Previously Unconsidered Evidence for John 8:1-11

Clear evidence from Pacian (Bishop of Barcelona from 365 A.D.fwd) on John 8:1-11 supports Jerome's description of the manuscript evidence from before his own time.

Pacian is important, because he quotes John 8:1-11 as authoritative Holy Scripture belonging to John about 20 years earlier than Jerome's Vulgate (390 A.D.)

Pacian on John 8:1-11 <-- Click Here.

Lets look at the 'seam' between John 8:1 and John 8:2:









John Burgon had this to say:

Now as everyone must see, the former of these two paragraphs is unmistakably not the beginning but the end of a narrative. ... the conclusion of ... what occurred at the close of the debate between certain members of the Sanhedrin, which terminates his history of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles.

Click to expand...

Robert Jamieson was terse:

[RE: Jn 8:1]: This should have formed the last verse of the foregoing chapter.
- Robert Jamieson

Click to expand...

"The Synoptic Problem becomes significant here:



John appears to take great pains to maintain independance from the Synoptic Gospels, in regard to both style and content. He appears only to make direct reference to Mark, and makes no effort to use or even confirm the 'Q' material from Luke and Matthew.

Yet a handful of peculiar clauses and expressions are shared between John and Luke: Why would John insert these phrases into his own Gospel in such a random manner, with no apparent purpose?


If Luke made Use of John...

But what if Luke was composed after John, and had access to it, or at least to traditions originating in the Johannine community? In fact, a remarkable number of passages in Luke appear to depend upon the Johannine tradition, such as Luke 9:55-56 (cf. Jn 3:16-17), Luke 10:1-24, especially 10:2-3 (cf. Jn 4:35-36), and 10:21-22 (cf. Jn 5:25-27, 8:42-43, 10:27-30 etc.), Luke 11:29-36 (cf. Jn 2:18 etc.), and Luke 12:14 (cf. Jn 8:15-16).

The parallels between Luke 11:20 (cf. Jn 8:6,8!), and especially Luke 21:37-38/Acts 5:21 (cf. Jn 7:53-8:2) become now become more explicable. Luke takes the Johannine traditions and works them into his compilation of previous written and oral tradition, modifying them extensively just as he has done with Mark. Luke openly confesses as much, in the first 4 verses (Luke 1:1-4).

Most importantly, now the amazing parallel in Luke 21:37-38 takes on a new meaning: Besides providing the authoritative background for Luke's following material, Luke carefully preserves together material from both sides of the apparent 'seam' between John 8:1 and 8:2. Could Luke have done this to prevent or combat the physical cutting apart of this seam and removal of John 8:2-11?

If so, Luke would become the earliest known witness to the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera!

- Nazaroo

Once we acknowledge that Luke wrote after John, his own story regarding a 'woman of many sins' (Luke 7:36-50) becomes immediately explicable.

Luke has read John, but more importantly, has had time to reflect upon the teaching of Radical Forgiveness found in Jn 8:1-11.

More than this, Luke has also witnessed the hostile reaction to, and perhaps even the early deletion of these verses by some copyists.

The problem is that John 8:1-11 is real Spiritual Meat, and far too strong for most tastes. It offends the Jews from Jerusalem, the Pharisee (Separitist) Sect, and perhaps most importantly, the scribes in particular.

It teaches by example the incredible Gospel theme of Pre-emptive Forgiveness, that is forgiveness preceding repentance!

And most importantly, it attacks the very institution of marriage as the Jews are used to having it, meaning a patriarchal system where men can 'divorce' at the drop of the hat, or over any accusation of "uncleanness" no matter how trivial or unsubstantiated.

Luke's solution to the voilent attacks upon Christianity over these verses is to continue the story, distancing first the issue of Adultery from the most important and most universal teaching: Radical Preemptive Forgiveness.

First, In Luke 7:35f, we see the missing act and outward signs of repentance supplied, in the later actions of the woman.

Next, the question of her recurring sin is also dealt with. She obviously has quit her former lifestyle and has come to seek mercy from the Messiah.

Her attitude and actions are contrasted with the self-righteous Pharisees, who are both the original instigators of this woman's plight, and the prime antagonists and enemies of the Gospel.

Finally, Jesus Himself by parable and explicit teaching exposes plainly the radical teaching that God (and/or Jesus) can and will act preemptively, granting forgiveness to the repentant, and acknowledging that forgiveness has already been granted.

Forgiveness is still firmly (re)rooted back in both repentance, and faith in the Messiah.

The woman has not only been vindicated, but her story has been completely redeemed by its simple continuation to the logical result.

Luke 7:35-50 is Part II of John 8:2-11.

Luke not only carefully preserves the passage by embedding parts of it in his own Gospel and in Acts, but he saves and expounds the underlying doctrines, making them explicit and providing guidance for future interpreters of John.

Once Luke's Gospel was accepted by Christians everywhere, the reason for deleting John 8:1-11 has become virtually obselete. The questions that John 8:1-11 raises are answered fully and protected in the story of Luke 7:35-50.

There is no real point now for Christians to question the verses, and this leaves only the Pharisees and scribes as its natural enemies. The prudish and the challenged within the Church have been definitively answered by Luke's expansion and continuation of the story.

This is why there was an early and severe outbreak of omission, probably caused by persecution from the Jewish authorities, but which soon died off within a couple of generations, as the political and religious scene changed.

For those curious about Roman Law in the critical period regarding the early history of John 8:1-11, we have made an article on the rulings of the various Emperors according to Justinian's book.

You can read it here:
The Emperors on Adultery (290-556 A.D.) <-- Click Here!

Peace,
Nazaroo

Biblical Horizons (www.biblicalhorizons.com) is a website run by a group of Protestant Christians who take a strong apparently fundamentalist or evangelical stance. Their founder and director is James B. Jordan.

Mr. Jordan appears to be a prolific author of books and articles, writing since the early 80's. His books seem very popular with American evangelicals and fundamentalists. Two of his more recent titles are Through New Eyes (2000), and Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One (1999).

This group holds to a form of Biblical Inerrancy called Biblical Absolutism, whereby the Bible is not only obviously inerrant and presumably divinely inspired and providentially preserved, but also that it holds the highest authority, including its chronology and extending even to its interpretation (such as the literal "six-day creation" etc.).


The beliefs of this group are given in more detail here:

"Biblical Horizons is committed to historical Biblical Christianity. We seek to be thoroughly Biblical, comprehensively catholic, and true to the Reformation faith.​

We believe that the primary issue before the Church today is the lordship of Jesus Christ.​

Our vision is expressed in our research and publications. We believe that the following perspectives must be recovered if the Church and then society are to be revived:​

Trinitarian Awareness, Biblical Absolutism, Covenant-historical Interpretation of the Bible, Presuppositional Thinking, Biblical Theocracy, Biblical Eschatology, Biblical Worship, Singing of God&#8217;s Word, Christian Transformation, and Serious Reflection on the issues before the Christian world today."​

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/​

(taken from bottom of their homepage: The previous "Mission Statement" page:​

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/about/​

has apparently been removed from their site, possibly for revision purposes or privacy concerns.
It has been cached however by Google here:

Cached Mission Statement July 2007 <-- Click Here

)
​

Click to expand...

Jordan and John 8:1-11

Of interest to us, is Jordan's strong stance on the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera (John 8:1-11). According to Jordan,

"...modern lower criticism has provided no good reason for removing it [John 8:1-11] ; thus, we should presume it authentic unless we are overwhelmed with strong evidence that it is not."

Click to expand...

After making an examination of the verses, applying also his own interpretation and assumptions, Jordan pronounces the verses authentic:

"The story of the woman taken in adultery is thoroughly connected to the Biblical theology both of the Bible as a whole and of John's gospel in particular. It flows seamlessly out of what precedes it in John, and flows seamlessly into what follows it. If this story did not belong in John's gospel, there would be clear discordant notes present. Quite the opposite is the case. The more the pericope is studied, the more obvious it becomes that it is authentic."

Click to expand...

So it is important for us to see just how Jordan arrives at this conclusion, and what assumptions went into his analysis. If any of his ideas are erroneous, or impossible to substantiate, then we must also ask if this weakens his argument for authenticity in any significant way.

Secondly, we naturally will want to examine a popular fundamentalist view on the verses for its own sake. There may be several important insights in this setting that would be overlooked by other commentators.

Exerpted from:
BIBLICAL HORIZONS
No. 82
February, 1996
Copyright © 1996 Biblical Horizons

Jesus at Belshazzar's Feast

Being an Explanatory Disquisition on an Aspect of
the Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery

by James B. Jordan

And they were saying this, testing Him, in order that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger drew on the ground. ​

( John 8:6).


The story of the woman taken in adultery ( John 7:53-8:11) has been part of the canonical Christian Bible from its earliest times, and modern lower criticism has provided no good reason for removing it; thus, we should presume it authentic unless we are overwhelmed with strong evidence that it is not. 1

The following discussion shows that the story fits perfectly with the theology of John's gospel, which provides strong confirmation of its canonicity. 2


Jesus' Writing on the Ground


The question of why Jesus wrote on the ground is an important aspect of the story. 3

Some have suggested that marking in the dust should be related to the dust drunk by the woman suspected of adultery in Numbers ch. 5, but that will not do, because in this case the woman was already known to be guilty. 4

Others have tried to come up with what Jesus might have actually written, but since the text does not tell us, it cannot be important to know for certain what He wrote. Rather, we have to ask why He wrote (v. 8) or drew (v. 6) on the ground.5

Click to expand...

1. In this Mr. Jordan is certainly correct. The rejection of these verses has been based on 19th century German criticism, which has historically mishandled the textual evidence. Besides being over-skeptical of Christian textual tradition, specific biases in favour of "the oldest" manuscripts misled early critics on a number of fronts. These errors both in methodology and in results continue to this day.

2. Jordan's apologetic concerns and purpose are openly stated. This makes his commentary here a "textual-critical" one more than an interpretational one. His case now must be examined in detail, both for potential biases, and also possible methodological flaws.

3. This view is in direct contradiction to some other modern commentators, such as Gail O'Day. She rejects any attempt to discover what Jesus wrote, and believes that the writing (v. 8:6,8) is merely an expression of non-engagement or reluctance on Jesus' part to give assent to the accusers' agenda.

However http://adultera.awardspace.com/COMM/oday1.htmlhttp://adultera.awardspace.com/COMM/oday1.htmlhttp://adultera.awardspace.com/COMM/oday1.html[URL="file:///C:/Program%20Files/Apache%20Software%20Foundation/Apache2.2/htdocs/pa/COMM/oday1.html"]O'Day's analysis[/url] is itself inadequate on a number of fronts. The act of writing was clearly important to the narrator, and has several obvious literary and apologetic functions, such as chiastically framing the important pronouncement of Jesus, and documenting Jesus' literacy (John the Evangelist shows a concern for Jesus' education and credibility for instance in Jn 7:15).

Some commentators may be frustrated at the difficulty in establishing with any certainty what Jesus wrote, but this cannot detract from its prominence and importance to the passage as a whole. It cannot simply be ignored. Jesus' writing on the ground needs adequate discussion, just as does every other feature of this passage.


4. Here Jordan's logic is severely flawed. He makes the common presumption that the woman is guilty of adultery, and specifically of the instance of adultery she is accused of by her captors.

Yet there is no legal or ethical justification for this presumption of guilt. There has been no trial, only a summary statement of an allegation, which has yet to be backed up by credible eyewitnesses.

In fact, Jesus in verse 8:11 indeed seems to treat her as "guilty" of some serious impropriety ("Go, and sin no more."), but the specifics of her crime(s) are not given. Jesus' parting attitude is the only evidence we will ever be given concerning her.

But at the moment where Jesus writes on the ground, no trial, testimony, or judgement has yet been made. The reader's presumption of guilt based upon later statements by Jesus cannot be active or relevant to the interpretation of Jesus' writing at this critical point in the story.

Certainly, one important aspect of meaning is what the reader is expected or intended to understand at the first reading of the story. Jordan wants to rule out a reference to Numbers 5, because he prefers connecting Jesus' writing to Daniel's hand of God writing on the wall.

But there is no justification here for ruling out a priori an alternate connection that may be intended. It is equally possible that the author (John the Evangelist) intends the reader to make the connection to both passages (Numbers & Daniel) simultaneously, or even other scriptures, either alone or together.

The very fact that what Jesus wrote was left out seems to invite multiple interpretations, and this can hardly be accidental.


5. Jordan's truism shouldn't be confused with a denial of the necessity of seeking out, or interpreted as justifying a refusal to seek out, what Jesus actually wrote.

We can agree that since we obviously cannot know for certain what Jesus wrote, it cannot be important to know for certain.

But it does not then follow that we should not seek probable solutions.

There may be multiple reasons for the text failing to provide the content of Jesus' writing. Here are a few:

In each of these cases, it still makes perfect sense to seek plausible solutions for what Jesus may have wrote or what John may have intended us to think He wrote.

This kind of conjectural research falls squarely under normal Christian exegesis.

We have examined the core of Jordan's interpretational argument in our Commentary Thread here:

Jordan on John 8:1-11 reviewed <-- Click Here.

The reader can look at the details there.

The main result is that Jordan has presented an admittedly evangelical Christian interpretation of the verses.

However, he has provided little historical or contextual analysis or evidence, and his interpretation is tainted by his "anti-antinomianist" agenda.

While Jordan cleverly harmonizes John 8:1-11 with his own theological views, he has not brought out useful evidence that would have a direct bearing upon the authenticity of the verses.

This seems to be a shame, for there is bountiful internal evidence from both the passage and the Gospel of John available, and a remarkable amount of secondary historical evidence as well.

The reader is advised to consult our pages on the authenticity of John 8:1-11, particularly the Internal Evidence page:

Internal Evidence for John 8:1-11 <-- Click Here.

Some of you who are learning Greek may appreciate this:

We have posted the Greek text for Book II of the Apostolic Constitutions (350 A.D.), which quote John 8:1-11 as Holy Scripture.

Apostolic Constitutions Greek Text <-- Click Here.

We have also added the Greek text to the Letter of Origen to Africanus on Susanna on our Patristic Evidence page.

Origen on Susanna <-- Click Here.

Peace,
Nazaroo

In order to maintain their dogma about "no early Greek writer" knowing the verses, critics are now reduced to explaining away Didymus as referring to "some other story".

As independant investigators however, it is in our interest to examine not just the 'differences', exaggerated or not, but also the similarities between John 8:1-11 and Didymus' paraphrastic account.

After all, it is in the striking similarities (and the improbability of a mere coincidence) that any case for their being one and the same story can be made.


Similarities and Points of Contact between Didymus and John 8:1-11

While some similarities will be insignificant, at least in themselves, because they could readily be explained as a coincidence, other connections are far stronger, and when all the evidence is taken together, a strong impression of the original story seems indicated:

1. Both stories are about a person under arrest or in captivity.

2. Both stories are about a lone person.

3. Both are about a woman.

4. Both involve the Jewish religious authorities, or a religious party headed by Jews.

5. The person is accused of a crime involving the death penalty.

6. Both stories indicate a stoning as the specific penalty for the crime.

7. Both stories involve Jesus while He is at the temple.

8. In both stories, the religious party consults or invokes the opinion of Jesus.

9. In both stories, Jesus reluctantly appears to intervene because of the danger of a real killing.

10. In both stories, Jesus makes a pronouncment, which effectively draws the proceeding to a halt.

11. In both stories, the lynching party holds back from participating in any further action after Jesus' pronouncement.

12. In both stories, the lynching party relents on their plan due to the action of conscience.

13. Both stories are found in 'gospels', i.e., manuscripts (evangelisteria) which are copies of gospels, as opposed to the book of Acts, or an apocryphal work, or the account from another early father.


__________________________________________________ ______

14. In both stories, a strikingly similar speech from Jesus is related:

" &#959;&#962; &#959;&#965;&#954; &#951;&#956;&#945;&#961;&#964;&#949;&#957;,
&#945;&#953;&#961;&#949;&#964;&#969; &#955;&#953;&#952;&#959;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#946;&#945;&#955;&#949;&#964;&#969; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#957;."
"Whoever has not sinned,
let him lift a stone and cast it." (Didymus)

"&#959; &#945;&#957;&#945;&#956;&#945;&#961;&#964;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#962; &#965;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#960;&#961;&#969;&#964;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#960;' &#945;&#965;&#964;&#951;&#957;,
&#964;&#959;&#957; &#955;&#953;&#952;&#959;&#957; &#946;&#945;&#955;&#949;&#964;&#969; ."
"who is a sinless one among you (let him be) first upon her,
the stone to cast." (Trad. Text)

While there are obvious differences in the exact wording of the two texts, the fact remains that the basic statement of Jesus and its import is essentially one and the same.

In this case there can be no doubt that Didymus continues to 'paraphrase', even when attempting to quote the passage. He is after all giving an oral commentary which is being recorded by a copyist/assistant.

It must be remembered that Didymus the Blind was in fact physically blind, and had been from childhood. Oral dictation from memory was the ONLY method available to Didymus, and he was physically incapable of looking up any exact quotations himself.

The version Didymus then gives, is exactly the kind of thing we would expect him to offer, given that he is operating from memory of oral recitations of a rare story from John in the first place, as he comments on an entirely different book, Ecclesiastes.

Didymus' language in relating the story is just what we would expect from someone talking a version of Greek 300 years more recent than the dialect of the original Evangelists. Didymus is speaking 4th century Greek to his own contemporaries.

The final confirmation of Didymus' operating 'off the cuff', is the fact that his version corresponds to no known written version of any story at all, except his own. It cannot be traced to texts like Codex Bezae, or the vague anecdote about Papias from Eusebius.


In regard to which gospel Didymus is referring, his notice of "the Jews" as a kind of synonym for the religious authorities is precisely the same terminology that John the Evangelist uses, and this is unique to John. No other gospel, canonical or apocryphal, speaks of "the Jews" meaning the Southern Judaean religious authorities: this is Johannine language through and through.

Just as DominusDei remarked in regard to his list of "differences", we also would make the same statement:

Let the reader consider this list of Points of Contact between the story related by Didymus and that presented by the NT text of John itself.

Let them also search far and wide for any other story with anything like the same number of strong connections, as between Didymus and John 8:1-11.

Let them decide for themselves what story Didymus is relating to us, in 350 A.D., at a time when it is admitted that "many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin contained the story" of the Woman Taken in Adultery.

Peace,
Nazaroo

Quote:
"The Didymus citation clearly does not square with the apocryphal John 7:53-8:11 because it came from an different source, which was most likely the apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews. I've given the evidence and will let the readers decide for themselves."



The Case of Didymus is a perfect example of the weakness and unreliability of "arguments from silence" about early fathers when we simply don't even have their works in our possession.


The Fragmentary Nature of Early Evidence

Very little of ANYTHING from the first few centuries have survived, because of the very nature of the case. Most written material was done on papyrus, a flimsy paper material made out of Egyptian reeds. In ordinary use, this material would wear out quickly, requiring constant replacement.

The only reason that (only) two (!) copies of John have survived at all from the late 2nd or early 3rd century is that they were buried in the sand of the Egyptian desert and baked completely dry, left untouched for a millenium or more.

However in the rest of Empire, wherever people gathered around the Mediterranean Sea, the climate was moist, and harsh, and this would lead to quick decay of any organic materials as flimsy as crude papyrus.

On top of this, we have several bad episodes of persecution of Christians and Jews in the early centuries, wherein hundreds of people were brutally tortured and murdered, and their copies of the New Testament were destroyed.

Thus it is certain that hundreds of manuscripts, perhaps thousands, over several centuries were utterly destroyed in the early centuries. This includes all the early writings of the first Christian apologists and teachers, including some of the most important, such as Peter the Apostle.

We only have a handful of works, sometimes only one letter or two from many of the most famous early apostles, bishops, teachers, and disciples. In many cases, we only have second hand testimony about their teachings and beliefs.


The Misleading Testimony about Didymus

It was in this very situation that some textual critics dared to claim "no Greek father cites the verses until the 11th century" or some similar nonsense.

Thus we have Westcott and Hort's statement in 1882:

Quote:
"...it is passed over in silence in every Greek commentary of which we have any knowledge, down to that of Theophylact inclusive" (Cent. XI-XII);



So many documents from the early period are missing that we know existed, that it is obvious we can't say much with certainty on such issues. The fact that the verses were not read in public services however, is not a pronouncment regarding authenticity or acceptance. Many scriptures were left out completely from the service schedule, such as the entire book of Revelation. Yet they were as much a part of the Canon as any other part of the NT.





Quote:
"No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (12th century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it."




Quote:
"...the early commentators on the Bible don't mention this story until a thousand years after John was written."

The testimony of Hippolytus on Susanna is important, because it substantiates much of Origen's (c. 230 A.D.) testimony and viewpoint about the passage.

Because Hippolytus bears testimony to the attitudes of early Christians concerning Susanna (and Greek Daniel generally), the background picture becomes clearer to Origen's discussion of the same passage.

This in turn gives us important information as to the perspectives and attitudes of early Christians regarding such textual problems, and the issue of "tampering" with Holy Scripture.

Hippolytus on Susanna <-- Click Here.

Peace,
Nazaroo

One might be tempted to regard the textual omission of the Story of Susanna (O.T./Judaism) and the textual omission of the Pericope De Adultera (N.T./Christianity) as simply a remarkable coincidence.


One might argue that the cases are dissimilar enough to suggest both different motives for the quarrel over the stories, and also different verdicts regarding authenticity as well.


Yet while Augustine's propositions regarding the motives of the omission of John 8:1-11 may be conjectural and oversimplistic, it is hard to deny that there is a strong overlap in both the content (adultery, stoning, accused woman, rescuer) and the parties likely to be offended (Judaen Religious authorities, Pharisees, Scribes).


Few people have turned OUTSIDE these two traditions (Christianity and Judaism), to look for more evidence concerning attitudes and activities of "religious editors".


Yet when we turn the the THIRD "great Religion of the East, ISLAM, we find the same stunning editorial activity!


Once again, verses dealing with STONING, for ADULTERY, magically and suspiciously "vanish" from a supposedly "inerrant", "perfectly preserved" text: the "Holy Quran".



THE VANISHING VERSE(S) ON STONING

The Verse of Stoning


Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:

• Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him." (See also: Vol. 8, No. 817 and Vol. 9, No. 424; Sahih Muslim, No. 4194)

Why is the verse on stoning for adultery not found in the Qur'an? A more detailed discussion of this topic can be found in John Gilchrist's Jam' al-Qur'an, Sam Shamoun's article, Islam and Stoning: A Case Study Into the Textual Corruption Of the Quran, and in this summary of hadiths and quotations from early Muslim scholars taken from John Burton's "The Collection of the Qur'an".

Answering Islam.org, Stoning

Click to expand...

Thus we have the THREE Great Religions of the Middle East, all acting in an extreme and hysterical fashion, daring to actually mutilate their own "Holy" texts, over the issue of "stoning for adultery".

It hardly seems worth pointing out the strange relation between 'religious authorities' and 'adultery/stoning', a bizzare behaviour that cries out to us about "coverups" over "sexual sins".

Once again, it seems that unforeseen evidence, this time from the field of psychology and sociopathic behaviours, comes in to bear upon the issue of providing plausible motives for removing controversial verses of a "Holy Book".

This case is so intriguing, it seems to demand further investigation in this direction.

Just what is it with religious people, that adultery and stoning seem to drive them mad, drive them to commit what is in the eyes of most one of the ultimate sacreligious acts, the actual MUTILATION of Holy Texts within their own traditions?.




Peace,
Nazaroo

Perhaps the most exciting new evidence for the authenticity of John 8:1-11 is the recently discovered chiastic structures embedded in John's Gospel.

Of course investigators have long known that the Structure of John is a series of chiastic "sevens":

Both in the LARGE SCALE,

Large Scale Structure of John <-- Click Here.


and in the SMALLER microcosm, John's Gospel contains strong reversing chiastic patterns.



These patterns are in undisputed areas of John's Gospel.


Now, there is evidence of two more Chiastic Patterns:


Another Hidden Superstructure in John

Perhaps lesser known, but equally important is yet another chiastic structure, presented recently by W. Dicharry in his book, Paul and John, Human Authors of the NT Vol. 2 (1992, The Liturgical Press Minnesota).
Here Mr. Dicharry exposes a significant 'chiasmus' which remarkably centers upon the Pericope de Adultera.


Dicharry's Chiasmus (pg 161 )
(with slight modifications: i.e. color boxes)






Chiasm inside a Chiasm
What is surely remarkable and easily noticed is that there is a chiasm inside the chiasm, when the following (passage/paragraph - level) chiastic structure is combined with Mr. Dicharry's.
This, taken also along with the sister-chiasm above (centering upon the Hour of Glory) awards the Gospel of John with a DUAL focus, two simultaneous 'cores'.






It seems that the Pericope De Adultera is far more deeply embedded into the Gospel of John than anyone has previously suspected.

Peace,
Nazaroo

We have added a page excerpting Edward Miller's brief but excellent account of the origins of codex Aleph and B from his Guide to the Textual Criticism of the NT.

His clear and plausible account shows that even 19th century textual critics of all persuasions had a very good idea of where these two manuscripts came from.

Skeat (Curator of Ancient Manuscripts for British Museum) over 100 years later made the same basic assertions in reconstructing their history.

Miller on Aleph /B <-- Click Here.

Peace,
Nazaroo

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, fellow Christians and God fearing seekers and researchers:

Many of our links, pictures, files, charts, photos, graphs, and articles have been stored on servers, web providers who have graciously given us free webspace and free use of storage to make available these often rare items.

We can no longer guarantee the future provision for said space, nor will it be easy to relocate many of the links and files and provide them again.

We will try to maintain independant copies of our websites and documents etc., but in case service is not continued,

Please download and store all photos, charts, diagrams, manuscripts, articles, and webpages that you can. Many of the items appearing in these threads are actually links to files stored elsewhere on other servers and websites, and they may not be repairable if services are cut off in the near future.

Again, if you want this information, please download and freely copy it, and store it on permanent media such as a dvd or a cd rom, or a removable hard drive etc.

Thank you for your patience and your support and blessings.

We have been warned that on at least one website/server storage provider, that this service may be ending within 2 months.

Peace,
Nazaroo
March 4th 2008

It has been brought up on a number of Textual Criticism lists that Philip Comfort in his 2005 publication, Encountering the Manuscripts:
An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism has tried to claim the papyrus P39 as some kind of evidence against John 8:1-11.

This action can only described as incredible (as in having no credibility at all).

The reason is simple: P39 is actually only two fragments of a single page of John's gospel, from an entirely different part of the book. The entire first 7 chapters of John, and the remaining ones as well, are completely missing.

Comfort attempts to reason from a very imprecise 'reconstruction' of the entire book via letter counting in other manuscripts dated centuries later (such as Vaticanus & Sinaiticus). From this flimsy beginning Comfort 'proves' (to himself) that P39 did not contain the Pericope de Adultera.

What can we say? If Comfort's conjuring is accepted, we might as well catalog every other fragment of John extant, which doesn't cover the PA, and list it also as evidence against the passage.

Thus a fragment of John chapter 12 would be stronger evidence say than a fragment of John chapter 20 against John 8:1-11. Wow!

I suppose a fragment of John chapter 2 would the strongest evidence of all, since the presumption should be that the book was likely never completed during the copying.

Exerpt from:
Encountering the Manuscripts:
An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism
By Philip Wesley Comfort (2005, B&H Publishing Group)
Chapter 7, pg 354

"...the end of page 74 (John 8:19-22), 24,309 characters by the end of page 73 (John 8:14-18), and 23,967 characters by the end of page 72. We then subtract 180 characters for John 8:12-13, which would have been on page 72, making the total 23,796 (rounded to 23,800) characters by the end of either John 8:11 (assuming the inclusion of the Pericope of the Adulteress - John 7:53 - 8:11) or by the end of John 7:52 (assuming the exclusion of the Pericope of the Adulteress).

In order to figure out if the scribe included 7:53-8:11, I did my figuring as follows.

1. I calculated that Codex Vaticanus has 25,450 characters from John 1:1-7:52. This was based on a count of the transcription provided by Tischendorf. (33)
2. The second process in the calculation was to subtract from the Vaticanus text the number of letters that would be excluded through the use of the nomina sacra in P39. The extant text of P39 shows nomina sacra for Ihsous, pater, anthropon. Given this kind of presentation, it would seem that the scribe used the full repertoire of nomen sacrum for kurios, theos, christos, pneuma, yios, as well. This contrasts with Vaticanus, which has nomen sacrum for only kurios, theos, christos, Ihsous. In John 1:1-7:52 this accounts for the lessening of about another 215 characters.
3. The scribe of P39 also used the raised line for the final nu on the end of a line. It is hard to judge how often this would have occured, but P66 and P75 seem to have about two per page. The slimmer columns in P39 could double the number. This subtracts another 300 characters.

In total, one could subtract 515 characters from 25,450 in the Vaticanus count, yielding 24,935, which differs from the 23,800 by 1,135 characters. In other words, we still have another 1,135 characters to account for - up until John 7:52. If we were to add John 7:53 - 8:11, we would have to account for the scribe fitting another 820 characters. According to the extant manuscript, the scribe accommodated about 333 characters per page. To fit another 1,135 characters, he needed 3.4 pages; to fit another 820 characters beyond that he would need almost 6 pages total. Thus, it is very unlikely that P39 could have included the Pericope of the Adulteress.

The way the scribe could have fit the extra 1,135 characters was for the manuscript to have about one extra line per page than what is shown in the extant pages of P39. The extant sheet shows the upper and lower portion of the page. One would expect uniform height of letters and space between lines on all the pages. Thus, to conceive of even one extra line per page is difficult. To include the extra 820 characters to accommodate John 7:53 - 8:11 means that the scribe would have had to add two extra lines per page. (34) Given the regular format of this manuscript, that seems absolutely impossible.

In the end, therefore, it is very likely that P39 did not contain the Pericope of the Adulteress (John 7:53 - 8:11); it could be listed in support of its exclusion as "P39vid, just as are the listings for A vid and C vid.

______________________________________________
Footnotes missing from Google Book Sample

Chapter 7 Footnotes:

33.

34.
_______________________________________________

Click to expand...

We have expanded and added a quotation from Saint Augustine on John 8:1-11 with the full Latin paragraph at the end here:

http://adultera.awardspace.com/FATHERS/Augustine2.html

Peace,
Nazaroo

We have expanded our quotation from the Didaskalia and added helpful footnotes on textual variants:

http://adultera.awardspace.com/FATHERS/Didaskalia.html

Peace,
Nazaroo

News on John 8:1-11.

An Aramaic/Syriac scholar has back-scripted the PA (Jn 8:1-11) into the same writing style as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and discovered...

Haplography!

The line beginnings at 7:53 and also at 8:12 are strikingly similar in the Dead Sea Scroll script (Herodian period = time of Jesus).

This problem is further compounded by the possibility that the earliest Aramaic Gospels may have been in scroll form.

Mr. Scrivener and I have put together an introductory page to the discovery on our website here:

http://adultera.awardspace.com/SUPLEM/SyriacHap.html

enjoy!
Nazaroo