Previously Unconsidered Evidence for John 8:1-11

[LittleLambofJesus]

I believe it is simply a prophecy and announcement of judgement upon the Rulers/Priests of Jerusalem as shown in revelation, as Jesus only wrote in the dirt twice so It could be the first 2 messages written in Daniel 7?

John 8:6 [[This, however, they were saying, by way of testing him,--that they might have whereof to accuse him.]] But, Jesus, stooping down, with his finger, wrote in the ground. 7 When, however, they still continued questioning him, he lifted himself up and said [[unto them]]--He of you, that is without sin, let him first cast at her a stone; 8 and, again stooping down, he wrote in the ground.

Dan 5:5 In the same hour the fingers of a man's hand appeared and wrote opposite the lampstand on the plaster of the wall of the king's palace; and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. ................24 "Then the fingers of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written. 25 " And this is the inscription that was written: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. 26 "This [is] the interpretation of [each] word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it; 27 "TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; 28 "PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians."

Matthew 21:43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from youand given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

 

[Nazaroo]

I believe it is simply a prophecy and announcement of judgement upon the Rulers/Priests of Jerusalem as shown in revelation, as Jesus only wrote in the dirt twice so It could be the first 2 messages written in Daniel 7?

John 8:6 [[This, however, they were saying, by way of testing him,--that they might have whereof to accuse him.]] But, Jesus, stooping down, with his finger, wrote in the ground. 7 When, however, they still continued questioning him, he lifted himself up and said [[unto them]]--He of you, that is without sin, let him first cast at her a stone; 8 and, again stooping down, he wrote in the ground.

Dan 5:5 In the same hour the fingers of a man's hand appeared and wrote opposite the lampstand on the plaster of the wall of the king's palace; and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. ................24 "Then the fingers of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written. 25 " And this is the inscription that was written: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. 26 "This [is] the interpretation of [each] word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it; 27 "TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; 28 "PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians."​

This is an excellent connection, and one that can hardly be accidental. I had not put the three pieces together like this, but now that you have, it looks very tight. I especially like the explicit statement in Matthew, which otherwise must be left hanging.

 

[Nazaroo]

John Paul Heil has graciously made his excellent article on the internal evidence for John 8:1-11 available to us:

John Paul Heil on John 8:1-11

John Paul Heil is Professor of New Testament,
Curley Hall,
Catholic University of America,
Washington D.C.

Enyoy!

Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

A large part of our discussion here earlier in this thread was based upon a critical examination of Samuel Davidson's original negative evaluation of the passage because of 'internal considerations'.

Unfortunately, that material was previously difficult to find or inaccessable to most readers here. So I have posted the original section of Davidson's criticisms online here:

Samuel Davidson's 'internal' evidence against John 8:1-11 <--- this is in .pdf format!

Enjoy!

Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

Back in 2005 Peter attempted to open a thread on the internal evidence regarding the Pericope de Adultera at the following forum:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=126872

I quote the following from his 2nd post there (the thread was recently 'ressurrected' by Yuri Kuchinsky).

R. H. Lightfoot writes of "internal evidence": "This points even more strongly to the conclusion that the section was not part of the original text of John. Thus the character of the story and also the style and the vocabulary (e.g. the expressions 'the Mount of Olives' and 'the scribes', and the particles used) are more in keeping with the earlier gospels than with John; and certain resemblances to St. Luke's gospel are especially striking. Again, the opening words 7:53, 8:1,2 suggest agreement with the earlier tradition Mt. 21:17, Mk. 11:11,12,19,20,27, Lk. 21:37,38, 22:19, that during the days at Jerusalem the Lord left the city each evening, and returned next morning to the temple; but as this passage stands in John, the occasion is 'the feast of tabernacles' [7:2]; and a consideration of the immediate context on each side will show that the passage is ill adapted to its present position." (St. John's Gospel: A Commentary, p. 346)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E. C. Hoskyns writes: "The evidence of the tradition of the text is not the only ground for judging the passage to have been inserted into the text. At both ends the junction with what precedes and what follows is so awkward as to make it almost impossible that it could have belonged to the original narrative. Jesus is discoursing to the Jews at the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 37). viii. 1, however, presumes that the episode of Jesus and the Woman took place at the conclusion of the ministry immediately before the final Passover, when Jesus retired to the mount of Olives and returned each morning to the Temple (Mark xi. 11, 19, xiii. 3; Luke xxi. 37, xxii. 39). viii. 9 leaves Jesus entirely alone. viii. 12, however, presumes the crowd of Jews mentioned in vii. 40, to whom Jesus continues His discourse.

Not only are the joins almost intolerably awkward, but if vii. 53-viii. 11 be omitted the narrative runs perfectly smoothly. Moreover, the passage is marked by so large a number of variant readings (Plummer counts eighty variant readings in 183 words) that it would seem to have had a separate and uncertain textual tradition, which would be intelligible if it had had a wandering circulation and only found a disciplined home in the canonical gospels at a fairly late date.

Commentators also point out that the style and phraseology bring the passage within the orbit of the synoptic rather than the Johannine tradition. For example, the connecting particle but takes the place of the characteristic Johannine then, and neither the Mount of Olives nor the scribes are mentioned elsewhere in the gospel." (The Fourth Gospel, p. 565)

- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Leon Morris writes: "Note such things as the frequent use of DE/ instead of John's OU=)N; POREU/OMAI EI)S (v. 53) where JOhn prefers PRO/S (14:12, 28; 16:28, etc., though he uses EI)S in 7:35); O)/RQOU (v. 2) as in Luke 24:1, whereas John uses PRWI( (18:28; 20:1); LAO/S (v. 2) is used often in Matthew and Luke, but only occasionally in John, who prefers O)/CLOS; A)PO\ TOU= NU=N (v. 11) is not found in John, though it is frequent in Luke (Luke 1:38; 5:10, etc.). Stylistically the passage belongs with the Synoptics rather than with John." (The Gospel According to John, p. 779)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C. K. Barrett writes: "This verse [verse two] contains several points of contact with the Lucan writings, as follows. (a) )/ORQROS occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only at Luke 24.1; Acts 5.21. (b) PARAGI/NESQAI is a Lucan word (Luke 8 times, Acts 20; John 2 (including this verse); rest of the New Testament 7). (c) LAO/S is a Lucan word (Luke 37(36) times, Acts 48; John 3 (including this verse); the rest of the New Testament 56(55), of which 22 are in Hebrews and Revelation). (2) KAQI/SAS E)DI/DASKEN. Cf. Luke 4.20; 5.3 (KAQI/SAS . . . E)DI/DASKEN). In John 7.37; 10.23 Jesus stands.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brown writes of verse six: "They were posing this question to trap him. This is almost the same as the Greek of John vi 6 (see Note there). so that they could have something to accuse him of. Almost the same Greek is found in Lujke vi 7." (The Gospel According to John, vol. 1, p. 333)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Barnabas Lindars writes: "By a happy chance thsi fragment of an unknown work has been preserved in the MS. tradition of John. The fact that it is a piece of a more extensive collection is indicated by the first two verses, which appear to be the conclusion of another incident. The story itself tells how Jesus was able to deal compassionately with a woman, whose guilt rendered her liable to the death penalty. He neither condones her sin nor denies the validity of the law; nevertheless, he gives her an incentive to make a new start in life." (The Gospel of John, p. 305)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R. V. G. Tasker writes: "It may have been inserted here as an illustration of Jesus' words in viii. 15, I judge no man; or possibly to show that, while the Jews could not convict Jesus of sin (see viii. 46), Jesus could and did, particularly on this occasion, convict them. The mention of the mount of Olives would naturally account for its presence after Luke xxi. 38; and its insertion after JOhn xxi. 24 is evidence of the desire to keep it as an addition to the narrative of the four Gospels, even though the scribes were ignorant of where it should be inserted. Incidentally, the fact that these particular MSS placed it after xxi. 24 and not after xxi. 25 is some indication that this Gospel was once in circulation without verse 25, for it would have been somewhat unintelligent to insert a passage of this length between the two closing verses of the Gospel, but perfectly intelligent to add it as an appendix to the Gospel as a whole (see further the note on xxi. 25). (John, p. 111)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Barnabas Lindars [again] writes: "The general tone of the story has more in common with the Synoptic Gospels than with John. The motif of special concern for the outcast is reminiscent of Luke (7.36-50; 8.2; 15.1f. 19.1-10)." (The Gospel of John, p. 306)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Craig S. Keener writes: "If one responds that the later church wished to remove it because it felt that it condoned adultery or challenged androcentric bias, one wonders why other passages, such as Jesus ' encounter with the Samaritan woman, were not similarly excised; further, why 7:53-8:2 would be omitted along with 8:3-11." (The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 1, p. 735)

To be honest, all of my commentaries posit that the passage was interpolated.

Remember that, at this point, I've only checked those commentaries on the Gospel of John that I own. I still need to comb through the articles online and, more importantly, offline.

Among those articles that support authenticity:

Hodges, "Adultery." Hodges, Zane C. "Problem Passages in the Gospel of JOhn, Part 7: Rivers of Living Water--John 7:37-39" BSac 136 (1979):239-48.

Heil, "Story." Heil, John Paul. "The Story of Jesus and the Adulteress (JOhn 7,53-8,11) Reconsidered." Biblica 72 (1991): 182-91.

Heil, "Rejoinder." "A Rejoinder to 'Reconsidering "The STory of Jesus and the Audlteress Reconsidered."'" Eglise et theologie 25 (1994): 361-66.

[I have posted both of these articles on the new website. - Nazaroo]

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

I will comment on the alleged 'internal evidence' offered by these commentaries shortly.

 

[Nazaroo]

R. H. Lightfoot (St. John's Gospel: A Commentary, Oxford 1956/60, reprinted /83, p. 346)

"...the style and the vocabulary (e.g. the expressions 'the Mount of Olives' and 'the scribes', and the particles used) are more in keeping with the earlier gospels than with John; and certain resemblances to St. Luke's gospel are especially striking...."

Let's start with 'Mount of Olives'.

Suppose we embrace the common opinion among textual critics that John wrote last. (...we are not conceding this, only seeing what the implication is.) If so, it would be absurdly improbable to claim that John had no knowledge of at least one Synoptic Gospel.

John virtually quotes Mark's story (as Luke does) of the feeding of the 5000 and the Walking on Water incidents (John 6). We may also note the driving out of the money-changers and oxen, the anointing of Jesus' feet, and the many 'asides' in John which presume the reader's inside knowledge of gospel details not explicitly given by John.

Thus it would be extremely difficult to believe John would not have known the name of the 'Mount of Olives', the scene of habitual camping and even the betrayal of Jesus.

We now know that John had intimate knowledge of geography in and around Jerusalem, although he hardly mentioned those details unless related to his narrative.

Many such places in John are 'hapax legomena', that is, only mentioned once. There is no need or reason to expect John to mention the Mount of Olives repeatedly.

If we do insist John wrote last, it would be awfully difficult to deny John's awareness of a large section in Luke that is more blatantly 'Johannine' than 'Lukan', namely Luke 10. Here we find such Johannine gems as,

"The harvest is truly great, but the laborers few..." (Luke 10:2 f),

"He that hears you hears Me, and he that despises you despises Me, and he that despises me despises Him (the Father) who sent Me!" (Luke 10:16)
​

and the virtual crescendo:

"All things are delivered to Me by My Father: and no man knows who the Son is, if not the Father; and who the Father is, if not the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him!" (Luke 10:22)
​

If John truly did write last, he must have been greatly inspired by these words. Either John was thoroughly familiar with this part of Luke in particular, or else they independantly used the very same 'earlier gospel' sources.

If so, calling 'Mount of Olives' a Synoptic expression unlikely to have been known or used by John is simply idiocy.

But now let us consider the shocking thought that LUKE WROTE LAST. Luke practically says as much in his own introduction, freely admitting his use of 'earlier sources'.

And here is a perfect example of such a case. Portions of Luke 10 are so 'UN-Lukan' and so Johannine that they must have come from the same early source - the Johannine community, if they weren't virtually directly lifted out of John's Gospel by way of acknowledgement and tribute to the intimate teachings of Jesus contained there.

That is, to be perfectly frank, the evidence really points to Luke having clear knowledge of John's Gospel, and his modest use of it reflects his awe of that unique document, and a natural timidity toward undue plagarizing of it.

If this is the case, not only are such things as 'Mount of Olives' possibly taken from John (c.f. Luke 11:44, 11:54 for more examples), but so also are explained such rare words as 'orthrou' (copied in Acts along with other strange parallels, also by Luke).

Again, the 'internal evidence' of Lukan origin for the Pericope de Adultera falls apart when we know Luke 'borrowed' from others (95% of Mark for example), and he wrote late, and he freely admits his creative editorial activities.

Yes the similarity of many parts of John to Luke is 'especially striking'. But not surprising when we know Luke used John as a source.

 

[Nazaroo]

...and a consideration of the immediate context on each side will show that the passage is ill adapted to its present position." (St. John's Gospel: A Commentary, p. 346)

Can such a consideration even be evaluated as internal evidence against this passage? No. And why not?

Because John's Gospel is a disjointed roller-coaster ride from start to finish. It is clear even from a cursory examination that John never intended to present either a smoothly flowing seamless narrative, or even a chronological recounting of events.

From the opening slap in the face to followers of John the Baptist, where John himself denies he is the Christ, or even a typology of Elijah, to the cutting off of a slave's ear during the arrest, without any resolution, John is long and multitudinous series of jolts, bumps, slaps and kicks that never stops.

In fact, the one really bone-deep aspect of John's style seems to be the head-butt followed by a cold shower.

To expect the Gospel of John to 'flow smoothly' anywhere, is such a complete misreading of the object placed in their hands, that one must assume most commentators and critics were necessarily so stunned by the first drop-kick to the groin, that they were subsequently completely winded for the down-count, and missed the rest of the Gospel of John entirely, only waking up at the end.

Lets recount some of the shocking and jarring features of John:

(1) the shocking anouncement of a mysterious Preexistant Person who 'along with' God, created everything.

(2) the second shot to the head of the John-Baptist Movement, where Jesus' followers outbaptize him and He celebrates!

(3) The Opening 'Sign' of turning sacred Jewish washing pots into a stage for a booze-can and drinking party.

(4) The immediate attack upon the Temple, the cultic center of Judaism.

(5) The ridiculing of a friendly Religious Leader, open to Jesus' instruction.

(6) The First Stop, not Galilee, Judaea or even the Greek Diaspora, but the despised Samaritans, who receive the Gospel gladly, though not worthy.

(7) The First Healing, not of an Israelite, but on behalf of a Roman ruler of the occupying forces.

(8) the Healing of an admitted foolish sinner, and commanding him to 'break' the Sabbath in front of the religious hierarchy.

(9) the scathing monologue against 'Judeans' who hardly have a chance to respond positively.

(10) the leap to Galilee where 5000 are fed, then told they are shallow, selfish and stupid.

(11) the immediate monologue on 'bread' and the demand for 'cannibalism', so strong it even shocks Christian readers.

(12) the (understandable) abandonment of Jesus by most of His followers.

(13) Jesus' refusal to 'walk among the Judeans', followed by surprise appearances at the temple.

(14) Jesus's easy demonstration that the sabbath is 'broken' every time a Jewish boy is unfortunately born on a friday, because he must be circumcised on the Sabbath.

(15) The almost ludicrously vague way Jesus continually escapes arrest.

(16) Jesus' quoting of bizarre and hard to identify 'scripture', and the demand that Jesus be heard 'via the Law'.

No wonder textual critics are apparently too stunned to perceive the obvious ease and appropriateness with which the Pericope de Adultera settles into this context.

But if John hasn't managed to prepare the reader for some 'jarring' by the time he reaches chapter eight, what else could he have done in order to do so?

E. C. Hoskyns writes: Not only are the joins almost intolerably awkward, but if vii. 53-viii. 11 be omitted the narrative runs perfectly smoothly.

From what we have already noted:

If you hear someone say a phrase like "the narrative runs perfectly smoothly" in regard to John's Gospel, there are only two real options. Either you are listening to Oscar Wilde, and have missed a punchline, or you are listening to a mind so dull that it would class chess and football as similar sports.

We may only note in passing that the (perhaps oversensitive) Bultmann found so many seams in John he had to make over 180 cuts and rearrangements. At least Bultmann was awake, no matter how ill-equipped he was to cope with John.

 

[Nazaroo]

...For example, the connecting particle but (de) takes the place of the characteristic Johannine then, (oun) and neither the Mount of Olives nor the scribes are mentioned elsewhere in the gospel." (The Fourth Gospel, p. 565)

This is another one of those cases where an 'expert' sounds so reasonable and obviously right, that we might actually feel guilty asking for some supporting evidence, or resent anyone arrogant enough to challenge the respected professor.

And yet we are obligated by scientific principles of verification to check.

Opening the standard critical Greek text (UBS for instance, or Hodges & Farstad), we make a count of the three most popular connecting particles in John's Gospel in a few roughly equivalent places:



----------------------------------------
John 5:1-11:

kai - eight times
de - four times
oun - once in verse 4.

Well, that doesn't look like John's style at all. Perhaps chapter 5 is also an addition.


John 6:1-11:

kai - five times
de - eight times!
oun - once in verse 5.


Uh oh, this is getting embarrasing: it looks like John is quite capable of long paragraphs without 'oun', regardless of the material covered.


John 7:1-11:

kai - six times
de - seven times.
oun - once in verse 5.

...No comment.

John 8:1-11:

kai - nine times
de - nine times
oun - once in verse 5.
---------------------------------------



You know, its annoying, but I can't see any difference in John's use of 'oun' anywhere in the Gospel.

Instead, what I do see is that John's use of 'de' (a softer connecting particle somewhere between 'and' and 'but') can fluctuate wildly, sometimes not appearing for long stretches, and at other times in a flurry of instances almost replacing 'kai'.


Is this any way to define John's writing style? No. That would be like defining the position of a pendulum by a few random snapshots.

Regarding Hoskyns' last point, I can only remark that the 'scribes' are the group of people responsible for the earliest copies of the gospels, before Christians could set up their own 'in house' copying scriptoriums. It hardly seems remarkable that the one passage casting the professional 'scribes' in a bad light has been removed from some copies of John.

On the other hand, why aren't the scribes mentioned anywhere else in John? Is it because the disputes with the scribes have been left out of John's sample stories of the ministry of Jesus entirely? Probably. Was this the intent of John, or a result of previous 'scribal' activities? We may never know!

Is it evidence that the passage is foreign to John? Hardly. Is it evidence that scribes can't be trusted to copy a gospel when it comes to scorning their own profession? Probably.

Someone might say, "Wait a minute Nazaroo, aren't the scribes criticized, mocked and 'woed' in the Synoptics?

Yes, but with an important difference: In the synoptics the scribes are not accused of framing a relatively innocent woman for a stoning, in a dirty plot to trap the Messiah.

They are rather involved in disputes over the law and its interpretation. The scribes did not have the same reason to fear those points of dispute, as they would rightly fear this open accusation of attempted murder.

 

[Nazaroo]

I just can't resist quoting this gem of a post from TC-Alternate-List:

> So here, for example, are two words that are mentioned by Willker in
> his PA study,
>
> http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf
>
> the words that you've unfortunately neglected to address,
>
> Jn 8:7 -- epimenw "to persevere" (used 6 times in Acts),
> Jn 8:7, Jn 8:10 anakuptw "to rise" (used 2 times in Lk)
>
> So here's Jn 8:7, with these two words,
>
> Jn 8:7
wV de _epemenon_ erwtwnteV auton _anakuyaV_ eipen proV autouV o
> anamarthtoV umwn prwtoV ton liqon ep auth baletw
>
8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said
> unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
> stone at her.
>
> Thus, here we have two apparent Lucanisms in just one verse of PA, and
> you've neglected to deal with them in your article.
>





Multiplying 'Lukanisms':

Willker's two examples of 'Lukanisms' here are pretty lame. Let's see why:


-------------------------------------------------------
(1) Jn 8:7 -- epimenw "to persevere" (used 6 times in Acts),


This is a common Greek word with a large entry in BAG, having been around long enough in ordinary speech to have both a literal meaning (stay, remain) ,and a 'figurative' or idiomatic meaning (persist [in], persevere) with Dative constructs, as here in John 8:7 and many other places in both the common literature (BAG cites a dozen or more examples in contemporary secular writings) and the New Testament.

For instance, Paul uses the word liberally and often figuratively, as in the following examples:

(Rom 6:1, 11:22,23)
"Shall we remain in sin that grace may abound?" (literal usage)

"...but toward you goodness, if you persevere in goodness:" (figurative)

(Col. 1:23)
"...if you persevere in the faith..." (figurative)

(1 Tim. 4:16).
"...take heed to the doctrine(s); remain in them" (literal)

Even Clement found the idiom handy. (2 Clem. 10:5).

Luke himself has a wide variety of idioms at his disposal and makes use of a half dozen similar words rather freely for reasons of style. A Lukanism? hardly. A Paulism? No. A Clementine idiom? When pigs fly.

Could John be ignorant or unaware of a key idiom used repeatedly by Christians everywhere to express critically important relationships to core Christian dogmas? Not unless he lived on another planet.

Verdict: Not the property of Luke, but the property of the common Koine Greek, and of the Christian community at large.


--------------------------------------------------------
Jn 8:7, Jn 8:10 anakuptw "to rise" (used 2 times in Lk)

Another common word with a plain and specific meaning (NOT "to rise", which is an English idiom commandeered for translation purposes).

The word simply means 'stand up', and this is the best rendering, with the clearest expression. It is NOT a synonym for 'rise up' or 'ascend' or any other of a half-dozen loaded theological expressions. Its again a simple instruction or description in contrast to 'sitting' or being 'bent over/hunched' (cf. Luke 13:11).

Once again, this is a word with a large and long history of comman usage, starting with the embarrassingly common case of its usage a half-dozen times per service in every Greek-speaking synagogue in the Roman Empire.

That is, if John ever attended a synagogue service in his long and coloured career, he would have heard this word used for 'stand up' possibly 200-500 times per year.

Could John have possibly known and used this word? I simply don't know. But I can guess.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/308

 

[Nazaroo]

Leon Morris writes: "
Note such things as the frequent use of de/ instead of John's oun;

poreuomai eiV (v. 53) where John prefers proV (14:12, 28; 16:28, etc., though he uses eiV in 7:35);

orqrou (v. 2) as in Luke 24:1, whereas John uses prwi( (18:28; 20:1);

laoV (v. 2) is used often in Matthew and Luke, but only occasionally in John, who prefers ocloV;

apo tou nun (v. 11) is not found in John, though it is frequent in Luke (Luke 1:38; 5:10, etc.).

Stylistically the passage belongs with the Synoptics rather than with John." (The Gospel According to John, p. 779)

Well, we already looked at 'de' versus 'oun' and came up empty.

In the next bit Morris apparently quotes Codex D, for a reading not found exactly as he has it anywhere else:

"poreuomai eiV (v. 53) where John prefers proV (14:12, 28; 16:28, etc., though he uses eiV in 7:35);"

But the real question is eiV versus proV , a different question entirely.

As Morris admits, not only is eiV found elsewhere, but proV is not an exact equivalent simply dependant upon John's diction or style. technically proV means 'to' in an entirely different sense than 'to' in sense of a proposed physical destination for a journey as in verse 53. This is an old and lame example culled from either Davidson (1848) or Hort (1896).

We have dealt with orqrou (v. 2) elsewhere, (see our commentary for an explanation for the special usage of this word by both John and Luke).

Again, laoV (v. 2) and ocloV are hardly synonyms, but each has its own technical meaning in the gospels, and both terms are familiar to all the evangelists. So we can hardly say that John 'prefers' ocloV. Again, it looks like he copies Davidson (1848).

Morris isn't being totally honest about the textual evidence either, when he states the following without hesitation or qualification:
apo tou nun (v. 11) is not found in John [elsewhere], though it is frequent in Luke (Luke 1:38; 5:10, etc.).

...because as a matter of fact, this is a significant variant in the manuscript transmission. (see our thread on Reconstructing the Text of John 8:1-11).

It may well be that this is a later 'harmonization' or assimilation to Lukan diction, introduced to the Lectionary stream by concerned scribes, but in any case, since it is from DIALOGUE, not narrative, it is hardly a strong argument for the 'diction' of the author of the passage, or unlkely to have been recorded by John.

We have to keep in mind that these short sayings of Jesus, made under dramatic circumstances are going to be among the most accurately remembered and recounted parts of Jesus' speech. That John would sacrifice accuracy here for his personal favourite diction seems strained to say the least.

Regardless, it cannot be an a priori assumption that John was incapable of recording simple and profound statements spoken by important people publicly in front of multiple witnesses.

So with Morris we really have 'something borrowed, something blue, something old,' and nothing new.

 

[Nazaroo]

C. K. Barrett writes: "This verse [verse two] contains several points of contact with the Lucan writings, as follows.

(a) orqroV occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only at Luke 24.1; Acts 5.21.

(b) paraginesqai is a Lucan word (Luke 8 times, Acts 20; John 2 (including this verse); rest of the New Testament 7).

(c) laoV is a Lucan word (Luke 37(36) times, Acts 48; John 3 (including this verse); the rest of the New Testament 56(55), of which 22 are in Hebrews and Revelation).

(2) kaqisaV edidasken . Cf. Luke 4.20; 5.3 kaqisaV ...edidasken In John 7.37; 10.23 Jesus "stands".

(a) orqroV We've seen this before...
(b) paraginesqai - admittedly more frequent in Luke, still it appears in John elsewhere. Are those also 'assimilations'?

(c) laoV is a Lucan word (not really, given its appearance twice more in John as noted).

(2) kaqisaV edidasken No doubt an expression popular with Luke, but hey, as Barrett notes, it appears almost as frequently in John elsewhere.

Most of these cases again are repeats of a few sad attempts at evidence. The examples just don't exhibit the required features to establish them as components of Luke's diction or even special vocabulary.

 

[Nazaroo]

Brown writes of verse six:

"They were posing this question to trap him.

This is almost the same as the Greek of John vi 6 (see Note there). so that they could have something to accuse him of.

Almost the same Greek is (also) found in Luke vi 7." (The Gospel According to John, vol. 1, p. 333)

Now I like Raymond Brown, but I have found in the past that he concedes far too much to the 'assured results' of 'modern' scholarship.

Here rather ambiguously, Brown has actually done us a favour: He has preemptively noted that the phrase that others have labelled a 'Lukanism' is also found in another place, namely the Gospel of John!

That other place (John 6:6) is not even a textual variant. That is, even the 'oldest and best' manuscripts are in unanimous agreement that this phrase is a part of John as we have it.

But one other interesting possibility must also be noted here: Luke could simply have borrowed the phrase from either place (John 6:6 or John 8:1-11), and probably has. That is, its not a 'Lukanism', but a 'Johannism' embedded in Luke.

 

[Nazaroo]

Barnabas Lindars writes: "By a happy chance this fragment of an unknown work has been preserved in the MS. tradition of John.

The fact that it is a piece of a more extensive collection is indicated by the first two verses, which appear to be the conclusion of another incident.

The story itself tells how Jesus was able to deal compassionately with a woman, whose guilt rendered her liable to the death penalty. He neither condones her sin nor denies the validity of the law; nevertheless, he gives her an incentive to make a new start in life." (The Gospel of John, p. 305)

Lindars may be happy, but I can't possibly be happy, believing that a 'fragment of an unknown work has been embedded in John by chance'.

Lindars praises the story, and tellingly notes that the first two verses (7:53-8:1) demonstrate clearly that it is indeed part of a continuous narrative...gee what narrative could that be?

But where are these commentators' heads at, that they could condone the 'chance addition of an unknown fragment' to a Holy Gospel of Scripture? Or even believe that such a 'chance' could occur?

Even Einstein quipped, "God doesn't play dice.". But apparently those less steeped in advanced physics feel there may be 'two Gods' at work: the God of the Bible (on Sundays), and the 'God of Chance' (for your horror-scope, and certain textual variants).

As a physicist I find the 'chance' theory of an addition to John to be the most ludicrous proposal yet:

That the largest single piece of scriptural variant, eleven whole verses, could in the manner of a doodle in the margin of some copy of John accidentally find its way into the Canon and go completely unnoticed for a thousand years.

Wow. And I thought the Lukan theory was implausible, but this sure is a beauty.


But Lindars isn't done embarrassing himself yet:

Barnabas Lindars [again] writes: "The general tone of the story has more in common with the Synoptic Gospels than with John. The motif of special concern for the outcast is reminiscent of Luke (7.36-50; 8.2; 15.1f. 19.1-10)." (The Gospel of John, p. 306)

Here is a man, so qualified and respected as to commend a publisher to granting him the priviledge of writing a commentary on Holy Writ, yet apparently not familiar enough with the very Gospel (John) he is commentating, as to recognise "the motif of special concern for the outcast (which) is reminiscent of JOHN" (Samaritan woman, Roman Ruler, the dispised cripple, the blind beggar, the cowardly Peter).

For some reason Lindars cannot find any connection between these half-dozen socially marginalized losers, and the adulteress.

His perception floors us.

 

[Nazaroo]

R. V. G. Tasker writes: "It may have been inserted here as an illustration of Jesus' words in 8:15, I judge no man; or possibly to show that, while the Jews could not convict Jesus of sin (see 8:46), Jesus could and did, particularly on this occasion, convict them. The mention of the mount of Olives would naturally account for its presence after Luke 21:38;

Tasker begins by showing us two more intimate connections between our passage and the rest of John's Gospel. Apparently it escapes him how such a 'foreign' passage floating about would magically have such strong attachments to its final place of rest.

He feels that the presence of "Mount of Olives" (obviously original to the story) adequately explains why a scribe would, overcome with a compulsion to insert a story of unknown origin into the Holy Word of the Lord would also choose Luke 21:38.


Three Crazy Scribes with the Exact Same Illness:

Let us picture the scenario demanded by the critics: Not one scribe, but TWO scribes on two separate occasions, unknown to each other, each suddenly felt compelled to insert a story into the Holy Gospels. So strongly did they feel this, that they actually carried out the operation, from different parts of the Empire.

Yet in the entire history of Gospel transmission (to give us a glimpse of how insanely rare just a single instance of this would be) this has never happened before, according to the extant manuscript evidence, interpreted by the same critics.

For the Ending of Mark can in no way be found even broadly similar. There, an ending is supposed to have been actually missing, demanding some kind of response. There is no 'gap' at John 7:53/8:12 according to the critics. Nor can one be found at Luke 21:38.

But not able to rest at TWO scribes infected with the same bizarre and irrational mental illness, Tasker invites us to presume THREE. A third maverick inserts the passage at the end of John. He too cannot know about the others, or surely he would have taken the extra step and followed one of them.

Understand why this is so 'fantastic' in the classical sense of 'ridiculously impossible': for the manuscripts and groups which show these three quirks are from entirely different parts of the manuscript stream of transmission. The 'Lukan' inserters appear to be from Italian descent, while the 'John' inserters are two different strands of Byzantine.

Yet though this passage (John 8:1-11) was known, and the need to insert it was felt all across the Empire, apparently no one ever discussed it, or even suggested a uniform plan for corrupting the Holy Scriptures with it. And no one protested, demanding the insertion be removed.

To prop up this theory of 'Intrinsic Improbability', the commentator naturally attempts to obscure the blatant evidence of at least one of the 'inserters':

...and its insertion after John 21:24 is evidence of the desire to keep it as an addition to the narrative of the four Gospels, even though the scribes were ignorant of where it should be inserted. Incidentally, the fact that these particular MSS placed it after xxi. 24 and not after xxi. 25 is some indication that this Gospel was once in circulation without verse 25, for it would have been somewhat unintelligent to insert a passage of this length between the two closing verses of the Gospel, but perfectly intelligent to add it as an appendix to the Gospel as a whole (see further the note on xxi. 25). (John, p. 111)

Thus to cover up the difficulty of explaining THREE idiots with the same game-plan, Tasker tries to pass off a conjecture that the last verse of John is also a fake, a later addition to the Gospel made after the insertion of John 7:53-8:11. This of course stands against the earliest manuscript evidence we have, and indeed the entire evidence as we have it!


Another Possibility...

But lets consider instead the obvious explanation for an insertion between the last two verses of John:

The scribe is ordered to leave out the passage by 'higher authorities'. He is timid and unable to disobey his task-masters, yet perfectly aware of the dire warnings found in such places as Revelation 22:19:

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things (blessings) that are written in this book!"​

Although a coward, (he is a scribe after all) he comes up with an ideal solution to his dilemma: he hides the passage near the end of John, knowing that some future scribe (infinitely more intelligent than a mere textual critic) will have guessed what actually happened.

Meanwhile, in the scriptorium, the creepy old Abbot who gave the order to leave out the verses on the instructions from Eusebius or Constantine or some other such meddler, leans over to double-check the scribe's work.

The passage is missing from its spot in John, and a brief glance to see that the Gospel is complete fails to catch the insertion near the end, because the last verse is still in place.

The corrector, (possibly the same scribe, or another for all that matter), does what is commonplace in scriptoriums: he corrects the manuscript as far as the first 6 or even 12 chapters, and then rests, knowing that no one else will check his corrections now, until the manuscript actually leaves the scriptorium.

And so one or two manuscripts escape the detection of the madmen who tried once again to have the embarrassing passage removed.

Q.E.D.

.

 

[Nazaroo]

Craig S. Keener writes: "If one responds that the later church wished to remove it because it felt that it condoned adultery or challenged androcentric bias, one wonders why other passages, such as Jesus ' encounter with the Samaritan woman, were not similarly excised; further, why 7:53-8:2 would be omitted along with 8:3-11." (The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 1, p. 735)

Finally, we have Mr. Keener's commentary dismissing some common motives for erasing the passage.

Undoubtably, if the passage were removed merely for its 'woman-friendly' tone of grace, or its apparent softness on adultery alone, one might indeed wonder why other passages with similar content were not avoided, deleted, removed from the Lectionary tradition or challenged by argumentative ecclesiastics.

But we don't have to wonder at all. The main thrust of our passage is not 'forgiveness for adultery' or 'mercy for women', but rather a direct challenge to the authority of priests to enforce the Law of God.

It takes no genius to see the unique problem this passage poses for ecclesiastical authorities who wished to extend their power from the Spiritual realm to the Earthly realm in the time of Constantine and beyond.

Keener may continue to wonder, and we also may wonder why someone so imperceptive has been invited to write a commentary for the edification of our Christian brothers and sisters, but in the end, the 'mystery' hasn't fallen far from the tree.

 

[Nazaroo]

If we were to sample another half-dozen commentaries, we would find more of the same.

The commentators are doubly at fault here, because every individual commentator will only have mentioned a few of the interesting facts or fallacies surrounding the verses.

This is akin to the problem of hearing the entire Bible read by attending a traditional church for three solid years. Even though the Lectionary System promises to cover all four Gospels in a 2 or 3 year public reading program, attending church every single Sunday for three solid years will not achieve much at all. You will have only heard about 1/10th of the Gospels: WHAT?

That's right: Because the readings follow DAILY. The only people exposed to the entire Gospel will be monks or nuns living in a rigid daily routine and using the Lectionary system.

Similarly, even buying up a dozen or more commentaries on John will achieve little towards painting a complete picture of the evidence and arguments concerning John 8:1-11.

After Listening to the many performances of the "Dance of the Sugar-Plum Fairy Commentators", the average Christian is likely to remain under their smooth melodic spell for quite some time. And like an old melody that won't leave your mind, their tune will return every time you pick up any commentary to refresh your memory or seek some wisdom concerning these verses.

All we can say is,

"the lips of a strange woman drip like a honeycomb,
and her mouth is smoother than oil:
but end result is bitter wormwood,
sharp as a double-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death,
and her steps lead to Hades.
To prevent you pondering the Way to Life,
her methods are slippery, and you cannot know them.

Hear me therefore, children:
and keep the words I have given you.
Remove your path far from her, '
and don't even go near the door of her house."

(Proverbs 5:3-8)
​

The doctrines of 'textual critics' continue to be a snare and a distraction, bogging down and entangling the faith of many Christians, infecting them like a disease and paralyzing their actions, corrupting their beliefs like a slow-creeping but stubborn yeast infection.

 

[Nazaroo]

"A final factor makes the unjohannine nature of the incident certain.

Numerous terms, while common in the synoptics, appear nowhere else in John. Unconscious syntax stands out as well.

Sentences are connected with DE in the pericope (vv 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11) and this is unparalleled in John (for every five uses of de in Matthew, John has two).

Together these items result in a consensus of opinion among scholars.

The internal evidence makes it clear that the passage is foreign to its present setting and interrupts it. Most likely, it is not even Johannine."

A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11), Gary M. Burge (assist. professor, King College, Tennessee.) (JETS Volume 27, p 144. June, 1984; 2002)

One would think a professor's assistant would in the course of his duties be forced to read enough on the subject of his own choice to prevent foot in mouth disease. But our hopes are ill-founded:

"A final factor makes the unjohannine nature of the incident certain."​

If there is anything certain in this world, its the certainty of those whose evidential support is uncertain.

"Numerous terms, while common in the synoptics, appear nowhere else in John. Unconscious syntax stands out as well."​

Previously, we saw that the "numerous unique terms" in the passage turned out to be (a) not numerous, and (b) not unique.

But lets talk briefly about the whole concept of honing in on single words ('terms') as a methodology:

Obviously, it is apparent that most words, in the Gospels and in this passage are undeniably common and familiar terms to anyone writing a Gospel. So singular occurances of ordinary words are both unremarkable and meaningless.

But rare words are just as problematic: if the context of a unique story (as here) requires or suggests a few words that have no reason to appear anywhere else, again we have no meaningful evidence at all.

In fact 'hapax legomena' (words appearing once only) in John's Gospel generally can have no real significance. The sample-size of John, almost a mere pamphlet, is wholly inadequate to determine John's vocabulary. It naturally must contain many 'hapax legomena'.

It actually exhibits the smallest vocabulary of any writing in the NT, yet anyone familiar with John's Greek must acknowledge that he is a virtual master of the literary genre, and that this booklet can hardly properly represent the true vocabulary of the author, which reasonably must be about five to twenty times the word-count in the Gospel.

The sample-size of the passage, a mere 12 verses, amplifies the problem by a factor of 100.

In Semitic Studies, NT Critics abandoned the usage of single words and phrases nearly a hundred years ago as too subjective and ambiguous to offer meaningful evidence of anything, and have insisted upon whole clauses or sentences ever since, to establish matters of Hebrew or Aramaic influence or translation.

"Unconscious syntax stands out as well." ​

We probably don't need to underline the completely opposing philosophies behind secular theories of 'psychology/psychiatry' and Christian doctrine. But we can mention that theories of the 'unconscious' have long been discredited by studies of the science of the brain and behaviour.

The Freudian and Jungian theories of 'the unconscious' are a laughingstock to modern science, without even needing to consult the Scriptures. This outdated 'pop-psychology' is now classed alongside other urban myths like paranormal and psychic abilities, as bunk.

"Sentences are connected with DE in the pericope (vv 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11) and this is unparalleled in John (for every five uses of de in Matthew, John has two)."​

Another sad attempt at a backyard 'science' experiment, worthy of a local high-school competition. It can be easily demonstrated that the use of 'de' in John and in all the Gospels fluctuates too severely to be useful as a determinant in questions of authorship of a short passage.

The vague and unpredictable tendency that John has, of using 'de' about half as often as Luke, when averaged over an entire Gospel corpus would only be of use if the size of the passage was roughly 50 times larger.

"Together these items result in a consensus of opinion among scholars."​

"Most scholars agree that..."

Whenever we see a phrase like this, a little alarm bell should go off, warning us that precarious claims
are coming. They will have been lovingly massaged by a professional spin-doctor. Such statements are
crafted to guide us into a murky fantasy-realm, falling into some dubious conclusion.

"The internal evidence makes it clear that the passage is foreign to its present setting and interrupts it. "​

'Scholars' have been almost equally divided on this question, regardless of their position on the authenticity of the passage. But counting names is a fruitless exercise.

The main point is that the evidence is not clear at all, the reason it isn't is because John is vaguely connected and full of seams throughout. This alone negates any weak case for the passage's 'interruption' of the 'flow' of the narrative.

"Most likely, it is not even Johannine."​

"..even Johannine"? The logical non-sequitor of it being Johannine in any sense, had Mr. Burger's case contained any substance, floors us. Muddled expression indicates muddled thinking.

For appearance sake at least, he should have said something like, "it cannot be Johannine in any case".

But the inadvertant honesty of expression here makes it easy for the believing Christian to steer clear of blind guides like this.

Anyone prepared to dismiss twelve whole verses of the Gospel of John on such a flimsy basis is hardly a role model for 'defender of the faith', even the faith of a mustard seed.

 

[Nazaroo]

In case some may have thought the evidence was not sifted and examined in the minutest detail, I am providing charts to allow anyone to see for themselves the real picture.

The fluctuations in John's usage of 'de' have no relevance ​

for the authenticity of John 8:1-11. ​

This will be our opening thesis. We will back this up with many good reasons why in a moment. But first we need to lay down some preliminary methodology and present the raw data in a useful form.


The Critical Text Chosen

We begin with the W-H / UBS critical text. We don't want people complaining that the 'Byzantine' or Majority text-type is a source of error in the analysis. Secondly, we follow the paragraphing identified in those versions.
Again, if the case can be made at all, it must be made on the basis of the critical text advocated by those who claim significance to the 'evidence' they say exists.

As it turns out, the textual variants however, will not significantly affect the results found in our table, since those involving 'de' are less than a dozen. In this case, methodology is far more important than the critical text chosen for the survey.

We offer the basic Freqency Table used at the end of this article/webpage. Any observations can be checked there, and doubled-checked with a UBS text and critical apparatus.


The Targets and Scope of Analysis

We have stepped through the entire Gospel of John, paragraph by paragraph, counting the frequency of KAI, ALLA, DE, and OUN.

There are several reasons for including all four of the most common connecting particles. One is that it gives us a good perspective on the way all such particles may vary from section to section, depending upon content, style, and other influences.

Second, KAI, being by far the most common particle, shows much greater stability throughout the length of the document. This helps to place the true significance of the range of variation for other words.

The focus on paragraphs has a twofold advantage. In many cases, there will be possible sources being used by John, as in the Prologue, the passages paralleling Mark (John 6f, feeding of the 5000 etc.), and the passages from Synoptic traditions (John 2:12, 4:43, 12:12, Temple Cleansing, Nobleman's Son, Triumphal Entry etc.). The paragraphs into which the Gospel naturally falls may be good indicators of where the influence of John or another source may start and stop.

Overall word-counts of paragraphs offer a straightforward and convincing way to calibrate short-term frequency of key-words in their local context.

A second question revolves around narrative versus dialogue, or more often monologue, and where other characters 'end' and John's commentary begins. These issues can possibly be illuminated by a study of language and style.

Section I: the First three Chapters of John​

The first section we examine here will largely set the tone for what is to follow, although this part of John has some unique features of its own.

The Exceptions: The first 34 verses of John are unique. Many commentators have thought that the Prologue is part of an older Psalm or Poem, incorporated by John as a fitting beginning to his gospel, and represents a kind of catechism of the Johannine Community on behalf of whom he writes.

Not surprisingly, this section has unique features unseen in any other part of John. One of these is the almost complete absence of both 'de' and 'oun'. Although this can partly be accounted for by the subject matter and content of the Prologue, it is not a total explanation.

One possible explanation is that this section is a more direct 'translation Greek' from an Aramaic or Hebrew original, although the evidence is too scanty for a firm pronouncement.

What is of interest for our discussion, is that AFTER this section, both 'de' and 'oun' exert their presence in entirely different ways:

'de' - This connective particle is a soft 'but', lying halfway between the strong adversive 'alla' ('But') and the purely associative 'kai' ('And'). From 1:35 forward, there aren't two paragraphs in a row without its presence. (with 1 exception, 19:28-37) Although the frequency of 'de' goes up and down more or less randomly, it remains a permanent part of John's expression throughout the Gospel. There is hardly a section in which John can't find a natural use for this connective particle.

'oun' - This connective particle could hardly be more different in its usage by John. When it does appear, it is in short bursts, followed by multiple paragraphs, long sections of its absence.

Half the time it pops up, it is in the dialogue of antagonists. Its main narrative use is in connecting events a short distance apart, usually speech, where a logical sequence of cause and effect is meant.

Yet it does seem to be affected, even in its relative scarcity, by the nature of the content. It is almost entirely absent from the long monologues of Jesus at the Last Supper. Here we must suspect that the material simply comes from a different source than John's narrative style. In a superficial way, we could say that 'John prefers 'oun'" but this would be a misleading distortion:

Unless a speaker is presenting a logical argument or retelling a story himself, it is unlikely that 'oun' will be a feature of his monologue. In the case of short exchanges, such as those between John the Baptist and the Pharisees, 'oun' appears for a reason. The Pharisees are responding to each of John's short answers with a new question, spawned from the previous answer. This must be classed as 'special dialogue', and not natural speech or monologue.

In summary then, oun only gets used when it is functionally necessary, and hence appears in blips and bursts. de on the other hand, is a very handy general connective particle, and seems to be a permanent part of John's writing style, in narrative, commentary, and even dialogue.


A Specific Example: John 3:1-21

We have highlighted in yellow parts of John which are mostly Monologue (Words of Jesus, in Red in many bibles). Because the main contrast between parts of John has focussed upon narrative versus dialogue/monologue, this allows us to see any peculiarities in the usage of the chosen particles.

We mentioned that the prologue has been made a potential candidate for 'translation Greek' or a Semitic Source document. Interestingly, modern analysis has NOT supported the claims of John's stylistic usage of either 'de' or 'oun'.

Instead, the only solid and convincing observations regarding the usage of various particles have been those surrounding the relative usage of 'de' and 'kai':

"The frequently occurring syntactical features found to be significant indicators or translated and original Greek are as follows:

(a) Syntactical features which are less frequent in 'translation Greek' from Hebrew or Aramaic:

...(2) the use of 'de';
...(6) the use of the adverbial (circumstantial) participle;

(b) Syntactical features which are more frequent in 'translation Greek' from Heb. or Aram.:

...(2) the use of 'kai' to join main (independant) clauses;


(R.A. Martin, Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels (1987, Edwin Mellen Press))

Now John 3:1-21 is an exciting section, since it is controversial as to exactly where Jesus' speech leaves off, and John's narrative comments begin. Most 'Red Letter' bibles mark the whole section as Jesus' speech, but most analysts hold that John's comments begin at 3:16.

Now looking at the chart, we see several interesting points:

(1) the use of KAI is unusually high in the section identified by all as Jesus' speech.

(2) by contrast, the use of DE is lower.

(3) the use of OUN is absent from both sections.

There appears then to be a good case that John is the author/commentator speaking in 3:16-21, and that Jesus' speech in 3:1-15 may be dependant upon a translation from either Hebrew or Aramaic.

But the side-bar to this is that 'oun' is apparently not an active or useful indicator of John's style at all, and rather only appears when it is functionally called for.



..

more to follow...

 

[Nazaroo]

The Last Supper Speechs: John 13 to 17​

Here we see something that indeed appears significant. 'oun' is all but absent throughout the entire Last Supper Monologues by Jesus. It only puts in an appearance twice, out of apparent necessity.

This also seems to indicate that John is relying upon sources for the content of the Last Supper. This is a good thing, for it shows that rather than 'making up' these unique monologues (as John has been accused of doing, since they differ so much in content and detail from the Synoptics), John is here apparently relying upon a previously recorded and written speech, probably taken down as minutes by one of the Twelve. The bursts of large numbers of 'KAI' may indicate some of Jesus' speech was given in native Hebrew rather than Greek.

With the Final Passion Narrative, we probably get something like a 'normal' usage of both 'oun' and 'de'.

Yet here, the instances of 'oun' are probably a bit high, not because of stylistic considerations, but due to the compelling sequence of events, which John wants to present in a way that appears necessary and inevitable.

That is, once Judas betrays the Lord, the following 'steps' fall firmly into place in a rather 'predestined' manner. Now we see John's use of 'oun' multiply, yet it is for a fully functional purpose.

So again, although we find interesting things in the changes in frequency of the various particles, there is nothing that cannot be adequately accounted for by the subject matter itself, and the need to present it a certain way.

There's nothing Johannine about it, but the Greek, although heavily Semitic, is not stilted 'translation Greek' anywhere, but simply good Greek. There are traces of possible translation, but John has done such a good job that little solid evidence remains.

 

[Nazaroo]

I have stuffed some of the analysis into the previous messages next to the charts, but now I have to continue in a new message, so go back and look at the previous two messages as well:

Section II: Chapters 4 to 7 of John's Gospel​

Next we observe the similar behaviour of 'oun' to 'alla' (the strong form of 'but'). Yet here now, it is the similarity in occurance that is striking!

Both particles appear and vanish for large stretches, quite independantly of the nature of the content (i.e., narrative, dialogue, monologue, commentary).

Quite obviously, both particles vary completely independantly of each other also, indicating that the only factor in dictating the presence of either of them is their functional necessity in the specific statements being made in various sections of John.

The theory then, of 'oun' versus 'de' as indicators of the style of John versus another writer of a different identity, has fallen flat on its face.


The Pericope de Adultera

It will be immediately apparent that in comparison to the rest of John, the values for John 7:53-8:11 only show a moderate increase in the number of 'de's. All other particles show a normal or average count.

Yet even here, we have to point out the difference between the sources of the two texts in this case. In the Critical Editions such as Westcott & Hort, or the UBS/Nestle-Aland text, the text for John is primarily based upon Codex B / Aleph, or simply put, the Alexandrian (Egytian) text.

Yet here, the UBS text and the rest are actually relying upon a 'Byzantine/Western' text here reconstructed by Hort largely from Codex D (Bezae). Naturally, the actual count of 'de's has been skewed!

Hodges & Farstad's Majority (Byzantine) Text by comparision only has 9 'de's, and our reconstruction below only counts 10 also.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25443014&postcount=16

As Mark Twain would say,

"Rumours of the number of 'de's have been exaggerated."