Previously Unconsidered Evidence for John 8:1-11

[Nazaroo]

Lest we think that only the critics of a hundred years ago thought the case built from the internal evidence was weak, perhaps due to a lack of preparation (which should hardly be the case now), we have the complimentary confession of D.A. Carson on the same topic! In his rather over-enthusiastic critique of Fee regarding a few verses of Paul, Carson lets slip the most remarkable assessment of his own case against the Pericope de Adultera:

... Finally, Fee joins other scholars who have noted that there are some usages in these two verses that are not typically Pauline- though it must be said that he prejudges this issue by saying, rather more strongly, that they "seem quite foreign to Paul."{10} Of course, many passages that all concede are Pauline contain one or more hapax legomena (expressions that occur only once, whether once in the Pauline corpus, or once in the New Testament). In light of this, we ought to be very careful about relegating any passage to the level of redactional addition where part of the argument turns on odd usage.

[now the zinger! ...nazaroo]
This is not to say that such arguments are never valid: I myself have argued against the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11, in part by appealing to usage.

But even there, where the usage arguments are considerably stronger than here (in part because the text is much longer), the usage arguments would not be judged very powerful were it not for the very strong manuscript evidence favoring omission-evidence entirely lacking in this instance. ...

With all respect to a brother whose text-critical prowess is far greater than my own, his arguments in this case sound a bit like the application of a first-class mind to the defense of a remarkably weak position.(!!! )

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter6.html

Nothing like hearing it from the horse's mouth!
That's right: Carson spends three pages tearing a chunk out of Fee's behind for doing exactly the same thing he himself did regarding the Pericope de Adultera, and excuses it on the basis of 'textual evidence'.

I can't tell if this is an illegal cockfight or just a friendly shark-fest. But it is fascinating to watch in the same way that it is morbidly riveting to watch a snake slowly swallow a live rat.

As for the crumbling castle of TEXTUAL evidence, alleged to justify D.A. Carson's INTERNAL argument against the passage, see our thread on Textual evidence in this forum.

 

[Nazaroo]

Gospel of John / Revelation




Side-by-Side comparison






(from Joel: found here: http://www.rr-bb.com/t246038&page=2 )

1:1 John writes concerning "the Word of God"​

1:2 John witnesses to "the Word of God"​

1:5 Jesus is "the Light (that) shines in darkness"​

1:16 The face of Jesus "shines like the sun"​

1:14 "We beheld His glory as the only begotten of the Father"

1:5-6 "Jesus Christ…the firstborn from the dead…to Him be glory"​

1:23 John the Baptist introduces the earthly Jesus: "I am the voice of one crying, 'In the wilderness'"
1:10 John the Apostle "heard … a loud voice, as of a trumpet," and sees the heavenly Jesus.
1:42 Jesus gives Peter a new name: "Cephas, which is translated, 'a stone'"
2:17 "To him who overcomes…I (Jesus) will give a white stone, and on the stone a new name"​

2:17 Jesus purges the temple: "Zeal for Your house will consume Me"
3:19 Jesus purifies His church: "Be zealous therefore, and repent"​

2:24-25 "Jesus…knew all men…for He Himself knew what was in man"
2:23 "all the churches shall know that I (Jesus) am He who searches the minds and hearts"​

3:1,10 "now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus…a teacher in Israel"
2:15 "the teaching of the Nicolaitans" (2:6)​

3:20 "he who does evil hates the light…lest his deeds be reproved"
3:19 "as many as I love I reprove"​

3:29 "the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice"
3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door…if anyone hears My voice…I will come in to him and dine with him"​

4:23 "the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth"
4:9-10 "Whenever the four living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne…the twenty-four elders fall down…and worship Him"​

4:44 "For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country"
4:11; 5:12-13 "You are worthy, O Lord, to receive…honor…Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive…honor…Blessing and honor…to the Lamb forever and ever"​

5:18 "He (Jesus)…was breaking the Sabbath" (the seventh day)
5:5 "the Lion of the tribe of Judah…has prevailed to open the scroll and to break its seven seals"​

5:22-23 "the Father has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father"
5:13 "And every creature…I heard saying: 'Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb"​

5:35 John the Baptist "was a burning…lamp"
4:5 "seven lamps of fire burning…the seven spirits of God"​

6:7-9 "Two hundred denarii worth of bread…five barley loaves"
6:6 "A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius"​

6:15 "when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He withdrew to the mountain by Himself"
6:15 "the kings…the great men…rich men… commanders…mighty men…hid themselves in the mountains"​

6:18, 27 "And the sea was stirred…a great wind was blowing…for this one has God the Father sealed"
7:1-3 "so that no wind should blow on the earth or on the sea…until we have sealed the servants of God"​

6:35 "He who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst"
7:16 "they shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore"​

7:38 "rivers of living water will flow from him"
7:17 He "will lead them to springs of the water of life"​

8:21-22 "you will seek Me, and where I go you cannot come (i.e., you will not find Me); You will die in your sins…(they) said, 'Will He kill Himself?'"
9:6 "men will seek death, and will not find it; they will desire to die, and death will flee from them"​

9:25, 27 "Though I was blind, now I see…I told you (the Pharisees)…and you did not hear"
9:20 The wicked are like their idols "which can neither see nor hear"​

10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me"
10:4, 8, 9 "I heard a voice from heaven…Then the voice which I heard…spoke…and said, 'Go…' So I went…"​

11:14-15 "Lazarus is dead, and I rejoice for your sakes that I was not there that you might believe… So when Jesus came, he (Lazarus) had been in the tomb four days"
11:9-10 "(they) will see their dead bodies (the two witnesses) for three and a half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into a tomb. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them"​

11:43-44 "with a loud voice He cried out, 'Lazarus, come forth!' And he who had died came out bound hand and foot"
11:11-12 "Now…the breath of God entered them (the witnesses), and they stood on their feet…and they heard a loud voice from heaven saying… 'Come up here!'"​

11:48 "if all men believe in Him…they will take away our (the religious leaders') place"
12:8 "and no place was found for them (those who follow the Dragon) in heaven"​

12:13, 15, 19 "The next day a great multitude…cried out, 'Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!' The King of Israel!… 'Behold, your King is coming'…The Pharisees therefore said… 'Look, the world has gone after Him!'"
12:10 "Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, 'Now…the kingdom of our God, and the authority of His Christ have come.'" "And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdoms of this world have become those of our Lord and His Christ" (11:15)​

12:25 "He who loves his life will lose it"
12:11 "they did not love their lives to death"​

12:28-31 "then a voice came from heaven…the people who heard…said it thundered. Others said an angel spoke… 'Now the ruler of this world (Satan) will be cast out.'"
12:9-10 "and Satan, who deceives the whole world…was cast to the earth, and his angels…and I heard a loud voice in heaven… 'Now has come salvation.'" "there were…thunderings" (11:19)​

12:32 Jesus says: "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself"
12:5 "She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne"​

13:29 Judas, who controlled the purse, should "buy those things that we need" Judas challenges: "Why was this fragrant oil not sold…?" (12:5)
13:17 The beast controls all who "buy and sell"​

14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life"
15:3, 7 "just and true are Your ways…God who lives forever"​

14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments"
14:12 "Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments"​

15:1-6 "I am the Vine, you are the branches…If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown out as a branch and is dried up, and they gather them and throw them into the fire"
14:15, 18-19 "the harvest of the earth was dried up…and another angel who had authority over fire… called… 'gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe.' And the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine…and threw it into the winepress"​

16:8 "He will judge of sin, righteousness, and judgment"
16:7 "true and righteous are Your judgments"​

16:33 "I (Jesus) have overcome the world"
17:14 "the Lamb will overcome them"​

17:12 Judas is "the son of perdition"
17:8, 11 "(the beast) will go to perdition"​

17:24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me…from the foundation of the world"
17:8 "And those whose name had not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world"​

18:11 "the cup which My Father has given"
18:6 the harlot Babylon has a "cup of abominations" (17:4)​

18:38 "Pilate said to Him, 'What is truth?'"
19:11 "and He…was called 'Faithful and True'"​

​

 

[Nazaroo]

19:2 "they clothed Him in a purple robe"
18:16 the harlot Babylon "was clothed in purple"​

19:5 "Jesus therefore came out wearing the crown of thorns and a purple robe…Behold, the Man!"
19:11 "behold…He who was called Faithful and True…and on His head were many diadems, and His robe was dipped in blood"​

19:13 Pilate "sat upon the judgment seat" to "judge" (18:31)
20:11-13 "I saw a great white throne, and He who sat upon it…judged every man"​

19:17-18 "Golgotha, where they crucified Him (Jesus), one on either side and Jesus in the midst"

22:2 "in the midst of the street, on either side of the river was the tree of life"​

19:19 "Pilate wrote a title…it was written, 'JESUS OF NAZARETH. THE KING OF THE JEWS.'"
19:16 "On His outer garment…a name was written, 'KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS'"​

19:23 "when they crucified Jesus, they took His outer garments"​

19:16 "On his outer garment…a name was written, 'KING OF KINGS'"​

19:28, 30, 40, 42 "Jesus, knowing that all things were now finished…said, 'It is finished!'…and they took the body of Jesus and bound it…and placed it in a tomb."

20:2, 3, 5 "He laid hold of the dragon…and bound him, and shut him in the abyss…that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years were finished…and the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished"​

20:15 "Jesus said… 'Woman, why are you weeping?'"

21:4 "and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes"​

20:17 "Jesus said to her, 'Do not hold to me yet, for I have not yet ascended to My Father…to My God and your God.'"
21:2 "Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband…"​

20:27 "Be not unbelieving but believing"
21:8 "But the fearful and unbelieving"



​

21:15 "Feed my lambs"
19:9 "the wedding supper of the Lamb"​

21:24 "this is the disciple who…wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true"
21:5 "And He said to me, 'Write, for these words are faithful and true"​

21:25 "And there are many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
22:18-19 "if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part…from the things which are written in this book."​

​

 

[Nazaroo]

We will be talking about the significance of the parallels between the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation in a moment.

For a break from this new and surprising territory of investigation into the internal evidence for John 8:1-11, I would like to show some of the progress in form criticism which has a strong bearing on the question:

R. Alan Culpepper directs our attention to the different relationship between narrative and discourse. He speaks of a "progressive conjunction between sign and discourse material"18.

"The first and the second signs (2:1-11 and 4:46-54) are about the length of synoptic miracle stories and not greatly dissimilar from them. The next three miracle stories (5:2-9; 6:2-21; 9:1-7) each have extended discourses attached to them (5:10-16, 17-47; 6:22-65; and 9:8-41). ... With the last sign, the raising of Lazarus, the progressive conjunction of sign and discourse reaches its zenith: the two cannot be separated successfully"19.

​

One could well agree with the literary observations. Nevertheless, the observations of Culpepper show that the formal sequence of miracle stories and discourse texts does not follow a rigid scheme. Both Sabbath conflict stories (chaps. 5 and 9) stand close to each other; however, the maintenance of a strict formal sequence requires that the shepherd discourse (10,1-18) be a monologue concluding the healing of the man born blind (John 9)20; this monologue then forms a formal parallel to both monological

_______________________
185​

discourses in 5,19-4721. John 6 already shows another structure, for the chapter begins with a double miracle and is closed by conflict scenes in 6,60-6622. The speech itself is interrupted by questions and objections from its hearers23. Michael Theobald characterizes John 6,60-71 as a dialogue passage that is closed by an important confession. For formal parallels he points to John 9 (9,38) and John 4 (4,42)24. This observation is striking in some ways. Nevertheless, there are formal differences between these texts. John 4,1-42 is not built on a narrative text; there is only a very small narrative framework on which the dialogues between Jesus and the other protagonists are based. John 11,1-44 again diverges from a strict scheme by putting longer dialogues into the narrative framework of the miracle story. The changing of water into wine in Cana (John 2,1-11) and the healing of the son of the royal official (4,46-54) completely fall out of the scheme in which the signs are followed by dialogue texts.
The formal differences observed by Culpepper might be connected with different compositional aims of the author of the gospel. The Fourth Evangelist uses different forms to integrate traditions into his gospel and to reread them25. In John 2–4 we can find some shadows of the conflict, which is already mentioned in John 1,1-14. However, it is more important that this section of the Gospel presents characters who meet Jesus and believe in him (see below I.3). The logos is in his world and there are people who

_______________________
186​

believe in Jesus; the reader is invited also to believe. In most cases, the Evangelist adds discourse passages to the narrative units he found in his tradition. In composing discourse texts he probably also used traditional material26. This technique enables him to build colourful scenes that are sometimes more impressive than the formal synoptic parallels. The different structure of these scenes, the changing narrative strategies, and the diverging sequence of narrative, dialogical, and monological texts form individual units expressing different intentions. Therefore we have to read every miracle narrative in its own right. Only John 5 and 9 may be read together because of the structural paralells. Both stories are about a man cured by Jesus. But both persons act differently. Only the man born blind believes in Jesus. There are two different possibilities for the reader to read the signs; one can believe or one may refuse the high christological belief of the author of the Fourth Gospel. John 2–4 shows that the main aim in the Gospel is to awaken belief or perhaps to strengthen belief (cf. also 20,30-31).
These different strategies might have their reason in the different forms of tradition used by the writer of the gospel. For example, in John 5 and John 9 the dialogical structure of the whole narrative is prepared by the form of the tradition. In both chapters the narrator uses Sabbath conflict stories which were expanded by discourses27.
What about the literary or theological hierarchy between miracle story and discourse genre? Formally, the compositional role of the Johannine miracle stories cannot be considered to be marginal. John 2,1-11 forms an accentuated prelude not only for the ‘ring composition’ 2,1–4,54 but also for all further signs: John 2,1-11 as the a)rxh/ tw=n shmei/wn is the first of all the signs and it functions as an introduction that provides an interpretation to all of them28. In the light of the interpretation given in 2,11 the signs serve to promote faith in Jesus, the Son of God, that leads to true life (cf. 20,30-31). The echo of 1,14 (o( lo/goj ... e)skh/nwsen e)n h(mi=n, kai_ e)qeasa/meqa th_n do/can au)tou=) determines the force of 2,11. Reading 2,11 in the light of 1,14 means that the doxa inherent in the earthly Jesus becomes visible in all his miracles. And the last sign reaches back to it (John 11,4.40). So the macro-structure of the gospel shows that the narrative importance of the miracle stories is not meant to be corrected in favour of other text genres. The doxa of the Son of God that is visible in the signs helps to promote belief, which corresponds to the stated overall plan of the gospel. Both the discourses and monologues as well as the actions of the revealer divide people into believers or non-believers. Both lead up to the conflict and both genres are to be read together and they interpret one another.
(from here:
http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl80/Comm06.htm )

What does this all mean?

In the past, critics like Bultmann identified structures and possible 'seams' based upon a static model of John.

That is, John was characterized as a collection of miracle (sign) stories, each used by John as an introduction or a jump-off point for a discourse or monologue of Jesus. This static view is now seen to be an oversimplification, not because of 'editing' or dislocation of parts of the Gospel, but because on the contrary, the Gospel form structure changes according to a definite plan, and evolves into a climactic crescendo.

That is, this newly identified feature, of an evolving form which begins with simple 'synoptic' miracles and motifs, is at first associated and paired with monologues and discourses, but in rather flexible but progressive stages, the two 'forms' (narrative and discourse) are finally blended so deeply that they cannot be separated without recourse to the earlier sources.

By the time we get to the 'seventh sign',the raising of Lazarus, the discourse of Jesus is so imbedded and integral to the storyline that it cannot be separated into independant units of story and discourse.

The ramafications for assessing the status of the Pericope de Adultera are great: The passage cannot now be compared to either the forms at the beginning of this process, or those at the end. Its placement in the centre of the Gospel, and its extant 'form' are entirely consistent.

It reflects a stage in the blending of Jesus' Self-Revelation and the earthly story-line in which the interaction between the two is still separable but interactive. The connection between the Pericope and the surrounding discourses cannot be greater or lesser than they are. This alone would indicate a foreign intrusion into the progressive pattern created by the author.

 

[Nazaroo]

So much ink has been wasted by others talking about the 'foreign' vocabulary and phraseology of the Passage to John's Gospel, the reader can be excused for not being aware of the massive amount of deep and multiple connections to John's Gospel in the scope of vocabulary and phraseology.

Let us look at the vast parallelism between
John 8:1-11 and John 6:1-21:

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

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

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

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

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

John 6:12 : sunagagete ta perisseusanta klasmata, ina mh ti apolhtai (gather up [synagogize!] the fragments remaining, so that none are lost)
John 8:10 : gunai, pou eisin oi kathgoroi sou ...mhketi amartane (Woman, where are they, your accusers?...sin no more.)
John 6:20 : Egw eimi, mh fobeisqe (I AM: Do not fear!)

Note here also that unlike a crude 'forger', the author of the Pericope de Adultera mimics John's careful avoidance of direct quotation, and copies exactly his style of subtle self-paraphrase and expansion.

Who else but John would do this? Certainly not Luke, who, if he is responsible for the long ending of Mark, instead paraphrases himself. Thus this cannot by any stretching of the facts be made to look like a 'Lukan' pericope at all.

 

[Nazaroo]

To flesh out the connection between John 6:1-20 and John 8:1-11 I will refer to another brief paper presented in 2004:

Dr John Dennis
The Presence and Function of Second Exodus / Restoration Imagery in John 6.1-59

John presents Jesus as the restorer of Israel in John 6.1-59. John does so by means of allusions to the exodus wilderness wandering, the direct Moses-Jesus contrasts in vv.31-33; 49-51, and Scripture citation and allusion (LXX Ps 76.17-20, LXX ISA 54.13a and perhaps ISA 55). Exodus symbolism was often used to speak about national restoration (OT and Second Temple literature) and I argue that this is what is going on in John 6. In addition, the second exodus/restoration motif is heightened when Jesus' command to his disciples to "gather (sunago) the left over fragments that nothing may perish (apollumi)" in 6.12 is followed by the narrator's notice that the disciples "gathered them and filled twelve baskets" (6.13). Wayne Meeks argued many years ago (1967) that 6.12-13 should be understood as an intentional symbolic allusion to the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel. Some have scoffed at this interpretation (recently, C.S. Keener). However, I will argue that on the basis of evidence outside as well as inside the Gospel Meeks' view should be given more serious consideration. Jesus is thus the restorer of Israel, the one who leads the Second Exodus restoration of Israel..


(BNTS Conference Short Papers 2004)

http://www.ntgateway.com/bnts/ShortPapers/papers04.html

 

[Nazaroo]

At the beginning of this thread, I posted a chart showing the Old Testament Quotation Structure of John's Gospel.

There it was obvious that there were chiastic (reversing pattern) structures built around both the Pericope de Adultera and the Great Commandment in John.

What is even more compelling is the fact that by a Form Critical analysis (which I will present in chart form again), one can see yet more chiastic structure built around the Pericope.

It has long been known that there is a correlation between the Signs (miracles) listed in John, and the Discourses (teachings of Jesus) accompanying them. What is not so well known or appreciated, is the strong pairing:

Sign 1: Wedding miracle ..........Discourse 1: Nicodemus and Spirit birth (3:1f)

Sign 2: Nobleman's Son ...........Discourse 2: Samaritan Woman Living Water (4:1f)

Sign 3: Healing Cripple..............Discourse 3: Son of God (5:19f)

Sign 4: Feeding 5000................Discourse 4: True Bread from Heaven (6:22f)

Sign 5: Walking on Water..........Discourse 5: Water of Life (7:1f)

Sign 6: Blind Man Healed...........Discourse 6: Light of the World (8:12f)

Sign 7: Lazarus Raised..............Discourse 7: Door of the Kingdom (9:39f)

....................

What is not so well appreciated is the Chiastic structure of these correlations as it is reflected in the order of presentation of the signs and discourses around John 8:1-11:

--------------------------------------------------------
Sign1..........................................(2:1f)
Discourse 1..............................(3:1f)

[Discourse 2 (Samaria)]........(4:1f)
Sign2.........................................(4:43f)

Sign3.........................................(5:1f)
Discourse 3.............................(5:19f)
--------------------------------------------------------

Normally, the Sign is presented, then followed by the Discourse. (The exception with Sign 2 can be understood as due to the intrusion of the Ministry in Samaria.)

-----------------------------------------------------------
Sign 4 .................................................(6:1f)
Sign 5 .................................................(6:15f)
Discourse 4.......................................(6:22f)
Discourse 5.......................................(7:1f)


..............Pericope de Adultera........(8:1-11)


Discource 6.......................................(8:12f)
Sign 6..................................................(9:1f)*
Discourse 7.......................................(9:39f)*
Sign 7..................................................(11:1f)
------------------------------------------------------------

The Surprising reversal in the order of the Signs and Discourses after the Pericope reflects a strong chiastic pattern, now followed through till the end of the official 'Signs'. Even though the pattern is not one of total correspondence, the overall pattern matches that of the O.T. Quotation structure surrounding the Pericope.

*The apparent local displacement (swapping) of sign6 / discourse7 can perhaps best be explained by the overriding requirements of the narrative, and the much larger sizes of the latter signs and discourses. Here the need to keep Sign 6 close to Discourse 6 (or else what's the point?) overrules the desire for perfect symmetry in the hidden chiastic structure. Discourse 6 could not be postponed any further in the Evangelist's eyes, given his desire to have the reader make the connections between sign and discourse.

This chiastic structure can hardly be a coincidence, and if the passage has been placed here, there has been a careful rearrangement in the surrounding context. Only the final redactor of John could have done this, and therefore the later text with the omission of the passage shows its lack of priority, since it retains the editorial/arranging features, without any purpose.

The addition of the passage, if it was an addition, was done with a knowledge of and accompanied by a probable manipulation of the order of the material in John in the surrounding area, and is primary to the redaction.

The omission of the passage, in the extant texts such as P66, P75, Aleph and B, was done WITHOUT any knowledge of the special order of the material surrounding the area, and is secondary.

In spite of some possible minor rearrangement of material in John, as Bultmann and others have conjectured, the structural chiasmus surrounding the Pericope has survived virtually intact.

 

[Nazaroo]

Naturally, in the light of the amazing and unforeseen hidden evidence from Revelation concerning the order and content of John's Gospel, we will want to know if there is any evidence for both the Chiastic Structure in John, and also if there is any evidence of minor rearrangements or dislocations of material, as proposed by for instance Bultmann.

So I have taken the liberty of placing the raw data in a more ordered chart so that the reader can view this:

Here we can see that the area containing the Chiastic Structure is undisturbed, while there are indeed possible evidences of minor dislocations of material elsewhere.

To understand the scientific and statistical basis of such word-lists, and how they are processed to give estimates of probability in comparison to random samples, we suggest the reader look at the extensive literature on Rasch Methods here:

http://www.rasch.org/rmt/contents.htm

A sample of such techniques as they have already been applied to New Testament studies can be found here:

http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt151k.htm

Enjoy!

 

[Nazaroo]

Now lets look at the second half of the list of correspondences between John's Gospel and Revelation:

Here we can clearly see that the second half of the pattern suffers from quite a few dislocations and minor rearrangements: There are a few basic ways of accounting for this:

(1) The Evangelist Came 2nd, and created the pattern. The nature of the content of either the Gospel or the Revelation prevented the author (whoever wrote last) from carrying out a rigid plan, but required bending the rules in important sections. In this case, the general structure would be plausibly assigned to the Evangelist/final redactor. He would have been constrained in the second half of his Gospel by the basic sequence of events in the Passion story (betrayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion, ressurrection), preventing him from a rigid adherence to order in the second half.

John the Seer (author of the Revelation) would not be under the same constraints, as far as we can see. If he was restricted by contents in the second half of Revelation from following a strict order, why wouldn't he be similarly constricted in the first half? Both halves of Revelation are apparently the same kind of work.

(2) The Revelation came Second:
(2a) The author of Revelation had the main purpose of preserving hidden structural data concerning the Gospel of John, namely the chiastic structures surrounding the Pericope de Adultera. After that, he was able to relax the constraints a significant amount, although continuing the correspondence until the end for consistency.

(2b) The author of Revelation was following an earlier redaction of John or an early copy of the Book of Signs (the first half of John's Gospel, believed to have been derived from earlier sermons or pamphlets by the Evangelist). In this scenario, the order of the correspondences would be strictly preserved in the first half of Revelation, but would appear to have been garbled in the final edition of John. The final edition of John would have been assembled or edited without knowledge or care of the earlier plan and use of materials in Revelation.

Regardless of the scenario or early redactional history we choose, it remains clear that the first half of John's Gospel has not suffered any serious dislocation or restructuring, as the second half may potentially have suffered. This is good news for the preservation of hidden structures in John's Gospel, if it were written first, or if it made use of an earlier 'Signs source' also obviously used by the author of Revelation.

The important fact we now possess from an analysis of the relationship with Revelation, is this:

(1) We now have the earliest and the most authoritative witness conceivable regarding the contents and order of the Gospel of John: namely the author of the Revelation!

(2) John's Gospel obviously contains hidden structural components unforeseen and unknowable to those tampering with the text. And we may be able to identify the direction of any alterations, and restore the original text with far more confidence than we could using manuscripts of unknown origin from the second century.

 

[Nazaroo]

It is important to have a grasp of the actual nature and value of the correspondences between the Gospel and Revelation, in order to apply them critically to other related problems and questions.


Real or Mirages?


If we were to take any two Gospels, and do a search for words and phrases appearing in both, we would find a huge and rich mine of coincidences, in both content and order. Even whole passages would closely match. This can be accounted for by several obvious factors:

(1) The Gospels are dealing with essentially the same story from beginning to end.

(2) The Evangelists are interested in pretty much the same subjects: teachings of Jesus, the Arrest, trial, crucifixion, resurrection etc.

(3) The Evangelists either borrowed from each other, or used common sources, oral, written, eye-witness etc. We should expect this, and in fact this is the essence of the 'synoptic problem', the measure of their interdependance.

From this we conclude that any correspondences between Gospels would be unremarkable and even misleading as to their significance.


Completely Different Genres: A Crucial Difference

However, comparing two unrelated books, we would naturally be astounded by such a strong correspondence in both significant phraseology and order. This is essentially the case between the Book of Revelation and *any* Gospel:

(1) A Gospel is a rigid story form, largely fixed in content and order, and only offers significant potential for variants in specialized areas. Speeches, parables, and non-crucial incidents can be added or deleted, or can be 'locally' unordered but must fall into 'chapters' or segments within the storyline.

(2) A "Revelation" (a species of prophetic or apocalyptic literature) has its own (normally) quite different form and structure. It's 'storyline' is often primitive or non-existant, and its concerns are hardly confined to being a 'parable' of the Gospel story.

(3) Such is the Book of Revelation, which has one unique section in the form of an open 'letter' or epistle to the churches, then follows with a series of prophetic visions. These are not wholly sequential, but often actually overlap in apparent temporal sequence.

(4) So while we expect a certain amount of overlap in general religious phraseology due to similar concerns and beliefs, a strong alignment in the existance and order of very specialized material is wholly unexpected, and forces a conclusion of interdependance and deliberate use of one author by the other.


Adding Rigour to the Discovery:


Because we have other Gospels handy, we have a convenient 'double blind' test to weigh the relative size and depth of the correspondence in a statistically significant fashion. For example, we can compare Revelation and Mark, or Revelation and Luke, to see the quantity and depth of correspondence there. This gives a simple and effective, and reasonably objective measure of correspondence open to statistical treatment.

Yet having noticed a general 'pattern' of sorts, it is another, far more complicated task to properly evaluate the nature and significance of that discovery. So we want to apply rigorous and conservative techniques in evaluating the quality and force of such correspondences.

For instance, we could also take any two of Paul's letters, and find a 'correspondence' in material at the beginning and end of each. This is not significant, because all such epistles have a formal beginning and end (greeting and doxology) which have almost identical material. Yet the material inside the letters should not necessarily have any significant order in their presentation. They will follow rather the individual needs and thoughts of the writer, not unplanned, but neither according to a set "pattern".

Similarly, some material in our list of correspondences at the beginning and end can be accounted for by the requirements of presentation of those documents. These cases, although a legitimate part of any structural list, cannot have any power in demonstrating its existance.

We must look to the 'hardest' evidence for a critical confirmation of the list of correspondences, and this will be found in the 'core' sections of the documents. Again, certain correspondences, while having a high probability of being a legitimate parts of the author's construction, will not hold weight as 'proofs' in the light of statistical analysis, such as an evaluation of relative word frequency etc.

In the end, we will naturally distill a 'hard core' or subset of the evidence for purposes of giving rigour to the discovery, and only when its existance is plausibly demonstrated can other lesser evidences be later added.

 

[Nazaroo]

Another reason why the Pericope de Adultera is authentic:

 

[Nazaroo]

More evidence of a chiastic structure built around John 8:1-11:

I have started another thread on the way John uses the signal-word "HOUR" (wra), and I will examine John's special purposes in more detail there.

The point I want to make here is this:

(1) First we see Jesus in John warning repeatedly of a special "hour", namely the "Hour of the Son of Man", the hour of Jesus' 'glory', the special moment in His ministry.

(2) Again John in the narrative builds a chiastic structure around the Pericope de Adultera: How do we know it is around the Pericope, and not for instance the 'Light of the World' speech, given immediately afterward?

a) The discourse, while as grand and important as any other of Jesus large special Discourses, is hardly the most important one, and cannot qualify as a 'sign' or event of any special significance.

b) The Confrontation with the Pharisees before all Israel in the Temple during the Festival however, in which His foes, the religious leaders are vanquished, is clearly just the kind of event that *could* be mistaken for "The Hour of Jesus".

However, this is not the actual Hour that John wants us to recognise as the real "Hour".

c) So, because he has already almost 'overemphasized' the Pericope de Adultera by building so many safeguards around it, he now has to 'put on the breaks' to prevent it being mistaken for the Final Hour in which eschatologically Satan is cast down from power.

d) John does this by putting another set of *"Anti-Chiastic" brackets around it, making it clear that the true Final Hour has not yet come.

e) Then the True Hour is plainly marked out by Jesus own announcement of it in chapter 12.


4:21 "an Hour comes, when..." (ercetai wra ote... )
4:23, "an Hour comes, even now is, when..." (ercetai wra kai nun estin ote...)
(The Healing of the Nobleman's Son)
5:25 "an Hour comes, even now is, when..." (ercetai wra kai nun estin ote...)
5:28 "...since an Hour comes, in which..." (...oti ercetai wra en h...)

......................................
7:30 "(since) His Hour had not yet begun." (...oti oupw elhluqei h wra autou...)
------------------------------------------------------
(The disputes leaving people divided)
(The Pericope de Adultera: Jn 8:1-11)
(The Sixth Discourse: Light of the World)
-------------------------------------
8:20 "(since) His Hour had not yet begun." (...oti oupw elhluqei h wra autou...)
.....................................................
12:23 "The Hour has begun, in order that..."(elhluqenh wra ina...)
12:27 "Now My soul is troubled.
"Yet what do I say: 'Father save Me out of this Hour'?
"But for this (cause) I came into this Hour!"



Once again, we see that John's approach to embedding the Pericope de Adultera is wholistic, involving pretty much every structural and linguistic technique available to him. Note the chiastic structure also built around the smaller 2nd Sign in chapter 4. In both cases, this 'anti-structure' tells us what is *NOT* the Hour! Both structures are clearly by the same hand. John uses long phrases of six or more identical words, so there can be no mistake.

 

[Nazaroo]

It has been occasionally claimed that the Lectionary text, which continues from 7:52 directly to 8:12 (for the public reading of Pentecost), and omitting the incident, is actually the 'smoother' reading, and hence original.

Briefly, the argument runs as follows:

(1) 7:52 mentions Galilee as a place where "no prophet arises". This is a 'veiled' reference to Isaiah 9:1-2, which is actually quoted by Matthew as a prophecy which Jesus has fulfilled, in (Matt.4:12-16). There Isaiah refers to Galilee seeing 'a great Light' etc.

(2) 8:12 immediately begins with Jesus claiming Himself to be "The Light of the World", and continuing a discourse about His self-witness.

Clearly there is an obvious connection, and Jesus doesn't simply announce Himself as "the Light of the World" completely out of nowhere. John even goes out of his way to tip the reader that some digging is required here: "Search and look!..." (7:52).

But is this really any kind of evidence against the Pericope de Adultera? Let's examine it a little closer:

(1) John sometimes quotes scriptures as they are fulfilled, and other times deliberately chooses only to 'allude' indirectly to scripture fulfililment. Why? We have already shown ONE reason: John had an Old Testament Structural Pattern he wished to follow and also wanted the reader to discover. (See our O.T. Quotation Structure Chart earlier in this thread).

(2) But it must obviously go beyond this. Why choose those specific scriptures to actually quote, and only use allusions to cause the reader to look at those other connections? The answer is both important and often quite simple.

(3) Sometimes, as with the 'water and blood' reference at the Crucifixion, the scripture is short enough to plainly quote. Although the reference may be mysterious, the quantity of OT scripture is small, and the basic fulfillment is obvious.

(4) Other times, as with the Elijah reference in the Wine Miracle at Cana (1st Sign), the scripture John wants us to read is simply too long to quote. We must take the hint, and go read it ourselves. Also, the application refers to an extended and complex incident with multiple or all-encompassing connections.

(5) The word 'Galilee' only appears in the O.T. a handful of times, and indeed, only ONCE in overt prophecy, at Isaiah 9:1. Yet the initial reference clearly refers to Jesus' GALILEAN ministry, NOT His confrontations in the Temple with the Jewish leaders. This is precisely how Matthew understands and applies it in Matt.4:13f.

(6) So what is John doing, flashing a NEON sign at us here? Jesus isn't in Galilee, and He isn't showing any fulfillment of the short reference in Isaiah 9:1-2!

(7) The answer, and the reason why there is no quotation, is that John wants us to "LOOK AND SEE": When we turn to Isaiah chapter nine, we find there are TWO bizarre insertions in the original text of Isaiah, which without the fulfillment in Jesus, make no sense at all: It is the SECOND INSERTION a little further down that John wants us to look at, namely Isaiah 9:6-7!

"For unto us a child is born, a Son is given:
the government shall be upon His shoulder!..."





​

(The first half of the 2nd block is also used by Luke: 2:11)

"...of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end,upon the throne of David and over His Kingdom, to order it, and to establish it in judgement and justice from henceforth forever and ever:
The zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this!" (Isa 9:6,7)





​

Wow! This is clearly a Judgement/Law theme reference. And with the Pericope de Adultera using both references to the Law and the keyword 'judgement/condemnation" several times, I think we can see that John means to apply it to the confrontation at the temple, NOT the follow-up self-testimony of Jesus in 8:12 and forward.

The critics' contention that John would 'allude' yet shout at us about a simple self-reference in 8:12 is implausible, and is not supported by John's use of scripture anywhere else.

That is, the 1st prophecy doesn't apply at all to the story at this point, but the 2nd prophecy clearly is dramatically fulfilled by the Pericope de Adultera.

 

[Nazaroo]

The Relevance of Modern Johannine Studies to John 8:1-11

In this post I am going to paraphrase some ideas from an admirable article that summarizes the state of the art in Johannine studies among scholarly circles. Johannine analysis has become quite sophisticated in recent times. That is not to necessarily endorse any particular theories or viewpoints on the dating, authenticity or composition process of the Gospel of John, but more to show how the 'game' has changed over a hundred years of criticism.
The entire article can be found online here at:
http://catholic-resources.org/John/SBL2001-Anderson.html



The New 'Intertextual Analysis' vs. (Previous) 'Source Analysis'

Gospel relationships are better approached with intertextual analysis than the source analysis of the past. The relationships are too complex to be adequately described with simplistic theories. Contacts between Gospels involve oral, community and editorial stages that run in all directions.

Instead of the old paradigms of dependance and influence, we now have the ideas of engagement, inter-community dynamics, and two-way response as the people and documents pass through the fires of constantly changing social environments.
Recently some scholars have approached the differences between the Synoptics and John in terms of the primitiveness of John rather than its 'alienness'. Not just A.T. Roberston (The Priority of John), but also scholars in Europe as well, have reasoned that such differences can be better explained through either isolation or priority of the Johannine community. That is, It may be easier to see how three other traditions could overlook John than how John could have overlooked all three synoptic traditions, while in its final form showing strong connection to Mark.


Blast from the Past

The leading theory of the last century was that John built his Gospel out of foreign sources. This seemed to solve some of the problems of the tension between the narratives and their didactic purpose, and between the "I AM" sayings and the "Incarnational" portions of the Discourses of Jesus.
Bultmann began with a three-source theory: (1) a Signs Source, (2) a Sayings Source, and (3) a Passion narrative. This was developed by Fortna into the idea of a 'Signs Gospel'. While many scholars still believe that John underwent a 'final edition', this early work on sources remains uncompelling.
For instance, stylistic evidence fails to show any strong distinction between Signs narrative and Discourse, and the 'Semitic Greek' discovered is too vague to separate respective Jewish and Greek origins.
On the contextual /form side, there are a few apparent 'seams' or artifacts, such as the change from the poetic prologue to the narrative, the jumpy transition between locations, and some odd 'gaps', such as the notice of departing in 14:31 (along with a reference to less speech) followed by a huge 'second' speech before actually recording a change in locations.
Yet little has been demonstrated that would allow a convincing rearrangement or reconstruction of an editing process or even a clear identification of 'sources'. Much of the 'tension' in John can be best accounted for by his own dialectic genius in engaging his own traditions, and in his use of literary technique such as irony and 'misunderstanding' by characters, for the purpose of engaging the reader's own thought processes.
Anderson (the author of the paper above) prefers accounting for residual features by way of a theory of 'editions', meeting the needs of developing community change and crisis.


A Sketch of John as a Two Stage Process of Edition

Suppose a first edition around 80-85 C.E. about a decade after Mark. It begins with the ministry of John Baptist, and closes at the end of chapter 20. John 6 would be a later addition, the original jumping from John 5 to John 7.
(the basis of this idea is that 7:1 seems to sum up the reaction of Judaea to Jesus' healing of the cripple. One can skip over the whole of chapter six and continuity is retained. However, this continuity can be explained as well by noting that only one miracle (cf. 7:21) was done publicly in Judaea. The events in Galilee and Capernaum are before a different audience.)
(Now the Pericope de Adultera, 7:53-811, doesn't even come under consideration by most critics, because it is rejected as an even later addition on textual grounds.)
Again, John 15 to 17 appears to have been inserted between 14:31 and 18:1.
This material seems gathered about the theme of church guidance by the Holy Spirit.
Finally, chapter 21 appears to have been added, along with some small edits around the "Beloved Disciple" post-humously to the Evangelist, as well as some eye-witness material.


So we have two basic versions of John,
an earlier one without the following:

1. (1:1-13) Prologue
2. (6:1-71) Feeding the 5000 & Walking on Water plus discourses.
3. (7:53-8:11) Pericope de Adultera'
4. (15:1-17:26) The Second Half of Jesus Last Private Speeches
5. (21:1-25)
6. some assorted inserts about the Beloved Disciple

The Final Edition of John Includes all these, except:

1. (7:53-8:11) The Pericope de Adultera.

Now the point of all this is not to endorse the modern critical view of John's Gospel, but to examine carefully its implications for the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera.

 

[Nazaroo]

Before diving into a critique of the modern view of John, we need to explore just what makes it a plausible, (or at least desirable for textual critics,) way of handling the Johannine characteristics.

A Sketch of Forces and Exchanges

The proposed history of John begins with smaller primitive 'Gospel' that looks much like Mark. And indeed, it is supposed to act as a supplimental, complimentary, and corrective companion to Mark. In this scenario, 'Proto-John' was written just after Mark was introduced into circulation, and is based upon equally early and authentic oral and written traditions about Jesus' ministry.

On the one hand, this proposal explains well the relatively strong similarities to Mark:

The Beginning (Mk 1:1, Jn 1:1,14, 17-18)
Similar Passion Narratives including an ending with Post Resssurrection appearances.
Similar beginnings with John Baptist preparing the Way.
Similar callings of Peter and Andrew and others (Mk 1:16-20 Jn 1:19-34)
Similar portrayals of Jesus as teacher and healer, and Son of Man
Similar intensification of conflict over Sabbath laws and blasphemy
Initial movement from Judaea into Galilee and back up to Jerusalem
The Way of the Cross as pattern for all followers of Jesus

Then again, there are augmentations to Mark:

(without the feeding of the 5000 and walking on water,) five new miracles to fill out the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
Three Judaean 'Signs' broaden the ministry of Jesus.
Material from about John the Baptist fills out story, emphasizing that John is NOT the Messiah...
The I AM sayings are added to clarify Jesus as Revealer and the One Sent from Father
Debates with Jewish leaders expound and authenticate Jesus as Divine Messiah, and are meant to invoke belief in Jewish readers.

Next we have the important Omissions of Markan Material.

If John really did write second, with a knowledge of Mark or at least Markan tradition, then he clearly left out significant material. At times he does indeed acknowledge the existance of, or presuppose the knowledge of facts he does not provide in his own gospel. For example,
Jesus did not Himself baptize (Jn 4:2)
Another Judas beside Iscariot exists (Jn 14:22)
John is aware of likely critiques for leaving things out, and provides a pre-emptive response (Jn 20:30)
As well, the Passion is covered fully and appears built around Mark, but drops much of Mark's middle, to make room for complimentary material.

the Kingdom Parables and other teachings are missing, but supplimented with other material.
the Markan Apocalypse (Mark 13) is missing completely but the subject of 'future' persecution is expounded.
The Eucharist is missing, and so is Jesus' own Baptism.
The Markan Miracles (assuming chapter six is not in first edition) are missing, and others are substituted.

The Chronological (Dis)Order of Mark is Corrected and Supplimented

Earlier ministry of Jesus alongside of John Baptist is provided.
Earliest miracles are provided (Wedding and Healing) are NOT excorcism or healing of Peter's mother-in-law.
Temple Cleansing is placed at the beginning, and the last few years of Jesus' ministry is highlighted and fleshed out.
Head annointing is retold as a FOOT annointing.
Date of the Last Supper (or an earlier meal) is placed a day earlier, to allow Crucifixion on Passover.

Didactic/Dialectical Changes away from Mark

The theological points and interpretations of Jesus' conflict and teaching are transposed from the time of their occurance to the time and setting of the Gospel apologists:

Roles of Elijah and Moses are fulfilled by Jesus rather than John Baptist (John denies being either).
Parables are retired and replaced with direct teaching about what the Kingdom of God is and is not like.
Mark's Messianic 'Secret' is reversed in John and Jesus reveals His identity openly.
The Miracles are not responses to faith, but Revelatory Signs that lead people to belief and Eternal life.
Apostleship is broadened to include women, Samaritans, and others not members of the Twelve.

As Anderson notes, any one of these points may be debated, but together form a plausible and widely supported picture of John the Evangelist's purpose in writing: He seeks to further Mark's work, not compete with it, but suppliment it and develop it, and correct various cumulative misunderstandings.

John the Final Director's Cut

Anderson also sketchs a series of early crises undergone by the Johannine community, and these are supposed to be addressed in an ongoing manner by John the Evangelist/Elder. Finally, these further teachings and sermon material are incorporated into the Gospel upon the Beloved Disciple's death:

70-80 A.D. Tensions with local Jewish family and friends for disciples caused by reorganization and opposition of Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem

81-90 A.D. Pressures and persecution from Romans under Domitan, combinations of alienation from Judaism, rise of Emperor worship and harrassment.

80-100 A.D. Gentile perversion of the Gospel with Docetic Christologies and gnosticism (see Johannine letters also)

80-100 A.D. Other parts of the Christian (Gentile) Church opt for the model of Apostolic Authority, which threatens to neutralize Jesus' primary teachings on service and accessibility of the Holy Spirit. John's community apply the necessary correctives (3 John 9-10 etc.) not against apostolic memory, but in the name of it.

Finally, the death of John the Evangelist/Elder.

These forces are what require a second edition of John's Gospel, and mold the form and content of its preservation of the Johannine community experience.

This plausible historical scenario is what enables the modern textual critic to account for some of the diversity of material included in the final (our extant) version of John.

From Historical Overview to Details of Content

With this picture in hand, the critic now proposes that:

(1) Most of the intense Jewish-authority debates (chapters 5,7-10, and 12) are the backbone of the first edition.

(2) The primary thrust of the first edition was to convince Jewish family and friends that Jesus is the Messiah, the Prophet predicted by Moses (Deut.18:15-22) and authenticated by revelatory Signs and fulfilled Words.

(3) The background is the emergent crisis with Roman Emperor worship (compare Thomas' confession with Domitan's requirement that subjects confess the emperor as "Lord and God").

John Second Edition:

(4) The LATER edition is supplimented with material which has a strong INCARNATIONAL motif (Jn 1:14, 6:51-66, 19:34-35)

(5) Also an anti-Docetic thrust is added, as is also found in Ignatius' letters and 1st John (1 Jn 2:18-25 vs. 1 Jn 4:1-3), and can be detected in the difference between first and second editions of the Gospel.

(6) The letters of John are supposed to have been written between editions.

(7) The Beloved Disciple is assumed to have continued teaching in this period until his death, when his new material was incorporated into the final edition along with eye-witness attestations and 'Beloved Disciple' passages.

(8) The new material is not particularly influenced by other Gospel traditions, suggesting its early origin and minor divergence from the earlier material.

(9) Indeed, some of the material added to the final edition is not late at all, but may have simply been excluded from the first edition because of its redundancy in comparison to Mark (e.g. John 6).

(10) Some of the material may involve earlier dialogues and contact with Markan segments of the church and so has ongoing and corrective features.

...continued below...

 

[Nazaroo]

Preliminary Notes:

It is quite reasonable to concede that before writing a 'final' written Gospel, John or any number of Apostles or disciples could have and would have engaged in speechs (such as Stephen's in Acts), and arguments and expositions such as Paul's many written examples.

Nor is it necessary that Eye-witness recounters or even Apostles would be required to work without notes of any kind, or be disallowed to make fair use of books and scrolls, pen and ink, as they travelled to various communities.

It is even fair to propose that an Apostle, or even a group of apostles or disciples might work together on a project such as a 'sayings collection' or "Signs Source", for teaching and preaching, and eventually as the need arose expand it into a fuller written Gospel.

That various sermon writers and Evangelists would consult one another is a given, and that they would seek to work in a largely complimentary fashion without too much overlap or duplication of work all seems equally reasonable, provided we don't apply such principles too rigidly or push them too far.

And in that Spirit of charity we can consider the scenarios proposed by critics and commentators, without fearing that they might somehow undermine the authority of the Gospels or impose unrealistic restraints upon the Holy Spirit.

Yet the question these theories must always be evaluated by is that of their utility in shedding any light or understanding upon the Gospels as we have them. It is to this question we can now turn without apology:


Character of the 'First Edition' of John

The picture of John as a supplimental or complimentary companion to Mark is a simple and attractive one. It classifies John's work as essentially cooperative, while allowing for a large diversity between Gospel accounts which has already been observed.

However, the picture is not as clear as we would wish. For instance, critics have identified a large block of redundant material (namely chapter six, the feeding of the 5000 and walking on water incidents). To this we can add the following:

(1) The Cleansing of the Temple (Jn 2:12-25)
(2) The Healing of the Nobleman's Son (Jn 4:43-54)
(3) The Annointing at Bethany (Jn 12:1-8)
(4) The Denials of Peter (Jn 18:58 etc.)
(5) Various parallels in divisions of the people etc.

While some of these can be argued to be 'essential' parts of a bare-bones Gospel account, others are not so easy to call 'integral' to the Gospel story.

Critics try to clean up the rather messy picture by accounting for these 'extras' on the basis of a supplimental or complimentary function:

The Temple cleansing is 'corrected' chronologically.
The Nobleman's son is reworked for didactic purposes.
The Annointing is supplimented heavily.

After the smoke clears, there remains a rather LARGE chunk of material (thankfully, or conveniently all in one place, chapter six) namely the Feeding of the 5000 and Walking on the Water.


Feeding the 5000: An inconvenient Exception

While the similarities to Mark are great, and the material is huge in extent, some argument can be given for its inclusion in a 'complimentary' work because of the addition of John's didactic material and interpretation of the miracles as 'Signs'.

John definitely has a new and unique slant to the Feeding of the 5000, since for him it is not a miracle that leads to true 'faith' but rather yet another exposure of the poor spiritual state of the people, even those who follow Jesus and wish to make Him king. For John, this 'Sign' is a springboard for deeper teaching about the real significance of (and possible unreliability of) miracles as Signs to authenticate the Messiah.

Although a plausible argument could be made for inclusion on the basis of John's new insights and Jesus' unique teaching presented here, the theory of 'complimentarity' and the 'supplimental nature' of John in relation to Mark must now be significantly modified and limited. Such is how reality imposes upon the pet theories of critics.

The easiest solution of course is to simply 'get rid of the inconvenient material', so the critics propose a version of John without the entire chapter.


How long was the Last Supper Anyway?

The other large chunk of material consists of the second half of the private discourse to the Disciples at the "Next-to-Last" Supper: (John 15 to 17) The speeches here form an incredibly long segment of sustained speech by Jesus, namely a total of five whole chapters! all posited as taking place on the evening of Jesus' arrest, along with ceremonies and activities of considerable extent (footwashing, dinner, etc.)

Here the critics may have more plausible weight in their arguments, at least in some form. The simple excising of chapters 15-17 may however be too simple a solution. As with other Gospels, John may have gathered material and placed it all together for convenience and didactic purpose, so raising the spectre of 'additions' may be extreme.


The Case for a Second Ending

Finally, the Last chapter (21), the Epilogue, does have all the earmarks of a later addition or footnote done after the death of the Beloved Disciple. This is perhaps the most convincing case for a 'later addition' to John's Gospel.

Yet this could stand by itself, and does not require us to accept other candidates for 'later addition' in any strong way. The material in John 21 is rather independant, and doesn't group itself strongly with any previous sections of the Gospel.

And Now a Look at the Results:

If we allow the critical proposal of two editions, and we also follow the critics' suggestions as to actual contents of each, a definite picture emerges:

First Edition John:

The First Version can be characterized by a concern for the Judaean confrontations, and Jewish/Messianic arguments for and against Jesus' claim as the Messiah. These would be the earliest layer as it were, and certain issues, such as Jesus' miracle cures and 'demonology', would, although equally early, be minimized and avoided by John in presenting the essential case for Jesus as Revealer of the Father and His accompanying 'Signs'.

For Jewish listeners the important subjects are prophetic fulfillment and typology, relation to Torah and interpretation of Law, connection to Moses and the Historical Jehovah, the issue of Covenants etc.

Second Edition John:

According to the critics, the second and final layer of John involves the later community crisis material, (e.g. the Last Supper speeches Jn 15-17), the re-interpreted Signs material (chapter six, i.e. the 'anti-sign' theme), and the incarnational material (death notice of Jn 21,the teaching of the Holy Spirit accounting for delay of Jesus' return etc.).

Qualifying Statements about the Later Material:

It is important to note that the critics allow for earlier material to have been added to the later addition, possibly because Mark had begun to fade as the primary Gospel. To quote Anderson,

"However, not all the material selected for the final supplementation was late-and-only-late. Some of it may have been available earlier but my not have been included in the first edition because of its proximity to Mark (John 6, for instance). This being the case, ...some of it reflects earlier dialogues involving Johannine and Markan traditions." (ibid above).


​

In this way, the embarrassment of 'later' material containing 'early' and primitive authentic tradition is accounted for quite cleverly!

We won't comment upon the weaknesses of the proposed theory of two editions of John for the moment. They are already becoming apparent to the reader.


What Relevance to The Pericope de Adultera?

Our point is this:

Q: What category of material does the Pericope de Adultera fall under?

Answer: The Earlier layer containing material documenting the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish authorities, of concern and interest to Jewish readers of John.

Q: Could the Pericope de Adultera have been added to the Second Addition under the proposed two-edition theory?

Answer: Yes. The critics have had to allow that earlier authentic material was probably taken up and added to the second 'edition'.


SUMMARY

That is, the nature of the Pericope de Adultera identifies it with the earliest layer of John's Gospel as the modern critics have found it. Yet it may very well remain "of the earliest layer" of Johannine tradition but have failed to have been included in the first edition due to other concerns about its contents.

Later, when Jerusalem was burned to the ground, and the break with Judaeism was complete, it could have been included without the same repercussions as it would have during the period when Johannine Christians (Greek Jewish messianists) were still living and working in Jewish communities and attending synagogues.


There is nothing in the theory that speaks against the Pericope de Adultera as being included in one or even both editions of the Gospel.


Yet interestingly, the proposition of two Editions of John offers a far more plausible explanation for the omission of the Pericope in some textual streams (like those in early Alexandria) than the highly implausible theory that the story was 'inserted by scribes out of nowhere in the 4th or 5th century, without a peep of protest or debate from any sector of the early church.'

 

[Nazaroo]

Because the possibility of two editions of John may have a bearing on the question of John 7:53-8:11, it is worthwhile to put it under test.

Recall that the reason for proposing a later addition of the Feeding the 5000 and the Walking on the Water, was to posit an earlier version of John whose function was essentially one of a supplimental and complimentary nature to Mark. These two miracles are already found in Mark, and so it would seem redundant to duplicate them.

Yet notice that according to the current two-edition theory, the earlier version would still have the two discourses, while only the later version would have the accompanying 'Signs' which they were meant to explain. The vague and flimsy connection to these miracles over in Mark would be almost impossible to make, given they aren't even in the same chronological location there. Again, for the first 200 years, Mark and John must have circulated independantly. The idea of complimentarity and supplimental function cannot be stretched too far. Both gospels must still be able to stand alone and make good sense.

The suggestion of the theory seems wholly preposterous on the face of it. The miracles could certainly exist without the discourses, and even stand alone as 'signs' without them in John. After all, there is plenty of 'sign'-like material there already that is not accompanied by a special discourse. (e.g. the Cleansing of the Temple, the Annointing etc.) But the discourses could not have been written before the signs, nor would they stand alone intelligently without them.


If anything, one would expect that the earlier edition would contain the miracles, and then the discourses and perhaps some modification of the miracles would be added later.


Unless some other convincing internal evidence can be presented, the theory falls flat on its face right out of the starting gate.

There is some connection reaching from the Epilogue (chapt.21) back to the two miracles in chapter six, namely the "bread and fish" from the feeding of the 5000. But this offers no support for an earlier gospel without the two signs. While it would be logical to add the two miracles if they were missing, the natural inference is that the Epilogue is referring back to the obviously already well-known miracle of the Feeding the 5000. There is no need nor evidence for a previous version of the Gospel without it from this quarter.

 

[Nazaroo]

When we come to examine the second block which is supposed to be an 'addition' to John (i.e. 2nd Edition material), there does indeed appear to be a plausible 'seam'-like feature presenting itself on the surface, namely the odd reference to 'departing' at the end of chapter 14:

"Hereafter I will not talk much to you (!)..." (14:30)
"Arise, let us go forth!.." (14:31)

This leads neatly into 18:1:

"When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth over the brook Cedron..." (18:1f)

Yet an 'insertion' is not the only explanation, and does not solve most of the other apparent 'seams' in John. A quite plausible alternative explanation is readily available, that doesn't require the positing of two 'Editions', other than the attachment of the final Epilogue after the death of the Evangelist.


John: A Special Document with a Special Design


Since John was written last, and quite late relative to other NT books, it is probable that it was designed as an extension and commentary on the other works. But more importantly, it is a public work, designed to be used by a community, the Johannine community. As such, it is a 'worship' document, which probably functioned in services as a primitive (indeed the paradigm) Lectionary or Public service book for the community.

What does this mean? In the early period, when books were expensive, slowly copied, and rare, each Christian did not own his own copy. Rather each local church or gathering of disciples would be formed around a copy of the book or a set of books, much like the synagogue from which it was patterned.

The books would be in the care of a leader, and read 'publicly' in parts, and during special ritual functions. Most early Christians would be hearing the Gospels orally, even after they were composed and proliferated.

Different parts of the Gospel would be used for different services and rituals, such as initiations and baptisms. Those who were accounted trustworthy through testing and periods of loyalty were entrusted and engaged in deeper teachings.

Again, to protect themselves from Jewish spies and Roman investigations, certain sections would be read publicly, while other sections of the Gospel would be read only to more intimate private circles.


One Simple Explanation covers the Tough Cases:


This methodology explains well the anomaly at the beginning of John, whereby the First Sign is labelled the making of Wine at Cana. Right after this is a substitute pericope, the Cleansing of the Temple, which is not even called or counted as a 'Sign'!

Yet the Wedding at Cana is not a sign at all: "Only the servants knew" (John 2:9) that a miracle had even been performed! In contrast, the Cleansing of the Temple is an actual public 'Sign', performed before the Jews in Jerusalem in the heart of the Temple! What is going on?

Simple: The Miracle at Cana is read publicly in front of new converts and inquisitive listeners, while the REAL sign, which could easily be interpreted as a sign of a conspiracy against both the Jewish leadership and Rome, is skipped over, and only read privately.

Likewise, the explanation is the same when we come to the Annointing at Bethany, (Public reading), and the Triumphal Entry (for Disciples only).

Now the purpose of John having *TWO* Last Supper speeches is plain. One is for public reading at proselytizing meetings, and the other is for those who can be trusted with inner teaching and deeper secrets of the Gospel. Built right into the 'inner' teaching is the prospect that this will not be so forever, but that someday all things will be revealed openly, i.e., when it is safe for the Christian movement.

Thus John is probably the first example of a document actually designed for public worship and also for intimate private services such as baptism and laying on of hands.

It would be in the hands of the local pastor or leader, entrusted with its contents and instructed on its proper use.

There is no need for 'multiple editions' or other more complicated explanations for the features of the text as we have it. Nor is there any evidence other than the obvious features anyone can observe.

We can also readily see how these alternate sections could be used at various functions, like (obviously) weddings, annointings, leadership appointments, reconciliations and re-acceptance into community by backsliders or deniers (think of Peter!)

To interpret the 'seams' in John as evidence of additions or deletions is simply to completely misunderstand the purpose of the document, and its function in a living Christian community.

 

[Nazaroo]

We have already seen that John's Gospel is heavily structured internally, and it is this structure that we want to examine for evidence of any additions or omissions. Any crude but significant alterations would of course damage or destroy structural patterns.

Revelation is modeled on a Basic Seven-Piece Chiastic Pattern:

- - - - BASIC CHIASTIC PATTERN FOR REVELATION

John also is modelled on an identical Chiastic Pattern:

- - - BASIC CHIASTIC PATTERN FOR JOHN"S GOSPEL

 

[Nazaroo]

Both John's Gospel and Revelation also take this pattern of Sevens one level deeper. At the moment however, we are only interested in the Gospel:

Detailed Chiastic Pattern of Sevens for John's Gospel

Here I have highlighted the parts supposed by the Two Edition Theory to have been later additions in Green. One can see that the proposal takes no account whatever of the connection of the material to its surroundings, and neither does the idea show any awareness of the deeply embedded structure of John.

The removal of the block of text (chapter six) damages the 'Seven Sevens' pattern, but hardly removes it. We are simply left with a damaged pattern that nonetheless won't go away, not a more primitive or convincing form. This has to be a severe strike against the Two Edition Theory, given that its only apparent justification is the alleged duplication of miracle material from Mark. We saw however, that even that argument was weak, since John modifies and expands the meaning and function of these 'signs'.

When we examine the second block of text the critics imagine was a later addition, namely the second speech block at the Last Supper (chapter 15-17), here at least, it is in fact a 'seven-piece' block.

But this appears to have been sheer luck on the part of the critical theory. No awareness of the structure of John is even discussed, and it would be inconceivable that such notice would not have been used to justify the perimeters of this block!

If it had not been for the apparent 'seam', the critics would have had no actual reason to suspect editorial activity at all here. And it is all too apparent from the continuing structure of John, that whoever constructed this section was well aware of John's chiastic pattern choice.


SUPER PATTERN FOR LAST SUPPER AND PASSION

Even more problematic, is that the next section following, that of the Passion, ALSO HAS FOURTEEN pieces (TWO sevens!) . And remarkably, the two fourteen-piece blocks can be lined up in parallel to give an amazing resonance.

It is very likely that the whole reason John departs from Mark's passion account and omits some material, is precisely so that it will line up with the fourteen sections in the Last Supper section!

Observe:

_______LAST SUPPER ____________ PASSION ACCOUNT_______

1. Footwashing/Judas' Treachery --- Betrayal and Arrest
2. Iscariot's Departure (Night!) --------- Peter's Denial
3. The Great Commandment ----------- Caiaphas interrogates Jesus
4. Exchange with Peter ------------------- Peter denies twice more...
5. Exchange with Thomas --------------- Pilate Questions Jesus
6. Exchange with Philip ------------------- Pilate offers Barrabas
7. Exchange with (other) Judah ------- Jesus mocked and beaten

8. "I AM the True Vine" -------------------- Pilate questions Him again
9. The Great Commandment ----------- Pilate orders crucifixion
10. The World's Hatred explained --- Jesus is Crucified
11. Persecution prophecied ----------- Jesus arranges care for His mother
12. The Holy Spirit is promised ------ Jesus Dies
13. The end of Parables ----------------- Body examined by Romans
14. Jesus Final Prayer ------------------- Jesus is Buried.


Once again it is obvious that the 'extra' group of seven (=fourteen) pieces of the puzzle in the Last Supper Account was intended from square one, not the result of inadvertant duplication or addition by a later editor.

Epilogue is really a Pseudo-Epilogue!

Finally, for the epilogue, once again we see that the critic's proposal breaks up the pattern of sevens here in the Resurrection section too, again failing to take account of the unity of the ending as we actually have it now. Although the last chapter gives the surface appearance of an addition, in fact it is also (just like the other sections) an integral part of the gospel in the final form it has been given to us.

It doesn't simply break off, as though it were thoughtlessly tacked on in the first place. We have already noted its deep connection to chapters six and seven in its allusions to bread and fish.