Robert
“First, all the people are not coming to hear Jesus teach about the law in Jn 8,3.”
Well he’s hardly giving them an algebra lesson. He’s a Jewish rabbi, I’m sure the law is going to feature somewhere in his lesson don’t you?
“Nor are the people coming to confess their sins and lawlessness.”
In Neh 9 they gather to confess their sins and lawlessness. In John the pharisees don’t want to do this but Jesus forces them into an admission.
We still have mentioned the link with 1John3 here either and its discussion of the same moral lesson. The coincidences become too much to bear.
“Third, the fact that the phrase ‘all the people’ and the word ‘scribes’ both only occur once in the gospel, and only here in the pericope adulterae, is not an argument in favor of its Johannine authenticity, rather quite the opposite.”
Its an argument in favor of the claim that the author is intentionally linking the PA with Nehemiah. The argument in favor of originality of the PA will be in 3 stages.
1) The author of the PA linked it with Neh 9.
2) The author of the rest of John 8 linked it with Neh 9
3) It is only with the PA included that a intentional linking of John 8:12-58 with Nehemiah 9 makes sense.
“Oops, you did it again. The connection is to both 7,37-44 and 7,45-52, which both set up presence of the Pharisees in 8,12-20. Removing the pericope adulterae does not destroy this connection in any way.”
I never claimed that it would destroy a connection. That’s not relevant to the argument. The argument is that “palin oun … ” requires a direct uninterrupted continuation of the narrative with no change of scene. Connection or not with chapter 7, if we remove the PA we are required to change scenes.
“Oh. My. God. Is this seriously intended as an argument for Johannine authenticity of the pericope adulterae?”
Its just another coincidence to add to the list. The author makes a statement at the beginning of his gospel which won’t be explicitly described in his gospel until it is supposedly added in two and a half centuries later.
CEJ
“P66 doesn’t have it. It’s absent in P75”
Tertullian in On Modesty – his treatise against allowing repentant adulterers back into the church
“Yet further: premising You shall not commit adultery, (the Law) adjoins, You shall not kill. It honoured adultery, of course, to which it gives the precedence over murder, in the very fore-front of the most holy law” “Do you once for all condemn the idolater and the murderer, but take the adulterer out from their midst?— the adulterer, the successor of the idolater, the predecessor of the murderer, the colleague of each? … Whatever authority, whatever reason, restores ecclesiastical peace to the adulterer and fornicator, the same will be bound to come to the aid of the murderer and idolater in their repentance.”
The gospel of John passed through the hands of men like Tertullian – do you think the pericope adulterae would have remained safe in their hands?
Robert
“No, Bren, be honest now, you said the connection of 8,12-20 with the preceding was “impossible” if the pericope adulterae were removed.”
Show me where you think I’ve said that? My argument has been that “palin oun … ” requires that 8:12 be a direct continuation of the narrative from the preceding verses. And that this is why a scene absenting Jesus cannot precede it.
Robert,
I think we just have a different understanding of “connection”. The whole of gospel is connected. The preaching of Jesus in chapter 7 is “connected” to the pharisees wanting to arrest Jesus and approaching him chapter 8. But this is different from a direct continuance with no change of scene.
My original argument from post 3 onward is that there is no direct continuance from chapter 7 to 8:12. “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.”
I don’t see why you think that argument has changed?
I had an uncle who once told me that dinosaur fossils were something the devil sprinkled around the world to deceive people into believing in evolution.
I was young then – still a teen – but I realized in that moment that rational arguments don’t persuade the true believer.
Bren is a true believer.
You might as well tell a Flat-Earther to watch a ship sail beyond the horizon; the ship’s mast slowly slipping below the horizon changes nothing for him. That event is merely something to seek an apology for.
Oh great. I have some popcorn left over from last night.
I wonder if popcorn flapjacks is a thing.
Robert,
“So explain to me how you see the connection of 8,12-13 with Jn,37-44.45-52 without making reference to the pericope adulterae. If you can do that sufficiently, you will thereby concede your case.”
Well in John 7:37-44 we have Jesus preaching to the crowd, his preaching causes a division in the crowd some of whom believe he is a prophet and some of whom want him arrested. We then move to a scene in John 7:45-52 where the temple guards return to the pharisees. The guards are impressed with how Jesus has spoken but this annoys the pharisees who feel they should be the ones deciding who is speaking for god. This man Jesus and those who follow him know nothing of the law. Nicodemus asks “does the law condemn a man without first hearing from him and finding out what he does”. We then move to a scene in 8:12 in which the pharisees are challenging Jesus on his claims.
So all these events are connected, all in causal sequence. But I don’t see how this concedes my case. How does it invalidate the claim that “again therefore Jesus spoke to them …” cannot follow directly on from chapter 7?
Connections to Nehemiah?
Neh 8 “He read it aloud from daybreak till noon as he faced the square before the Water Gate in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand. And all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law.”
John “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved … whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.
gazophulakion storeroom/treasury used once in the whole of John in 8:20. Should our conclusion be that John didn’t write 8:20 or should we realize the connection with Nehemiah? where the phrase is used 6 times in chapters 10 to 13
Nehemiah the law is rediscovered and Jerusalem is reconstituted. The walls are rebuilt and the gate and storeroom guards are reappointed. The connection to John’s Jesus who claims to be the temple and to be able to rebuild it in three days should be undeniable.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)