible as the source for the 1st statement in the Egerton fragment.

This 2nd century 'harmonizer' uses 'Didaskale' elsewhere as well, making it a kind of trademark for the Egerton work, so this is perhaps not so unusual in itself. Yet...

Whatever may be said of the 'softness' of the connection, it must be admitted that the only place in the Entire New Testament, and even among the hundreds of non-canonical 'gospels', where these two phrases come together in this order in close proximity, is
the Pericope de Adultera, John 8:1-11.


The Egerton Papyrus and related articles are online here:

Egerton Papyrus Homepage <-- Click Here.

 

[Nazaroo]

I've decided to try to host a Blogsite for John 8:1-11.

Many people prefer that format, so I have set one up.
http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/


You can post replies and responses to the articles and 'blognotes' that will be posted there from time to time.

Let me know if you like this idea:

Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

One of the more annoying statements by rejecters of John 7:53-8:11 concerns the sheer number of variants in the text at this point.


The statement is usually formulated in a way that implies it is some kind of evidence regarding the authenticity of the verses. Thus we may typically read something to the effect of:

"This portion of the text displays more variations than any other portion of scripture, showing its unusual transmission history, its dubious origin, and spurious nature" ​

But again, are we being given an honest portrayal and appraisal of the actual textual evidence? No.

The first thing the critics do, is claim there are three different 'text-types' for this passage. For this accounting they include the text of Codex Bezae ("D", 5th century uncial).

Codex Bezae has a very peculiar and abberant version of the text, not just here, but throughout the whole NT. Its deviations from the standard book of Acts for instance are notorious and profuse.

But Codex Bezae is hardly a 'text-type'. It is a single manuscript. Although it clearly represents a much older master-copy (possibly 3rd or 4th century), the fact is, the text itself (along with the small handful of other witnesses to some of its various readings) can at best be called a small 'family' or group.

The Peculiar readings of Codex Bezae in part stem from the fact that it is a bilingual Greek/Latin manuscript, with Greek on the right page (lectio) and Latin on the left page (verso). It is evident from examining both sides of the manuscript (Greek and Latin), that the copyist was influenced by the Latin side and the two texts have been allowed to influence one another in the interests of making them conform to one another.

Thus, codex Bezae is not a true or pure 'copy' of its source documents or master-copy. It is in fact a heavily edited 'paraphrase' meant to give a kind of Greek/Latin cross-reference.

Although this isn't the only or even an adequate explanation for all of Bezae's bizarre readings, it shows that the scribe/editor was quite willing to modify the text in multiple places where it suited him.

As a result, this text alone accounts for nearly half of the 'variants' alleged in the passage (Jn 7:53-8:11).

Dropping the facade that this manuscript is a 'text-type' having any kind of credibility as an accurate source for the original wording of the text, and removing it from the critical apparatus, not only cuts our work in half, but almost completely clears the field of the smokescreen or veil placed over the text by including Bezae's spurious readings.

Not only has the number of variants been artificially bloated beyond reason by including Bezae as a credible witness to the exact wording of the text, but the critics have also cheated in the other direction:

(1) If the many (and we stress MANY) variants in codex Bezae (Greek and Latin) were included in the critical apparatus for the rest of the NT, this would almost double the size of the footnotes everywhere else too. ​

Critical editions of the Greek NT don't dare do this of course. They only include a handful of the significant variants of Codex Bezae in any typical critical apparatus, possibly about 10% of them. Researchers are expected to refer to a critical edition and facsimile of Codex Bezae itself for more detailed accounts of its unusual text.

(2) The bulk of NT manuscripts (over 5000 for the whole NT) have never been collated at all, in the detail that our passage has by von Soden (who checked over 900 manuscripts individually for their readings) or even more recently by Maurice Robinson (who has now collated all the extant manuscripts of John, as well as several hundred lectionaries!).​

If textual critics were to exhaustively collate all the manuscripts in OTHER places, they would have the same number of variants for all those other portions of the text.

(3) The dozens of variants found in a mere handful of particularly loose manuscripts, (Groups M1, M2, M3, M4) have also ridiculously bloated the count.​

The fact is, we could if we so desired, pick two dozen particularly bad paraphrases or poorly executed manuscripts/versions and multiply the variants in any section of the NT by a factor of five.

These are not neutral, scientific procedures, or even honest ones. Instead what has happened is that in the scramble to find supporting evidence for the rejection of John 8:1-11, the critics have been grasping at straws.

In fact, as von Soden first observed in the early 1900's, there are only TWO text-types for John 8:1-11, the main text (M5, some 300 MSS), and the Lectionary text (M6, some 250 MSS). The third significant group of MSS, (M7, some 250 MSS), is simply a later peculiar (block-copied) mixed text made by blending the two.

All the variants found in the majority of manuscripts can fully accounted for by the fact that the Lectionary text was made as a paraphrase to 'stand alone' as a Lection (Lesson for Public reading).

This practice is simply what churchs and pastors have done all along, and still do today: paraphrase a portion of scripture to make it easier to understand for their listeners.

There is no fourth group of manuscripts supporting Codex Bezae. It is the product of a single scribe or editor, and was never copied or used by anyone as an authority or reference for the Greek text of John.

The claim that this passage has an unusual number of variants is false and fabricated out of a biased and unscientific methodology.

Its just another myth perpetrated by detractors of John 8:1-11.

 

[Nazaroo]

I have updated the TEXTUAL EVIDENCE article on the Website:
Textual Evidence for John 8:1-11 <-- Click here.

 

[Nazaroo]

The previous (indirect) links to the material on the connection between John and Revelation are no longer valid.

The original and excellent work on this subject was begun at KNOX Theological,
and the Website/Link is here. There is a plethora of fantastic material at this site.


Knox Site on John and Revelation <-- Click Here!

Charts <--Click Here!

Knox Seminary HomePage

Enjoy!
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

We have finished gathering together and exhaustively analyzing Davidson's original case of the INTERNAL evidence against the Pericope de Adultera, which convinced many scholars in the 1800's that the passage was not genuine to the Gospel.

It can be seen in hindsight that Davidson's case was a naive presentation which was severely lopsided and unscientific.

Much of the material was gathered from this thread, but has now been put in an easy to read and access html file that you can browse or download. A linked index has also been added.

Davidson Part II: INTERNAL Evidence <-- Click Here!

 

[Nazaroo]

Can a person extensively cite non-existant works?

Apparently they can:

In regard to the authenticity of John 8:1-11 Tregelles in 1852 was able to pen the following claim about the extant works of Origen:


Tregelles:

"It has been indeed objected that nothing is proved by Origen's silence; because he often passes by portions of St. John's Gospel, and he had no occasion to mention this narrative: but, in reading his Commentary on this part of the Gospel, it is difficult (if not impossible) to imagine that he knew of anything between vii. 52 and viii. 12: for he cites and comments on every verse from vii. 40 to 52, and then at once continues from viii. 12 in the same manner (iv. p. 299, ed. De la Rue). "​

from: Samuel P. Tregelles,
An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London, 1854), pages 236-243

This paragraph can only be called astounding or wondrous:
It is acknowledged by all modern authorities that Origen's commentary on this section of John are wholly missing. Perhaps in 1852 Tregelles could not have envisioned being caught out on this point, but this brings the whole question of his honesty into serious doubt.
To this day no one has explained how Tregelles could have cited extensively a non-extant work, that has not so far been found.

In fact, when we check Tregelles' reference, we find he is not referring to the main section of Origen's commentary at all. He is referring to a supplimentary section which recaps briefly the main highlights of portions of his commentary.

This was acknowledged 30 years later by Hort:
===========================================

While 30 years later, Hort was able to salvage this scandalous claim somewhat, by insisting that elsewhere Origen should have or could have mentioned the passage, the fact that Origen's commentary exists in a fragmentary state remains an incredible obstacle to getting at just what it is that 19th century critics were really doing or thought they were doing.


Hort:

"Origen's Comm. is defective here, not recommencing till viii 19: but in a recapitulation of vii 40-viii 22 (p.299) the contents of vii 52 are immediately followed by those of viii 12. " ​

(Exerpted from: The New Testament in the Original Greek, 1881 (revised & expanded 1896) Appendix: Notes on Selected Readings, pg 82 forward)

 

[Nazaroo]

I am scooping Mr Scrivener's comments on this question of Origen and his alleged 'witness' to the absence of the Pericope de Adultera from TC-Alternate-List:


Quote:

Re: The Incredible Fraud of Tregelles

There are several points to be made here:

(1) Hort is not saying the same thing as Tregelles. Tregelles clearly implies that Origen's commentary skips the Pericope de Adultera. But he does not inform the reader that the relevant Book from Origen is completely missing, along with about 10 other chapters/books.

(2) Both their conclusions are actually based upon a deductive argument, appealing to a section of Origen's work that may not even have been written by Origen, a summary of contents of sorts. The argument that the summary is 'thorough' at the point of interest is begging the question. This summary clearly is NOT thorough in describing Origen's commentary elsewhere, and may be a later addition to the work.

(3) Hort does not salvage Tregelles, but rather he attempts to salvage the negative testimony of Origen. Whether or not Hort has succeeded in this more more modest goal must await the evaluation of the Origen evidence. The argument from silence is always precarious.

(4) Tregelles remains a deceiver. Elsewhere he also uses deceptive arguments and faulty presentations of the evidence, to favour his judgement that the verses are spurious.

(5) Hort correctly distinguishes two completely different (but not both extant) sections from Origen's commentary. Tregelles doesn't. However, even Hort hardly gives an adequate description of the actual evidence, as you can observe. He devotes two sentences to a problem which requires two pages of analysis. His claim remains unproven and unconvincing.

(6) An accurate picture of the condition and extent of what is actually extant from Origen's commentary can be found at the Catholic Encyclopedia Online, in translation, although a thorough analysis would examine the original Greek.

(7) G.T. Zervos claims "The most important early Alexandrian witness to the absence of the PA ...is the third-century father Origen". But this is utter nonsense. Origen, although early (210-240 A.D.), is still only one of many early and important witnesses relevant to the question, including Tertullian, Papias, Justin Martyr, and dozens of others. And the argument from 'silence' by its very nature limits the potential value of any witness.

(8) The biggest wrench in the gears regarding the silence of Origen and that of many other commentaries, is exactly that. They are public commentaries, designed to be read in church, and work with the old Lectionary system, which skipped over the verses during Pentecost. The public commentaries cannot comment upon what is not read aloud to the congregation.

The actual meaning of Origen's silence is hardly as significant as it has been made to appear, and its hardly news either.


[unquote]----------------------

Summary:

While the question of whether Origen knew of the verses is far from settled, it is obvious in hindsight that even if it were settled, it would still be a relatively minor witness concerning the state of the text of John on this point.

 

[Nazaroo]

Although Culpepper himself was following the critical text (omitting 8:1-11) in his 1998 book The Gospel and Letters of John (Abingdon Press), he inadvertantly provides previously completely unnoticed evidence for the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera!

On page 166 Culpepper provides a chart, showing a remarkable and deep linkage between two sections of John, 5:1-47, and 7:15-24:

John 5_______________________________Jn 7:15-24

5:47.........."letters" /what is written' (grammata)..............7:15
5:31..........speaking on His own behalf...........................7:17
5:44..........seeking the glory from God...........................7:18
5:45-47......Moses gave the Law...............................7:19-25
5:18...........seeking to kill Jesus.................................7:19-20
5:1-18 .......healing of man at pool/'one work'.................7:21
5:1-18......"I healed a man's whole body on Sabb.........7:23
5:9.............the sabbath.....................................................7:23
_____________________________________________


Now we extend this list with the parallels between chapter 6 and 8:

John 6____________________________________John 8

6:14............ the Prophet to come....................................7:52
6:15.............Jesus retires to mountain alone......................8:1
6:17............it was now night.................................................8:1
6:22..........the following day, the crowd/people stood.......8:2
6:37,44...........the people came to Him..............................8:2
6:21................they willingly received Him...........................8:2
6:45................they were taught of God..............................8:2
6:25................they said to Him Rabbi/Teacher..................8:4
6:32................Moses gave them bread/law.......................8:5
6:30..............."What do you work/say?"..............................8:5
6:36.................they believed Him not................................ 8:6
6:41-2.............they murmered at/pressed Him..................8:7
6:21................on the ground/earth......................................8:6
6:34...............then they said, "give us this bread"
.......................and they that heard were convicted.............8:9
6:39-40........."I will raise them up"
......................Jesus raised Himself up..............................8:10
6:47.........."whosever believes in Me has eternal life"
....................."Neither do I judge thee"...............................8:11
______________________________________________


To this we add the clear word-for-word parallels:

word parallelism between
John 8:1-11 and John 6:1-21:

John 6:3 : anhlqen de eiV to oroV IhsouV (But Jesus went to the mountain...)
John 8:1 : IhsouV de anhlqen eiV to oroV (But Jesus went to the mountain..)

John 6:5 : poluV ocloV erCetai proV auton (a great crowd came unto Him)
John 8:2 : paV o laoV hrceto proV auton (all the people came unto Him)

John 6:6 : touto de elegen peirazwn auton (this He said testing him)
John 8:6 : touto de elegon peirazonteV auton (this they said testing Him)

John 6:10 anapesein ...anepesan...oi andreV (sit down, the men sat down)
John 8:6 : o de InsouV katw kujaV...(but Jesus bent down...)
John 8:10 kai n gunh en mesw ousa (and the woman [was left standing] in the midst )

John 8:6b...kategrafen eiV thn ghn ([Jesus was] writing in the ground)
John 6:21 ...kai euqewV egeneto to ploion epi thV ghV (and instantly the ship was upon the ground)
______________________________________________________


It becomes obvious that whoever composed John 8:1-11 was intimately familiar with and extensively used John 6 as a template (or vise versa). But this is exactly the habit and pattern of the composer of 5:1-47, and 7:15-24, namely John the Evangelist himself.


Once again it becomes clear that this cannot be any kind of naive 'insertion' of a story unrelated to John by some editor or scribe trying to preserve an 'ancient tradition' or 'authentic oral story'. Either the gospel was extensively and carefully rewritten to include the pericope, or it was always an integral part of John's gospel.


But this clearly means that the text of Aleph and B cannot be original, since that text is virtually identical to the traditional text which includes the verses, except for this passage. Even with minor differences in the text for the rest of John, the above list of connections remains essentially the same when we use either codex B or a modern critical edition of the NT.


Once again, the text of a handful of 2nd-4th century documents artificially prepared for liturgical service is shown to be a secondary, mutilated text.

 

[Nazaroo]

We have completed the article on the Section from Hort's 1886 Introduction which summarizes his position on the Pericope de Adultera.

We have of course added modern footnotes.


Hort Part 3: Introduction/Summary <-- Click Here.


We apologize for delivering this 3 Part series out of order. This was how the material had to be tackled.

Part II will be coming shortly.

 

[Nazaroo]

From: The Gospel and Letters of John,
by R. A. Culpepper 1998 Abingdon Press ( pp.170-171 )​

The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery (7:53-8:11)

The story of Jesus, the woman taken in adultery, and her accusers is an interpolation. It appears to be an early, free-floating unit of tradition that did not find a secure home in the written Gospels, perhaps because some feared that it would lead to leniency in dealing with adultery. It does not appear in the Greek manuscripts of John before about 900, and some insert it after 7:36, after 21:25, or after Luke 21:38, instead of at this point.
____________________________
Footnote:For the textual history of this story, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, (NY, UBS, 1975), 219-221.

Culpepper's 'Textual Evidence '



(1) "The story ... is an interpolation."

It is in fact impossible for the passage to be a simple 'interpolation'. As we have seen (msg #229 of this thread), the internal evidence shows at the very least that this section was deliberately composed to fit here in John's Gospel.
The passage shows deep connections to many parts of John on multiple levels. It can only be either a deliberate forgery involving extensive tampering with the whole Gospel, or else of course, it is an authentic part of this same Gospel, and has the Evangelist for its author.
For an alternative explanation for the complex textual evidence, see our articles and reviews on that subject here:

Articles on the Authenticity of John 8:1-11 <-- Click Here.


(2) "It appears to be an early, free-floating unit of tradition..."

Again, we are treated to a popular myth about the passage. In fact, the manuscript evidence for 'other locations' for John 7:53-8:11 is all very late (10th century or later). And it is fully accounted for by later attempts to re-insert the passage back into new copies of defective MSS by re-copying the text from the Lectionary tradition.
This is why in a few cases, the verses are dislocated either at John 7:38 or just after 8:12. The placement of the passage at the end of John in some MSS is a result of the impossibility of re-inserting it at its proper place. This couldn't be done without removing and re-writing already bound pages in the faulty copy, and inserting more blank parchment to hold the verses.


(3) "[the passage did] not find a secure home in the written Gospels,
perhaps because some feared that it would lead to leniency in dealing with adultery."

Here we have a faulty hypothesis, based upon an over-inflated estimate of the value of a handful of 4th century uncials that omit the passage. The vast majority of Byzantine MSS (authentic Greek MSS from the core of the Eastern Greek half of the Holy Roman Empire) represent a multitude of independant streams of transmission extending back at least to the 4th century.
These MSS, numbering some 1250 continuous-text copies along with a thousand lectionaries, show that John 8:1-11 was recognized as belonging to John and respected as Holy Scripture for nearly a thousand years, from around 400 to 1400 A.D.
The explanation offered by Culpepper, although unacknowledged, is that of St. Augustine, who in the 4th century noted that some people were leaving out the verses. He commented upon them repeatedly and treated them as Holy Scripture authentic to John. He and many other 4th century fathers unanimously asserted their authenticity whenever they chose to comment upon it.


(4) "It does not appear in the Greek MSS of John before about 900 [A.D.]"

This is an incredible error of fact and judgement. Of course Culpepper knows that the story appears without any marks of doubt or caution in the famous 5th century manuscript, Codex Bezae (D), both in Greek and Latin (it is a bilingual copy of the Gospels).
To this we can add codex E (8th cent.), and MS 0233 (8th cent.), both of which have the passage, and MS 047 (8th cent.), which has 8:3-11 but omits 7:53-8:2, since it is constructed out of the Lectionary text, a text which obviously must go back at least a hundred years earlier, from this evidence alone.
Its absence in 6th and 7th century MSS is not remarkable when we remember that many thousands must have been produced, yet only a handful of MSS survive for each century before the 8th. These few samples and scraps cannot be claimed to adequately represent the state of the text for those centuries.
A far more reliable guide to the text for the earlier centuries in which we lack adequate numbers of copies can be had by projecting backward from the many later independant MSS from all over the empire, in Greek, Latin, and many other translations. Each of these later MSS represents earlier copies faithfully reproduced, and certainly reflecting a text extending back centuries earlier.


(5) "For the textual history of this story, see Bruce M. Metzger..."

This is wholly inadequate. Metzger certainly represents the 'status quo' among liberal textual critics who support the critical Greek text originally created by Hort out of 4th century uncials in the 1880s.
But any honest textual critic will concede that the status of our passage is one of the most important controversies in NT textual criticism today.
There are many textual critics who take quite a variety of views on the passage and its reconstructed textual history. For Culpepper not to cue the reader to this controversy is surely a disservice. It just maintains an elitist 'specialist' class among critics and keeps the public ignorant.
Why can't laymen know about these discussions and controversies? The academic hubris and secretiveness of experts is one of the most serious and systemic problems with the advancement of modern scientific investigation today.
For alternate viewpoints about the textual evidence and history of these verses, we can heartily recommend a few other expert opinions:

Hodges on John 8:1-11 <- Click Here for Article.



Summary:

Culpepper is heavy on unsupported assertions, but light on facts to back them up.

The fact that Culpepper is writing a popular exposition is no excuse. Those who have knowledge should not treat the rest of the world as dummies, keeping them ignorant of the fact "for their own good".

Especially when entering the realm of controversy and possible error, a humble approach that acknowledges different views and possibly contradictory evidence should be taken.

"He that did not know, but committed things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. But that servant, who knew his Lord's will, and prepared not, nor did according to His will, shall be beaten with many." (Luke 12:47-48)

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of Life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things that are written in this book." (Rev. 22:19)

These are statements that contain a Spirit that all textual critics and commentators should take seriously and contemplate.

 

[Nazaroo]

Before leaving the subject of the notorious Bark Ehrman and his constant slagging of John 7:53-8:11, we wish to direct the interested reader to the following online article:

Mark Roberts on Bart Ehrman <-- Click Here.

What a fantastic and well argued review of Ehrman's absurd book, "Misquoting Jesus".

This article is so well-reasoned and balanced, we could hardly improve upon it.

Hats off to Mr. Roberts!


Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

Background

One of the newest entries into the fray over the Pericope de Adultera (the "PA", = John 7:53-8:11 ) is the 2007 article by G. T. Zervos, Caught in the Act: Mary and the Adulteress, which Mr. Zervos has placed online at his University of N.Carolina website:

Zervos: 'Caught in the Act...' <-- Click here for .pdf article.

http://people.uncw.edu/zervosg/PR337/Caught%20in%20the%20Act.pdf

Dr. George T. Zervos: Dept. of Philosophy and Religion, (UNCW) offers a half-dozen courses on religion, and NT studies. His homepage can be found at:
http://people.uncw.edu/zervosg

Zervos' article is important for several reasons:

1. Its new, and attempts to push forward a novel approach toward the research on the PA.
2. Zervos lays his new agenda for the handling of the early history of the passage in plain view, so we can evaluate its merits.
3. He gives detailed discussions of key evidence not found elsewhere.
4. He provides extensive bibliographies and footnotes connecting to other recent researchers in this area.
5. Zervos himself translates material into English (from German articles etc.) that would normally be inaccessible to English readers.
6. He gives a long discussion of the Protevangelium of James, recently cited as possible 'source evidence'.

Outline of Zervos' Article

Zervos' article is quite long, (some 43 pages with footnotes).
He begins praising W. Peterson for his article on the PA, which Zervos largely tries to sell to the reader:

"William Peterson presents a compelling study of the famous pericope adulterae (PA)"
(Zervos, p.1)
​

He organizes his argument in the following manner: First he divides what he calls the 'evidence' regarding the PA (John 7:53-8:11) into four broad categories:

A. The Textual Evidence against the PA
1. The Greek MS Tradition
2. The Ancient Versions and Non-Greek Patristic Witnesses
3. The Greek Patristic Witnesses
4. The Apocrypha
​

One will look in vain for a category "Textual Evidence FOR the PA", or even a category "Internal Evidence" either for or against the passage. Zervos carefully avoids both these groups of evidence, since he has already written off the PA as an 'insertion'.

But Zervos doesn't just stop at begging the issue with his main title, "Evidence Against...".

He also does a bit of 3-card Monte in splitting off the bulk of the key Patristic evidence (all the 4th century early fathers of importance, like Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine), and dismissing it under the subheading of "Versions". Its as though their critical testimony about the MSS evidence in the early 4th century was secondary or 'unreliable'.

His first three categories of evidence are briefly treated, only to show that in reviewing the 'evidence',

"...[Peterson has demonstated] the dismal lack of support for the PA in the 1st three categories of witnesses, i.e., the Greek MSS, versions, and patristic references..."
(Zervos, p 11)
​

Instead Zervos offers a NEW category of evidence, "The Apocrypha", by which he means:

4. The Apocrypha

(a) the [non-extant] Gospel according to the Hebrews, occasionally mentioned,
(b) the Didascalia Apostolorum, ("The Teaching of the Apostles" 3rd cent.), and
(c) the Protevangelium of James, (the 'proto-gospel of James', = Prot. Jas.).
​

Now Zervos praises Peterson again for 'discovering' that this is the most important 'evidence':

"Peterson rightly points out that that oldest evidence for the PA lies in the 4th category, the non-canonical documents of early Christianity." (i.e., Zervos' "Apocrypha")
(Zervos, p 11)
​

By this last statement, Zervos makes it clear that he has mis-named his last category of 'evidence', just as he has ineptly named the first three.

He clearly means New Testament 'Apocrypha' . And we are not going to see any discussion whatever of the obvious and important connection between the PA and the Story of Suzanna in the Greek book of Daniel.

 

[Nazaroo]

The Protevangelium of James

As he did in the previous sections (pp. 1-11), Zervos only briefly treats the first two examples of his 'Apocrypha', the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the Didascalia Apostolorum (pp. 12-15).
He really wants to talk about the Protevangelium of James, which he spends the next 11 pages (15-26) discussing in excruciatingly boring detail, complete with exhaustive footnotes.

This last document (the Protevangelium of James, or Prot. Jas.), is Zervos' real interest. He borrows W. Peterson's claim that this document is the earliest evidence for the existance of the PA. This is further interpreted or rather assumed to mean that it is evidence that the PA is of foreign origin, and hence a later insertion into John's Gospel.

But Zervos is not done yet. He goes on for another 10 pages (pp. 15-36) analyzing the 'Textual Problem' for Prot. Jas., and the 'Form-Critical Problem'.

We may well ask, why? What is so important about the Protevangelium of James? What can it possibly tell us about the origin of the PA?

After all is said and done, the efforts of all the critical skill and cleverness combined results in essentially one weak link between the two otherwise totally unrelated documents ( Prot. Jas., and the PA):

Gosp.John... 8:11 oude egw se [kata]krinw
Prot. James. 16:3 oude egw [kata]krinw umaV -
​

And even this is a shakey match, with the Jame's quotation addressing a crowd in the plural.



Zervos' Brilliant Conclusion and Methodology for 'Deprogramming' Christians

Having established the (perhaps not so) 'obvious' dependance of the PA upon Prot. Jas., Zervos now shows us how to fill in the blanks (or rather gigantic chasm! perhaps even uncrossable gulf...) between the evidence and his thesis:

"First, we must disassociate the PA completely from the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John should not even be mentioned in connection with the origins of this story. Any thoughts we may have relating to the the later association between these two texts must be completely cleared from our minds.

If the overwhelming witness of the MS tradition of the Gospel of John tells us nothing else, it tells us that there was absolutely no relationship between the PA and the Gospel of John in the first two centuries.

The MSS constitute definitive and irrefutable proof that the PA was not originally a canonical story since we do not have a single early MS of John that contains it.

But we do have a complete 3rd century papyrus of the Prot. Jas. that includes a parallel to a statement in the modern PA."
(Zervos, p 36)
​

If this last paragraph reads back to you like a hypnotism session from the Scientologists, or an offer from the literature of Reverend Sung Yung Moon, don't be alarmed or surprised.

The Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist is of course the favourite denomination of the wealthy European Elite. Mary Baker Eddy continues to reach out to wealthy and stupid academia wherever they can be separated from their natural born common sense.

 

[Nazaroo]

It may not have quite struck the reader how incredibly profound the evidence accidentally noted by Culpepper is, compared to the blatantly artificial and strained attempt of Zervos with the Protoevangelion of James.

After 43 pages of struggle, Zervos was only able to produce one short phrase of three words, that can connect John 8:1-11 with the Protevangelion of James.

Yet when we compare John 8:1-11 with John chapter 6, we are able to come up with at least three long clauses of near verbatum agreement in the original Greek, as well as about twenty (!) thematic or bite-size connections, resonances or parallels:

To understand the power of this connection, we need to realize how unique it is.

Of course we can set up parallel accounts between Gospels, especially when as in the case of the Synoptics, they have borrowed from each other or used common materials.

We can even find short parallels some distance apart when general themes are used repeatedly, or when deliberate chiastic patterns are embedded in a Gospel, such as the O.T. quotation patterns in John.

But we can't just arbitrarily take any two sections of a Gospel and get these kinds of concentrated interconnections.

For instance, no other section or passage in John can be aligned with either chapter 6 or 8:1-11 and be found to have this kind of heavy interconnection. John 8:1-11 is heavily connected to John 6, and not to anything else!.

This is clearly a significant finding, and it simply means this: John 8:1-11 was composed using John 6. It could never have been an independantly 'floating piece of tradition' that somehow ended up between 7:52 and 8:12 by an arbitrary or accidental interpolation of some scribe or a series of errors.

It could NOT have been composed out of the Protevangelion of James, or the Egerton Papyrus, or from the Story of Susanna. It could NOT have been composed by anyone other than the final redactor or issuer of the Gospel of John.

The Pericope de Adultera is heavily dependant upon John 6. But its more than this: Our passage is dependant upon chapter 6 exactly the same way as chapter 7 is dependant upon chapter 5, as Culpepper has shown us.

This means that whoever was imitating John knew more about John than 200 years worth of textual critics and analysts.

But when we combine this fact with the new knowledge about the structure of John itself, from the multi-level chiastic connections to the O.T. Quotation structures, it becomes clear also that the version of John we have is also completely dependant upon 7:53-8:11 for its own coherence and structural integrity.

John 8:1-11 is glued to John and John is glued to 8:1-11 in such a way that it is impossible to pry them apart without doing violence to both.

Who could have done this? John the Evangelist, whoever he may be.





.

 

[Nazaroo]

We have created a new stand-alone article on the Egerton Fragment which discusses this interesting and possible early evidence for the existance of the Pericope de Adultera here;

Egerton Papyrus and John 8:1-11 <-- Click Here!

Enjoy!

 

[Nazaroo]

We have talked about chiastic structures in John, and have even seen a few examples, such as the O.T. Quotation structure.

But John uses chiastic structures liberally at all conceivable levels:


(1) Chiastic Structure within Passages

A good example of this is John 6:22-59:

a) Capernaum (6:24)​

.b) the food which lasts unto eternal Life (6:27)​

..c) the true bread from heaven (6:32)​

...d) I am the bread of Life (6:35)​

....e) you have seen Me and yet don't believe (6:36)​

.....f) all that the Father gives comes to Me (6:37)​

......g) I will raise him up at the Last Day (6:40)​

..............CENTER: "Jesus the son of Joseph" (6:42)​

......g) I will raise him up at the Last Day (6:44)​

.....f) everyone learning from the Father comes to Me (6:45)​

....e) he who believes has eternal life (6:47)​

...d) I am the bread of Life (6:48)​

..c) the living bread...from heaven (6:51)​

.b) My flesh is food indeed (6:55)​

a) Capernaum (6:59)​

For a color-coded layout in more detail of these internal structures, go here:


http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca/synoptic/tuej_only_viii.htm





===============================


(2) Chiastic Structure BETWEEN Passages:


Starting at about 7:14, John's Gospel naturally breaks up into paragraphs defined by content and style:

---------------------------------------------------------------

a) John 7:14-24 (the Law, murder plot, demons)
.b) John 7:25-36 (Christ's origin, "we know where this man is from",
signs, "a little while, you cannot come")
..c) John 7:37-39 ("come to me and drink")
...d) John 7:40-7:52 ("the Prophet", Pharisees: "this crowd who don't know Law is cursed",
Nicodemus: "Does our law judge without hearing?")

'And each departed to his own house,
but Jesus departed to the Mount of Olives.'

...d) John 8:2-11 (Jesus was teaching them the Law, crowd,
test case: 'hearing, they left one by one')
..c) John 8:12 ("I am the Light of the World")
.b) John 8:13-29 (witness, judgment, "you don't know Me or My Father",
sin, "you cannot come", Son of Man)
a) John 8:30-59 (Abraham, murder plot,demons)
---------------------------------------------------------------

Each paragraph is related to its twin by an enclosed discussion of a set of related topics.

Note that John 8:1-11 is clearly a part of the built-in structure of this entire section, and includes the central pivot-point, Jesus on the Mount of Olives.

Deleting the passage does not remove the chiastic structure, but merely damages it, and leaves it unbalanced. This shows that whoever omitted the passage was wholly unaware of this chiastic structure, just as they were unaware of all the other internal structural keys which authenticate the passage.


This inter-passage chiastic connection was not discovered by us, but is noted in the online synopsis here:

http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca/synoptic/tuej_only_xi.htm

 

[Nazaroo]

We have made an easier to read chart for the larger chiasm above:

We will be creating a stand alone article soon on these gospel structures.

Nazaroo's footnotes:
The amazing insight this chiasmic structure offers is that the earthly Temple is a mere outer gate, an interface to the world. All that is important takes place well inside the ascending ladder to ...

the Mount of Olives.
The real Holy Place, the launching pad where Jesus literally ascends to heaven and returns is here.
On His way back from the Mount, He is confronted with the adultery test-case. There is little doubt that the author of this incident intends us to see the woman as a typology for the Southern kingdom of Judaea, an Adulteress.
The irony in their persistence should not be lost, as Jesus mercifully declines to judge her, and postpones the trial.
Instead He again preaches as the Light of the World, a last attempt to save men from the coming judgement.

 

[Nazaroo]

We have now written an online article detailing the full extent of the Chiastic evidence for John 8:1-11:

Chiastic Evidence for John 8:1-11 <-- CLick Here!


The internal evidence for the authenticity of John 8:1-11 is overwhelming.


enjoy!

Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

We have added a new supplimental html file for the Mount of Olives Chiasm.

This html page however, uses UNICODE to display the full Greek text with all accents, and highlights.

You may have to download the Gentium Unicode Font (which supports fully accented Greek) if you don't have a UNICODE font built into your Operating System.

We used UNICODE this time, to allow the detail and also compatibility with Firefox browsers. We couldn't get SYMBOL working for this task.

In any case, you can download the Unicode font for free and install it, to allow you to read the Greek.

Your browser may have to be configured to display UNICODE. Check and see if it all works. If not, I can post some help-links online.

Mount of Olives Chiasm <-- Click Here!

Enjoy!
Nazaroo

EDIT:

We have added a SYMBOL font version for those with IE explorer but without UNICODE support.

http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-EV/Mount-of-Olives2.html