J.P. Holding asked me to post this in Apologetics 301, so here it is:

In his indictment, JP mentioned things like how ignorance (or lack resources available from the church to combat such ignorance) about the science of textual criticism can leave a young xtian open to the objection of "we only have copies of copies of the NT so we don't really know what the original really said." And then there's things like DVC and such.

This is probably a good place to start.

First of all, congrats to JP Holding for his honest concern over these issues (his general article).

Second, as to the specific point addressed above by the recent poster:

It is good to be humble and not be caught in the position of the pot calling the kettle sooty, or even more appropriate from the point of view of Jesus' teaching,

'trying to take the speck out of another's eye while wrestling with the log in your own...'


A Case of Clumsy, Unscientific, Apologetic "Textual Criticism" of the Worst kind:

A case in point here is the following disinformation, for which I don't blame Holding at all, but which must be challenged and corrected on many points.

8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
The account of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has a textual history that makes heads spin. Michaels in her commentary on John [146] offers the details: It is not in the earliest manuscripts (with one exception); in those manuscripts where we do find it, it is not found in one place. Some have it at the end of John. Some put it after our John 7:36; one puts it after 7:44. Some have it in Luke, after Luke 21:38. So what's happening here? Do we maybe have a bit of an otherwise rejected gospel, or an inauthentic story of Jesus, in our canon?

The answer to both questions is, probably not -- and it is important to see these, indeed, as two separate questions, despite a certain Skeptical tendency to treat them as one. The story could easily have been authentic, yet made its way at first only into heretical gospels; heretics should certainly have wanted it to add a pretension of authenticity to their works. (Although, note well, we have no copy of a heretical or alternate gospel with the story.)

First, does the evidence point to this being an authentic account from the ministry of Jesus? Second, who wrote up this account? And finally, why wasn't it put in one of our canonical gospels to start with?

1. Authentic or not? Even staunch critics admit that this pericope, though obviously not originally part of John, is quite likely to reflect an authentic episode in the life of Jesus. C. S. Lewis is often followed in his observation that the record of Jesus writing in the dust has the ring of the record of an eyewitness. Why note this detail -- yet not note what was being written? (This has been a source for endless speculation: That Jesus was writing the charge out as though for a Roman trial; that he was inscribing some passage from the OT, or even listing the sins of the accusers!)

Also slightly favoring authenticity is the fact that this story seems to be alluded to by some patristic texts. Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)

2. Who's the author? Many would say there's no way to tell, but I'm not that squeamish. I think there's fairly strong evidence to link this story to Luke. This evidence would include:

* The inclusion of the story in some mss. of Luke.

* The use of unique Lukan or Synoptic vocabulary: orthros ("early" -- John 8:2; Luke 24:1,Acts 5:21; "all the people" (John 8:2; appears almost 20 times in Luke-Acts, but only 5 times in Mark and Matthew together); paraginomai ("appear" -- John 8:2; appears over two dozen times in Luke-Acts, but only 3 times in Matt, once in Mark, and once elsewhere in John); kategoros ("accusers" -- found elsewhere only in Acts, 5 times); suneideis ("conscience" -- found only here, and twice in Acts); "Mount of Olives", "scribes and Pharisees", "eldest" (8:1, 8:3, 8:9) -- unique to the Synoptics, other than here in John

 The story fits well with Luke's special interest in women.


3. Why not in the original gospel texts? The only speculation I have seen suggested is that this text was not included in a final gospel product because it seemed to have been too easy on those who committed sexual sin. However, I think a far more practical reason can be offered. In the process of composing his Gospel, Luke, following standard literary practice for the time, would have compiled notes which he later collected and collated into a full text. The pericope would be well designated as one of Luke's original "loose leaf" notes that didn't make the cut to the final gospel. Why? The pericope fits quite well in the context where it is sometimes placed in Luke (after 21:38). But it is also immediately before the Passion narrative. Luke's Gospel is just about the right size for a typical ancient scroll, so the omission of this pericope from his Gospel may have been for a no less practical reason than that Luke saw that he was running out of writing room!

This story offers no argument against capital punishment; all it does is make the "dare" of those who brought the woman even more exceptional! Not only were they challenging Jesus concerning the Jewish Law - they were also challenging Him to commit a violation of Roman law that only Rome could execute people - i.e., commit sedition! It's the same pattern that came to pass during Passion Week.

The above statement is J.P. Holding's apparent position on the Pericope de Adultera, (John 7:53-8:11).

Again, one can hardly fault him for spouting this, given the incredibly poor performance of supposedly "Christian" textual critics, who have given away the farm wholesale when it comes to basic Christian doctrines like inerrancy and Divine Preservation.

The Christian reader should be warned that the terse and unscientific footnotes in just about ALL 'modern' translations are simply trash-talk, and contain no redeeming value in the form of actual accurate information on the textual situation or the evidence for authenticity and Divine Inspiration of these verses.

Our advice to all Christians is to just black out those footnotes in their bible with a black permanent marker, and start studying the actual facts behind those absurd statements, placed there by liberal 'scholarship'.

The actual situation for the Pericope de Adultera, regarding both textual (external) and contextual (internal) evidence is far less bleak than Metzger and his crowd of doubting Thomases would have you believe.

The evidence IN FAVOUR OF Johannine authorship is actually 'overwhelming' all by itself. And there is copious evidence never before examined or considered by 'blind' textual critics. If you examine this new evidence, you will see just how blind the textual critics have actually been, and how disappointingly quickly they were willing to sell John out.


-----------------------------------------------------------

We suggest the sincere Christian reader begin here, with the actual manuscript evidence:

(1) Here are actual photographs of the top ten early manuscripts, showing an entirely different picture than the one falsely presented in your 'textual critical handbooks':

Top Ten Early Manuscripts for John 8:1-11 <-- Click here, Now!

After you take a close look at the damaged, doctored, and deliberately defaced evidence, I am sure you will realise that textual critics have not been entirely honest about the "earliest and best" manuscripts and John 8:1-11.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Next, You should take a hard look at the alleged 'internal' evidence against Johannine authorship:

S. Davidson: Internal Evidence re: John 8:1-11 <-- Click here!

The reader will come to the understanding that the alleged internal evidence against the passage is in fact a joke. A house of cards that collapses with the slightest breath of truth and spark of enlightment from the Holy One.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) FInally, have a good look at the incredible internal evidence IN FAVOUR of John's Authorship of these verses, beginning with the O.T. Quotation structure of John's Gospel:

http://cadesign.webworkercanada.com/CHARTS/OTQ-John.jpg

From there you can browse through the many other structural signals and safeguards preventing any tampering or removal of John 8:1-11from the Gospel:


Culpepper's Discovery of Parallel Internal Evidence <-- Click here.

Chiastic STructures in John <--Click here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After that, take a look at the many articles and evidences showing that John 8:1-11is not only a true gospel account of the early ministry of Jesus' Judean ministry, but also an integral part of John's Gospel.

Pericope de Adultera Online Materials <-- Click Here. For the opinions of other modern scholars, you can read:

A. W. Wilson on John 8:1-11 <--Click here.

Pickering on 'modern' critical Greek texts <--Click here.

Dr. Holland on 'Oldest and Best' Manuscripts <--Click here.

F.N. Jones on John 8:1-11 <--Click here.



Peace,
Nazaroo

I haven't had the time yet to check all your links yet, but what do you think is the best explanation for why in some of the earliest Bibles the story can be found located at the end of John's Gospel and in some of the others it can be found after Luke 21:38?

The textual evidence suggests that the story was not originally part of John's gospel, but it certainly bears all the hallmarks of authenticity we might expect. I think it was probably a free-standing pericope about Jesus' remarkable compassion that got passed down over the decades and eventually found its way to being redacted into its current canonical place in John's gospel.

Originally posted by rogue06

I haven't had the time yet to check all your links yet, but what do you think is the best explanation for why in some of the earliest Bibles the story can be found located at the end of John's Gospel and in some of the others it can be found after Luke 21:38?

The best explanation is indicated by the fact that all the manuscripts that misplace the passage are newer than 1200 A.D.!!!

JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THIS CHART: IF EVER A PICTURE SPOKE A 1000 WORDS, THIS DOES:

http://cadesign.webworkercanada.com/CHARTS/exp.gif

Put another way, these manuscripts have nothing at all to do with the omission or inclusion of the passage originally but merely reflect the ignorance (or desperation) of a handful of late Medieval scribes.

The explanation for these specific manuscripts is quite straightforward.

The ones that insert the story in Luke (about a half-dozen 12th-15th century MSS) are all copies of the same master-copy (descendants of one scribe's decision), probably made in the 9th or 10th century at the earliest.

That scribe, probably under orders to remove the passage, secretly inserted it in Luke to save it. Both his high respect for Holy Scripture and the warning in Revelation 22:19 (well known by all Christian scribes) caused him to breach his orders and sneak the passage into another part of the manuscript.

His plan succeeded, at least for a while, as other scribes probably under the same orders copied his exemplar. After a few copies were made, some overseer noticed what had happened or else somebody blew the whistle on the scribes trying to save the verses. These manuscripts ceased being used as mastercopies to copy from.

This probably all happened at one small monastery/scriptorium or in a local area somewhere in Italy or Romania.

The handful of manuscripts that hide the passage at the end of John between the 2nd last and last verse (!) are similarly explained. These were made from mastercopies simply omitting the verses, but it was not practical to try to insert 12 whole verses into the middle of the manuscripts, so they were placed near the end, (again the displacement of the last verse of John may have been to hide the attempt by the scribes to preserve the verses.).

In both cases, the scribes knew about the verses, and in both cases they actions of the scribes show that they believed them to be authentic verses of the Holy Scriptures and so it was their duty to save them one way or another.

Never has the 'silence' of a group of scribes spoken more plainly about the authenticity of and loyalty to the verses.

Originally posted by Amazing Rando

The textual evidence suggests that the story was not originally part of John's gospel, but it certainly bears all the hallmarks of authenticity we might expect.

This is just the tired old line Metzger used to try to sell in the 60s.

In fact, the textual evidence suggests nothing of the kind.

Try having a look at this:

Top Ten Early Manuscripts for John <-- click here.

The fact is, ALL the manuscript evidence suggests that the passage was originally a part of John, and was expunged from the text by Eusebius in the 4th century under the order of Emperor Constantine.

Constantine, it will be remembered, murdered his own son and boiled his Queen to death for ADULTERY.




And the internal evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the passage was an original part of the Gospel of John as we have it today.

It bears all the 'hallmarks of authenticity' because it IS authentic. The author of John's Gospel also authored the passage.

I think it was probably a free-standing pericope about Jesus' remarkable compassion that got passed down over the decades and eventually found its way to being redacted into its current canonical place in John's gospel.

This is an incredibly improbable scenario:

(1) No one would insert a non-canonical passage into a canonical gospel, and if they did, there would be a great resistance, as well as debate, arguments and a lot of documentation of the tampering because of the fierce independance of the early bishops and fathers.

(2) The longer one waited, the more difficult would be the insertion. Meaning the later the insertion, the less plausible the idea. Long periods (multiple centuries!) of 'floating' passages that finally end up in the NT are virtually impossible.

(3) The internal evidence contradicts such a scenario and makes it wholly impossible.

a) The passage as it stands in John would have to have been completely re-written to have the deep parallels and interconnectedness of language with the rest of John that it does.

b) The rest of John would have to have been re-structured and re-written to provide the structural phenomenae which embed the passage firmly in John. It could never have been simply 'inserted' without a re-write.

c) But the only manuscripts which omit the passage also preserve the very same version of John as the one WITH the passage. That is, the 3rd-4th century MSS which omit the passage do so clumsily, not removing the other telltale evidence that the Gospel once contained it.

If these manuscripts actually preserved a more primitive version of John without the passage, then the other structures would also be missing (having not been added in yet).

d) But this evidence also requires that the original John be completely destroyed, without a trace, and without any protest by anyone in the whole Roman Empire.

The Ancient Syriac commentary and exposition on ethics and behaviour, especially on forgiveness, quotes John 8:1-11 as Authoritative Holy Scripture and uses it to illustrate compassionate attitude and practice:

"...do as he also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before him, and leaving the judgement in his hands, departed. But he, the searcher of hearts,

....asked her and said to her:
'...Have the elders condemned you, my daughter?'

She says to him: 'Nay, Lord.'

And he said to her: 'Go your way: neither do I condemn you.' "

(John 8:10b-11)

We have created an online introduction and quotation for the Didaskalia Apostolorum here:



Didaskalia on John 8:1-11 <-- Click here!



Peace,

Nazaroo

We have completed a review of Raymond Brown's discussion of John 8:1-11 as found in the Anchor Bible / Commentary (1966).



His waffling middle of the road position is shown to be untenable and incongruent with the facts.



You can download the complete html file here:



Raymond Brown on John 8:1-11 <-- Click Here.



Peace,

Nazaroo

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Nazaroo, Post 6 and 7 are the exact example of \what you are doing wrong. You offer no substance, just a "Click Here" notice. Let us worry about the storage space, you follow the rules. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Originally posted by Nazaroo

The Ancient Syriac commentary and exposition on ethics and behaviour, especially on forgiveness, quotes John 8:1-11 as Authoritative Holy Scripture and uses it to illustrate compassionate attitude and practice:

We have created an online introduction and quotation for the Didaskalia Apostolorum here:

Didaskalia on John 8:1-11 <-- Click here!

Hi Nazaroo;

According to the linked page, the Didaskalia should be from the 3^rd century. For me that is somewhat late (though before 1400 ). It does give us some leeway for having John 8:1-11 be an insertion, though we would need to know why.

There is quite som disagreement concerning the base date of the gospel, seriously meant datings running from c. 35 - c.110.

You mentioned that we are to interpret the woman as Israel. Following along that line of thought, who would the scribes and Pharisees be?

That might give us some indication as to the correct dating, don't you think?


- FreezBee

Originally posted by FreezBee

Hi Nazaroo;

According to the linked page, the Didaskalia should be from the 3^rd century. For me that is somewhat late (though before 1400 ). It does give us some leeway for having John 8:1-11 be an insertion, though we would need to know why.

Oh dear, Freezbee, your typing is getting atrocious! Do you mean 1400 or 140 A.D.? its kind of hard to tell!

There is quite som disagreement concerning the base date of the gospel, seriously meant datings running from c. 35 - c.110.

Yes, this seems to be partly because the final form appears to be a composite document.

What are your ideas on this?

You mentioned that we are to interpret the woman as Israel. Following along that line of thought, who would the scribes and Pharisees be?

That might give us some indication as to the correct dating, don't you think?


- FreezBee

This is an interesting direction to explore, but my intitial inclination is only to interpret the woman as a symbol. The others are real participants and observers, meant to be observing the symbolic action, not be part of it.

Peace,
Nazaroo

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

Nazaroo,

Post 6 and 7 are the exact example of \what you are doing wrong. You offer no substance, just a "Click Here" notice. Let us worry about the storage space, you follow the rules.

Dear Bill:

I can't edit those posts anymore, because the time has expired on editing.

But I can post sections of these pages if you will leave the links in for reference.

Peace,
Nazaroo

I figured as much. That's why I left them intact. If you'd like, I can edit your posts for you, delete them after you post a corrected one, or leave both with a notice. Your choice. Any way you like is easy for me.

Nazaroo,

I do not want to sidetrack your thread but I have two questions for you?

1. Do you know Greek?
2. Are you a follower of the teachings of Dean John Burgon, E. F. Hills, and Theodore Letis?

I am fairly fluent in NT (Koine) Greek.

I love reading the Dean. But some of his arguments need to be updated, and some of his keypoints have been since challenged, such as his natural assumptions about the power and function of bishops and ecclesiastics.

E. F. Hills is an inspiring read.

These men, for all their faults, had great instincts and insight into the basic problem.

And that problem has historically been an uncritical acceptance of 19th century 'enlightenment' (rationalism, positivism, 'scientism'), combined with an immature scientific method and a confusion of skeptical methodology with skeptical attitudes, as well as hidden political and religious agendas.


I am not familiar with Letis, although apparently I should be:

Is some of his work online?

Peace,
Nazaroo

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

I figured as much. That's why I left them intact. If you'd like, I can edit your posts for you, delete them after you post a corrected one, or leave both with a notice. Your choice. Any way you like is easy for me.

Dear Bill: IF the situation stabilizes, I will post some of the material from those links here, if that is acceptable and desirable from the mods.

Thanks for your support and interest.
I really appreciate it.

Peace,
Nazaroo

Originally posted by Nazaroo

Oh dear, Freezbee, your typing is getting atrocious! Do you mean 1400 or 140 A.D.? its kind of hard to tell!

I had to look up 'atrocious ob Webster's:

—Synonyms 1. felonious, heinous, monstrous, diabolical, devilish. 2. execrable; detestable.

But, to answer your question, I meant 1400 AD. I believe to remember that justified claimed that parts of John was that late. But you disagree, I am sure

Originally posted by Nazaroo

Yes, this seems to be partly because the final form appears to be a composite document.

What are your ideas on this?

Do I have a qualified idea? I think it is somewhat late (the 90s), but possibly incorporating older material. Some claim that the Logos hymn indicate an early date because it fits in with the Jewish 'Wisdom Theology'. But the only Jewish 'Wisdom Theology' proponent I know of is Philo of Alexandria, hardly much of an orthodox Jew, and hardly with much influence in Judea. But I may be wrong?

Originally posted by Nazaroo

This is an interesting direction to explore, but my intitial inclination is only to interpret the woman as a symbol. The others are real participants and observers, meant to be observing the symbolic action, not be part of it.

Can you do that? Isn't everything allegorical in an allegory? And if not, how do you tell, what is what?

Originally posted by Nazaroo

Peace,
Nazaroo

Shalom,
- FreezBee