I’m not sure about infamous. However.
A) John 8:12 beings with πάλιν οὖν. It means “again therefore” or “again then” or “so again”, an its a construction only found in John. Perhaps 12 times in all in John. And in every single occurrence it indicates that the verse follows as a direct continuance of what has immediately preceded it. Except apparently for John 8:12. Here with the pericope adulterae excised from the text we are required to read a scene where the pharisees are discussing Jesus in his absence. One says to Nicodemus “Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee …” without the PA we must jump immediately to John 8:12 ” … again therefore Jesus said to them am I light of world … therefore the pharisees said to him here you are appearing as your own witness”
The jarring effect in the narrative is obvious. Something has skipped or erased.
B) 70% of greek manuscripts have a pericope in this gap which smooths out the narrative.
These two facts should give us confidence to look at the internal evidence that the pericope was original. Which should be enough to establish that it was.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“The jarring effect in the narrative is obvious. Something has skipped or erased.”
do the scholars have the same feeling of the effect when reading it in greek ?
could
there have been some other story between the two vverses?
“B) 70% of greek manuscripts have a pericope in this gap which smooths out the narrative.”
but its not in the oldest and best, is it?
rickgill
“could there have been some other story between the two vverses?”
There’s only two realistic posibilities, the pericope adulterae was original or there was never anything else there.
“but its not in the oldest and best, is it?”
They’re not the oldest, but to say they’re not the best is to beg the question. If the pericope adulterae is original and both sinaiticus and vaticanus don’t have it, then they are not the best.
Robert
“See, for example, the use of this phrase in John 10,39: Then they tried to arrest him again … The previous attempt to arrest Jesus came a full three chapters earlier in Jn 7,30.32.44 (cf 8,20).”
But John 10.39 is a direct consequence of John 10:38
Jesus claims to be in divine union with the father in 10:38 so as a consequence of that they try to arrest him yet again in 10:39.
Its not a question of what “again” is referring to, its a question of what it is in consequence to. Its a direct consequence of verse 10:38. It must make sense as a direct follow on from verse 10:38. It can’t be the start of whole new scene, disconnected from what immediately precedes it in the text.
In the PA Jesus is sitting down teaching to the crowd. The pharisees bring the woman and “set her in the middle” (en meso). When they leave, they leave her alone with Jesus “in the middle” (en meso). That is “en meso” of the crowd. Everyone else had not left, just those who had accused her. The interruption having ended Jesus can then go back to teaching the crowd. This takes place in the temple courts not a private space, there are always people around.
Robert
“You seem to miss the meaning of the word “alone.” Jesus and the woman are alone in the middle of a crowd?”
well they are alone in the middle of something. What are they in the middle of? By John 8:3 we know this to mean the middle of the audience Jesus was preaching to (that’s where the pharisees bring her).
The pharisees are a large collection of people. Jesus is preaching in the temple courts where there are many “pharisees” mingling about. The “pharisees” challenging him in John 8:12 are not necessarily the same “pharisees” that challenge him 8:5. Just as they are not necessarily the same ones who challenge him in chapter 10.
What is absolutely certain however is that John 8:12 is not direct continuance of John 7:52 (which consistency would demand given “palin oun”)
If an actor is left “alone” on stage is the audience is still there to hear him? If Jesus is left “alone” in the middle are “pas-o-laos” still there to hear him preach?
Did all the people who came to hear him preach just leave along with the scribes and pharisees?
‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.’ Who is that addressed to? Pas-o-laos or the pharisees? Is he not teaching pas-o-laos?
The PA says it was “the scribes and the pharisees” who brought the woman to Jesus. Why think that “the pharisees” of 8:13 are precisely those ones comprising a portion of the “the scribes and pharisees” of 8:3. The pharisees have many members and “the pharisees” is always just an unidentified selection of them. Are “the pharisees” of Matthew 9:11 precisely the same ones as “the pharisees” of Matthew 22:15?
In 7:45-52 we are explicitly told Jesus was not present in the scene “why did you not bring him?” How could we possibly think “again then Jesus spoke to them …” is a direct continuance? It is clearly a new scene.
This is a very interesting discussion in which I do not wish to interfere. I have the impression that without trying to reproduce publishing practices it will be difficult to understand such problems.
Anyway, these are not just publishing practices. By closing one edition and publishing it, you are in the process of writing the next one. And that goes for everything, not just books.
Robert,
“What difference does it make if the audience in 8,12 is ὁ ὄχλος of Jn 7,40.43.49 or πᾶς ὁ λαός of 8,1? That is not an argument for the Johannine origin of 7,53-8,11.”
Its not supposed to be. Its supposed to be a defense against your counterargument that 8:12 cannot follow on from the PA.
“On the other hand, the fact that πᾶς ὁ λαός appears only one time, only here in 8,1 and nowhere else in the gospel of John, and even λαός as a noun only appears twice in the gospel but nowhere as an acting character in the narrative, but ὄχλος appears 20 times as a character (17 times with the article) in the gospel, those facts do indeed militate against the Johannine origin of the pericope adulterae. Why can’t you make any pertinent arguments for a Johannine origin?”
Right πᾶς ὁ λαός is not natural to John. It comes from Nehemiah chapter 8 where the phrase is used 5 times. In Nehemiah πᾶς ὁ λαός come to hear Ezra the scribe teach from the newly discovered book of the law. In John 8 πᾶς ὁ λαός come to hear Jesus teach on the law. Both these events are occurring during the festival of booths. The connection is 100% intentional on the part of the writer of PA regardless of whether he is writing in the 1st or 4th century. However the rest of chapter John 8 displays the same knowledge of the connection with Nehemiah 9, rendering the possibility of the PA being written 3 centuries later completely inconceivable.
“You are again ignoring my point above about the continuity of Jn 8,12-21 with the prior linked scenes of 7,37-44.45-52”
But my whole argument is against this claim. Between 7:37-44 we have inserted a scene in which Jesus is explicitly not present. Then we “Again therefore he said to them …” The only way to claim this is a follow on from 7:37-44 is to state that “again therefore …” does not imply a direct continuation without a change of scene. Something which would be inconsistent with the rest of John.
Robert,
“Where have I ever said Jn 8,12 cannot follow on from the pericope adulterae? Of course it can. It does. In many later manuscripts.”
Well yes of course it can physically follow on a page of text, but you were arguing it can’t be read as a natural continuation of the narrative. Post 10 and post 14 are making this argument.
“It is not written in the same style”
This is subjective argument which will always be heavily influenced by the conviction that it was written much later. I know what the arguments against it being original are and I know why they’re not convincing.
“The phrase πᾶς ὁ λαός appears hundreds of times in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures and dozens of times in the New Testament, thirteen times in second half of Deuteronomy 27. But nowhere else in the gospel of John during the feast of Booths, despite the fact that you think John is trying to create a connection with Nehemiah, Chapters 8-9.”
Great but how many times does it occur around the events of festival of booths, when πᾶς ὁ λαός are coming to hear someone teach on the law. Where the people are coming to confess their “sins and lawlessness”. The word “scribe” occurs once in all of John. In Nehemiah all the people come to hear Ezra the scribe. In John all the people come to hear Jesus and the “scribes” come to him to challenge him on the law.
Nehemiah 9 -To all of them you give life … By day you led them with a pillar of cloud, and by night with a pillar of fire to give them light on the way they were to take.
John 8 – I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.
Nehemiah 9 – Yet they acted presumptuously and did not obey your commandments, but sinned against your ordinances, by the observance of which a person shall live.
John 8 – Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.
Nehemiah 9 – Here we are, slaves to this day—slaves in the land that you gave to our ancestors to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts. Its rich yield goes to the kings whom you have set over us because of our sins.
John 8 – We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free? Jesus replied, Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.
Nehemiah 9 – You made a name for yourself, which remains to this day.
John 8 – Before Abraham as I Am
That’s without even mentioning the connection with the adulteress woman. There’s simply no question that the connection is intentional.
“You’re still missing the connections. Jn,37-44.45-52.8,12-20 are all well connected, as I’ve already explained above. “
I’m not missing the connection. I know there’s a connection. This doesn’t challenge the argument in any way. The argument is that “Palin oun …” implies a direct continuation of what has just occurred with no change of scene. Impossible if the PA is removed. Doesn’t matter if there’s a link to John 7:37-44
Also just read the prologue
John 1:17 “For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” is virtually a chapter summary of John 8 (with the PA included of course).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)