Peter Kirby

I would like to ask the mods to be rigorous about moderating this thread. If it starts to get off the subject of the Pericope de Adultera, and specifically the internal evidence for or against its inclusion in the Gospel of John, please split off those sub-discussions. (Posters are welcome to start spin-off threads themselves as well.)

So, the purpose of this thread is to marshall all the arguments that can be brought to bear on this question:

What is the internal evidence that the Pericope de Adultera was or was not part of the original Gospel of John?

If you think that there were sources of the Gospel of John, or multiple recensions of the Gospel of John, indicate when you think the Pericope entered the manuscripts and what the internal evidence is for that conclusion.

By "internal evidence," I mean considerations other than the manuscripts and patristic citations.

Thank you all for your contributions! I will add my own comments here once I see what you all think about this. Note that ideas and suggestions for lines of investigation are welcome, along with actual arguments or evidence.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

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 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. 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.

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.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle

Some scholars have claimed the parallel between the first part of John 8:6 and John 6:6 as internal evidence of authenticity.

However Codex Bezae our oldest Greek source for the Pericope as part of John omits this clause in John 8:6. (with limited support from other manuscripts).

It is possibly not part of the earliest form of the Pericope.

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

Above is a nice summary by Peter Kirby of some mainstream commentaries on PA.

As a common thread running through these commentaries we find the belief that PA doesn’t fit so well in its current Johannine location (after Jn 7:52).

Also, as another common thread, we find that PA features a lot of Lukan and/or Synoptic elements.

Importantly, E. C. Hoskyns notes the apparent connection of PA with Lk 21:37-38. He writes:

Up to now, all too often the scholarly debate about PA has been conducted in a rather misguided context. It’s either PA absolutely belongs after Jn 7:52, or it doesn’t belong to the canon at all (and somehow ‘floated’ into John while nobody was looking).

Well, it’s obvious to me that both of these positions are wrong. It’s really impossible IMHO that PA could have just ‘floated’ into the canon for no apparent reason, from parts unknown. So unless someone supplies a rational reason why and how it could have ‘floated’ into the canon, we must pronounce this whole thing as the Red Herring that it truly is.

Yuri.

PS:

Here are a couple of illustrations, from Kirby’s quotes, of this rather daft belief in a ‘floating pericope’:

Oh, so it was *a happy chance!*

Of course the scribes were ignorant! What do they know – they are just a bunch of fools! They just had this butterfly floating around them, so they had to land it somewhere in the Scripture!
:huh:

Nazaroo

We deal with R.H. Lightfoot (1957) here in detail, examining his statements one by one:

R.H. Lightfoot on John 8:1-11 <-- Click here

And we also deal with Lightfoot's comments in the following thread:

Comments on R.H. Lightfoot <-- Click here.






In the same www.christianforums.com thread we deal with each of these commentators in turn.

For the most part no original scholarship is taking place, but rather its a comedy of errors as commentators borrow from their predecessors and follow the status quo public position on John 8:1-11, preferring not to rock the boat.

See thread above. We can only add that Brown is such a soft-spoken Roman Catholic that he needlessly gives away the farm in order to accomodate 'modern criticism'.



ditto.

For those looking for Hodges and Heil online, you can find them here:

Hodges on John 8:1-11 <-- click here.

Heil on John 8:1-11 <-- click here.



Most other commentaries reflect the same amount of towing the party line and a certain amount of laziness and reluctance to challenge the status quo.

Peter Kirby

He's on a mission...
coming down,
off that spiral of evaporated truth,
caught between a line
and someone else's story.

Cannot stop this ship
from sinking,
Cannot stop this ruined world from spinning.
Brush it off,
And call it for a day.

He won't take back.
They won't buy his
Overrated lies,
Drowning in a sea of education.
Well you can take your hesitation!

Nazaroo

What can one say to that, except to quote the Peter Kirby of two years ago (the OP):

"...even if that derailing spammer is me in a time-machine, pretending to be me five minutes from now, when he's really me five minutes ago." ( - Peter Kirby from five minutes in the future)

Peter Kirby

You can say, "You're right, I'm sorry I trawled this out of 2005 to SPAM my links."