Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julio · 08-16-2009, 03:43 AM

This is the only episode where Jesus writes something in the presence of the Twelve. Yet, divine inspiration leaves out the very words supposed to be inspired. John gives us long stories in other episodes, but here he leaves out the most important part. Did he think it wasn't inspired stuff? This is a serious problem in hermeneutics. If what Jesus wrote was NOT inspired scripture, what else is, come from anonymous eyewitnesses?
"And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.", John 8:8.

yalla · 08-16-2009, 05:50 AM

"Saint John" John Marsh, Pelican Books, London, 1968

"...it is assumed that 8.1-11 is not a true part of the original text [of g"John"], as most modern translaters have recognized." p.351

"Misquoting Jesus" Bart Ehrman, Harper, NY, 2005

As it turns out it [8.1-11] was not originally in the Goapel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes ....In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John." p.64-65

"The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel' C.H. Dodd, C.U.P., Cambridge 1953

"The Pericope Adulterae 7.53-8.11 in the Textus Receptus, is omitted as being no part of the original text of this Gospel." FN p.346.

Julio · 08-16-2009, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

"Saint John" John Marsh, Pelican Books, London, 1968

"...it is assumed that 8.1-11 is not a true part of the original text [of g"John"], as most modern translaters have recognized." p.351

"Misquoting Jesus" Bart Ehrman, Harper, NY, 2005

As it turns out it [8.1-11] was not originally in the Goapel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes ....In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John." p.64-65

"The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel' C.H. Dodd, C.U.P., Cambridge 1953

"The Pericope Adulterae 7.53-8.11 in the Textus Receptus, is omitted as being no part of the original text of this Gospel." FN p.346.

Yes. Like chapter 21 and other parts. Probably, as liberal scholars say, there isn't anything genuine in John. Yet, conservative students will call John's gospel fully inspired, etc. It is in that light that I want some explanation about such a fantastic omission. The intention is to present obvious evidence to discredit the whole. I am regularly confronted by intolerant Christians asserting that there is nothing in the gospels that can be presented as clear evidence of lack of inspiration.

Susan2 · 08-16-2009, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

"Saint John" John Marsh, Pelican Books, London, 1968

"...it is assumed that 8.1-11 is not a true part of the original text [of g"John"], as most modern translaters have recognized." p.351

"Misquoting Jesus" Bart Ehrman, Harper, NY, 2005

As it turns out it [8.1-11] was not originally in the Goapel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes ....In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John." p.64-65

"The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel' C.H. Dodd, C.U.P., Cambridge 1953

"The Pericope Adulterae 7.53-8.11 in the Textus Receptus, is omitted as being no part of the original text of this Gospel." FN p.346.

Not guilty.

andrewcriddle · 08-16-2009, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

"Saint John" John Marsh, Pelican Books, London, 1968

"...it is assumed that 8.1-11 is not a true part of the original text [of g"John"], as most modern translaters have recognized." p.351

"Misquoting Jesus" Bart Ehrman, Harper, NY, 2005

As it turns out it [8.1-11] was not originally in the Goapel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes ....In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John." p.64-65

"The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel' C.H. Dodd, C.U.P., Cambridge 1953

"The Pericope Adulterae 7.53-8.11 in the Textus Receptus, is omitted as being no part of the original text of this Gospel." FN p.346.

Yes. Like chapter 21 and other parts. Probably, as liberal scholars say, there isn't anything genuine in John. Yet, conservative students will call John's gospel fully inspired, etc. It is in that light that I want some explanation about such a fantastic omission. The intention is to present obvious evidence to discredit the whole. I am regularly confronted by intolerant Christians asserting that there is nothing in the gospels that can be presented as clear evidence of lack of inspiration.

The issue is that many conservative Christians do not regard the Pericope Adulterae as part of the original text of John.

Andrew Criddle

Dutch_labrat · 08-16-2009, 06:48 AM

The original texts would not have had any punctuation at all. Maybe John meant to say": ...and Jesus wrote "On the ground."

John Kesler · 08-16-2009, 07:18 AM

The Net Bible gives a nice summary regarding the passage:

Quote:

This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë1 places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (Ë13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).

sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

Susan2 · 08-16-2009, 08:08 AM

Quote:

The issue is that many conservative Christians do not regard the Pericope Adulterae as part of the original text of John.

Andrew Criddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

The Net Bible gives a nice summary regarding the passage:

Quote:

This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë1 places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (Ë13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).

sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

Scholarly dismissal; not unusual, quite common.

Toto · 08-16-2009, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

...
The issue is that many conservative Christians do not regard the Pericope Adulterae as part of the original text of John.

Andrew Criddle

That is the usual issue, but Julio's questions seems to be something else.

Whether this was part of the original text of John, or an authentic tradition that was inserted in John, or a totally made up fantasy that was inserted in John, why do we not know what Jesus wrote?

Was it a magic spell that could not be repeated?

Was it illegible to the onlookers?

Was he writing what he was about to say?

andrewcriddle · 08-16-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Whether this was part of the original text of John, or an authentic tradition that was inserted in John, or a totally made up fantasy that was inserted in John, why do we not know what Jesus wrote?

Was it a magic spell that could not be repeated?

Was it illegible to the onlookers?

Was he writing what he was about to say?

Many manuscripts add at the end of verse 6 "as though he [Jesus] heard them not" ie Jesus is trying to ignore his questioners.

Some manuscripts add at the end of verse 8 "the sins of them all" ie Jesus, after saying "let him who is without sin...", explains why present company does not qualify.

These interesting expansions seem to be later guesses about what is going on.

FWIW my guess is that there is an allusion here to Jeremiah 22:29

Quote:

O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

Andew Criddle

08-16-2009, 03:43 AM	#1
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	Why not include the sentence? [John 8.8] This is the only episode where Jesus writes something in the presence of the Twelve. Yet, divine inspiration leaves out the very words supposed to be inspired. John gives us long stories in other episodes, but here he leaves out the most important part. Did he think it wasn't inspired stuff? This is a serious problem in hermeneutics. If what Jesus wrote was NOT inspired scripture, what else is, come from anonymous eyewitnesses? "And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.", John 8:8.

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

08-16-2009, 05:50 AM	#2
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	"Saint John" John Marsh, Pelican Books, London, 1968 "...it is assumed that 8.1-11 is not a true part of the original text [of g"John"], as most modern translaters have recognized." p.351 "Misquoting Jesus" Bart Ehrman, Harper, NY, 2005 As it turns out it [8.1-11] was not originally in the Goapel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes ....In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John." p.64-65 "The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel' C.H. Dodd, C.U.P., Cambridge 1953 "The Pericope Adulterae 7.53-8.11 in the Textus Receptus, is omitted as being no part of the original text of this Gospel." FN p.346.

08-16-2009, 06:48 AM	#6
Dutch_labrat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Leiden, The Netherlands Posts: 970	The original texts would not have had any punctuation at all. Maybe John meant to say": ...and Jesus wrote "On the ground."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.