|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gatorville, Florida
Posts: 4,334
|
Quote:
Originally posted by demoninho
Maybe somebody could help me on John 8:1-11 (about the adultress) I heard was not a general addition to John with versions with and without but the Codex Vaticanus Sinaiticus and 2 other very old NT compilations are missing one of modern christianity's most important verses.
|
I have found that the footnotes on the NET Bible are reasonably complete and straightforward with respect to matters of this sort. Here is the footnote that refers to this issue of yours:
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" (Textual Commentary, 187-89). External evidence is as follows: For the omission of 7:53-8:11, Ì66 Ì75 Í B L N T W X Y D Q Y 053 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 565 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 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 F G H K M U G 28 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz al. In addition E, S, L, and P include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë1 places it after John 21:24 or 25, 115 after John 8:12, Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the gospels A is usually considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the Pauline epistles, where it is Alexandrian), as are E, F, and G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the Pauline 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. 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" 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) The chief priests and Pharisees had just mocked Nicodemus for suggesting that Jesus' claims might possibly be true. In particular they heaped scorn on Jesus' Galilean origins . But far more than a prophet was to come from Galilee, according to Isa 9:1-2. In view of John's observed fondness for Isaiah, it seems impossible that he was unaware of this prophecy. But if he was aware of it, he might be expected to work it into the background of the narrative, as he has often done before. And that is exactly what is found: 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" ( [Orqrou, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the "dawning" of the Light of the world 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. Once again, this calls to mind one of the major themes of the Gospel: light and darkness (compare especially 3:19-21). Here the woman "came to the light" (although not at first willingly) while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil. This could be seen as an appropriate setting for Jesus to follow with the statement of 8:12, "I am the light of the world." 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 9:12 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 9:12 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. According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lucan 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.
|
== Bill
|
09-05-2003, 05:11 AM
Re: Biblical orgins
