Previously Unconsidered Evidence for John 8:1-11

[Nazaroo]

Semi-final

It is absurd, I agree, to restrict John to a single phrase without good reason. However, Davidson is correct that John uses οχλος to suggest a crowd that follows Jesus -- it is a theological term chosen for whatever reason. Thus in John λαος (excluding ch. 8, of course) is used only twice, and only in one way: the Jewish people. And it is ONLY used of the Pharisee's viewpoint (11:50) of Caiaphas and then reiterated ironically by the narrator (18:14) -- one of the best parts of John is the beautiful ironies. On the other hand, οχλος is used in 19 verses, and most of these have to do with people following Jesus because of his signs and his teaching: 6:2 (+ vv.5,22,24); 7:31 (+ v.32); 7:40 (+ vv.43,49); 11:42 (as a witness); 12:9; 12:17 (as a witness); 12:18. Thus the crowd is a kind of chorus in John. They act as one, asking similar questions: the masses which are fickle, which are contemporary with the Community of the written gospel. But this is techincal. What is important is that the context lines up perfectly with the usage of οχλος in the rest of John in ch. 8, but a different phrase is used. I leave it to you to explain the reason for the different phrase.

Finally, some meat. However, this begs the very question.
We've already conceded the main point, the two phrases aren't synonyms.
Is Davidson's suggestion more plausible? As you have shown here, the situation is more complex than that:

I freely grant that:

οχλος (oxlos) is used as a technical term for the crowd that 'hangs' with Jesus. But that is the very point. Jesus' gang of common people, made up by all accounts clearly of 'taxcollectors', 'drunks', prostitutes and other ne'er do wells (reformed or not) who found acceptance with him, are not the 'other' crowd:

λαος: (laos) The 'people' in another technical (and ethnocentric/racist) sense used by the Pharisees and John too. This group is essentially the group who follows the Temple Cult, that is the bulk of the Pharisee party/non-denominational population.

To put it in modern perspective, we might say that "oxlos" means "street-people", the 'untouchables', while "laos" means 'church-goers', the middle-class Jews, people with businesses and jobs and respect of men, who participate in both synagogue and temple worship, and go to the temple to hear status-quo teaching and political news.

Now the setting is CLEARLY the Temple, where not 'street-urchins' and the despised of Jerusalem society go, but where the large (according to Josephus) body of about one third of Jewish citizens and laypeople go to hear news and reassuring speeches about their self-righteousness. And one can assume here, like in so many other places in John that show a plain knowledge of the content of the synoptics, that John intends to recall the Sermon on the Mount (=Temple steps).

So 'laos' is the more likely choice than 'oxlos' here. Context context context.

The real question is why Davidson thought this was part of the text. I would read [...]..so I'll neglect answering your straw man unless you want to argue that this was part of the original text of the pericope. Unfortunately, I haven't read Von Soden (I have had a busy life) but I don't see a good reason for thinking ews twn eschatwn was originally there.

Two quick points. Hate to be a stickler, but I didn't create Davidson's lame point, and so I didn't make any straw men.

two: Of course it is part of the original text. It has good internal and external evidence to support it. Internal evidence by the way is not 'more subjective' than external evidence. It is far more germaine and stronger evidence.

If you really think your "ordinary readers" are that stupid, then you probably have very few friends.

Again, disengenious. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that most readers, even here, cannot read or write Greek. And it is a courtesy (one which you should practice more) to translate important points into English for accessibility. I don't call anyone stupid for not being bilingual, and your suggestion is demeaning to all.

So wait...you are translating επεμενον ερωτωντες as "rising up"?? ερωταω means "to ask." ...

. No. I was tired at the end of a long haul there, and a sentence and a half was deleted. I will edit the post.
My mistake there. Didn't read over the post.

And Raymond Brown, btw, is the BEST Johannine Scholar we've seen.

Well, he's a good scholar, but there are hundreds of great Johannine scholars in the world. Feel free to quote him.

You are right that in John ei mh occurs only in dialogue. It is quite obvious that this is a significant part of Johannine style (the use of "except," that is). It does not prove that plhn is Johannine, though, and therefore does not prove that Davidson is wrong.

Again, I think you misunderstand or misrepresent the nature of what is required to defend the passage.
With so much internal evidence from the Gospel and the pericope and external evidence in the judgements of the early fathers and church practice, in favour of John 8:1-11, it is up to those wanting to remove it to 'prove' a case.
All I claim to have done here is show that Davidson hasn't proven his case, and that's all that's really required for the Pericope to stay in John another thousand years.

For now, i'm going to let Scrivener be. He was...special. As will I ignore your dynamic equivalence rants as they have little bearing on the authenticity of the passage. Burgeon falls into the same category as the more modern Hill, and I hate reading him because, like you, he didn't know how to place nice.

Well, you are avoiding Scrivener, as do most modern textual critics who can't hold a candle to him, and you are ignoring Burgon because you want to punish him for not conforming to modern 'politically correct' standards at universities, where they teach you to politely obey your superiors at all costs.

I don't need Hill either to sit comfortably with a good case for the authenticity of John 8:1-11.

Interesting rebuttal.

 

[Nazaroo]

I have corrected post #34 to fix the text that was left out and caused a misleading result. My apologies to all who puzzled over that.

The essential correction is this:


epemenon erwtwnteV (*)

"they persisted questioning him" (They've gone to the trouble of trapping a woman in adultery, and brought her out at the most opportune moment, and I suppose they will just go home now, since Jesus isn't interested. NOT! Of course they persisted questioning him! What else could we expect, and John report?) :o

 

[Nazaroo]

In Post #55 I mentioned the Apostacy that resulted from Hort and the gang meat-stripping the New Testament. Some may feel that was exaggerated.
Here I'd like to quote a Christian writing in 1917:

The Bible in the Critic’s Den


By Earle Albert Rowell (1917)

​

​

WE read that "all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing." Acts 17:21. As we have seen, this is the attitude of the higher critics. Any theory, any gospel, so long as it is new! Having discarded the ancient gospel of Christ, which "is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1: I6), and having taught doubt as essential to their gospel, they proceed to patch up a new gospel - an up-to-date gospel.

​

Those critics who place the authority of Jesus very high, immediately place their own higher. The teachings of Christ are not often directly controverted, but they are often ignored, or treated as counsel of perfection which we are to admire rather than to obey. Listen to Harnack and Herrmann

"It is obvious that in this workaday world, such principles are impracticable; no business can be conducted on these lines. Yet that is just what Jesus seems to want."

"Had He meant these words to be universal rules, He would have been worse than the rabbis whose teaching He opposed."

"The character of Jesus is made up of compassion and modesty, love and asceticism; and consequently He is no leader for men who with the means given them in this world wish to attain some definite object."

"With regard to the utterances of Jesus, we confess that we cannot simply comply with them, since we do not share His conception of the universe, and so are living in a different world. On the other hand, the mind which they reveal should be present also in us; that is, the will to act in accordance with our own convictions."- "The Social Gospel," pages 1,59, 204, 212, 207.

This, then, is the new gospel. Do not follow Jesus. No matter how clearly stated is the will of Christ, "our own convictions" are to be followed in preference, especially when from them has been eliminated compassion, modesty, love, and asceticism. Yes, dear reader, such are the teachings of the new theology. Their words are before you. I would fain believe that they are the sad words read in a bitter dream; but unfortunately they are only too real.

I believe that these men are better than their teachings; but the better the personal life, the more vicious and extensive is the devastating influence of such teaching. If some drunken roué advocated the impossibility of following Jesus, of being modest, loving, compassionate, and self-controlled, those only would heed him who were more debauched than he. But when backed by the irreproachable private life, and stated with all the profound learning and charming genius, of Harnack and Herrmann, these restated teachings of the debauchee are enthusiastically applauded and blindly accepted.

That such teachings are neither isolated nor overstated, is evident from the bold avowals of Dr. Campbell, England's premier exponent of the new theology, who tells us roundly that "sin is the expansion of the individuality."-R. J. Campbell, "New Theology," page 157.

For fear that we may charitably mistake him, Mr. Campbell carries his principle to its hideous conclusion, with the blind disregard for results so often observed in higher critics: "However startling it may seem," he says, "sin itself is a quest for God. That drunken debauch was a quest for life, a quest for God. Men in their sinful follies to-day, and their blank atheism, and their foul blasphemies, their trampling upon things that are beautiful and good, are engaged in this dim, blundering quest for God. . . . The roué you saw in Piccadilly last night, who went out to corrupt innocence and to wallow in filthiness of the flesh, was engaged in his blundering quest for God."-Id., pages 150, 151.

It needs no argument to prove that if these new teachings were believed by foreign missionaries, their work would become paralyzed, and foreign missionary work would not only languish, but would go rapidly from apathy to stupor, and from stupor to profound coma, from which only the impending second advent of Christ could arouse it. Is it any wonder that Christ, in looking down the stream of time to the present, said sadly, "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8.

In taking stock of how much of the gospel of Jesus higher criticism has left us, and seeing how scant it is, and how warped and corrupted even that little is, many unsettled souls are crying out, with Mary, "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." John 20:13.

The terrible harvest of this higher criticism is already seen in the unsettled beliefs, the destroyed faith, the multiplied infidels, even in the churches, the weakened and empty churches, and the consequent increase of crime and vice. Aliens from God, outcasts from society, broken-hearted millions curse their miserable existence, and long for death as a desired release. From Africa's burning sands, from Russia's frigid steppes, from India's arid plains, from China's crowded lands, from the rocky cliffs of countless islands - from every land, in every clime - the cry of human woe is ascending in increasing volume, from the destitute, the afflicted, the diseased, and the dying.

To these misery-laden souls, higher criticism can give only a gospel of scientific doubt, a Bible of shreds and patches, a book of myths and legends - a Christless Bible. Nothing but husks have the new theologians to offer the sin-burdened, empty-souled, world-weary child of the world.

Since the story of the curse is held to be only a voice from the realm of fable, redemption must necessarily be the decadent fruitage of a hydra-headed myth; and a fabulous redemption from a fabulous curse is effected only by a nebulous, mystical, and mythical Christ, the fabulous product of unscrupulous deceivers, imposed upon an ignorant and superstitious people in an age of darkness. This theory is so prevalent among higher critics, and is taught so assiduously, that among the laymen, theories of Christ are rife, conclusions diverse, and faith wavering. The open or secret cry is, "We will not have this Man to reign over us."

In this crude and mongrel system of Christianity, this incoherent conglomerate of antiscriptural religion, false philosophy, and infidel science, all the lifeblood of Christianity has been drawn from Christ's gospel, all the spirituality has been evaporated from His life, all the meaning from His words, and nothing is left us but muddy waters from the broken cisterns of ancient infidelity and modern "Christian" skepticism.

This could have been written last week as easily as in 1917.

 

[Nazaroo]

By the way, to show that the critical apparatus are not very accurate regarding the Pericope de Adultera, I'd like to add this interesting bit from the Errata collections for Swanson's NT:

Von: Tommy Wasserman [wasserman@bredband.net]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Februar 2001 11:50
An: Wieland Willker
Betreff: Swanson Errata list

Dear Mr. Willker

In my correspondance with prof. M. Robinson, which I occasionally send
updates on the errata list (since he does not have web-access - e-mail
only), he asked me to forward this to you.

Robinson wrote:

"One item I do not think has been mentioned is in
the PA in John, that Swanson claims MS Gamma exists only through Jn 8:3,

when in fact it is quite complete, although portions are at two
different
libraries. I suspect Swanson had a film from only one library, and
assumed a lacuna where such did not exist.

Also, Swanson has some sort of misplacement on Jn 8:2, 2nd section of
text:

the text of U does not read
PAS O LAOS HRCETO AGOUSIN, but
PAS O OCLOS HRCETO PROS AUTON;

and MS Gamma does not read
PAS HRCETO AGOUSIN, but
PAS HRCETO PROS AUTON.

How those errors occurred I don't know"

With regards

Tommy W

 

[Nazaroo]

Since many regard Robertson highly as an expert in Koine Greek, it is worthwhile to see how he handled the Pericope de Adultera. As will become obvious, he looks briefly at the textual (external) evidence, and adopts Hort's text and the common 'assured result' of textual criticism, that the passage is a late addition. On this basis, he begins to slag the verses, but gradually warms up to the actual content. Most bizarre behaviour from someone usually so balanced and cautious. Let's watch:

[font=Arial, Geneva]
Verse 7:52

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Art thou also of Galilee? ([/font]Mh kai su ek thV GalilaiaV ei;[font=Arial, Geneva]). Formally negative answer expected by [/font]mh[font=Arial, Geneva], but really they mean to imply that Nicodemus from local feeling or prejudice has lined himself up with this Galilean mob ([/font]ocloV[font=Arial, Geneva]) of sympathizers with Jesus and is like Jesus himself a Galilean. "These aristocrats of Jerusalem had a scornful contempt for the rural Galileans" (Bernard). That out of Galilee ariseth no prophet ([/font]oti ek thV GalilaiaV prophthV ouk egeiretai[font=Arial, Geneva]). As a matter of fact Jonah, Hosea, Nahum, possibly also Elijah, Elisha, and Amos were from Galilee. It was simply the rage of the Sanhedrin against Jesus regardless of the facts. Westcott suggests that they may have reference to the future, but that is a mere excuse for them.

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Verse 7:53

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]This verse and through [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]John 8:12[/font][font=Arial, Geneva] (the passage concerning the woman taken in adultery) is certainly not a genuine part of John's Gospel. The oldest and best MSS. (Aleph A B C L W) do not have it. It first appears in Codex Bezae. Some MSS. put it at the close of John's Gospel and some place it in Luke. It is probably a true story for it is like Jesus, but it does not belong to John's Gospel. The Canterbury Version on which we are commenting puts the passage in brackets. Westcott and Hort place it at the end of the Gospel. With this explanation we shall proceed. They went ([/font]eporeuqhsan[font=Arial, Geneva]). First aorist passive indicative of [/font]poreuomai[font=Arial, Geneva] used as a deponent verb without passive idea. In this context the verb has to refer to the Sanhedrin with a rather pointless contrast to Jesus.



[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Verse 8:1

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]But Jesus went ([/font]IhsouV de eporeuqh[font=Arial, Geneva]). Same deponent use of [/font]poreuomai[font=Arial, Geneva] as in [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]John 7:53[/font][font=Arial, Geneva] and in contrast to the Sanhedrin's conduct, though it seems "pointless" (Dods). Apparently Jesus was lodging in the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Verse 8:2

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Early in the morning ([/font]orqrou[font=Arial, Geneva]). Genitive of time, [/font]orqroV[font=Arial, Geneva] meaning daybreak, old word, not in John, though in [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Luke 24:1[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]; [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Acts 5:21[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]. John uses [/font]prwi[font=Arial, Geneva] ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Jn 18:28[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]; [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Jn 20:1[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]; [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Jn 21:4[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]). He came again into the temple ([/font]palin paregeneto eiV to ieron[font=Arial, Geneva]). If the paragraph is genuine, the time is the next day after the eighth and last day of the feast. If not genuine, there is no way of telling the time of this apparently true incident. And all the people came unto him ([/font]kai paV o laoV hrceto proV auton[font=Arial, Geneva]). Imperfect middle of [/font]ercomai[font=Arial, Geneva] picturing the enthusiasm of the whole ([/font]paV[font=Arial, Geneva]) crowd now as opposed to the divisions in chapter 7. Taught ([/font]edidasken[font=Arial, Geneva]). Imperfect active of [/font]didaskw[font=Arial, Geneva]. He took his seat ([/font]kaqisaV[font=Arial, Geneva], ingressive active participle of [/font]kaqizw[font=Arial, Geneva]) as was customary for Jesus and began to teach (inchoative imperfect). So the picture.

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Verse 8:3

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]The scribes and the Pharisees ([/font]oi grammateiV kai oi Parisaioi[font=Arial, Geneva]). John does not mention "scribes," though this combination (note two articles) is common enough in the Synoptics ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Luke 5:30[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]; [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Luke 6:7[/font][font=Arial, Geneva], etc.). Bring ([/font]agousin[font=Arial, Geneva]). Vivid dramatic present active indicative of [/font]agw[font=Arial, Geneva]. Dods calls this "in itself an unlawful thing to do" since they had a court for the trial of such a case. Their purpose is to entrap Jesus. Taken in adultery ([/font]epi moiceiai kateilemmenhn[font=Arial, Geneva]). Perfect passive participle of [/font]katalambanw[font=Arial, Geneva], old compound to seize ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Mark 9:18[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]), to catch, to overtake ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]John 12:35[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]), to overcome (or overtake) in [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]John 1:5[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]. Having set her in the midst ([/font]sthsanteV authn en meswi[font=Arial, Geneva]). First aorist active (transitive) participle of [/font]isthmi[font=Arial, Geneva]. Here all could see her and what Jesus did with such a case. They knew his proneness to forgive sinners.

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Verse 8:4

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Hath been taken ([/font]kateilhptai[font=Arial, Geneva]). Perfect passive indicative of [/font]katalambanw[font=Arial, Geneva] (see verse [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Jn 8:3[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]), caught and still guilty. In adultery ([/font]moiceuomenh[font=Arial, Geneva]). Present passive participle of [/font]moiceuw[font=Arial, Geneva], "herself suffering adultery" ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Matthew 5:32[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]). Used of married people. Not in John. In the very act ([/font]ep autopwrwi[font=Arial, Geneva]). Old adjective ([/font]autopwroV, autoV[font=Arial, Geneva], self, and [/font]pwr[font=Arial, Geneva], thief) caught in the act of theft, then extended to any crime in which one is caught. Old idiom, but not elsewhere in the Greek Bible. One example in a Berlin papyrus.

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Verse 8:5

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Commanded ([/font]eneteilato[font=Arial, Geneva]). First aorist middle indicative of [/font]entellw[font=Arial, Geneva], old verb to enjoin ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Matthew 4:6[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]). To stone such ([/font]taV toiautaV liqazein[font=Arial, Geneva]). Present active infinitive of [/font]liqazw[font=Arial, Geneva] (from [/font]liqoV[font=Arial, Geneva]), from Aristotle on. Stoning was specified for the case of a betrothed woman guilty of adultery ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Deuteronomy 22:23-24[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]) and for a priest's daughter if guilty. In other cases just death was commanded ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Leviticus 20:10[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]; [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Deuteronomy 22:22[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]). The Talmud prescribes strangulation. This case may have strictly come within the regulation as a betrothed virgin. What then sayest thou of her? ([/font]su oun ti legeiV;[font=Arial, Geneva]). "Thou then, what dost thou say?" This was the whole point, to catch Jesus, not to punish the woman[/font][font=Arial, Geneva].

[/font]

 

[Nazaroo]

And here's the second half of Robertson's commentary:

[font=Arial, Geneva]Verse 8:6

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Tempting him ([/font]peirazonteV auton[font=Arial, Geneva]). Evil sense of this present active participle of [/font]peirazw[font=Arial, Geneva], as so often ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Mark 8:11[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]; [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Mark 10:2[/font][font=Arial, Geneva], etc.). That they might have whereof to accuse him ([/font]ina ecwsin kathgorein autou[font=Arial, Geneva]). Purpose clause with [/font]ina[font=Arial, Geneva] and present active subjunctive of[/font]ecw[font=Arial, Geneva]. This laying of traps for Jesus was a common practice of his enemies ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Luke 11:16[/font][font=Arial, Geneva], etc.). Note present active infinitive of [/font]kathgorew[font=Arial, Geneva] (see [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Matthew 12:10[/font][font=Arial, Geneva] for the verb) to go on accusing (with genitive [/font]autou[font=Arial, Geneva]). It was now a habit with these rabbis. Stooped down ([/font]katw kupsaV[font=Arial, Geneva]). First aorist active participle of [/font]kuptw[font=Arial, Geneva], old verb to bow the head, to bend forward, in N.T. only here and verse [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Jn 8:8[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]; [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Mark 1:7[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]. The use of [/font]katw[font=Arial, Geneva] (down) gives a vivid touch to the picture. With his finger ([/font]twi daktulwi[font=Arial, Geneva]). Instrumental case of [/font]daktuloV[font=Arial, Geneva] for which see [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Matthew 23:4[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]. Wrote on the ground ([/font]kategrapen eiV thn ghn[font=Arial, Geneva]). Imperfect active of [/font]katagrapw[font=Arial, Geneva], old compound, here only in N.T., to draw, to delineate, to write down, apparently inchoative, began to write on the sand as every one has done sometimes. The only mention of writing by Jesus and the use of [/font]katagrapw[font=Arial, Geneva] leaves it uncertain whether he was writing words or drawing pictures or making signs. If we only knew what he wrote! Certainly Jesus knew how to write. And yet more books have been written about this one who wrote nothing that is preserved than any other person or subject in human history. There is a tradition that Jesus wrote down the names and sins of these accusers. That is not likely. They were written on their hearts. Jesus alone on this occasion showed embarrassment over this woman's sin.

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Verse 8:7

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]When they continued asking ([/font]wV epemenon erwtwnteV[font=Arial, Geneva]). Imperfect active indicative of [/font]epimenw[font=Arial, Geneva] (waiting in addition or still, [/font]epi[font=Arial, Geneva], old verb) with supplementary active participle of [/font]erwtaw[font=Arial, Geneva], to question. See same construction in [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Acts 12:16[/font][font=Arial, Geneva] The verb [/font]epimenw[font=Arial, Geneva] does not occur in John. They saw that Jesus seemed embarrassed, but did not know that it was as much because of "the brazen hardness of the prosecutors" as because of the shame of the deed. He lifted himself up ([/font]anekupsen[font=Arial, Geneva]). First aorist active indicative of [/font]anakuptw[font=Arial, Geneva], the opposite of [/font]katakuptw[font=Arial, Geneva], to bend down (verse [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Acts 8[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]) or of [/font]katw kuptw[font=Arial, Geneva] (verse [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Acts 6[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]). He that is without sin ([/font]o anamarthtoV[font=Arial, Geneva]). Verbal adjective ([/font]an[font=Arial, Geneva] privative and [/font]amarthtoV[font=Arial, Geneva] from [/font]amartanw[font=Arial, Geneva]), old word, either one who has not sinned as here and [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Deuteronomy 29:19[/font][font=Arial, Geneva] or one who cannot sin, not in the N.T. Among you ([/font]umwn[font=Arial, Geneva]). Objective genitive. First cast ([/font]prwtoV baletw[font=Arial, Geneva]). The nominative [/font]prwtoV[font=Arial, Geneva] means first before others, be the first to cast, not cast before he does something else. See [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]John 20:4[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]. The verb is second aorist imperative of [/font]ballw[font=Arial, Geneva], old verb to fling or cast. Jesus thus picks out the executioner in the case.

Verse 8:8

Again he stooped down ([/font]palin katakupsaV[font=Arial, Geneva]). First aorist active participle of [/font]katakuptw[font=Arial, Geneva], old and rare verb (in Epictetus II, 16. 22) instead of [/font]katw kupsaV[font=Arial, Geneva] in verse [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]John 8:6[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]. With his finger ([/font]twi daktulwi[font=Arial, Geneva]). Not genuine, only in D and Western class. Wrote on the ground ([/font]egrapen eiV thn ghn[font=Arial, Geneva]). Imperfect active of the simplex [/font]grapw[font=Arial, Geneva], not [/font]katagrapw[font=Arial, Geneva]. The second picture of Jesus writing on the ground.

Verse 8:9

Went out ([/font]exhrconto[font=Arial, Geneva]). Inchoative imperfect. Graphic picture. One by one ([/font]eiV kaq eiV[font=Arial, Geneva]). Not a Johannine phrase, but in [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Mark 14:19[/font][font=Arial, Geneva] where also the second nominative is retained as if [/font]kaq[font=Arial, Geneva] ([/font]kata[font=Arial, Geneva]) is regarded as a mere adverb and not as a preposition. Beginning from the eldest ([/font]arxamenoi apo twn presbuterwn[font=Arial, Geneva]). "From the elder (comparative form, common in Koin‚ as superlative) men," as was natural for they had more sins of this sort which they recalled. "They are summoned to judge themselves rather than the woman" (Dods). Was left alone ([/font]kateleipqh monoV[font=Arial, Geneva]). First aorist effective passive indicative of [/font]kataleipw[font=Arial, Geneva], to leave behind, with predicate nominative [/font]monoV[font=Arial, Geneva]. "Jesus was left behind alone." And the woman, where she was, in the midst ([/font]kai h gunh en meswi ousa[font=Arial, Geneva]). The woman was left behind also "being in the midst" as they had placed her (verse [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Mark 3[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]) before they were conscience stricken and left.

Verse 8:10

Lifted up himself ([/font]anakupsaV[font=Arial, Geneva]). First aorist active participle of [/font]anakuptw[font=Arial, Geneva] as in verse [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Mark 7[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]. Where are they? ([/font]Pou eisin;[font=Arial, Geneva]). Jesus had kept on writing on the ground as the accusers had slipped away one by one. Did no man condemn thee? ([/font]oudeiV se katekrinen;[font=Arial, Geneva]). First aorist active indicative of [/font]katakrinw[font=Arial, Geneva], old and common verb to give judgment against (down on) one, but not in John. No one dared to cast a stone at the woman on Christ's terms.

Verse 8:11

No man, Lord ([/font]OudeiV, Kurie[font=Arial, Geneva]). "No one, Sir." She makes no excuse for her sin. Does she recognize Jesus as "Lord"? Neither do I condemn thee ([/font]Oude egw se katakrinw[font=Arial, Geneva]). Jesus does not condone her sin. See [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Mark 8:15[/font][font=Arial, Geneva] for "I do not judge (condemn) any one." But he does give the poor woman another chance. Henceforth sin no more ([/font]apo tou nun mhketi amartane[font=Arial, Geneva]). See also [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Mark 5:14[/font][font=Arial, Geneva] where this same language is used to the impotent man. It literally means (prohibition with present active imperative): "Henceforth no longer go on sinning." One can only hope that the woman was really changed in heart and life. Jesus clearly felt that even a wicked woman can be saved.

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]
[/font]

 

[Nazaroo]

And the lead-in to the next portion of the text:

[font=Arial, Geneva]Verse 8:12

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Again therefore ([/font]palin oun[font=Arial, Geneva]). This language fits in better with [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]John 7:52[/font][font=Arial, Geneva] than with [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]John 8:11[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]. Just suppose Jesus is in the temple on the following day. Unto them ([/font]autoiV[font=Arial, Geneva]). The Pharisees and crowds in the temple after the feast was past. I am the light of the world ([/font]egw eimi to pwV tou kosmou[font=Arial, Geneva]). Jesus had called his followers "the light of the world" ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Matthew 5:14[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]), but that was light reflected from him. Already Jesus (the Logos) had been called the true light of men ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]John 1:9[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]; [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]John 3:19[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]). The Psalmist calls God his Light ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Psalms 27:1[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]). So [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Isaiah 60:19[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]. At the feast of tabernacles in the Court of the Women where Jesus was on this day ([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Isaiah 8:20[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]) there were brilliant candelabra and there was the memory of the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. But with all this background this supreme and exclusive claim of Jesus (repeated in [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Isaiah 9:5[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]) to being the light of the whole world (of Gentiles as well as of Jews) startled the Pharisees and challenged their opposition. Shall have the light of life ([/font]exei to pwV thV zwhV[font=Arial, Geneva]). The light which springs from and issues in life (Westcott). Cf. [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Isaiah 6:33,51[/font][font=Arial, Geneva] about Jesus being the Bread of Life. In this sublime claim we come to a decisive place. It will not do to praise Jesus and deny his deity. Only as the Son of God can we justify and accept this language which otherwise is mere conceit and froth.
[/font]

 

[justified]

Um, I think you made some errors.....

 

[Nazaroo]

Um, I think you made some errors.....

I cut and pasted from the online version of the book offered by the publisher.
I switched the Greek fonts to symbol, and corrected four incorrect references to 'Deuteronomy' which were meant to be 'John'.

Are there any others? (Other than Robertson's obvious errors, I mean.)

 

[justified]

[font=Arial, Geneva]Again therefore ([/font]palin oun[font=Arial, Geneva]). This language fits in better with [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Mark 7:52[/font][font=Arial, Geneva] than with [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Mark 8:11[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]. Just

[/font]

Hmm....

 

[Nazaroo]

[/i][/font]

Hmm....

Okay I combed over it and found 6 more incorrect scriptural references...
I wonder if they did that so that if you want the 'good' copy you have to use a credit card. Hard to complain when it was free. I'd hate to have to type in and proof-read Robinson's massive volumes for low pay...

Anyway, now that we probably have what Robertson actually intended, I think we're good to go on this.

 

[Nazaroo]

What a confused, and confusing mess. The reader can only be dumbstruck after reading this near-pointless exposition. The famous medical joke is applicable here: "The operation was a success: however, the patient died." And indeed a similar cause is at work. Never has so much talent, so much technical expertise been applied so ineffectively, with so little result. Why? The patient, the subject matter, the story, the people, the crucial lesson, the critical doctrine, have all been forgotten. The catastrophe is so shockingly surprising and improbable, that the reader can only suspect its a forgery. Not the pericope, but Robertson's exposition!

How? What miss-step, what tragic misdirection, could have steered the great man off into the abyss so firmly and completely? Behold: He naively embraced a verdict so disturbing, so contrary to his own instinctive knowledge of Scripture, Gospel, and John, that his entire concentration and psyche was thrown off-kilter. No: worse than this, he is irrationally compelled to apply his great gift over and over again in a pathetic attempt to rationalize his own intellectual choice, which every intuitive bone in his body is shouting at him is a mistake.

He begins by reciting the two most infamous lies of 19th century textual criticism: (1) "oldest and best manuscripts", and (2) "some manuscripts place it in Luke". We have previously noted the first lie, namely that since the story is known to have been in copies of John two centuries earlier than the 'oldest' complete manuscript, the age of the manuscripts in question is near-irrelevant. We can also note in passing that one of the 'oldest' manuscripts, codex Bezae (IV,V cent.) actually has the verses. But the second lie is equally false and deliberately misleading: the manuscripts in question, a closely related family of mss called the 'Farrar group (fam 13)' is from so late a period (five centuries later!) that no textual critic considers its testimony anything more than an example of how amateur latecomers have mishandled the verses. Finally, Robertson limply appeals to the authority of "the Canterbury Version" and the Westcott/Hort text.

But Robertson's own conscience dogs him so badly here, that he begins misfiring into the dark almost from the starting gate:

(7:53) '...a rather pointless contrast to Jesus'. (!) This strange distain immediately strikes the reader as so uncharacteristic of Robertson, and so inappropriate to the handling of 'real scripture' that an alarm bell must go off: at least the reader is now awake and cued that something is amiss beyond Robertson's reassurance that it is "probably a true story"!

(8:1) '...though it seems pointless (Dods)' - ('that is, it was Dods' idea, not mine!') now the source of the negative energy is guiltily revealed, to further excuse the out-of-character remarks.

(8:2) 'not in John', with the counter-examples: but no actual light at all on the most remarkable word in the pericope! What is going on?
'If the paragraph is genuine, ...If not genuine...': more irrelevancies, before he is forced finally to look at words and phrases, - the whole reason for the current work.

(8:3) 'John does not mention "scribes"'. More concern for finding every thread that might support rejection, no matter how weak and implausibly stretched, before getting down to business.

(8:4) 'Not in John.' Another quick shot in the middle of the exposition, which only distracts.

(8:5-6) Finally a rest from the tedious attack, as Robertson himself is distracted by the content (!) of the passage.

(8:7) 'the verb does not occur in John', but no enlightenment given to the reader as to when it might or might not be appropriate.

(8:8) 'Not genuine, only in D' i.e., the reading is "only found" in the oldest manuscript containing the passage!

(8:9) Again a reference (plea?) to his dependancy upon '(Dods)', even for the simple interpretation of these verses.

(8:10-11) The attack is exhausted, since it was half-heartedly begun. Robertson has given up collecting or reciting 'evidence' for inauthenticity.

His strained apologetic has affected his 'brilliant' exposition so badly, he must have been aware of it himself.
After so many 'aorist active indicative' this, and 'inchoative imperfect' that, the reader is left only bewildered, with all the profound drama and power of the pericope drained away: as if one had readied a swimming pool for the coming winter.

Bad choices are known by their bad consequences. The fruits here are dried and tasteless, and lack any spiritual nutritional value. It appears that even the 'greatest' talents can trip over a stone and break themselves upon it, once they've decided to run into it head-first on bad advice.

One doesn't know whether to laugh or just cry, seeing this tragecomedy embedded in one of the best Greek grammatical commentaries of the New Testament ever penned. And what a senseless waste of time and energy, writing it, reading it, refuting it.

But what is the real tragedy here? That thousands of readers may wander away, never even glancing at the passage again, and never discovering the real gold so easily available, the true manna from heaven being handed out to thousands who merely read the Pericope in its simplicity?

 

[Nazaroo]

Is this too harsh a judgment? What has Robertson offered us for all his knowledge and skill? Something old, something borrowed: a mere sampling of stale observations offered before by others. A rehash of old 'objections' to the passage on flimsy grounds of 'vocabulary'. Not even an acknowledgement of the weaknesses of the approach: just a sort of drifting off. No insight, no discovery, nothing that couldn't have been had from any local preacher's sermon.

A Filmmaker's Dream! Think of it! Here is story so packed with drama, emotion, plot, characterization, mystery, heroism, redemption, that even the most inept and innaccurate portrayer of any 'historical Jesus' simply can't afford to leave it out. Every film of Christ ever made, has made more of this story than five similar-sized portions of the gospels. It would be inconceivable to document a 'Life of Christ' without it, unless the goal was, as in the comedy 'the Producers', bankruptcy! Surely if ever someone made claims to be a commentator, they could make an inspiring, exciting commentary on this of all passages. Robertson's failure is as dramatic as the passage!

Even the most uneducated bumpkin of a hockey commentator knows this much! The least Roberston could have said concerning Jesus here was, "He shoots!...He scores!"

Now let us merely mention by way of foreshadow, what Robertson has inexplicably left out. The one feature of the passage that would have astounded all readers, both naive and experienced. The one feature of the passage that if anyone could have unearthed, it should have been Robertson, with his vast specialist knowledge.

And simultaneously the most remarkable piece of internal evidence for authenticity one could hope for, the most astounding and to all intents and purposes 'impossible to forge' signature of John the Evangelist, has been entirely missed. But I will hold back what it is, until I come to comment on the pericope myself.

Now, I only want to report my sympathy and great sadness at what Robertson has done to himself. It shines at me like a pillar of salt next to Lot. For unlike my distant and weak connection to Mr. Davidson, I empathize strongly with Robertson, who for the main part has dedicated his life to illuminating scripture. There is the tragedy.

For the precious stone, that should have been lovingly polished, and set in the golden crown Robertson made for himself in his commentary on John, he has instead stomped on and trampled. I am scandalized and horror-struck. It is as though I have just by happenstance overheard God command Moses to speak lovingly to the Rock, and then immediately have witnessed Moses turn around and beat on it with his rod. My hand shakes as I put it to my mouth in shock.

Or imagine David, instead of following the king's commands to go out and meet Goliath in the field, consults his halfwit brother who secretly envies and despises him, and who sends him to the wrong battlefield, where David awaits an opponent who never arrives, while all Israel is humiliated a mere stone's throw away in the next valley over.

The earlier the misstep, the greater the error in the destination.
See what a catastrophe starting out on the wrong foot brings.

 

[Nazaroo]

The reader of these posts surely has the right to ask,

"How? How is this possible? How can the field of textual criticism, made up of many admittedly Godly and honest men, have been steered so badly for nearly 400 years, right up to the end of the 20th century?

And what is wrong with examining a passage word by word, for signs of authenticity/inauthenticity? It seems so natural and straightforward.

And how can your judgment hold up? Aren't you alone in this incredible claim, this seemingly hysterical indictment of the work of centuries of able-minded experts? What is your case for these claims?"

This are great questions that need to be answered:

Let me begin with an exactly parallel case, in a closely related field, that of the question of Hebrew/Aramaic gospel originals, and the study of Hebraisms, Aramaisms, and translational Greek in the New Testament itself. Maurice Casey has done an immaculate job of documenting the history of this field unto the present day, in his recent scholarly tome, Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (Cambridge University Press 1998) Society for NT Studies Monograph Series 102. This solid piece of modern scholarship is the first to take into account the full evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls on a scientific basis, and is a model for such studies. Let's listen to Casey now:

"If we wish to recover the Jesus of history, we must see if we can reconstruct His sayings, ...in their original Aramaic. ...
For this purpose, we must establish a clear methodology, not least because some people are still repeating every mistake with which the history of scholarship is littered. I therefore begin with a critical ...selective discussion of what advances have been made, what significant mistakes have been made, and the reasons for both of these." (pg1, bold mine)

1550-1850:

The next significant development took place as independant scholarship emerged slowly from the Reformation and the Enlightenment. A few learned men...sought to explain (Semitic features) with reference to the actual Semitic terms which lay behind them. ...hoever, they tended to resort to Hebrew rather than Aramaic... Such an approach, however, will inevitably come to grief when Aramaic and Hebrew are seriously different. (pg 3)

Throughout this period, the the publication of texts, commentaries and reference formed an important contribution. Significant analytical developments had to await...the Victorian era. New discoveries included hitherto unknown Syriac versions of the Gospels...

Other scholars turned to Jewish Aramaic. In 1894 Dalman published...a valuable study of the Aramaic...At the same time, some obvious problems were looming. ...Dalman used sources which were much later than the Gospels, and made extensive use of Targums...If we used this Aramaic...we might end up with the wrong dialect, and with 'translation Aramaic' rather than the natural language. (pg 5)

...the rabbinical dictionaries of Levy and Jastrow...were fine pieces of work, and greatly facilitated the study of rabbinical literature...Problems have arisen in the work of scholars to reconstruct the sayings of Jesus, who have not always had first-hand aquaintance with rabbinical texts...

Nestle suggested misunderstandings [of Aramaic leading to variants between parallel passages in Matthew and Luke]. ...This has however, all the problems which have attended such attempts. In the first place, the Lukan version (Luke 19:11f/Matt25:14f) makes sense on its own. Jesus might have said both parables, for they are very different, or the Lukan version might have been told and retold by people who liked it better...Secondly, "Caracin" is not the only Aramaic word for "cities": the choice of this word (as a mistranslation) is especially arbitrary when the Lukan version is sensible.(pg 6)

A number of suggestions by J.T. Marshall were perfectly sound, ...He also has a good account of problems which arise when material is translated...His work has however, a number of problems which have proved difficult to resolve. One was over vocabulary. Allen accused him of 'coining' for words meanings which they did not possess, ...and Driver responded rightly by commenting that this (example) did not justify the production of a noun.

...The underlying problem was the absence of Aramaic from the right period. Creative Aramaists responded somewhat like native speakers, extending the semantic areas of words to provide whatever meanings they needed: accurate critics pointed out that they had gone beyond the evidence of extant texts.

...Another problem was the reconstruction of Jesus' dialect: Marshall proposed Talmudic evidence, fleshed out from the Samaritan Targum. All this evidence is late, and the Targum was hopelessly corrupted by mediaeval scribes. Marshall interpreted variants ...without proper consideration of whether one might be due to secondary editing. ...Allen properly pointed out that a rare word implies a single Greek translation. ... some of Marshall's 'misreadings' are at best hypothetical.... (pg 7)

 

[Nazaroo]

But Maurice has hardly scratched the surface yet:

"It is also a disadvantage that Marshall is dealing with single words. Driver correctly demanded that whole sentences before the method could be seen clearly enough for a final judgment to be passed on it. (pg 8)
[for Driver see: 'Professor Marshall's Aramaic Gospel',p430-431]

...Resch argued [that Jesus taught in Hebrew] in some detail...This work has a number of faults of method which still recur in scholarship. One is Resch's basic failure to distinguish between an edited translation into Hebrew, which he offers, and serious reconstruction.

...another major fault is to suppose that synoptic parallels are to be explained from misreadings of a Hebrew underlay....conjectured misreadings are not enough to solve the synoptic problem...[or we might add, enough to solve any other textual problem!]

Thirdly, Resch could not explain the Aramaic evidence. At Mark 15:34/ Matt.27:46 he follows Codex Bezae in supposing that Jesus said Ps 22:1 in Hebrew, and suggests the Aramaic version was produced when Hebrew was no longer understood. This argument cannot cope with the weight of attestation in favour of the Aramaic version, nor is it a convincing explanation of a change in the Greek: The Greek translation supplied at Mark 15:34 makes it unnecessary to understand the Aramaic, and it is doubtful that Aramaic was better understood by Greek-speaking congregations than Hebrew. The reading of Bezae is readily explained as assimilation ot the canonical text of Ps 22:1. ...Resch's description of the quotation of Psam 22:1 is accordingly the kind of mistake which was understandable a century ago, but which we should no longer make.

Diodatus argued that Jesus taught in Greek. ...Aramaic died out....
He made the crucial point that we find no document written in Chaldean (Aramaic) or Syriac at the time of Christ. This was true when Diodatus wrote it, and made his view a great deal more reasonable then than it has been since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
...Secondly, his arguments assume the literal truth of the surface narrative of the Gospel. For example, the LXX is quoted when Jesus read from the Bible (Luke 4), but Luke may simply use the bible of Greek speaking Christians to communicate with them, even though Jesus read from a Hebrew scroll. ...(pg 10)
This was..easier to do in 1888 than it is now. Here too we must note that in 1888 the opinion that Hebrew was a dead language was reasonable, ...the Dead Sea (scrolls) had not been discovered.

...(in arguing for Greek priority) Roberts gets into obvious tangles trying to explain the Aramaic Gospel evidence. He supposes Jesus used Aramaic occasionally. At once, he has to admit that there is no evident reason for Jesus to have used Aramaic (from the Greek viewpoint, even) when the Gospels attribute Aramaic words to Him. ...(pg 11)

The view that Jesus spoke and taught in Aramaic was accordingly the prevailing view in 1896... This year saw the first major monograph which attempted to see behind the Gospels to the Aramaic sayings of Jesus: Meyer - Jesu Muttersprache....The great advance he made was to offer reconstructions of whole Aramaic sentences,...The great advantage of this is that it enables the final example to appear as it must appear in Aramaic, as the normal term. Only a whole sentence can do this, and whole sentences cannot fail to do it. For this reason, the procedure as a whole was an essential step forward. (pg 12)

...As we consider Meyer's work a century afterwards, his great advance is his attempt to produce complete reconstructions of some sayings. At the same time, however, this work left five definable problems which continue to require attention.

1. Much of the Aramaic which he used was from sources which were too late in date. ...

2. It follows that (his heavy reliance on rhymes) contains too many puns. ...many alterations can be better explained for stylistic reasons in Greek....

3. Meyer could not see how translators worked. It is still a serious problem. Recent studies in translation and the LXX could be fruitfully applied here....

4. Several (bright) suggestions have never been worked through thoroughly enough to show that there ever was such an (Aramaic) underlay. ...

5. With such loose methods, examples can be posited (even) in the Gospel of John, which consists largely of secondary rewriting in Greek(!) ...

These five problems have dogged the most learned and most serious scholarship ever since. (pg 14-15)

We can take away three important points both from the general discussion and the specific examples given by Casey:

(1) The opinion changed drastically over the last two hundred years, flipping back and forth and invalidating previous work as new discoveries came to light.

(2) The methodology was only very slowly analyzed and even more slowly were solutions proposed to remove the subjectivity and error of the arguments. Many problems remain to this day.

(3) Specifically, at least a certain large group of scholars became painfully aware that dealing with New Testament variants or even texts on an isolated 'word by word' approach was hopelessly myopic.

The bottom line is that the whole community of Aramaic NT scholars have been willing to grow up for a long time, and admit that eclectic 'one word/variant at a time' techniques are subjective garbage.

While it seems almost the entire community of Greek NT scholarship is still unwilling to let go of the 'assured results' of the 19th century and start again with modern wholistic techniques that have a lot more credibility.

 

[Nazaroo]

But now let us look at A. T. Robertson's results, as skimpy as they are:

One would think that after nearly a hundred years, and thousands of lexical and syntactical advances in knowledge, and hundreds of Johannine studies, that Robertson, the Greek linguist par excellence would be able to triple the number of instances of 'non-Johannine' vocabulary and syntax, thus nailing down forever the question of the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera.

But what has happened? Robertson has barely been able to amass a tenth of Davidson's count, with examples he feels are even defensible!

From the most unlikely quarter, my own evaluation of Davidson's work has been amply vindicated. Robertson is afraid to advance practically any of Davidson's case, although he can hardly be unfamiliar with it, because he is more painfully aware of its worthlessness than any other living expert of his time.

And is Robertson's 'lean and mean' case any better or more convincing? Hardly. In fact he hasn't even half-heartedly attempted an argument, because he hasn't found an honest case worth presenting. Of his mere seven instances, this is what we have:

(1) 7:53 - They went (eporeuqhsan). First aorist passive indicative of poreuomai used as a deponent verb without passive idea. In this context the verb has to refer to the Sanhedrin with a rather pointless contrast to Jesus.
​

But is it a 'non-Johannine' stylism? No one knows. Only Robertson (Dods?) thinks it a 'rather pointless contrast'. But this depends entirely upon one's sympathy with 'Son of Man who has no place to rest His head', and the wealthy Sanhedrin living in castles. Pointless to a rich man perhaps. To John and the average reader? Isn't that up to us?

(2) 8:1 - But Jesus went (IhsouV de eporeuqh). Same deponent use of poreuomai as in Jn 7:53 and in contrast to the Sanhedrin's conduct, though it seems "pointless" (Dods).
​

The other half of what is really the same variant and question, posed by the connected clauses. A.T. Robertson's "Magnificent Seven" have now become six.

(3) 8:2 - Early in the morning (orqrou). Genitive of time, orqroV meaning daybreak, old word, not in John, though in Luke 24:1; Acts 5:21. John uses prwi (Jn 18:28, 20:1, 21:4) ​

What can Robertson mean by "old word" here, when the only examples he can muster are from Luke, one of the latest contemporary writings and closest in time to John's Gospel? The word is rare, but of course, how often do you get to say 'dawn' in ordinary conversation? The 'book' of John is after all only a 30 page pamphlet! Obviously Luke didn't consider it 'old', and he was the most prolific and skilled NT writer we know of. His Johannine 'counter-examples' haven't a whole lot of weight either, since John cannot just invent the time of all the events he describes.

"If the paragraph is genuine, the time is the next day after the eighth and last day of the feast. If not genuine, there is no way of telling the time of this apparently true incident." ​

This doesn't even make any sense, since the word 'dawn' is not even in serious dispute as a textual variant. Perhaps Robertson means 'date' rather than 'time'.

(4) 8:3 - The scribes and the Pharisees (oi grammateiV kai oi Parisaioi). John does not mention "scribes," though this combination (note two articles) is common enough in the Synoptics (Luke 5:30; Luke 6:7, etc.).​

Although John is quite clever at hiding his dependancy upon the Synoptics, no one in this century doubts John's familiarity with at least Luke and Mark. It is so common a phrase in all the Synoptics that it is hardly surprising that John might occasionally use it, possibly even on purpose to draw our attention to or recall Synoptic parallels. John was clearly written in the assumption, or even as almost a prerequisite, that the reader has already read a Synoptic Gospel.

(5) 8:4 - In adultery (moiceuomenh). Present passive participle of moiceuw, "herself suffering adultery" (Matthew 5:32). Used of married people. Not in John.
​

Now Robertson appears to be firing blanks. The word 'adultery' is not elsewhere in John, because there is no context for it. Supposing the incident is authentic, and John wishes to record it, what other word could he possibly use? Must we now assume John was unfamiliar with the Ten Commandments?

(6) 8:7 - When they continued asking (wV epemenon erwtwnteV). Imperfect active indicative of epimenw (waiting in addition or still, epi, old verb) with supplementary active participle of erwtaw, to question. See same construction in Acts 12:16 The verb epimenw does not occur in John.
​

(Maybe its me, but since we know John read or at least knew about Luke/Acts, it seems foolish to pretend that the most skilled poet in the New Testament couldn't, or was unlikely to construct this simple phrase! Robertson can't possibly be suggesting John didn't know the verb.)

(7) 8:8 - With his finger (twi daktulwi). Not genuine, only in D and Western class.
​

We can't really count this as an instance, because here Robertson is protesting a rare and rather poorly supported variant of an abberant form of the text. It still leaves us stuck with the rest of the pericope.

(8) 8:10 - Did no man condemn thee? (oudeiV se katekrinen;). First aorist active indicative of katakrinw, old and common verb to give judgment against (down on) one, but not in John.
​

Again, disengenious. An incredibly common word in the context of the New Testament: If anything, it is remarkable that it doesn't show up elsewhere in John, not that it actually does show up here in this obvious context. That is, we are asking the wrong question again with this variant. No one in their right mind could suggest the word 'condemn' was not in John's vocabulary. Note that the Johannine letters have not been consulted either, although clearly related.


Can this possibly be the saddest case against the Pericope de Adultera ever half-heartedly compiled?

 

[Nazaroo]

Summary:

All that can survive a reasonably conservative examination from Robertson's performance is one example: orqrou

The only credible word we can latch onto as unusual and peculiar in the Pericope de Adultera is 'dawn'.

How ironic. What could it mean?

"What does it say, Gandalf?"

" 'speak, friend, and enter!' "

 

[Nazaroo]

But someone PMs me to say,

Good God, Nazaroo,
Picking on these ancient naives and mavericks: who quit the debate long ago!
It's like shooting ducks in a barrel! I can't bear to watch anymore!
Please, take apart some more 'modern' moderns.

And point taken.

My purpose here wasn't to set up straw-men from the past, but to give the viewer an introduction to the history of the criticism of these verses, and some perspective from which to judge the 'assured results' of 'modern' criticism.

For it should appear now to all, that we don't even have '400 years of unanimous assessment' of the pericope, but rather a heterogenous and motley cluster of sporadic assaults, of very uneven character and quality.

Even as late as 1900 Burgon was able to riffle off almost a dozen expert textual critics from the continent who were at least neutral, if not in favour of the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera: such greats as Mill, Matthaei, Alder, Scholz, and Vercollone, to name a few.

Most critics in the past have preferred to shuffle their papers embarrassingly, and briefly mumble a few quotes from their predecessors, hoping to avoid confrontations, just in case the pandora's box is inadvertantly opened again by some over-curious student.

What we may have, examining the more recent crop of 'assured scholarship' is perhaps a decade or two (if we're lucky) of a more level-headed and detached analysis, ending in a much less assertive set of 'claims' regarding authenticity. At least we can hope for such an approach, and hope to find it on a more scientific footing.

I will turn to these more recent excursions into the wonderland of 'Oz-thenticity' shortly.

 

[Nazaroo]

Well, I have found something: After tediously going through hundreds of internet links, and finding page after page that simply quotes Metzger's apologetic but at least brief summary in defence of the UBS Greek text, I have actually found something purporting to be newly researched statement:

Textual Criticism and the Adulterae Pericope​

By:
Sarah Wagner


Biblical Criticism
Professor Smith
12 December 2002
...
[I have skipped the first half, Intro to Textual Criticism]

The Adultera Pericope​

Textual Criticism has been very useful in determining ancient interpolations of the New Testament and finding out where they came from and what kind of authority they have. One of the largest portions of the New Testament that is under extreme suspicion is John 7:53-8:11. This pericope tells of the woman who was caught in adultery and was brought for questioning before Jesus. These twelve verses are under suspicion because there are many manuscripts where it is lacking, is elsewhere in John’s Gospel, or is even in the Gospel of Luke. The places where it is found is so widely variant that it is very unique among all the disputed passages of the New Testament.

​

Textual Evidence​

​

The evidence for a non-Johannine origin of this passage is overwhelming. It is absent from Sahidic p 66, 75 (Papyrus Bodmer II and XIV-XV) Dating to early 2nd century and the third century respectively. The uncials X(Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), which are proto-Alexandrian and the oldest witnesses, dating to the fourth century. Vaticanus is a relatively complete and superior text of the enrire Bible, with the Sinaiticus only slightly inferior to it. It is also missing from L (Regius) an Egyptian text of eighth century that includes the double Marcan ending, T (Borgianus) another Egyptian text dating to the fifth century, W (Washingtonensis) which is also dates to the fifth century, X (Monacensis) a Byzantine text of the tenth century, and  (Sangallensis) a Greek-Latin diglot of the ninth century. Also N, Y,  , the oldest forms of the Syriac version, older Bohairic, and some Armenian, Old Gregorian, Gothic, and Old Latin manuscripts omit it. No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century makes mention of this passage, saying that the most accurate copies of the Gospel of John do not contain it.

​

There is also some confusion as to, when the pericope is included, where exactly it belongs. In the Ferrar group of manuscripts, which are of a Caesarean text type copied between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries, the adultera pericope occurs not in John, but after Luke 21:38. In MSS 225 the pericope stands after John 7:36. In several Georgian manuscripts, MSS I 565 1076 1570 1582 it stands after John 21:25. In several Armenian versions it also is in a separate section at the end of the Gospel. In Sinai Georgian manuscript 16 it follows John 7:44. In many manuscripts it is marked with asterisks and obeli, indicating that although it was included the scribes were aware that it might not be authoritative.

​

Critical Evidence​

​

Some have suggested that the reason why this pericope is missing is because it seems to breach the seventh commandment. So scribes would intentionally omit it in order to preserve the unity of the Bible. Another reason for its omission is suggested by the fact that John 7:37-8:12 was used for the liturgy on Pentecost and it was judged expedient to do away with the unnecessary and inappropriate incident of adultery. These theories follow the common types of scribal errors, but there is no evidence to support them. There is no evidence, whether from marginal note or commentary, that these verses were deemed by scribes to be too morally imprudent to be included in the Bible. Also, these theories fail to take into account why the descriptive verses of 7:53-8:2 were also omitted.

It has also been suggested that this pericope is original because of the lack of clear demarcation from the surrounding verses. Verses 7:53-8:2 seem to immediately follow the antecedent narrative. Also, in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus there is no transition between 7:52 and 8:13, making the flow of the text seem awkward. In later manuscripts there is usually a two to three word transition at the end of 7:52. This may or may not fall under the second common category where the more difficult reading is preferred to the easier one. As we have seen, the passage has been in many different places in the Gospels. It is very possible that the original text of John 7-8 was rather disjointed and that this passage was added to even things out and to expound upon the disagreements between Jesus and the Pharisees.

This passage is a good example of why the sheer number of manuscripts that support a reading is not a conclusive way of determining the reading of the original text. Many study Bible’s point out the fact that this pericope is present in over 900 manuscripts of John. This in and of itself seems convincing for the genuineness of the passage except it ignores that the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society critical editions of the New Testament are unanimous that the passage was originally not a part of the Gospel of John. The number of early and good manuscripts that support the omission gives a high level of certainty to exclusion of this pericope.

Altogether, the antiquity of the adultera pericope itself is maintained. The tradition of the story itself may be early and it was probably circulated among the churches before it was included in the Gospel of John. The pericope has all the trappings of historical veracity and it was most likely a piece of oral tradition that circulated in parts of the Western church. It most likely began to be inserted into the Gospels in the second century when there was greater freedom with the text. However, this insertion obviously did not spread to all already existing text families, thus the confusion as to its actual place in the canon.

​

Conclusion​

The science of textual criticism is indispensable to Christianity. Through this method all variations and differences of our Scripture become a joy, not something to be feared. Using this method we can determine the original reading of a text and what passages were added later. The adultera pericope is one passage where this method has proved most fruitful. Not only can we safely say that the pericope does not belong where it is at, we can also determine where it came from and how it was included and spread. Because of all of this, although the pericope was not originally in the text and possibly should be excised from the Gospels, we can assume that it is based on an actual event in the life of Jesus and it is a story that all Christians should enjoy.

​

First let me congradulate Ms. Wagner on a first rate summary of the modern position. She has admirably covered the basic points, and written in a conservative, neutral style, using the correct phraseology, and approved by University faculty everywhere.

If I were her professor, I should no doubt give her a 90% mark and an encouraging word or two of praise concerning her non-controversial presentation of the problem. I could not assign 100% however, for the reason that a couple of small details are lacking from the report: accuracy and truth.

Although an excellent piece for the purpose of securing the required mark in the university course, this object, like so many thousands of others, needs to be placed quietly in the shredder once the diploma is awarded. The fact is, the contents are exactly what is commonly produced on the spot by orangutans in captivity, for the purpose of flinging at the plexiglass to shock and amuse the spectators on the other side.

 

[Nazaroo]

Let's just look a bit more closely at exactly how the web is spun:

Textual Criticism has been very useful in determining ancient interpolations of the New Testament and finding out where they came from and what kind of authority they have. One of the largest portions of the New Testament that is under extreme suspicion is John 7:53-8:11.​

Has 'Textual Criticism' been very useful in determining ancient interpolations?

99.9% of all simple interpolations are between one and ten words in size. Certainly the ordinary rules of textual criticism applied appropriately should be able to help in sorting explanatory glosses or over-zealous corrections from the original text. However, there IS no rule or 'canon' of textual criticism that can be appropriately applied to the problem stemming from inclusion/exclusion of the Pericope de Adultera. That is absurd. This case must be treated thoughtfully and in great depth.

Textual Criticism has certainly been useful to those opposed to orthodox Christianity. It provides 'plausible arguments' for accepting minority readings or unusual readings and offers an 'alternate New Testament'. But since this is the very point at issue, the question is being begged.

But regardless, all this has no relevance to the case of the Pericope de Adultera, which the author has admitted already is a unique case.


Can the Pericope De Adultera be classed as or compared to an 'interpolation'?

Not in a thousand years could any honest investigator convince himself that the Pericope is some kind of simple 'interpolation'. It is not just in a class by itself, it is the only possible instance of twelve whole verses being 'added' to a gospel. And the proposal is so fantastic that it demands a thorough investigation, BEFORE 'extreme suspicion' is branded upon the backside of a possible part of the Holy Word of God, as though it were a cow to be earmarked and quaranteened from rest of the herd.

These twelve verses are under suspicion because there are many manuscripts where it is lacking, is elsewhere in John’s Gospel, or is even in the Gospel of Luke. The places where it is found is so widely variant that it is very unique among all the disputed passages of the New Testament.

​

"Elsewhere in John's Gospel"?

What can this mean? Does she also want to count a position at the end of the Gospel? It is placed there occasionally by scribes who noticed it missing in the text. But no one, not even the scribes putting it there could possibly imagine that is where it is supposed to be. That would obviously be best interpreted as a concern by some later scribe that the verses might be lost.

As for the text appearing somewhere else actually in John, only one extremely late manuscript places it incorrectly in John (from memory?). We are told that "In MSS 225 the pericope stands after John 7:36.". That is, one late manuscript stands against the 5,000+ others, plus versions and fathers. Not even a textual note or a mention by an early father even hints that the reading of manuscript 225 even existed as an error before the 10th century.

This was probably the kind of thing that happens when a scribe exits to relieve himself, and the wind blows a page over, causing him to copy a portion from the wrong part of an exemplar (master copy). How can the toilet habits of a 12th century copyist be of any use to us whatsoever?

Oh, and yes, the closely related handful of late manuscripts (by direct copying) called the Ferrar Group try to place it in Luke (to save it from being deleted?). But since they are all made from the same copy they stand again as one lone, late witness against all the rest of the manuscript base, including those who mark the passage doubtful, leave it out with diacritical marks, or include it in the margin with rejection notes.

That is, two idiots in the latter days clumsily inserted the passage in the wrong place; but no textual critic in 400 years of studying the problem has even considered these two cases as being anything but preposterous. Not a single critic considers either of these two cases as significant in any way, or having a bearing on either the position or the authenticity of the passage.


That is, these two irrelevant anachronistic anomalies are just a smoke-screen, which vanishes with the slightest movement.



"The places where it is found is [sic] so widely variant that it is very unique "

Indeed. If it actually were found in widely variant places that would make it unique. Since it is not, this cannot be the reason that this textual problem is 'unique'.