AVmetro
May 8th 2003, 03:10 AM
The spurious passages are as thus:
Joh 7:53 - 8:11 And they each one went to his house. But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. And at dawn, He again arrived into the temple; and all the people came to Him. And sitting down, He taught them. And the scribes and the
Pharisees brought to Him a woman having been taken in adultery. And standing her in the middle, they said to Him, Teacher, this woman was taken in the very act, committing
adultery. And in the Law, Moses commanded that such should be stoned. You, then, what do You say? But they said this, tempting Him, that they may have reason to accuse Him. But bending down, Jesus wrote with the finger in the earth, not appearing to hear. But as they continued questioning Him, bending back up, He said to them, The one among you without sin, let him cast the first stone at her. And bending down again, He wrote in the earth. But hearing, and being convicted by the conscience, they went out one by one, beginning from the older ones, until the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the middle. And Jesus bending back up, and having seen no one
but the woman, He said to her, Woman, where are those, the accusers of you? Did not one give judgment against you? And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I judge you. Go, and sin no more.
Robertson's WP:
Joh 7:53 - This verse and through Joh_8:12 (the passage concerning the woman taken in adultery) is certainly not a genuine part of John’s Gospel. The oldest and best MSS. (Aleph A B C L W) do not have it. It first appears in Codex Bezae. Some MSS. put it at the close of John’s Gospel and some place it in Luke. It is probably a true story for it is like Jesus, but it does not belong to John’s Gospel. The Canterbury Version on which we are commenting puts the passage in brackets. Westcott and Hort place it at the end of the Gospel. With this explanation we shall proceed.
My question is not only on what evidence is for or against this passage (if any other exists than what is cited in the above), but how it affects on what day the events of John 8:58 occur.
The following is an excerpt from (I believe) Ethelbert:
------------------------
In A.D. 20, Isaiah 40-45 was being widely read and quoted. The emphatic "hu" was a favorite term for referring to God. Theology was much concerned with the divine self-affirmations contained in "Ani" and "Ani hu." The Hallel psalms, in which "hu" equaled "God," were firmly established in the rituals of the two principal pilgrimage feasts, Tabernacles and the Passover. Psalms 46, 50, and 81 formed part of the special liturgy of the Feast of Tabernacles. In the theology of the Feast of Tabernacles the theophanic word "Ani" had assumed importance, as the above-mentioned Hillel indicates. It is therefrore virtually certain that even then the priests
paraded around the altar repeating the secret formula "Ani we hu" (= Ani hu). Such was the significance, in theology and liturgy, of the theophanic formula "Ani hu" in the days of Jesus.
------------------------
Quick note: As you all may know, the phrase 'ani hu' as it occurs in Isaiah is translated in the LXX as 'ego eimi'. The very words Christ utters in John8:58 which results in an attempted stoning.
John 7:2 tells us:
"And the Jewish Feast of the Tabernacles was near.
John 7:37 states:
"And in the last day of the great feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink."
Telling us what day of the feast this is taking place.
John 8:20 tells us:
"Jesus spoke these words in the treasury, teaching in the temple; and no one seized Him, for His hour had not yet come.
..that Christ was IN the temple when He uttered the phrase 'ego eimi'.
Here is where the spurious passage comes into play. Read:
Joh 8:2 "And at dawn, He again arrived into the temple; and all the people came to Him. And sitting down, He taught them."
..which indicates a new day. Coming after Jn7:37 this (if genuine) would tell us that the
events of Jn8:58 occured after the feast was over. Otherwise, I see no indicator that there is a change of day between Jn7:37 and Jn8:58.
Additionally - I'm not for certain that this is of any significance in determining the day, but Jn9:14 tells us that the healing of the blind man occured on the Sabbath. From my guess the "passed by" of Jn8:59 and 9:1 seem to be one and the same (to me anyhow) indicating that the healing of the blind man occured on the same day as the events of John8:58.
What I would like to know - Is there a change of day here? What is verse 12 in answer to if not? Is there any other indicator that there is a change of day in this context other than the spurious passages (i.e. 7:53-811)?
If the passages (i.e. the woman caught in adultry) are genuine and there is indeed a change of day, then the argument from 'ego eimi'/'ani hu' is not affected in the least. It is only supported if the spurious passages in question are not genuine as the events would have occured *during* the feast. If they occured the very next day afterward, the argument is still strong.
I'm merely seeing if there are any minute details to add to the argument in order to make the impact that much greater.
Personally I would like to see the passages as being genuine as the lesson to be learned is a classic. I would probably vouch that it is genuine but simply does not belong in John's gospel (as RWP proposed).
-Thanks and God bless-
Joh 7:53 - 8:11 And they each one went to his house. But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. And at dawn, He again arrived into the temple; and all the people came to Him. And sitting down, He taught them. And the scribes and the
Pharisees brought to Him a woman having been taken in adultery. And standing her in the middle, they said to Him, Teacher, this woman was taken in the very act, committing
adultery. And in the Law, Moses commanded that such should be stoned. You, then, what do You say? But they said this, tempting Him, that they may have reason to accuse Him. But bending down, Jesus wrote with the finger in the earth, not appearing to hear. But as they continued questioning Him, bending back up, He said to them, The one among you without sin, let him cast the first stone at her. And bending down again, He wrote in the earth. But hearing, and being convicted by the conscience, they went out one by one, beginning from the older ones, until the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the middle. And Jesus bending back up, and having seen no one
but the woman, He said to her, Woman, where are those, the accusers of you? Did not one give judgment against you? And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I judge you. Go, and sin no more.
Robertson's WP:
Joh 7:53 - This verse and through Joh_8:12 (the passage concerning the woman taken in adultery) is certainly not a genuine part of John’s Gospel. The oldest and best MSS. (Aleph A B C L W) do not have it. It first appears in Codex Bezae. Some MSS. put it at the close of John’s Gospel and some place it in Luke. It is probably a true story for it is like Jesus, but it does not belong to John’s Gospel. The Canterbury Version on which we are commenting puts the passage in brackets. Westcott and Hort place it at the end of the Gospel. With this explanation we shall proceed.
My question is not only on what evidence is for or against this passage (if any other exists than what is cited in the above), but how it affects on what day the events of John 8:58 occur.
The following is an excerpt from (I believe) Ethelbert:
------------------------
In A.D. 20, Isaiah 40-45 was being widely read and quoted. The emphatic "hu" was a favorite term for referring to God. Theology was much concerned with the divine self-affirmations contained in "Ani" and "Ani hu." The Hallel psalms, in which "hu" equaled "God," were firmly established in the rituals of the two principal pilgrimage feasts, Tabernacles and the Passover. Psalms 46, 50, and 81 formed part of the special liturgy of the Feast of Tabernacles. In the theology of the Feast of Tabernacles the theophanic word "Ani" had assumed importance, as the above-mentioned Hillel indicates. It is therefrore virtually certain that even then the priests
paraded around the altar repeating the secret formula "Ani we hu" (= Ani hu). Such was the significance, in theology and liturgy, of the theophanic formula "Ani hu" in the days of Jesus.
------------------------
Quick note: As you all may know, the phrase 'ani hu' as it occurs in Isaiah is translated in the LXX as 'ego eimi'. The very words Christ utters in John8:58 which results in an attempted stoning.
John 7:2 tells us:
"And the Jewish Feast of the Tabernacles was near.
John 7:37 states:
"And in the last day of the great feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink."
Telling us what day of the feast this is taking place.
John 8:20 tells us:
"Jesus spoke these words in the treasury, teaching in the temple; and no one seized Him, for His hour had not yet come.
..that Christ was IN the temple when He uttered the phrase 'ego eimi'.
Here is where the spurious passage comes into play. Read:
Joh 8:2 "And at dawn, He again arrived into the temple; and all the people came to Him. And sitting down, He taught them."
..which indicates a new day. Coming after Jn7:37 this (if genuine) would tell us that the
events of Jn8:58 occured after the feast was over. Otherwise, I see no indicator that there is a change of day between Jn7:37 and Jn8:58.
Additionally - I'm not for certain that this is of any significance in determining the day, but Jn9:14 tells us that the healing of the blind man occured on the Sabbath. From my guess the "passed by" of Jn8:59 and 9:1 seem to be one and the same (to me anyhow) indicating that the healing of the blind man occured on the same day as the events of John8:58.
What I would like to know - Is there a change of day here? What is verse 12 in answer to if not? Is there any other indicator that there is a change of day in this context other than the spurious passages (i.e. 7:53-811)?
If the passages (i.e. the woman caught in adultry) are genuine and there is indeed a change of day, then the argument from 'ego eimi'/'ani hu' is not affected in the least. It is only supported if the spurious passages in question are not genuine as the events would have occured *during* the feast. If they occured the very next day afterward, the argument is still strong.
I'm merely seeing if there are any minute details to add to the argument in order to make the impact that much greater.
Personally I would like to see the passages as being genuine as the lesson to be learned is a classic. I would probably vouch that it is genuine but simply does not belong in John's gospel (as RWP proposed).
-Thanks and God bless-