So why do some question the validity of this passage? To answer that question I will borrow the points of John Piper's (another respected scholar) message on this passage.
1. The story is missing from in all Greek manuscripts before the Fifth Century
This is a difficult statement to say definitively. Maybe one could say that this story is missing from all the known manuscripts before the Fifth Century. Because if this was the case how then could Augustine, who barely lived 30 years into the Fifth Century, assert rather strongly that over-pius scribes were taking the paragraph out of their codices for fear that their wives would believe that Jesus was condoning adultery. The funny thing to me is that these scribes were not getting the discussion that Jesus was having with the Pharisees in the surrounding passages. Also Augustine is not alone in this accusation of removal. A tenth century Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of removing the account because "It was harmful for most persons to listen to such things" (Quoted in The Pericope de Adultera By Nolen Jones, who cited Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 157.). Jesus is not condoning sin of adultery but simply forgiving the sinner. Furthermore, Papias a disciple of John's talks of this story although he may have been confused as to it proper location in the Bible. All this to me suggests not only a knowledge of this being scripture long before the fifth century but also that some were not too excited about this being scripture and had reason to take it out of the old text. This could be the reason we do not find it in these older texts. Also this would explain why so many of the early church father's were a little squimish about commenting on this passage. Which brings us to our next point.
2. Earliest church fathers omit this passages when commenting on John.
First of all, that is not entirely accurate as I pointed out in the previous paragraph, there are some that talk about this passage. Secondly, the reason that this passage is often skipped over by the early church fathers is because it was not intended to be read publicly. Nolen Jones explains it well in his article Pericope de Adultera.
Burgon mentions another most relevant reason why these early Fathers did not comment on this section. [10] Their comments were connected to the subject matter they preached and the "pericope de adultera" was omitted from the ancient Pentecostal lesson of the Church. Burgon concludes that this is why Chrysostom (345-407) and Cyril (376-444), two early church Fathers, "in publicly commenting on John's Gospel, pass straight from ch. 7:52 to ch. 8:12. Of course they do. Why should they - indeed, how could they - comment on what was not publicly read before the congregation?" [11]
Again if there were people taking this passage out as early as the time of Augustine and possibly earlier then some commentators may have skipped over this passage in complete innocence not knowing that it was taken out. Others not wanting to get into the controversy of the passage again may have skipped the passage for that reason.
Also I do not see this as valid argument because it is often that people skip over thing they do not want to comment on. Especially those things they may not like as in the case of Hebrew commentators that skip over Isaiah 53. It is plan to see that this passage was very likely a rather sticky subject for our early church fathers who did not want to encourage adultery.
3. The text flows amazingly well when you connect 7:52 with 8:12
This point I could not disagree with more. Actually I think that you have a hard time understanding the next passage (8:12-20) without the beginning of chapter 8. First of all the Adulterous Woman would be one of those that Jesus is the light to. Also if the beginning of chapter 8 is missing then it is hard to make sense of what Jesus is saying in verses 14-17. ""Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true."
What is he talking about if the Adulterous Woman story is not some where in here in this context? There judgement of he Adulterous Woman was purely external, they would not be able to know if she was truly repentant or not. But Jesus could see into her heart and be able to tell her to "go and sin no more".
What is he talking about if the Adulterous Woman story is not some where in here in this context? There judgement of he Adulterous Woman was purely external, they would not be able to know if she was truly repentant or not. But Jesus could see into her heart and be able to tell her to "go and sin no more".
Furthermore I am not alone in my conclusions on this matter. C. I. Scofield (in his notes on this passage) says "...The immediate context (vs. 12-46), beginning with Christ's declaration, 'I am the light of the world' seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees as recorded in verse 9; as, also, it explains the peculiar virulence of the Pharisees words (v. 41)." William Hendriksen agrees by saying "The story fits very well into the present context. It can be viewed as serving to prepare for and elucidate the discourse of the Lord in 8:12 ff. Let it be borne in the mind that this woman had been walking in moral darkness. It is probable that Jesus dispelled her darkness. So, we are not surprised to read in verse 12: 'I am the light of the world.'" (Found in William Hendricksen's Commentary on John page 34, paragraph 5) Even James Montgomery Boice who doubts it is John's writing has to admit that the placement of this passage is perfect. "The story of the woman taken in adultery may not have been in the original text of John's gospel, that is, in the first copy of the book as John wrote it. But whether it was there initially or not, few can doubt that the place where it finally was put was well chosen; for it follows well on the failure of an original plan by the rulers of Israel to arrest Jesus, and leads naturally into Christ's statement about being the light of the world. The story of the woman and her acusers is a greater revelation of the dark nature of sin than anything yet recorded in John's Gospel, and in the purity and brightness of Jesus shine through abundantly." (James Montgomery Boice's Commentary on the Gospel of John page 613)
4. No Eastern church father cites the passage until the 10th century
I have already addressed this point under some of he previous points but again the possible reason for this is that some were taking this passage out. Like Nikon, the Greek from the 10th century, says that Armenians were removing the account. If Nikon had knowledge of this passage there must have been at least discussion of this passage earlier than his time. This Eastern region seems to have a special problem with this passage and instead of assuming that they didn't think it was scripture maybe Nikon was right that they were taking it out because they did not like it's teaching. Fundamentally I think it would be over all much easier to take out passages, either through negligence or intent, than to add in passages. Often when making hand written copies of an original one might accidentally miss a passage or phrase or even leave out the same because one does not like what he reads. The latter possibly being the case when in regards to the paragraph about the Adulterous Woman; as Augustine and Nikon seem to suggest.
5. When this passage starts to appear it appears in four other places besides the place it occurs.
This I think is a testament to the fact that it is scripture, or else why would people be trying to work it in some other location in scripture? If people were taking it out, as Augustine and others were suggesting, this would cause much confusion about what it was and where it should be located especially if the story was preserved but the location lost. As I mentioned under point number two I believe it is in the proper location and fits perfectly into the context around it. That is authenticated by a number of scholars that think the same thing. But the point here, I think that should be made, is when we begin to tamper with scripture what damage and doubt we can cause in the lives of younger believers. We need to be different from the Pharisees and the scribes, the latter who changed their codices, and take scripture for what it is not pick and choose the passages we like or dislike.
6. The style and vocabulary are more unlike the rest of the gospel.
This argument is simply not conclusive. Although the language does differ from that which John normally chooses to use this passage is simply not long enough to give this argument strength. Even Leon Morris who felt strongly that this was not John's writing admits, "While the spirit of the narrative is in accordance with that of this Gospel the language is not quite that of John. The passage is too short for this argument to be completely decisive," (Leon Morris' Commentary on the Gospel of John, appendix, page 883) Lets, for a moment, flip this argument over how about we say that some one maybe wanted to preserve some oral tradition and accredit it to the gospel writer John. Wouldn't they be careful enough to actually use the language that he used, and not make a blatant mistake and write the story down in a different style. Lies tend to be perfect, but sometimes authors change their styles by mistake or happen to use a word that they may not normally use.
5. When this passage starts to appear it appears in four other places besides the place it occurs.
This I think is a testament to the fact that it is scripture, or else why would people be trying to work it in some other location in scripture? If people were taking it out, as Augustine and others were suggesting, this would cause much confusion about what it was and where it should be located especially if the story was preserved but the location lost. As I mentioned under point number two I believe it is in the proper location and fits perfectly into the context around it. That is authenticated by a number of scholars that think the same thing. But the point here, I think that should be made, is when we begin to tamper with scripture what damage and doubt we can cause in the lives of younger believers. We need to be different from the Pharisees and the scribes, the latter who changed their codices, and take scripture for what it is not pick and choose the passages we like or dislike.
6. The style and vocabulary are more unlike the rest of the gospel.
This argument is simply not conclusive. Although the language does differ from that which John normally chooses to use this passage is simply not long enough to give this argument strength. Even Leon Morris who felt strongly that this was not John's writing admits, "While the spirit of the narrative is in accordance with that of this Gospel the language is not quite that of John. The passage is too short for this argument to be completely decisive," (Leon Morris' Commentary on the Gospel of John, appendix, page 883) Lets, for a moment, flip this argument over how about we say that some one maybe wanted to preserve some oral tradition and accredit it to the gospel writer John. Wouldn't they be careful enough to actually use the language that he used, and not make a blatant mistake and write the story down in a different style. Lies tend to be perfect, but sometimes authors change their styles by mistake or happen to use a word that they may not normally use.
To sum it up, while it may not be possible to absolutely prove that this passage was authored by John I think there is plenty of evidence that it was Johns writing. I believe that this passage is in it proper place in scripture and should be treated just the same as its surrounding context in the Gospel of John. I completely agree with John Calvin who said "[John 7:53-8:11] contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage." (John Calvin's Commentary on the Gospel of John page 319) I firmly believe that to say that this is not scripture is to miss out on a vital piece of John's Gospel and a window into the nature of Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment