Previously Unconsidered Evidence for John 8:1-11

[Nazaroo]

Yeay! Woohoo!

Just added up the hits on the John 8:1-11 threads:

Here: 2786+1214+569=4669 HITS!

on xwalk: 603+

Theol.Online: 1801+ =2404 HITS!

Totals: 7073 HITS for John 8:1-11!

What does it mean?
Allowing generously for duplicate hits, and subtracting 1,500, we have 5,500+ left over!

That's right:
the Lord has fed 5000 internet surfers with a mere 12 verses of Gospel,
and there are baskets of Holy Scripture left over from the gatherings!

AMEN AMEN

 

[Nazaroo]

Bultmann's treatment of chapter 8 of John's Gospel is especially interesting and enlightening,
...not least from a psychological point of view.

Out of 60 whole verses, Bultmann leaves us with a mere 12. He leaves intact about the same amount as previous critics were willing to remove from the entire chapter (namely the pericope de Adultera). Note: that in itself was up to then the largest single excision ever attempted against the entire NT. But Bultmann outstrips them all.

A subsequent 100 years of post-mortem examination have failed to show any objective, or at least empirical difference between chapter 8 and any other chapter of John. Why then is this particular chapter subjected to this brutal mutilation and indignity?...

The Infamous Seam between 7:52 and 8:12...

What is of special interest to us of course is how yet another textual critic has assessed and attempted to cope with the seam created by tearing out the Pericope de Adultera from its normal position.

We noted previously that even Hort was obliged to offer 5 pages of 'apology' and rationalization for the 'seam' created by attempting to join the two halves of John back together directly after the removal of John 7:53-8:11, in his Introduction.

Now yet another critic shows himself wholly unsatisfied with the results of the critical application of the TEXTUAL evidence:

The first thing to go for Bultmann is 8:12, "I am the Light of the World."
Of course it seems preposterous to Bultmann, (and practically everyone else of perception,) that Jesus can hardly have stood up smugly announcing this, after leaving His enemies and the crowd dangerously divided in 7:52. Even Dodd, who follows the critic's text, is embarrassed by the 'lack of connection' between the two halves after the smoke has cleared.

But now Bultmann is just as unhappy with the next bit, 8:13. Again he tears off a strip from the second half of John, this time bigger (8:13-20).

And again Bultmann cannot find any way to join back the two halves! But like a one trick pony or a Pavlovian dog, Bultmann cannot stop. He tears away yet another massive chunk out of chapter 8: (8:21-29). And yet once more, Bultmann is unable to sew back up the patient (or victim). Still he can't make ends meet:

Now a 4th organ is removed from the abdomen of John; 8:30-40! At last Bultmann feels he can now stitch the halves back together. But has he really solved the problem, or is he just giving up in despair? It seems that he somehow senses that this process cannot possibly go on forever, and still hope the patient will survive in any recognizable form, to enjoy quality of life.

Still, like a stubborn man trying to fix his own car, he continues to remove parts he doesn't understand, hoping that it will still start up smoothly in the end. All he has left now is 8:41-59. But even this last piece fails to fit gracefully to 7:52. So it must be operated upon twice more, removing 8:48-50, and 8:54-55. Thankfully, Bultmann is now snipping out smaller bits of flesh, apparently adjusting his surgery to the dwindling size of the remainder.

In the end, we are left with a paltry 12 verses of chapter 8 to hold together the two great halves of the Gospel.

The lawn is covered with rather large engine parts: transmissions, manifolds, waterpumps, carburetors...does anyone think the car will actually start now?

It doesn't take a genius to see that Bultmann, for all his cleverness, is suffering from the 'one-dimensional thinking' that Spock and Kirk noted in "Star Trek II: the Wrath of Kahn". First, he continues to tear away in a single direction using only one technique, even after this repeatedly fails him again and again.

Why not tear chunks off of the previous section, 7:45-52?

Why not try a different technique or method, if this one continues to fail?

These are the questions we would have liked to have asked Bultmann BEFORE he rushed to publish.

 

[Nazaroo]

Obviously Bultmann is no mere scoffer.

He is a man who has profoundly wrestled with the Gordian knot that is the Gospel of John. Unfortunately, like Alexander before him, his only solution was to hack it to pieces. This time however, far more subtlety of technique is required. Real profound puzzles cannot be solved by Alexander's methods, any more than one could put back together the silky cable of the Gordian knot after the Emperor had slashed it to bits.

Unlike the patriarch Jacob, Bultmann has not won his wrestle with the angel in any convincing manner. At the end of the day, the Gospel of John, like one of the Two Witnesses of Revelation, has simply stood up and walked away intact.

That there are profound problems and puzzles surrounding John and his methods of composition there is no doubt; but they will have to await more advanced and sophisticated methods than those of Bultmann.

 

[justified]

I betchya I'm responsible for about 1/4 of your hits

 

[Nazaroo]

I betchya I'm responsible for about 1/4 of your hits

My biggest hit of course was 'Love Me Tender'. But that was another adventure.

Only you and the Lord may know for sure, whether directly or indirectly:

As Kirk once said to Spock, "Sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many."

I am still learning not to begrudge praying for you.
As the proverbs say, "iron sharpens iron,
and two friends, like rough stones, rub each other smooth."

 

[Nazaroo]

It is rather an anti-climax to note that Bultmann, a product of his 19th century German culture, was a plodding, myopic victim of his blinkered sequential approach. But this alone cannot really explain the fiasco of chapter 8.

A more modern psychological analysis reveals a more recently discovered principle at work:
the "subway litter" effect. This is the principle behind the old adage, "one man breaks the ice, and everybody else chisels in."

It has been noticed time and again that if a subway or train platform is kept clean, people will hesitate to litter there. That is, no one wants to be the first to drop a conspicuous piece of garbage in a public place, leaving an eyesore and provoking 'herd' disapproval. Yet within minutes of one piece of garbage being dropped, the platform will soon virtually fill with garbage of all kinds, from candy wrappers to newspapers.

Once a (perceived) majority of critics had ejected the Pericope de Adultera, the snowball effect reached a zenith. From this point on, critics felt free to mutilate the Gospel of John in any manner they pleased. The apparent weave, "all of a piece", seemed to have been proven to be a myth after all. The Achilles' heel had been found, and the armour had been shattered.

This factor weighed so heavily upon Bultmann's mind in dealing with chapter 8, that he seems to have lost all self-control and scientific detachment in the matter.

The result was neither pretty, nor scientifically defensible.

In Bultmann we see a man, continuously frustrated with the difficulties of the text, and with the only familiar tool , a pair of scissors, he speedily cuts the Gospel into jigsaw pieces which he hopes his intellect and intuition will allow him to rearrange in a manner less offensive to his 19th century existential philosophy.

The experiment fails, and Bultmann is unable to justify his assault.

 

[Nazaroo]

Although Bultmann's hack and slash through the jungle of chapter 8 could not be called any kind of victory, it may after all have had some kind of cathartic effect upon his temper and methodology.

After resting his razor throughout chapter nine, he finds energy for one last burst of jigsaw-making. Yet without reason once again, he applies his effort locally only.

If other parts of John can have been removed and placed at opposite ends the gospel entirely, Bultmann gives us no explanation at all why these particular parts should only be shuffled within the chapter itself. Surely John's rearrangement plans stretched beyond the range of a single chapter, even though the actual divisions were invented long after the age of apostles, according to Bultmann.

But the answer we fear lies rather in the fatigue of the great textual theologian of the 19th century, than in the probabilities engaged by the content.

Now Bultmann, perhaps more wisely than before, becomes less ambitious, and merely chops the chapter into five easy pieces, playing the 'three-cup shuffle' with three out of five.

The reader by this point is so grateful that the contortions are relatively minor, that they are almost willing to just let them go, and hope nothing is too bent out of place when the pieces come to rest.

Still the nagging question is after all, why?

 

[Nazaroo]

The first thing Bultmann does is break apart the last great paragraph of John 10, extending from 10:22 to 42. (the last third of the chapter).

This Bultmann seizes upon this piece as the casing or outer garment for all the earlier dialogue and exchange: Accordingly, he takes the last paragraph and separates it at the junction between v26 and v27.
All the rest of chapter 10 will be placed inside this cocoon between 26 and 27 like a carefully arranged Japanese Garden.

For the first half however, he does not follow the obvious cut between v21 and v22, but instead snaps off the first piece sooner, at v19.

Seamless reconstruction Resembles Painless Dentistry...

Already we are dismayed, since once again, rather than discovering and correcting or healing any real or apparent 'seams', he has actually created three new ones! (v9:41/10:1, v26/27 and v18/19: The count is now far beyond the original half-dozen or less, objectively discernable in the conventional John.)


A Seam to End all Seams...

The section 10:19-21 he treats as the connection to the previous segment, the incident concerning the blindness of the Pharisees in comparison to the man given sight (9:39-41).

If we are stunned by this first connection, we should be: Now Bultmann has the crowds saying






"He (Jesus) has a demon, and is insane!" (v20) as a result of His famous (and we thought quite reasonable) statement:

"If you were blind, you would have no sin: but now you say 'we see.' therefore your sin remains!" (9:41).






​

While this new connection is so jarring and disconcerting as to make our teeth grind, apparently it makes good logical sense to Bultmann with his Higher German existential glasses.

But how does it compare to what we already had between chapter 9 and 10? Originally, Jesus, unimpressed with the Pharisees self-evaluation, had criticized them in 9:41, and immediately followed up with a murky parable (implying they were not His sheep...). He then as usual expounds upon the parable for those able to understand. Later, Jesus refers back to this veiled insult in 10:26:
"...you are not of My sheep, as I (already) said unto you." (Jn 10:26)

Yet now in the Bultmannian version it has no previous reference at all, since it has been placed at the beginning with 10:19-26, and becomes the first time Jesus ever mentions sheep! This of course makes Jesus look like an idiot or a liar, or at least now the Gospel appears to have yet another missing referent, at least as bad as the one in 11:2! (there Mary is mentioned as the one who annointed Jesus *before* John has actually told us the story, which doesn't happen till 12:1.).




The Essential Content in its New Form:

But these are only the preliminaries. More important than how Bultmann's rearrangement joins (or fails to join) the rest of the Bultmannian Gospel, how does the new chapter 10 hold up as a unit in itself?

 

[Nazaroo]

Using verses 19-26 as an introduction, (and stealing the first half of Jesus' shorter summary speech given an indeterminate length of time later, in the winter at the Feast of Dedication), Bultmann manages to have Jesus begin the whole discussion with the harsh and unsubtle announcement to all that:

"You do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I (formerly in some other gospel somewhere) said to you:"



​

Bultmann prefers that all modern readers be punched in the face with this sucker-shot before hearing any parables about doors or sheep. He doesn't want them assuming they *are* Jesus' sheep. This softens them up we suppose, so they'll be more receptive (?) to the teachings of the Angry New Jesus according to Bultmann.




Now Jesus announces,

"I am the Good Shepherd, who gives His life for the sheep..."




​

...After He has disavowed any attachment to all His hearers and readers! What sheep are these? Who cares, they clearly don't include the listener or reader. The New Jesus is describing His fantasy of an invisible group of followers we will never actually meet in Bultmann's gospel.

Now comes the description of the hirelings. This becomes the first half of the Parable of the Sheepfold Door, so we have verses 11-13 and 1-10 forming a new unit, the 'Super Parable' which blends and confuses the uncaring hireling with the bandit who enters the Sheepfold without using the Gate. One has to be onguard to keep all the characters straight.

In the old John, Jesus talked about robbers attempting to enter the sheepfold by bypassing the Door, aimed at the Pharisees, a very apt metaphor.
Later, Jesus talks to His disciples about 'shepherds' who as hirelings don't care for the sheep. An entirely different message, but one again appropriate for the actual audience addressed. Separate messages for separate groups.

But apparently to Bultmann verses 11-13 are opaque, and must be 'parable-like' enough to be part of 1-5. They cannot be allowed to be part of the explanation of the parable which follows in verses 7-18.

Here thankfully, we can experience Jesus giving the rest of the parable (v1-5), and after suitable pause in v6-7, we can try to imagine Jesus is now talking to His disciples (true sheep?), although this illusion will soon be shattered.

The main explanation of the parable continues in the right order (minus v11-13), and manages to survive with minor wounds.

But now follows the last half of the speech to the unbelieving Judaeans (v27-31), as though Jesus had just given His explanation of the parable to them! The New Jesus ends his exposition with a claim regarding Divinity, which invokes the threat of a stoning!

The explanation of the parable, so carefully separated from the altercations with the Judaeans in the standard gospel, now has no receptive audience of believers to receive it. Instead the Judaeans are given credit, both for hearing the 'secret explanation' Jesus normally gives only to His own disciples, but also for rejecting it *after* understanding it.

The result is a version of the Gospel completely alien to the way Jesus was known to conduct business, (cf. Mark 4:10-12! ) and in which the regular Gospel of John was in perfect harmony.

Once again, the determined Higher German Critic has achieved with a hammer what could have been better handled by a clean pair of silk gloves.

He has perceived there is much that is magical and peculiar about John's text, but has failed to operate upon it with the right tools.

The result was predictable.

The Klein bottle is the perfect symbol of the mysterious and perplexing properties of the Gospel of John. It was invented by a true German genius, the great mathematician Felix Klein, to illustrate the topological idea of a surface with only one side.

The Broken Klein Bottle is also an apt symbol; of what happens when someone with less genius than John attempts to improve his work.

 

[Nazaroo]

A detailed examination of Bultmann's work upon John has revealed obviously that he is not working according to conventional standards and concepts, like historical or cultural plausibility. No proper rational account of the imagined evolution of the Gospel of John is offered.

Nor should we expect one. Bultmann is not a Biblical critic after all, certainly not a textual critic or dry scholar.

Through the slices and shuffles, the imaginative reconstructions, the gatherings of 'like and alike', the leaps from island to island of isolated artificial floats, a picture of the real Bultmann begins to emerge.

And of course we should have expected that the handling of John's Gospel would tell us more about Bultmann than about John, in the end.



And hints of his true identity have teased and prodded us from the beginning.
The spirit of Bultmann is the spirit of Picasso.

 

[Nazaroo]

As we view Jesus through the shattered kaleidoscopic lens of Bultmann, we actually come to appreciate his work in spite of ourselves.

For Bultmann has unintentionally done us a great service, whether we be Gospel of John fans, or simple Christians.

In order to defend something well, you have to both love it and know it, so that you can do so accurately and enthusiastically.

Bultmann's challenge has given us two great gifts:

(1) We have discovered just how much of the authentic historical Jesus can shine through the most damaged copy of John. It was as if we had all the pages, and on the way to the binder stumbled and fell in the wind. We may have put the unnumbered sheets together as best as we could, but some flaws remain. Yet still Jesus is able to shine a guiding light out to us through even the dimmest candle.

(2) We have been forced to learn and appreciate exactly why many initially puzzling features of John must remain just as they are. There is an invisible net which binds John together tighter than any superficial sketch of the landmarks could ever indicate. And this magical net includes the Pericope de Adultera.

 

[Nazaroo]

While it can be a thrilling and educating adventure to explore the wild shenanegans of textual critics and theologians, for those of us with the strength of faith and loyalty to do so without harm, it is still good to come back home again to a place where our well-placed faith can rest.

When all is said and done, as fun as excursions into Neverland can be, we are more grateful than ever that we possess a clear and coherent picture in the traditional Gospel of John, far superior to the imagination of the average theologian.

In the traditional John we have the greatest vision of Jesus ever recorded. This Jesus was high above the cleverest theologian, and more concise than the stogiest textual critic. Here we find a king worthy of the title Lord of Lords, a purity and primitive expression that makes plain the conflict with establishment 'religion', and presents anew the concentrated Word of God.

In the traditional Gospel, we find the authentic Messiah sought by sincere Israelites such as Nathaniel. With Peter we discover the life-giving words that sanctify and save us from ourselves and the world. In John we are confronted with the face of the Father, and find mercy and truth combined with a creativity that can only have come from their source. We discover Paul's eternal proclamation:

"My mercy is sufficient even for you." (2 Cor 12:9)



​

And what can any clever theologian's machinations offer in place of this?



Pericope de Adultera Vindicated:

What we *can* understand from a careful examination of Bultmann, is that the reconnection of 7:52 with 8:12 after violent removal of the Pericope de Adultera (7:53-8:11) is so jarring, even to the enemies of this passage, that they feel compelled to frantically continue mutilating, in the vain hope that whatever is left will somehow fit together.

Yet we should as Christians understand the gravity of the attack.

Christianity as we know it stands or falls with the Gospel of John. That is why it is the focus of the most energetic attack from all sides by the enemies of Christ, whether they be calculating, unwitting, or simply witless. This is a Spiritual battle, and the recognition of the Only True Shepherd by those desperately needing salvation is at stake. Christians must be ever vigilant to know their faith thoroughly and defend it vigorously and clearly for those literally dying of thirst for the Word of the Lord.

In a world desperately in need of the love of God, John is a towering Lighthouse pointing the Way. In spite of its detailed description of the violent clash between the Messiah and the religious authorities, or perhaps because of it, John's message is the strongest and truest expression of the Gospel of the Love of God and the New Covenant open to all people that has ever been written.

Let us not abandon it so easily to the whims of self appointed critics who lack a real understanding of the purpose of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ, Son of God and Lord of Creation.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Nazaroo asked me to post this here, as narrative criticism fits this topic better than the one on textual criticism:

While many textual critics have argued that the vocabulary in the passage is more Lukan than Johannine, I would like to point out that the narrative structure is more Johannine than Lukan. Stories in Luke's gospel generally contain all the available details unless they are uncomplimentary. The POV is usually that of a disciple or observer, rather than of a character in the story. One of the most common questions asked about this pericope is, "What did Jesus write?" If the passage were Lukan, one would expect that detail to be filled in, if known.

However, John's narratives are generally written from the POV of the person having the saving encounter with Jesus. Details known to this person are included, even when omitted from other gospels' versions of the same event, and details not known to this person are omitted, even when other gospels record them. So why would the pericope refer to Jesus writing, but not refer to what he wrote? If the story is told from the woman's POV, she would most likely be illiterate, although the disciples and the Pharisees were most likely literate. Whatever Jesus wrote was not meant for the woman, would not have been known by her at the time of the encounter, and therefore would not be recorded if the typically Johanninine narrative style is being followed.

Narrative criticism favors the pericope being Johannine.

 

[Nazaroo]

I am delighted to have the question of the Point of View (POV) of the narrative in John raised, and also how the content of each section seems to offer clues as to the source of the testimony. This is a very important topic for analysis, and I am already noting such evidence in several passages.

At this preliminary stage, I would like to make the following notes:

(1) This does NOT mean that John (the author) was 'emulating' or synthesizing the effect of a character-eye-view, as a modern novelist or fiction writer would. That kind of inventive writing would have to wait another 1900 years.

(2) Instead, what John seems to have done is taken the eye-witness accounts of those around him in the Christian community who were still living, and converted them 'as-is' into a 3rd person story, in the process of arranging the separate accounts to produce a narrative. This anticipates the function of a newspaper reporter or historian. This methodology and genre of writing was in existance long before John's Gospel was written.



As an example of 'reverse engineering' this process, let me present a possible form the Pericope de Adultera might have been given to John in:

"They (the scribes and Pharisees) brought me to Jesus in the temple, and set me in the midst, and they said,
"This woman was caught in the act, commiting adultery! Moses in the law commanded that such a one be stoned (to death); what do you say?"
But this they said to trap Him, so they might have something to accuse Him of (I overheard them plotting!).
But Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground with His finger. And when they continued pressing Him, he rose up and said,
"Let the innocent one among you cast the first stone!"
And then He bent down again and wrote on the ground. And those who heard, being convicted, left, beginning from the oldest, right to the last.
And Jesus was standing alone, and I was standing in the middle. And when Jesus rose up, and saw only me, he said to me,
"Woman, where are those, your accusers?
Did no one condemn you?"
And I said, no one Lord!
And Jesus said to me,
"Neither do I judge you: go and sin no more.".


​

It is easy to see just how very little John would have to change to convert the account into a 3rd-person narrative for his Gospel.

It will be interesting to see how other segments convert back into 1st person accounts.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I am delighted to have the question of the Point of View (POV) of the narrative in John raised, and also how the content of each section seems to offer clues as to the source of the testimony. This is a very important topic for analysis, and I am already noting such evidence in several passages.

At this preliminary stage, I would like to make the following notes:

(1) This does NOT mean that John (the author) was 'emulating' or synthesizing the effect of a character-eye-view, as a modern novelist or fiction writer would. That kind of inventive writing would have to wait another 1900 years.

(2) Instead, what John seems to have done is taken the eye-witness accounts of those around him in the Christian community who were still living, and converted them 'as-is' into a 3rd person story, in the process of arranging the separate accounts to produce a narrative. This anticipates the function of a newspaper reporter or historian. This methodology and genre of writing was in existance long before John's Gospel was written.



As an example of 'reverse engineering' this process, let me present a possible form the Pericope de Adultera might have been given to John in:

"They (the scribes and Pharisees) brought me to Jesus in the temple, and set me in the midst, and they said,
"This woman was caught in the act, commiting adultery! Moses in the law commanded that such a one be stoned (to death); what do you say?"
But this they said to trap Him, so they might have something to accuse Him of (I overheard them plotting!). ​

Now I guess we're back to a textual issue. I think this is a narrator's comment inserted later. There are several comments about a person's manner or motivation in this pericope that appear in some MSS but not others, and at different places in different MSS.

While I agree with you that most Johannine narratives can easily be converted to the first person, I believe this one has some editorial comments inserted. Another variant inserts a comment "as if he didn't hear" after saying he wrote on the ground.

I think the evidence is pretty good that this pericope was originally a first-person account, but I'm not so sure she heard them plotting. It's plausible, but there are other plausible interpretations of the narrative, if all the narrator's commentary is omitted. I've read an article or two about this. I remember disagreeing with one author's conclusion about what was going on, but seeing that omitting all the narrator's comments about what people were thinking or their mannerisms did solve a lot of the intra-textual problems.​

 

[Nazaroo]

Excellent points here:

Now I guess we're back to a textual issue. I think this is a narrator's comment inserted later. There are several comments about a person's manner or motivation in this pericope that appear in some MSS but not others, and at different places in different MSS.

An important aspect of the textual evidence of variants is that they all crop up in late (recent) manuscripts. This is not just a reflection of the fact that most manuscripts are late, or even that most manuscripts containing the pericope are late.

It is rather a reflection of relatively busy scribal and editorial activity. This activity was exhaustively documented by Von Soden, who showed that the majority of the variants, and even the two dominant versions of the text in the Middle Ages were a result of the text being deleted and re-inserted repeatedly during a period late in the pericope's history where the controversy about their inclusion had arisen again.

This second outbreak of omissions, or rather the failed attempt at excision of the verses is the source of the majority of variants. The reason is simple. On multiple occasions the pericope was re-inserted from the Lectionary texts, which contain a more modernized (for the period) paraphrase of the version designed for public reading on certain saint's days.

While I agree with you that most Johannine narratives can easily be converted to the first person, I believe this one has some editorial comments inserted. Another variant inserts a comment "as if he didn't hear" after saying he wrote on the ground.

The problem here is a circular one, and requires careful treading and parsing. Some of the best evidence that John's stories come from eyewitness accounts are just these "interpolations" which can alternately be explained, perhaps far better, as comments from the informant for the story.

In case I misled you by my oversight (omission) of this phrase, "as if he didn't hear" I want to state now I also believe it to be original and authentic. I haven't yet started the planned thread on the reconstruction of the text of the passage, but this will follow shortly.

I think the evidence is pretty good that this pericope was originally a first-person account, but I'm not so sure she heard them plotting. It's plausible, but there are other plausible interpretations of the narrative, if all the narrator's commentary is omitted.

I've read an article or two about this. I remember disagreeing with one author's conclusion about what was going on, but seeing that omitting all the narrator's comments about what people were thinking or their mannerisms did solve a lot of the intra-textual problems.

I would be delighted if you could find either the articles or a link to them, or quote some of their points in detail.

My problem with this approach is that I have seen it all too often. So many problems are "easily solved" by deleting the passage, clause, phrase, or word that has 'caused' the problem.

I would prefer to explore all other avenues first.

 

[Nazaroo]

There is an interesting extra dimension to the question of the Pericope in its present context:

A summary of the external and internal evidence is presented by Harris. [12] However, other important internal evidence has been neglected. Harris states that Jesus was in a “double blind” situation:

“If he upheld the Law and commanded that the woman be stoned, they could bring accusation before Pilate (since the death penalty was not permitted to the Jewish authorities), and this could be combined with the popular acclamations of him as King. If, on the other hand, he overturned the Law, he would be discredited with the people.”

While this observation is true it does not do justice to the context of the chapter which concerns the legitimacy of Christ. The adultery situation was intended to highlight the ambiguity surrounding Jesus’ origins. If he forgave the woman he would be accused of ulterior motives (you forgave her because your own mother committed fornication cf. 8:41) on the other hand condemnation of the woman would result in a charge of hypocrisy. The pericope should not be seen as a literary intrusion for it exactly fits the theme of the chapter. We can only speculate as to why it was omitted from some manuscripts, perhaps for liturgical reasons, or possibly it was only added at a later stage (after Mary’s death, in order to spare her feelings). [13] Whatever the reason for its absence in certain manuscripts it is obviously thematically integral to the text.

http://www.biblaridion-online.net/zine-online/zine05q4/bibzine05q4_f2.html

I have highlighted in red the 'extra dimension' to the question of double jeopardy or entrapment above.

 

[Nazaroo]

It would not do to abandon the discussion of the 'two edition' theory of Anderson, or the wild rearrangements of Bultmann and Fortna et al., without taking a good hard look at the 21st chapter of John.

The fact is, unlike the many other propositions, the 21st chapter *does* have the appearance of an appendix or later addition to the Gospel. So it remains plausible that the Gospel, whether or not it was already in possession of early Christians throughout the Roman Empire, may have been updated or finalized by the authority and ready acceptance of early church leaders, causing all previous copies to be corrected or replaced, or allowed to wear out.

Yet when we examine the evidence provided by the 21st chapter in detail, it is perhaps not so surprising that it too has something to say about the issue of *other* edits, omissions, or additions to the body of the Gospel proper.

Recall that the Pericope de Adultera was rejected primarily on 'textual grounds', although the textual evidence is at best ambiguous, and cannot reach back far enough into the critical time-period.

The 21st chapter on the other hand, has NO textual evidence to support it as a 'later addition', but rather the entire case revolves around the *internal* evidence (the only compelling evidence for any serious addition or omission, by nature).


The absolute best analysis of the 21st chapter of John that I have come across is found in the book, The Resurrection Stories by Jerome Neyrey, (1988), as part of the 'Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament' series, (general editor, Mary Ann Getty RSM)

I will simply present Neyrey's findings in brief, without significant modification, to which I will add corrective insights and expanded notes of my own.

 

[Nazaroo]

In discussing other Resurrection Appearances, Neyrey makes the following insights:

The accounts have three basic parts, each with a function.
For example, Luke 24:36-49:

1) Is Jesus a ghost? No. He eats food.(36-43, cf. Mark 5:43)

2) Jesus teaches about Himself from the Law & Prophets (44-46)

3) Jesus as Lord Commissions His Witnesses via the Holy Spirit (47-49)

Furthermore, in Luke, the Ressurrection Appearances are cast in the same structure as Jesus' Earthly Vocation and Call:

1. Intro Luke 1:26-27.............24:33-36a
2. Confrontation 1:28.............24:36b
....Reaction.......1:29.............24:37
....Reassurance .1:30.............24:38-40
3. Commission....1:31-33.........24:47-49
4. Objections.....1:34..............---------- (see Thomas cycles)
....Reassurance...1:35.............24:49
....Sign..............1:36.............--------
5. Conclusion......1:38.............24:50-53

Not everybody witnesses post-Ressurrection Appearances of Jesus. But those who do, achieve a special status both as eye-witnesses (2nd hand reports/hearsay are acknowledged as inadequate: Acts 1:21-22. Any vacancies must be filled by such eyewitnesses, both as to Jesus' earthly ministry and post-Ressurrection appearances.) and as early church leaders (official eyewitnesses) and apostolic preachers. Jesus Himself commissions them to witness, using the Holy Spirit, and this is passed on by laying on of hands.

The content of the post-Ressurrection Appearances is determined by these factors:

(1) The value and legitimacy of Jesus' message rests in His continuity with the past (fulfillment of O.T. Scriptures, and His earthly teachings.).

(2) Jesus opens the mind to understand. The Risen Jesus continues to preach the Gospel.

(3) The Messiah (Christ) must suffer. He shows His death is patterned after the fate of Israel's prophets: death leads to glory. His suffering and death are His entrance to glory, a process which also applies to His followers.

(4) Repentance, forgiveness of sins (uniquely and necessarily found only in Jesus), baptism, revelation, to ALL NATIONS is the core of the Gospel.

(5) The promise of power from above from the Holy Spirit, granting strength, guidance and Jesus-like status for apostles and prophets.

(6) In sum, the Risen Jesus is present and active in His church, He is the Saviour of all people, teaches the true meaning of the God's Word, and is Lord of God's Covenant Community.

(7) The church is to be an inclusive group, not just from all nations, but receiving sinners through repentance and forgiveness, and is still tended by Jesus. The church is in possession of God's Word, and is made Holy by the Holy Spirit, and is empowered and commissioned to boldly proclaim the Gospel.

This is the gist and function of essentially all post-Ressurrection Appearances of Jesus: to oversee, appoint and commission leaders, and continue the proclaimation of the Gospel.

 

[Nazaroo]

Now that we know what a 'normal' post-Ressurrection Appearance is supposed to look like, we can note what is special about John 21. And it certainly is!

What is being communicated in 21 is the relative importance of two respective leaders: Peter, and the Beloved Disciple.

Chapter 21 presumes that we know the whole text of John (1-20) and its characters, specifically, Peter and the Beloved Disciple.

Peter:

The synoptics state Peter was chosen first and made 'the Rock' of the church. But that's not how John tells it!
(1) In John, Peter is called 2nd,after Andrew, contradicting the synoptic tradition. Peter isn't even called by Jesus, but by Andrew. So John begins, and continues:

(2) The synoptics have Peter give the 'Great Confession', that Jesus is the Christ (Mk 8:29 etc) and Peter is even made charismatic leader for his insight. John's version is clearly weaker: The occasion is the abandonment of Jesus by many disciples, not their acknowledgement of Him as a prophet. Instead of being asked what they think of Jesus, Jesus asks, "Will you also go away?" (6:67) Peter timidly says, "To whom shall we go?" (6:68), and offers the ambiguous "Holy one of God" rather than the explicit "the Christ!" (6:69). This doesn't seem much stronger than Nicodemus' respectful comments.

Peter protests the footwashing, and Jesus responds condescendingly, "You don't know what I am doing now" (13:7). And in fact Peter was NOT ready for sacrifice, bold following (as the beloved disciple did) or fearless confession.

Peter also lacks special insider information, such as the i.d. of the traitor, and must depend upon the beloved disciple, who is truly an intimate insider with Jesus.

Beyond the first 'naming' of Peter as 'Kaifa' (Petros), John's gospel without chapter 21 paints a consistently poor picture of Peter.

Beloved Disciple:

In contrast, the Beloved Disciple is always in the know, bold and fearless in crisis, and an intimate companion to Jesus. Although the beloved disciple doesn't appear overtly until chapter 13, he is always favourably portrayed.

He has the most important secret knowledge (who the traitor is), he boldly follows Jesus right into the High Priest's house, and stands at the cross, unafraid to be publicly associated with the condemned Jesus. Jesus declares him 'brother' and bonds him to His own mother.

On Easter morning the beloved disciple is still upstaging Peter: he runs faster, arrives first, sees and believes (20:8). These actions and insights are never granted to Peter.

The beloved disciple, not Peter, remains faithful, is at the cross, sees and believes again.

Are Peter and the Beloved Disciple rivals? certainly they are deliberately contrasted in John.

John 21:

In John chapter 21 they are compared and contrasted once again!

But this time on every point, Peter is uplifted and restored (or elevated) to the position he has in the synoptics and the early church. John 21 then, corrects the Gospel, and brings it in line with the Apostolic churches, especially Rome, reflecting a time when Peter was acknowledged as a preacher and founder, and perhaps also martyr.

In John 21, the Risen Jesus then restores (or raises) Peter to the position of Shepherd of the Flock - a bold apologetic move, but one reflecting later times (post-Acts, post-Paul).

The Kicker:

But this obvious circumstance just as loudly asserts something about the REST of John: John chapters 1-20 reflects an EARLIER period before Peter's post-Ressurrection experience, before his rise to the leadership of the church in Rome, and before there was any knowledge of his martyrdom and subsequent status and veneration.

Which is to say that John (without the last chapter) is OLD. Probably older than Luke-Acts, likely older than Matthew, and possibly as old as Mark.

And in fact, the evidence all points to John's seeming ignorance and independance of the synoptics as most easily explained by the fact he wrote his gospel first, from first-hand accounts of living eye-witnesses. That is precisely how sections like 6:66-71 read. They are primitive accounts that have escaped the influence of later church dogma concerned with establishing apostolic authority, as the synoptics obviously contain.