Recent Symposium on John 8:1-11 gives Favorable Verdict on Authenticity

A leisurely look at how opinion has drastically changed over the last 100 years,
and especially just the last 10 years is worthwhile.

Opinions on John 8:1-11 were heavily against its authenticity
by the middle to the end of the 19th century, and extending to the 1950s.

However, those opinions were based on the exaggerated importance
of textual evidence, especially 'early' evidence, such as 4th century Uncials
(i.e., Codex B and Aleph) and (later on) two 3rd century papyri (P66 and P75).

100 years later, as Biblical studies have vastly expanded into everything from
Form Criticism and Literary Crit to Sociological studies and modern Archaeology,
Textual Criticism has taken a less and less important role in determining
questions of authenticity.

In fact, questions of authenticity themselves have taken a back seat to
questions of more interest to moderns, such as the development of church
communities and theology in a community and political context.

All that having been said, just as other literary disciplines have become
more important than textual criticism per se, so has the value of
Internal Criticism and related fields.

These have been very fruitful in providing new evidence that can be
brought to bear upon the issue of the authenticity of John 8:1-11,
as we have already shown.

Last year, an actual Symposium was held on the subject of these verses,
perhaps something unheard of 100 years ago,
in which experts and researchers in various disciplines could come
together academically and share their research and new branches of
investigation.

Interestingly, while some places and people in the field of Biblical Criticism
have stayed stubbornly polarized and even extremist in their position
on the authenticity of John 8:1-11 (Daniel Wallace being an example,
who recently demanded that the passage actually be struck from Bibles
and placed in footnotes),
others have approached the question from a much less ideologically informed
position and have left the question as an open scientific inquiry.

The result of the recent conference was that in spite of several talks
both in favour of and against the authenticity of John 8:1-11,
the majority of those attending the Symposium gave a tentative
view that the passage was indeed authentic and should be retained
in John's Gospel in its traditional place.

Westcott and Hort must be turning in their graves at this turn of events.


[box]
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.ca/2014/04/live-update-from-pericoep-of-adulteress.html

- posted in comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog:

James E. Snapp, Jr.4:44 pm, April 28, 2014
I enjoyed this conference very much.

Anyone who was at the conference who didn't get a printed copy of "John 7:53-8:11 - A Tour of the External Evidence" - I'll be glad to send free digital copies; just e-mail me with a request.

I thought it was notable that as the panel-session wrapped up, Dr. Black asked those in attendance for a vote, along the lines of "Is the PA original? Yes or no?" Of those in the room who responded, by turn, the "Yes" prevailed over the "No," and it was not close.

Also: Punch said that he would preach from the PA; Wasserman indicated that he has no problem with preaching from the PA inasmuch as Jude had no problem using the Book of Enoch (twice he raised the question: should we remove Jude from the Bible to?); Knust seemed in favor of using the story for the instruction and edification of the church (though she seemed strangely reluctant to say whether or not it echoes historical events) and by the end of the conference she even seemed willing to reconsider the whole question of omission-via-lectionary-influence; Robinson favors the complete canonicity of the PA.

Keith, even though he make it clear that he regards the passage as an interpolation -- that is, he considers the PA to be a composition written by *somebody,* which was then reworked by *someone else* who wanted to show that Jesus was able to write (but who, strangely, did not take the step of stating *what* Jesus wrote), who, after making extensive John-mimicking adjustments to this already-existing story, inserted it into the text of the Gospel of John after 7:53), did not -- iirc -- make any drastic statement to the effect that the passage should be removed from the Bible.

The conference's publicity-image asked if the PA should be proscribed, or proclaimed? The consensus of the speakers, as well as the audience at the end of the conferences, was clear: the Pericope Adulterae should be proclaimed.

[/box]

The Internal Evidence for John 7:53-8:11 (pt 2)

In the 19th century, Textual Criticism of the Bible was in its infancy,
and it was a crude attempt at best to 'restore' or perfect the NT text.


Textual Evidence

The emphasis in those days was on the Textual evidence, i.e.,
actual manuscripts and readings found.

The Conservative trend was to disallow 'conjectural emendations'
(something commonly practised with classical author reconstructions),
and only consider 'hard evidence' like the variations that actually
could be shown to have existed, via early manuscript copies or
quotations of 'early fathers' which might vary from familiar verses.

In the early days of the Reformation, people edited and printed
a 'consensus text', i.e., chose the readings in the majority of reliable
copies available.

Later, researchers began to try to evaluate various handwritten copies
of the New Testament, using criteria such as age, quality of materials,
probable source, and the quality of execution (# of errors and corrections).

This naturally led to an emphasis on textual evidence, rather than
'internal evidence', which seemed rather vague, and subjective in comparison.


'Internal Evidence'

However, recent trends in Biblical criticism have given much more weight
to the subtle problems of 'internal evidence', and by that critics and
researchers have meant things like the probability of a reading based on
what we know about the author's ideas and habits elsewhere in the same work,
or the structure, style and format of a given document, and similar expectations.

Thus, the choice between two variations in a verse might be decided
on the basis of say John the Evangelist's style or diction, or on the
basis of what John may have written elsewhere, and how well one
reading or another agreed with what we might expect John to have said.

As researchers have continued to study these matters,
much progress has been made both in methodology and credibility
of various approaches and means of weighing the likelihood of certain
kinds of evidence.


The Pericope de Adultera - "the PA" (John 7:53-8:11)

The new 'Internal Evidence' in favour of the authenticity of passages
like John 7:53 - 8:11 has advanced considerably, and has been given
much more serious consideration than in the past.

Here we hope to present some of the more interesting 'Internal Evidence'
for this famous passage.



A Quick Look at Some New Internal Evidence for PA

All four Gospel writers created elaborate structural patterns in their choice of quotations. These structures have deep meaning, for they collect and organise the incidents and speeches of the Gospel into great themes and logical sequences of development. If we miss these contexts and thematic associations, we also miss important clues as to the literary and didactic purpose of each Evangelist.

O.T. Quotation Structures - Meaning and Purpose
And yet for all its sophistication, the O.T. Quotation Structure embedded in each Gospel is a model of clarity and simplicity. We only need list the quotations in order, note who they are quoted by, and what they are quoted about, to see beautiful thematic patterns unfold. These patterns were not meant to be hidden, but rather discovered by those who truly seek truth and labour to discover it.
While this structural patterns serve a very important purpose in preventing or at least exposing severe tampering of the Gospels by the ignorant, we are convinced this was not their only purpose, or their main one. Instead, these structures were meant to be found and appreciated by Bible students everywhere.

O.T. Quotation Structure - John's Gospel
John's Gospel begins like all four canonical Gospels, with a standard introductory formula, Isaiah 40:3 (John 1:23). This is common to all the Synoptics, Matthew, Mark, and Luke as well. He compliments this with a quote from Psalm 69:9 (John 2:17) in the narrative/commentary.
After this, the Evangelist follows with a series of two chiastic patterns of quotations. These are like mirrors unfolding backward and forward from around a central core-point. It is a beautiful and quite common feature of John's Gospel in fact, which is virtually laced with smaller chiastic patterns throughout.
Each of these chiastic patterns centers around a critically important part of the Gospel, both in content and in evangelical/didactic theme. The first pattern centers around the Pericope de Adultera (John 8:1-11), obviously an important point in establishing its Sitz en Leben in the Gospel. The second pattern encircles the Great Commandment, which is presented in two developing forms, very close together.
Other complimentary and supplimental clues are provided by the Evangelist, such as the introduction of 'Dawn' and 'Night', symbolizing Light and Darkness, one of the many powerful themes coursing through John.
Without further ado, we present the majestic O.T. Quotation Structure for the Reader to view:  
Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to return.




We encourage fellow Christians to download and print this chart, and use it for Bible study and research.

The Internal Evidence for John 7:53-8:11 (pt 1)

(1) LARGER CHIASTIC PATTERNS IN JOHN


Chiastic Patterns at the Paragraph Level
John the Evangelist does not limit himself to simple word matches or phrase patterns. He continuously builds ever higher and larger, constructing his gospel from the bottom up as well as from the top down.
The next higher distinct class of chiastic structure in John is at the passage or paragraph level. These larger blocks of text are not coordinated by mere words or phrases, but rather by concepts and themes.
In this case also, the very structure of the Gospel can be used for textual-critical purposes, to help determine the plausibility of a given arrangement, or the integrity of a given extant text-type, manuscript or variant.
In the Part of John known as the "INFESTO SCENOPEGIAE JERUSALEM" (John 7:1-10:19), we have again a large set of sections or passages which are chiastically organized, as can be seen by their self-contained themes and content.
We call this chiastic section of John the Mount of Olives Chiasm for reasons which will become obvious when the section is examined. 

The Mount of Olives Chiasm

 

Nazaroo's footnotes: 

The amazing insight this chiasmic structure offers is that the earthly Temple is a mere outer gate, an interface to the world. All that is important takes place well inside the ascending ladder to ...
the Mount of Olives.  

The real Holy Place, the launching pad where Jesus literally ascends to heaven and returns is here.
On His way back from the Mount, He is confronted with the adultery test-case. There is little doubt that the author of this incident intends us to see the woman as a typology for the Southern kingdom of Judaea, an Adulteress.
The irony in their persistence should not be lost, as Jesus mercifully declines to judge her, and postpones the trial.
Instead He again preaches as the Light of the World, a last attempt to save men from the coming judgement.