Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nazaroo · 02-26-2007, 09:06 PM

I would like to start a fresh thread on the subject of the authenticity of John 8:1-11, because this subject has never been properly dealt with.

I would ask the moderator to mercilessly edit/delete any posts or seguays that lead away from this topic.

anyone can contribute any kind of evidence whatever, pro or con about this passage, but please be efficient. With a long post, state a synopsis or summary of your point or argument, and then post your evidence/argument.

One thing I would like to point out right from the start is that many of those who oppose the 'bible' as Holy Scripture or oppose the NT as inspired confuse the issue of whether or not this passage is authentic, and think that somehow its inauthenticity or authenticity is relevant to those other questions.

This is actually nonsense. One can certainly be convinced upon empirical grounds that the passage is an authentic part of John's Gospel as we know it, without at all believing in the 'inspiration' of John's Gospel.

Similarly, many (at least claimed) Christians hold strongly that the passage is NOT a part of John, which in turn IS a part of the Holy Scriptures.

So before beginning, two clearly distinct questions should be separated out:

(1) Is this passage a part of John's Gospel?

(2) Is this passage a part of a corpus of Holy Scripture including John?

The second question should be left for another thread entirely.

Lets see how we do.

Many atheists and agnostics are under the misconception that this passage must be attacked as part of some plan to dethrone the authority of the 'bible'. But this is just unscientific hysteria.

In fact, any argument against John's Gospel as Holy Scripture or against its Inspiration will be equally valid with or without the passage in question.

Our only concern here is and should be, what is the scientific and historical evidence for or against the authorship or incorporation of the passage into the Gospel by the final author/editor/redactor?

Nazaroo · 02-26-2007, 11:07 PM

To get things rolling, we can quote Metzger (1968) (or via: amazon.co.uk) on the passage.

I'll do this to get it out of the way, since every amateur hack on the internet will be chomping at the bit to quote this at me anyway. This should diffuse the idiots and leave the serious scholars ready to post their brilliant insights.

Quote:

"The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. 1

It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y {Greek Shortnames: D Q Y} 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. 2

Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. 3

In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. 4
In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). 5

No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (12th century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it. 6

When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), 7 and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive. 8

At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. 9

Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John's narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 ( D E F G H K M U {G P} 28 700 892 al). 10
Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44 (several Georgian mss.) or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after Luke 21.38 (f13). 11
Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials. 12
Sometimes it is stated that the pericope was deliberately expunged from the Fourth Gospel because it was liable to be understood in a sense too indulgent to adultery. 13
But, apart from the absence of any instance elsewhere of scribal excision of an extensive passage because of moral prudence, this theory fails

"...to explain why the three preliminary verses (vii 53; viii 1-2), so important as apparently descriptive of the time and place at which all the discourses of chapter viii were spoken, should have been omitted with the rest"
(Hort, "Notes on Select Readings," pp. 86 f.). 14

Although the committee [that is, the editorial committee of the United Bible Societies' (UBS) Greek New Testament, (1966, 2nd ed. 1968)] was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following John 7.52."

We can compare Metzger's opening claim to that of Peterson in 1997:

Quote:

"We have exhausted the evidence available to us, and still no answer to the question of the origin of the pericope adulterae is obvious." (p 217)
...
"Despite the more complete picture we now have before us, we are still left with the problem of deciding which source - the Gospel of John, the Gospel Acc. to the Hebrews, or some other as yet undiscovered source ... first contained the the pericope adulterae. Solving that problem is a very difficult task, fraught with uncertainty. Indeed, it is a problem which, given our present state of knowledge of the sources, cannot be solved." (p.219)

"In the course of our investigation, we have indirectly come across several things which are worthy of special mention. First, many commentaries offer an inadequate depiction of the textual evidence." (p. 219)

How is it that what was 'overwhelming' in 1968 is completely undeterminable in 1997?

The answer is that scholars nowadays are less interested in defending various brands of Christianity and its canons, and more interested in a purely scientific approach to the question.

Whatever side scholars choose these days, it is less about ideology and more about historical realism. It is less dogmatic, and more tentative. It is more modest, and less confident.

There HAVE been big leaps in our knowledge about the textual transmission of the NT. But this new knowledge has in turn made assertive claims less convincing and more hollow than ever.

The new knowledge does more to show how little we really knew only a few short years ago, than to support what we were so 'certain' of at that time.

We now know that we know very little about the true nature of the actual early textual transmission of the gospels.

Changing Winds

It is certainly true that the majority of 'scholars' still think there is something very problematic and suspicious about John 8:1-11. But the fact is, more and more serious textual critics are having second thoughts, and even taking the opposite position.

What started as a 'trickle' has become a significant protest, and has begun to grow far beyond the expected 'fringe groups' and extremists. The fact is, a longer, harder look at both the evidence, and the methodology of the past, has convinced many that a scientific footing is still sadly lacking in the determination of the question of the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera.

Roller · 02-27-2007, 06:18 AM

I hope you don't mind an idiot repyling to your thread. I was just interested if "Peterson" you quoted is actually "Petersen"? Since Zervos quotes Petersen and it seems to be in conflict to what your Peterson is saying. From the way Zervos is quoting Petersen, it seems that Petersen is convinced that the PA is later addition to John.

In any case, it would be good to read Petersen in its full. Can his essay (The Protevangelium Jacobi, and the History of the Pericope Adulterae) be found anywhere on the Internet? I can't find it anywhere.

Toto · 02-27-2007, 12:06 PM

Here are some background links for those who want to jump in:

Zervos: Caught in the Act: Mary and the Adulteress (pdf)

Nazaroo on Christianforums 1

Nazaroo on Christianforums 2

Nazaroo on Christianforums 3

From here

Nazaroo's website on John 8:1-11

Roller · 02-27-2007, 12:35 PM

I've read Willker's The Pericope de Adultera: Jo 7:53 - 8:11 (can be found on Nazaroo's site). In it, he concludes regarding external evidence: "Even though the PA is a well known textcritical problem, it is not really difficult, because the external evidence is overwhelming against it being authentically Johannine. Nevertheless the story existed from very early on (either through oral tradition or from an apocryphal Gospel)." p.11

Ehrman says himself in Misquoting Jesus that the story stems from an old oral tradition.

Willker continues in his discussion on internal evidence: "The internal evidence also tends to support a secondary addition of the PA. Even though it is not completely out of place at this position in John, a closer look shows that it is not really fitting (see also below). Since the text of the PA is very unsecure, it is difficult to evaluate synthax, style and wording." p.19

And an overall conclusion: "The earliest external evidence shows no knowledge of the pericope in John. The earliest clear evidence for the PA in John is from the 4th CE. On the other hand a story of this kind was known from the earliest times (Papias, Didaskalia). The PA entered the Gospel of John somewhere in the 3rd CE, but remained in dispute. It took a long time until its universal acceptance.
There is absolutely no convincing evidence that the PA was originally part of the Gospel of John." p.19

Best of all, Willker's paper contains comments from our very own Andrew Criddle!

gstafleu · 02-27-2007, 12:42 PM

Is the authenticity of John 8:1-11 a pressing issue? By that I mean, do any teachings or principles rest on it, is it a central part of the mythology? I realize it has the well known phrase "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." But aside from that? Are any oxes gored by either its authenticity or inauthenticity?

Gerard Stafleu

Roller · 02-27-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Is the authenticity of John 8:1-11 a pressing issue? By that I mean, do any teachings or principles rest on it, is it a central part of the mythology? I realize it has the well known phrase "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." But aside from that? Are any oxes gored by either its authenticity or inauthenticity?

Gerard Stafleu

Innerancy of KJV? Am I close?

Nazaroo · 02-27-2007, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roller

I hope you don't mind an idiot repyling to your thread. I was just interested if "Peterson" you quoted is actually "Petersen"? Since Zervos quotes Petersen and it seems to be in conflict to what your Peterson is saying. From the way Zervos is quoting Petersen, it seems that Petersen is convinced that the PA is later addition to John.

In any case, it would be good to read Petersen in its full. Can his essay (The Protevangelium Jacobi, and the History of the Pericope Adulterae) be found anywhere on the Internet? I can't find it anywhere.

a) Yes, its Petersen. I'm a fast typist, but this is a typical error, since Petersen is actually Scandinavian or something, and I am used to typing Anglicized names.

b) No. Its not available on the internet. If you want a copy, you'll have to locate an obscure book called "Sayings of Jesus: Canonical & Non-Canonical Essays in honour of Tjitze Baarda". Its one of the essays in there. (and yes, Tjitze Baarda is spelled correctly. Don't ask me how.)

I am posting a review of Petersen's work on our website, but you'll have to wait, if your local University library is deficient in this obscure series by Brill (publisher).

Toto · 02-27-2007, 02:30 PM

Sayings of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) is available on Amazon if money is no object for you.

yalla · 02-27-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roller

Ehrman says himself in Misquoting Jesus that the story stems from an old oral tradition.

I find that curious.
How could he know that?
Was he there to hear someone repeat the story?
I know someone [Eusebius?] refers to a story that has some vague similarities but which could be something altogether different.
And Irenaeus refers to 'elders' talking about 'Jesus and vines' in what is pobably a steal from a Jewish work.
But how, specifically, does Ehrman know that TWTIA story was an oral tradition?
The appeal to unverifiable oral tradition as the source for something is common in Christian scholarship but really often amounts to mere assertion.
Is that the case here, or does Ehrman offer some evidence to back his speculation?
Really you could just as easily say "The author made it up".
cheers
yalla

02-26-2007, 09:06 PM	#1
Nazaroo Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 528	Discussion on John 8:1-11 and only that. I would like to start a fresh thread on the subject of the authenticity of John 8:1-11, because this subject has never been properly dealt with. I would ask the moderator to mercilessly edit/delete any posts or seguays that lead away from this topic. anyone can contribute any kind of evidence whatever, pro or con about this passage, but please be efficient. With a long post, state a synopsis or summary of your point or argument, and then post your evidence/argument. One thing I would like to point out right from the start is that many of those who oppose the 'bible' as Holy Scripture or oppose the NT as inspired confuse the issue of whether or not this passage is authentic, and think that somehow its inauthenticity or authenticity is relevant to those other questions. This is actually nonsense. One can certainly be convinced upon empirical grounds that the passage is an authentic part of John's Gospel as we know it, without at all believing in the 'inspiration' of John's Gospel. Similarly, many (at least claimed) Christians hold strongly that the passage is NOT a part of John, which in turn IS a part of the Holy Scriptures. So before beginning, two clearly distinct questions should be separated out: (1) Is this passage a part of John's Gospel? (2) Is this passage a part of a corpus of Holy Scripture including John? The second question should be left for another thread entirely. Lets see how we do. Many atheists and agnostics are under the misconception that this passage must be attacked as part of some plan to dethrone the authority of the 'bible'. But this is just unscientific hysteria. In fact, any argument against John's Gospel as Holy Scripture or against its Inspiration will be equally valid with or without the passage in question. Our only concern here is and should be, what is the scientific and historical evidence for or against the authorship or incorporation of the passage into the Gospel by the final author/editor/redactor?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-27-2007, 06:18 AM	#3
Roller Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cleveland Posts: 658	I hope you don't mind an idiot repyling to your thread. I was just interested if "Peterson" you quoted is actually "Petersen"? Since Zervos quotes Petersen and it seems to be in conflict to what your Peterson is saying. From the way Zervos is quoting Petersen, it seems that Petersen is convinced that the PA is later addition to John. In any case, it would be good to read Petersen in its full. Can his essay (The Protevangelium Jacobi, and the History of the Pericope Adulterae) be found anywhere on the Internet? I can't find it anywhere.

02-27-2007, 12:06 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Here are some background links for those who want to jump in: Zervos: Caught in the Act: Mary and the Adulteress (pdf) Nazaroo on Christianforums 1 Nazaroo on Christianforums 2 Nazaroo on Christianforums 3 From here Nazaroo's website on John 8:1-11

02-27-2007, 12:35 PM	#5
Roller Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cleveland Posts: 658	I've read Willker's The Pericope de Adultera: Jo 7:53 - 8:11 (can be found on Nazaroo's site). In it, he concludes regarding external evidence: "Even though the PA is a well known textcritical problem, it is not really difficult, because the external evidence is overwhelming against it being authentically Johannine. Nevertheless the story existed from very early on (either through oral tradition or from an apocryphal Gospel)." p.11 Ehrman says himself in Misquoting Jesus that the story stems from an old oral tradition. Willker continues in his discussion on internal evidence: "The internal evidence also tends to support a secondary addition of the PA. Even though it is not completely out of place at this position in John, a closer look shows that it is not really fitting (see also below). Since the text of the PA is very unsecure, it is difficult to evaluate synthax, style and wording." p.19 And an overall conclusion: "The earliest external evidence shows no knowledge of the pericope in John. The earliest clear evidence for the PA in John is from the 4th CE. On the other hand a story of this kind was known from the earliest times (Papias, Didaskalia). The PA entered the Gospel of John somewhere in the 3rd CE, but remained in dispute. It took a long time until its universal acceptance. There is absolutely no convincing evidence that the PA was originally part of the Gospel of John." p.19 Best of all, Willker's paper contains comments from our very own Andrew Criddle!

02-27-2007, 12:42 PM	#6
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	Is the authenticity of John 8:1-11 a pressing issue? By that I mean, do any teachings or principles rest on it, is it a central part of the mythology? I realize it has the well known phrase "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." But aside from that? Are any oxes gored by either its authenticity or inauthenticity? Gerard Stafleu

02-27-2007, 02:30 PM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Sayings of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) is available on Amazon if money is no object for you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.