Last Updated:

May 21, 2010

J.D. Punch on the PA

(2) Internal Evidences

Excerpt from: Dr. J.D. Punch, THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE: THEORIES OF INSERTION & OMISSION , (Doctoral Dissertation, 2010)

Secondary Title

Synopsis: In which he discovered "Georgia" in a Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai. Prior to its publication Tischendorf had given a descriptive account of the manuscript with a sample of its readings in Notitia editionis Codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici auspiciis Imperatoris Alexandri II. (Princeton, 1880)

Page Index

Intro: - Dr. Punch on the Internal Evidence for the PA

Excerpts for Review

3.0  “Non-Johannine” Vocabulary:
      Word List - "non-Johannine"?
      3.2 ορθρος - "dawn" (8:2)
      3.4 λαος - "the people" (8:2) vs. οχλος

4.0Hapax Legomena - words appearing once only
6.0Missing Johannine Terms - words that should appear
      6.2 δε versus ουν - synonyms?

10.0  "Johannine" Vocabulary in the PA
      10.4 τουτο δε ελεγον πειραζοντες αυτον

12.0  Interconnectedness
      12.3 Ch.6 and the PA new connections

13.0  CHIASM

14.0  Conclusion


J.D. Punch's large and up-to-date review of the theories and evidences regarding the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera (PA, Jn 7:53-8:11) is a must-read for anyone who is interested in one of the most important textual variants of the New Testament Greek text.

It spans some 500 densely packed pages of information and discussion, and we heartily recommend that you get a copy of the .pdf file and print a hard-copy. Dr. Punch has generously placed it online on the internet. (The bibliography alone spans some 50 pages!)

Here we reproduce for review some excerpts of key sections wherein Dr. Punch discusses the Internal Evidence (i.e., grammar, vocabulary, literary structure) having a bearing on the authorship and origin of the PA.

Dr. Punch's discussion is thorough and well-referenced. Some of the evidence is relatively old, originating in textual critical publications from the 1800's, whereas other evidence is actually very new, ground-breaking material that again appears to vindicate the authenticity and authorship of this disputed passage.

We can only give a small sample here of this important discussion regarding the integrity of John's Gospel.



"Depending on the way one handles the variants of the pericope there are anywhere from twelve to fifteen words present in John 7:53-8:11 that are considered to be “non-Johannine,” due to the fact that they are found nowhere else in the Gospel of John nor in any of the Johannine Epistles.

footnote: For example, Johnson (1964:183) suggests thirteen, while Metzger (1994:189-190) discusses only seven. Köstenberger (2004:245) and Morgenthaler (1958:60-62, 187) list fourteen, while Bryant (1998:194 note 5), Hugenberger (2006), and Keith (2008:380) all list fifteen. Sinclair (1994:152) does as well, but he fails to list them.


Assuming the worst case scenario, the present work will consider fifteen terms found nowhere else in the Gospel:

ελαια (7:53),
3.2 ορθρος (8:2),
γραμματευς (8:3),
μοιχεια (8:3),
αυτοφωνος (8:4),
μοιχειω (8:4),
κυπτω (8:6),
καταγραφω (8:6),
επιμενω (8:7),
ανακυπτω (8:7, 10),
αναμαρτητος (8:7),
κατακυπτω (8:8),
πρεσβυτερος (8:9),
καταλειπω (8:9), and
κατακρινω (8:10 and 11).

3.2  ορθρος (8:2)   ["dawn"]

A second term from the pericope that is frequently labeled as non-Johannine [160] is ορθρος, found in 8:2 and generally translated as “early,” indicating a particular period of time before dawn.161 The reason for the non-Johannine label is due to the fact that this term is found only here in the Gospel of John, while appearing twice in Lukan writings, once in Luke 24:1 and another time in Acts 5:21. In an effort to explain the unusual appearance of this word in the pericope, Hodges and Farstad (1985:xxvii) suggest that the term ορθρος is “idiomatic.” Others try to link the term to Jesus’ “light of the world” statement in John 8:12, referencing Isaiah 9:2 as the backdrop of both ορθρος and Jesus’ statement (cf. Comfort, 1989:145-147, 1992:145; Heil, 1992:182-191).

This latter argument certainly accords well with typical of Johannine style of intertwining Old Testament passages into the Gospel text without direct quotation,[162] a trait less visible in the Synoptics (Moyise, 2004:71, 73), but it is problematic due to the fact that the term ορθρος does not actually appear in Isaiah 9. Some have observed that the Evangelist appears to have been particularly fond of Isaiah, quoting the book and borrowing themes frequently, thus stressing that a direct quotation is not necessary (Hanson, 1991:166; Harris, 1996-2006).

In fact, Dodd (1953b:61- 110) suggests that John regularly quotes from what he calls “the Bible of the early Church,” which he claims includes Isaiah 6-9:7 along with the aforementioned Zechariah 9-14. Following this suggestion, one might argue that the allusion to Isaiah 9:1-2 is an answer to the objection that “no prophet rises from Galilee” in 7:52 (Comfort, 1992:145). According to Isaiah 9, it is out of Galilee that the people will see a great light, the very thing that Jesus claims to be in John 8:12. All of these facts together do provide a fairly good case in favor of John using the term ορθρος from the LXX text of Isaiah; however, Harris (2006) also suggests that a connection to Isaiah 9 is neither required nor obvious. One should likely not make too much of this possible connection.

Still, it could be argued that perhaps the Evangelist is using a familiar term from the LXX, not from Isaiah but possibly from another book. This is due to the fact that ορθρος is used numerous times in the Septuagint,[163] including six times in Jeremiah (7:25, 25:4, 33:5, 39:33, 42;14, and 51:4), where the term is used forcefully to pronounce woes against Judah and the Temple. It is on these very Temple grounds chided by Jeremiah that the events of John 7:53-8:11 take place, and thus a connection to Jeremiah may be intended.

This argument could be further strengthened if one adds to this the possible link to Jeremiah 17:13, which several have suggested provides clues as to what Jesus wrote on the ground in 8:6 and a:8; this suggestion has been offered by ancient Church Fathers, such as Jerome (Pel. 2.17.20) and Ambrose (Ep. 50.4-5), but also by modern scholars as well (Jeremias, 1963:158; Schnackenburg, 1982:166; Minear, 1991:25).

While such speculations about what Jesus wrote on the ground are endless and often fruitless, it is worth considering that those who have suggested that Jesus wrote Jeremiah 17:13 may have observed directly or indirectly this connection to the book of Jeremiah (Schnackenburg, 1982:166).164 It is possible that the well-known and well-read book of Jeremiah has provided the inspiration for this unique term here in John and even in Luke/Acts as well. It does appear that some of the strongest connections between the Gospel of John and the LXX include the books of Jeremiah along with Ezekiel (Thompson, 2006:274), but the connection in this instance remains

Further, if a connection with Jeremiah is not intended, it also possible that there instead could be a connection with the book of Hosea (Yee, 1988:72). In Chapter 4, it was argued that much of the background of the Feast of Tabernacles is associated with Israel’s Wilderness period, which passages in Hosea highlight (cf. 2:14-23) (see section 2.3). The use of the term ορθρος may serve as a subtle connection to Hosea 2, much like the use of the phrase το ορος των ελαιων [the Mount of Olives] serves as a possible connection to the redemptive passage, Zechariah 14. However, like each of the suggested examples of Isaiah 9 and Jeremiah 17, there is little that provides absolute certainty of such connections.

Finally, it is also possible that the use of this term in the Pericope Adulterae may be the result of a choice to emphasize the contrasting actions of Jesus and the woman’s accusers. As discussed in Chapter 4, Johannine dualism often contrasts light and dark (see section 3.5). Whereas the adultery and/or the planned conspiracy of the scribes and Pharisees were likely conducted under the darkness of night, Jesus’ actions are in the open during the day. Though the Fourth Evangelist usually denotes time by ωρα (1:39, 4:6, and 19:14), the term ορθρος here in 8:2 may be used to signify that it is dawn, drawing attention to the light of the rising sun more so than to any particular time of day (Hodges, 1980:43). At the very least, the term could be used to signify the time of day when the festal pilgrims would return to the Temple for the day’s events (Lange, 1950:271).

It is difficult to know for certain where the term ορθρος comes from and whether or not it is an allusion to a particular book or books in the LXX, but there are several probable explanations for the appearance of this term in the Gospel of John. Due to possible connections in Jeremiah, Hosea, and/or Isaiah as well as the possibility of emphasis or intended contrasts, ορθρος should not so quickly be labeled as non-Johannine. Instead the term might rather be seen as a LXX term that is occasionally alluded to in certain situations in the New Testament, including here in the Pericope Adulterae. Further, semantically it is difficult to build a strong case around the appearance of the term given the fact that it only occurs two other times in the New Testament.

note 163. ορθρος also appears in: Genesis 19:15, 32:27, Exodus 19:16, Joshua 6:15, Judges 16:2, 1925, 19:26, 1 Samuel, 9:26, 1 Esdras 9:41, Nehemiah 4:15, Ezra 5:14, Judith 14:2, 14:11, Tobit 8:18, Psalm 56:9, 62:7, 107:3, 118:148, 138:9, Proverbs 7:18, 23:25, Song of Solomon 6:10, Sirach 24:32, Hosea 6:3, 10:15, Amos 4:13, Joel 2:2, Susanna 1:12, and 1:13.

3.4  λαος (8:2)   ["the people"]

One does not have to go very far to find the next term/phrase that is often cited to argue that this pericope is foreign to the Gospel of John. Verse 2 also includes the phrase πας ο λαος, which has been translated “all the people.” The argument for what makes this phrase “non-Johannine” is that the lexicon of John, including a few times in the context of the preceding chapter 7 (7:12, 20, 31, 32, 40, 43, and 49), frequently uses οχλος for “people” rather than λαος as found in 8:2. [170] The latter of these terms is found only twice in the entire Gospel, outside of the Pericope Adulterae (11:50 and 18:14); in contrast it is found frequently in the Synoptic Gospels (fifty-two times) with the majority of this in the Gospel of Luke.

The usage of λαος is admittedly rare in the Gospel of John, but there may be some warrant for using the term in this situation rather than the more common οχλος. These two terms are by no means synonyms (Abbott, 1968a:254ff). λαος appears to be used in only one way in the Fourth Gospel: to refer to the Jewish people as an ethnic whole. This is in contrast to its typical usage in the Synoptic Gospels, where the term generally means “the crowd” (Kittel and Friedrich, vol. IV, 1973:51; Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, 2000; Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, 2000:467-468).

In the Fourth Gospel, λαος is only used from the Pharisee's viewpoint, once when spoken by Caiaphas in his claim that it would be better for Jesus to die for “the people” (11:50) and a second time when this claim is ironically reiterated by the narrator at Jesus’ appearance before Caiaphas and Annas (18:14). From this perspective λαος may be used to refer to the more “respectable” classes that had access to the Temple and who supported and/or revered the ruling religious parties. This would be the recognized citizens of Judea who could
freely come and go into the Temple to hear religious teaching and political news. In other words, it would signify the Jewish nationals.

On the other hand, οχλος is used in nineteen verses in the Fourth Gospel, [171] almost invariably referring to the crowd of people gathering around Jesus because of his signs and his teaching. In regards to this, οχλος appears to be generally used in reference to the general public, the common people, those who were not allowed full Temple access and/or respect. This multitude would include national Jews, but presumably also Gentiles, Samaritans, persons with disabilities, and other mixes of people as well (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, 2000:605-606).

This is significant for the present discussion. The setting of Jesus’ teaching of “the people” and his ultimate confrontation with the scribes and Pharisees appears to be in the outer courts, likely the Court of Women (Hodges, 1980:49-50; Newbigin, 1982:92). This is where the Jews could be assembled, not further outside in such places as the Court of Gentiles or even outside the walled in courts, where the marginalized of society would be expected to congregate. Evidence from the first century, indicates that there were likely threats of death were extended to non-Jews who attempted to pass from these outer courts such as the Court of Gentiles into the Court of Women (Ferguson, 2003:564, “Warning Inscription”). It would likely then only be the national Jews who were allowed to enter into the Court of Women to hear from Jesus, not the large mixed crowds. Thus, the unusual use of the term λαος in the Pericope Adulterae may simply be an attempt on the part of the Evangelist to highlight that Jesus is speaking to “his own” (John 1:11), the Jews, in keeping with the statement spoken by Caiaphas’ and restated by the narrator.

The usage of the term may also be an ironic twist provided on the heels of the statement by the Pharisees in 7:49. Here, the Pharisees claim that “this people” or “this crowd” (οχλος) does not know the Law. This claim is clearly intended in a derogatory manner, as the Pharisees seem to imply that they are not deceived by Jesus; they are the true Jews who know the Law.

The irony provided by the term λαος is that it is not just the “deceived” multitudes that are coming to Jesus; this is also those who are of true Jewish lineage. If this is indeed the case, the appearance of the term would provide an additional example of Johannine irony (see section 11.4 below).

Moloney (1998b:263) has further suggested that the phrase πας ο λαος is an idiomatic figure of speech, providing another possible explanation for the appearance of this phrase in the Pericope Adulterae. If this is true, one could not use the idiom without using the exact wording of the idiom. In the present case, this requires the text to include the term λαος instead of οχλος.

This argument, however, does not fully prove that the appearance of such a phrase is in keeping with Johannine style, for the idiom does not occur anywhere else in the Gospel. In contrast, the phrase is found once in Matthew and five times in the Luke/Acts (Luke 7:29, 18:43, 21:38, Acts 3:9,
and 3:11). Thus, one could argue that the idiom is more Lukan than Johannine. Against such a claim, there is widespread usage of the phrase πας ο λαος in the LXX; therefore, it is likely that the idiom is more representative of more ancient sources than of Lukan material.

When Jesus’ situation in John 7:53-8:11 is compared to that of Moses’ receiving of the Law in Exodus, it can be noted that the phrase may find additional common ground (Goodier, 2008:14). Particularly interesting is Exodus 19, where the people are about to receive the Law at Mount Sinai and Exodus 20 after Moses receives the Law; λαος is found eighteen times in Exodus 19:5-25 and three times in 20:18-21. In fact, λαος is the word used 168 times in Exodus to describe “the people,” compared to οχλος which is never used in the book. Given the parallels to Moses presented throughout the Tabernacles Discourse and in the Pericope Adulterae (see sections 2.3 and 3.1 in Chapter 4), it perhaps makes more sense for the author to use the term λαος.

Any of the above arguments should suffice to explain the appearance of this term; together they may even provide a substantial rebuttal to any claims that the appearance of the term makes the Pericope Adulterae “non-Johannine.” While the term or phrase is not necessarily “Johannine,” it does not appear to be uniquely Lukan nor Synoptic either; it is instead likely a biblical term. λαος and/or the expression πας ο λαος, similar to the terms discussed above, is found about 200 times in the LXX. Likewise, though rare, λαος cannot necessarily be labeled a non-Johannine, for it is found in the Fourth Gospel on occasion, outside of the Pericope Adulterae.

Note 170. Cf. Exell and Spence, 1890-1919; Hoskyns, 1940:679; Marsh, 1957:682; Macgregor, 1959:212; Salvoni, 1960:12; Barrett, 1978:561; Godet, 1978:84; Talbert, 1992:157; Carson, 2000:334; Keith, 2009:89 note 3; Lincoln, 2005:529- 530. Against this Wieland Willker (2007:17) suggests that the entire sentence πας ο λαος ηρχετο προς αυτον is not Lukan, though he does not argue that it is Johannine either.

4.0   HAPAX LEGOMENA   (p.200)

Due to the fact that the subject of hapax legomena has been mentioned frequently in the above sections, further discussion is warranted. Several arguments for various terms have been tempered due to the fact that we are unable to compare these terms with the other New Testament books. For example, Köstenberger (2000:246) suggests that the hapax terms cannot be used, so that only a small number of terms can actually be used in the discussion about Johannine vocabulary. In other words, a lack of evidence is not evidence. However, the high number of hapax legomena terms in the Pericope Adulterae is admittedly odd, and therefore can lead to suggestions that this hints at a non-Johannine origin of the passage.209

At the same time, it is quite possible, as Cadbury (1917:237-244) notes, that the fact that no other New Testament writer uses a term is often accidental. More appropriately, this may be due to the fact that these writers wrote in different regions over different time periods. While they had similar beliefs and theologies which were presented, each was done so in different writing styles. In light of this, it is often necessary to widen the scope of analysis to include extra-canonical literature from similar regions and time periods, which was done on a number of occasions above. Of course, hapax legomena are neither unique to the Pericope Adulterae nor to the Gospel of John for that matter. There are approximately 1,932 hapax legomena in the twenty-seven books of the New Testament (United Bible Society, 2008). Beyond that there are sixty hapax legomena in the Gospel of John, in addition to twenty-four words that are distinctive multiples and 373 terms that are used only once in the Gospel (Anderson, 2006:170). Clearly, hapax legomena is not uncommon in the Fourth Gospel. This begs the questions, what is the significance of the high concentration of hapax legomena (thirteen) is a brief section of verses?

Once again, this is not without comparison in the Gospel of John. Alan Johnson (1966:96ff) has demonstrated that John 2:13-17 fairs even worse than the Pericope Adulterae, for it contains fourteen hapax terms (also see Diagram 2.0 above). Whereas the hapax legomena terms comprise 16% of the Pericope Adulterae’s vocabulary, it is 30% in John 2:13-17. Similarly, Johnson shows that 20% of the hapax legomena and 25% of the distinctive multiples in the Fourth Gospel are found in chapters 18 and 19 of John (Ibid). While these chapters may demonstrate some Synoptic resemblance, no one is readily arguing to have them excluded from the Gospel of John. This should serve as warning not to read too much in the high number of hapax legomena in John 7:53-8:11. Statistics can be used to discredit what scholars consider to be genuine Johannine passages. This argument will be resumed again in subsequent sections, but for now one notes that large numbers of hapax legomena terms should not be too alarming.

6.0   Missing “Preferred” Johannine Terms   (p.202)

Beyond that which some consider to be “non-Johannine” terms and stylistic traits detailed above, there are some additional arguments against the Pericope Adulterae based upon what does not appear. The argument is put forth that because certain terms are used regularly in Johannine literature, thus making them “preferred” Johannine terms, the Pericope Adulterae should be no different in including such “preferred” terms if it is to be deemed authentically Johannine. Such terms as αλλα, εαν, εκ, ημεις, ινα μη, μαθητης, οιδα, ος, οτι, ου, υμας, υμεις have been suggested (Köstenberger, 2004:245, 2003:348). Morgenthaler (1958:60-62) goes further, claiming that John 7:53-8:11 only includes twenty-six out of seventy-five words that he has identified as “preferred” Johannine terms. His list is more extensive than most, including the additional terms εκ, αλλα, μαθητης, οτι, ινα, ινα μη, ου, οιδα, εαν, εαν μη, εγω, ει, ει μη, ημην, ειμι, ημεις, ος (Ibid, 61); he lists them within his overall tabulations of frequency of word usage in the New Testament (Ibid, 67ff). [212] This line of reasoning may prove to further distance the Pericope Adulterae from the Gospel of John; however, as observed above many undisputed passages in the Gospel of John are missing many of these so-called preferred Johannine terms (see Diagram 2.0). Alan Johnson (1966:93-94) has been very critical of Morgenthaler’s findings, not only in relation to the Pericope Adulterae, but also to the Gospel of John; he has further demonstrated that similar statistical analyses can be used to discredit the Pauline authorship of certain undisputed Pauline epistles. Nevertheless, such arguments of missing Johannine vocabulary warrant an investigation.

212. Morgenthaler’s results are perhaps not as dramatic as they may at first appear, for many of the terms he suggests are variations of the same term. For example, ημεις and ημην are both forms of εγω, yet these three are listed as missing Johannine witnesses. Further, Alan Johnson (1966:94 note 20) observes that the frequently mentioned John 2:13-17 is missing all of these terms except for οτι, ινα, εκ, αλλα, μαθητης, ημην, ου in addition to being absent of ουν.

6.2   δε versus ουν   (p.204)

Arguably, the most significant example of missing Johannine style is in reference to the postpositives present in the passage, specifically the heavy use of δε as opposed to the more common ουν. [215] In fact, Vern Poythress (1984) conducted a study regarding Johannine authorship and the usage of conjunctions in which he suggests that John 7:53-8:11 is non-Johannine redactional material due to the infrequent use of the latter term and the frequent use of the former. [216] δε is found ten or eleven times in the Pericope Adulterae, depending upon a variant reading in 8:1; ουν appears only once, in 8:5. δε is a conjunctive particle, most commonly denoting continuation and further thought development (Abbot, 1968a:104).

Depending on the context it can take a specific sense “and” or “but” when used in contrast, or “then” or “now” when used in transition (Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, 2000). ουν is another conjunction that is generally used to introduce a logical result or inference from what precedes (Ibid), but very commonly in the Gospel of John, it is also appears to be used in historical narratives to resume the main narrative after background information has been given through an interruption/asi δε [217] In these instances, the term is can be translated as “so, to go on, etc.”

It is assumed that ουν is the preferred Johannine term, yet this is not entirely true, for the two terms have roughly equal footing within the Gospel of John. Not including the Pericope Adulterae, ουν is found 199 times in the Gospel, while δε is found 201 times; further, kai. appears to be the most common Johannine conjunction, appearing over 500 times in the Gospel. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by Richard Goodier (2008:16).

Simply considering the term δε, it is not difficult to see that there are other passages in John’s Gospel with similarly high counts of the term δε. For example, there are seven occurrences in 5:2-13, seven in 6:2-16, seven in 11:1-13, and nine occurrences in 18:14-25, just to name a few. Most notably one finds high appearances of the term in the same Tabernacle Discourse: eight in 7:2-18 and six in 7:27-41. In fact, by considering all three conjunctions in the discussion and comparing the first eleven verses of John 7 with the first eleven of John 8, there are surprising results. In John 7:1-11, kai. is used six times, δε is used seven times, and ουν is used once; in John 8:1-11 kai. is used nine times, δε is used nine times, and ουν used only once. The frequency of the terms is quite similar. John 7:53-8:11 may not be all that unique when it comes to multiple appearances of δε, after all. Further, the usage of δε drops off significantly in chapters 13-17, where Jesus exclusively teaches and prays. In these five chapters there are roughly thirty occurrences of δε compared with much heavier uses in many chapters in the Book of Signs, John 1-12, which includes much more narrative. For example, δε is found twenty times in chapter 11 alone. δε appears to be more prevalent in narrative chapters which is similar to that of the Pericope Adulterae.

There are similar results in comparing ουν. Although there is only one occurrence of ουν in the John 7:53-8:11, there are other passages in the Gospel with limited usage. The term is absent from 1:1-20, 3:1-24, 4:12-27, 11:22-30, chapters 14, chapter 15, and chapter 17 (Exell and Spence, 1890- 1919). Most significantly, in similar narrative passages within the Book of Signs, one finds nearly identical figures to that of the pericope: zero appearances in 2:1-13, two in 5:1-15, and two in 6:1-12.

Is there an explanation for this? Perhaps so. The Gospel of John seems to normally reserve ουν for connecting portions of narrative that have a “cause/effect” relationship or a logical sequence; δε on the other hand is usually used to contrast two events, people, or circumstances, which may be antithetical or unexpected (Köstenberger, 2003:352-353). Whereas both terms could be used for logical sequences, the unusual turns in the Pericope Adulterae may create less occasion for ουν, thus calling for the alternate choice of δε (Lange, 1950:271). Context may therefore become the determining factor dictating which postpositive term can be used and which cannot.

Ultimately, arguments regarding δε/ ουν may be a little misleading. For example, Poythress (1984:368-369) barely meets his own suggested criteria for what is considered to be Johannine. He suggests that over 10% of demontratable use of the term δε is required to label any passage as non- Johannine; according to his study, the Pericope Adulterae has 10%. Further, his tabulations also show that 1:41-42,1:35-40,1:41-42,4:27-30,4:39-42,6:1- 15,7:1-9,10:19-21,18:28-32, and 19:38-42 have equally high percentages as well, yet Poythress does not appear to question these passages. The rarity of ουν and the high usage of δε in John 7:53-8:11 is perhaps a little odd, but the passage is not the only one in the Fourth Gospel that is odd in this respect.

The pattern of use of δε and ουν, as well as kai. in the Pericope Adulterae is quite in keeping with many other portions of the Gospel of John. Despite the claims otherwise, very little weight ought to rest on this peculiarity.

215 Meyer, 1884:256; Marsh, 1957:682; Morgenthaler, 1958:61-62; Burge, 1984:144; Wallace, 1993:290-296; Köstenberger, 2004:246.

216 Poythress also suggests that 1:1-18, 5:4, and 21:1-2 are redactional material as well based on the same findings.

217 Examples of such usage can be found in John 2:22, 4:5, 4:6, 4:9, 4:28, 4:33, 4:40, 4:45, 4:46, 4:48, 4:52, 4:53, 5:10, 5:19, 6:5, 6:13, 6:21, 6:24, 6:30, 6:41, 6:53, 6:67, 7:3, 7:6, 7:43, 8:13, 8:21, 8;22, etc.


10.0  "Johannine Vocabulary in the PA   (p.218)

Discussion now turns towards examples of what might be considered to be Johannine vocabulary and style in the passage. While there are admittedly many terms and phrases that warrant explanation due to their non-Johannine nature, there are perhaps an equal amount stylistic traits and familiar or “preferred” terminology that appear to be Johannine in nature present in the pericope. These traits deserve explanation if one is going to label John 7:53-8:11 an intrusion to the Gospel text. In other words, both sides of the debate bear the burden of proof.

10.4   τουτο δε ελεγον πειραζοντες αυτον   (p.224)

Of course, what may be the most commonly-suggested Johannine characteristic found in the Pericope Adulterae is the aside, an interruption to make explicit the idea of the trap found in 8:6, “They said this to test him.”245 In some cases, the Fourth Evangelist often breaks into the narrative accounts to relay additional information explaining the nature of what is being said or done (6:6, 6:71, 7:39, 11:13, 11:51, 12:6, 12:33, 13:11, 13:28, and 21:19)(Thatcher, 1999:54). In other related examples, the Evangelist translates Semitic terms into Greek for the reader (1:38, 1:41, 1:42, 4:25, 5:2, 9:7, 19:13, 19:17, 20:16), provides additional information about times and places (6:4, 7:2, 9:14, 10:22-3, 11:17) or customs (4:9, 19:40), identifies persons in the narrative (6:71, 7:50, 11:2, 18:10, 18:14, 18:40, 19:38-9), or reveals thoughts/recollections of certain persons in the narrative (2:22,12:16). There are also asides where the Evangelist provides information about himself (1:14b, 19:35, 21:24-5) or about Jesus’ knowledge of the events unfolding (2:24-5, 6:6, 13:1, 13:3)(Neyrey, 2006:148). There are no less than five asides in the Tabernacles Discourse alone (7:2, 7:5, 8:20, 8:27, and 8:30). The Fourth Evangelist exhibits the ability to read minds and share the inner thoughts and feelings of his characters which is often demonstrated with an aside, but also in general statements that detail the events of the Gospel (cf. 1:10, 2:21, 24-25, 6:21, 7:5, 9:22, 12:6, 12:37, 13:29, and 19:38). This is especially true with Jesus’ enemies, the Pharisees and religious leaders (cf. 5:18, 7:1, 7:44, 9:18, 11:51, 12:43).

This is what Alan Johnson referred to as “a stylistic trait” in his 1964 dissertation (see section 3.9 in Chapter 2). He describes the literary patterns for these behind-the-scenes look into the action taking place as short, explanatory phrases interjected in order interpret the significance of the words that have just been spoken in the narrative. The explanatory phrase is usually introduced by three elements: 1) the conjunction “now” (δε), 2) the demonstrative “this” (τουτο), and 3) a form of the verb “to speak” (λέγειν) (Johnson, 1966:95). Of the ten examples noted by Johnson (6:6, 6:71, 7:39, 11:13, 11:51, 12:6, 12:33, 13:11, 13:28, and 21:29), seven include all three elements, while the other three have two elements. At the time of Johnson’s work, he claims that this fact “stylistic trait” was completely ignored (1966:96). Since that time, this has changed a bit. Some like Zane Hodges (1979, 1980) and J.P. Heil (1991, 1994) have agreed with Johnson’s assessment and followed his suggestions in making their arguments for the inclusion of the pericope. Even a few who disagree with Johnson’s argument for the inclusion of John 7:53-8:11 within the Gospel of John have noted similar findings as well. 246

What makes this statement in 8:6 even more interesting for the present discussion is that the Greek is virtually identical to the Greek of John 6:6. In 8:6, it states that τουτο δε ελεγον πειραζοντες αυτον' in 6:6, it is rendered τουτο δε ελεγεν πειραζων αυτον. Both instances have the conjunction δε, the demonstrative pronoun τουτο, the imperfect active indicative form of the verb λέγειν, and the present active nominative participial form of the verb πειραζω. The only difference in form is that the verbs in 6:6 are singular and plural in 8:6, which is due to the fact that the aside in 6:6 is used to describe Jesus’ actions in chapter 6 before he multiplies the bread and fish, whereas the aside in 8:6 reveals the intent of Jesus’ opponents in the Pericope Adulterae. The former is in reference to an individual, while the latter refers to a group. At the same time, different context provides for an additional difference: Jesus’ “test” in chapter 6 appears to be innocent; however, the “test” levied against Jesus in John 7:53-8:11 appears to be malicious. The verb πειραζω allows for both meanings: “test, try, examine, tempt, etc.” (Liddell and Scott, 1961; Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, 2000; United Bible Societies, 2008). Because of this, the different contexts do not hinder the noted trait. Both asides provide additional information that gives the reader a behind-the-scenes look at what is happening in each narrative.

This is uniquely Johannine, for although the Synoptic Gospels recount occasions where Jesus’ opponents approached him in order to test him (cf. Matt. 16:1, 19:3, 22:35, etc.), the wording is very different to that of the Johannine examples cited (Köstenberger, 2004:246). Newman and Nida (1980:260) note the similarities, but suggest that context indicates that the meaning of each is slightly different. Likewise, there are common terms (πειραζω and λεγω) between some of these passages, but this does not have the same force as the strikingly similar phrases of John 6:6 and 8:6. Instead the Synoptic statements about testing are not referenced as asides of the narrator. Only in the Gospel of John does one find examples similar to that of John 8:6. Heil (1991:182-191) argues strongly for this as well.

Daniel Wallace (1993:292) disagrees suggesting that this particular aside in John 8:6 finds common ground with Matthew 4:3 and 19:3. However, Heil (1994:362) has since countered by pointing out although Jesus is tested in Matthew 4:3 and 19:3, neither of these verses functions as an aside of the narrator, as do both John 6:6 and 8:6. Against Metzger (1994:188 note 3), who claims that Wallace’s rebuttal is more probable, it appears that Heil’s argument is more convincing, for he demonstrates that both examples are direct statements of the narrative action of the passages. Köstenberger (2000:246) agrees by noting that Wallace makes some great individual points, he does not fully succeed in undermining Heil’s argument. On the surface, it appears that this narrative interruption provides a substantial Johannine link for the Pericope Adulterae, yet this debate appears to have little effect on the scholarly opinion of this passage (Moloney, 1998b:263). In fact, the argument may have lost some of the force with which Johnson provided, despite the best attempts of Heil and Hodges, because of further suggestions from others scholars.

For example, though Raymond Brown (1966:333) labels the Greek in John 8:6 as being identical to John 6:6, he nevertheless concludes that there is also similarity between Luke 6:7 and John 8:6. Brown does not suggest this for the same portion of the verses detailed above where Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees say this to εχωσιν κατηγορειν αυτου, but for the portion of John 8:6 that follows this phrase. In John 8:6, the scribes and Pharisees attempt to test Jesus ινα εχωσιν κατηγορειν αυτου. Similarly, Luke 6:7 says that the scribes and Pharisees watched Jesus to see if he would heal on the Sabbath ινα ευρωσιν κατηγορειν αυτου. However, the appearance of the term κατεγορεω itself is not too significant for the term is also found in John 5:45, demonstrating at least minimal Johannine use. Still, the term is more common in the Gospel of Luke, or at least in one chapter of this Gospel (Luke 23:2, 23:10, and 23:14). This verb is also found multiple times in Acts (22:30, 24:2, 24:8, 24:13, 24:19, 25:5, 25:11, 25:16, and 28:19), as well as few times in the Gospels of Matthew (12:10 and 27:12) and Mark (3:2, 15:3, and 15:4). The combination of the infinite of the verb κατηγορησω with the subjunctive verb ευρισκω is, on the other hand, more significant. There is no other example of this combination of terms in the New Testament. With the added appearance of οι γραμματεις και οι Φαρισαιοι, this connection may become even more noteworthy as Chris Keith notes (2008:380). Of course, the phrase οι γραμματεις και οι Φαρισαιοι only occurs in Luke 6:7. It is implied in John 8:6, because this party was presented in 8:3 and is responsible for all of action through 8:6, but the phrase is absent from the verse. There is little that can be said to dispute Brown’s observation. There are similarities between the two verses; however, this does not negate the similarity with John 6:6. It is a matter of debate as to which of the similarities is strongest.

Further complicating the connection between John 6:6 and 8:6 is the fact that the aside does not appear in all manuscripts at John 8:6. Therefore, some considered the aside to possibly be a secondary, later addition to the text diminishing claims of Johannine style.247 Becker (1963:56-58) most forcefully argues that 8:6a is an interpolation, but the results of his argument are uncertain.

More recently, Brad Young (1995) has commented that verse 8:6a is a later addition to the text, suggesting that there are six stages that can be outlined for the pericope’s textual transmission.[248] However, Young’s argument is not entirely convincing, mostly due to the weight of the manuscript evidence. While there is some variance in the 8:6a itself, nearly all manuscripts have this portion of the verse, and the earliest manuscripts provided include the entire portion of the verse that reads similar to 6:6. There is no solid evidence for any of these stages, and with exception of the appearance of a portion of 8:6a duplicated in John 8:4 in the manuscripts D and 1071 (see Diagram 1.0), there is no evidence of confusion over the placement of the verse as suggested by some.

In fact, these two manuscripts that include the similar phrase ινα εχωσιν κατηγορειν αυτου in verse 4 also include the phrase in 8:6a as well. Further, such arguments that the explanatory phrase might best be explained as a scribal interpolation attempting to make the pericope appear to be more “Johannine” cut both ways. For in acknowledging that this phrase appears to be Johannine only further confirms the analysis that the statement is distinctly Johannine in style (Johnson, 1966:96).

It is also possible that the statement in 8:6a is original to the text, a view expressed by some such as von Soden (1902:486-524), Knust (2005:491) and Keith (2009:159), but like many of the verses of the Pericope Adulterae, verse 6 may have suffered through a difficult textual history along with the rest of the pericope. This will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, but for now it is simply noted that due to the unusual textual history of John 7:53-8:11, an unusually high number of variants are present (Burge, 1984:144; O’Day, 199:639 note 2; Aland and Aland, 1989:296).249

If the Pericope Adulterae was expunged from the Gospel of John at an early period and later reinserted and after many decades/centuries of suppression or if it floated as a written extra-canonical tradition about Jesus, it is possible that some parts of the text might be lost, augmented, and/or rearranged. It is likely that the statement in 8:6 could have been original but lost from certain manuscripts over time. One cannot know with absolute certainty whether the statement found in 8:6 is original or not. There is a chance that it is a secondary interpolation, but it seems unlikely. If a scribe wanted to make the text look more Johannine would not it have been more effective to use distinctive Johannine vocabulary in other parts of the pericope as well? It seems more appropriate, especially in light of the textual evidence for the early inclusion of 8:6, to consider this to be a strong piece of evidence for Johannine influence and/or authorship.

245. Cf. Johnson, 1964, 1966:95; Brown, 1966-1970:333, 2003:290-292; Barclay, 1975:260; Hodges, 1980:44; Heil, 1991, 1994; Köstenberger, 2004:246; Neyrey, 2006:148.

246. Cf. Brown, 1966-1970:333; Barclay, 1975:260; Köstenberger, 2004:246; Neyrey, 2006:148. Alan Johnson (1966:95 note 24) further notes that Colwell, who does not agree with Johnson’s overall thesis, supports his findings.

247. Cf. Becker, 1963:56-58; Newman and Nida, 1973:259; Barrett, 1978:591; Morris, 1995:886-887; Young, 1995:61-2.

248. 1) The story circulated without verse 6a. 2) The story became popular enough to be inserted into one or more manuscripts of the text of John (most often after 7:52, but also in a few other locations such as 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25). 3) Verse 6a was placed into the story in one or more manuscripts of John. 4) Some copies of the Gospel were generated lacking 7:53-8:11 while other copies contained the story of the woman caught in adultery, some with 8:6a, some without. 5) Confusion arose over the position of John 8:6a because the interpolation broke the continuity of the episode and because other texts omitted 8:6a. 6) Verse 6a achieves a permanent place in the Gospel tradition.

249. It is very probable that a tampering with the text is the root cause of the numerous variants associated with John 7:53-8:11, similar to what is described as occuring in various other locals in the New Testament text (Aland and Aland, 1989:296).

12.0  Interconnectedness   (p.246)

12.1 Chapters 5 and 7

As mentioned above in section 11.7, there may also be some interrelated chapters that can be observed in the Gospel of John, specifically in Book of Signs,” chapters 1-12. Though some interconnectedness has been observed by various scholars (cf. Brown,1966-1970:307; von Wahlde, 1981:385-404; Martyn, 2003:68-74), Wayne Meeks (1967:42-44) and Alan Culpepper (1998:166ff) appear to be most vocal regarding the links that exist between chapters 5 and 7, while Rudolph Schnackenburg (1982:171ff) is most vocal in regards to chapters 7 and 8 (excluding the verses of the Pericope Adulterae, of course).

Due to the fact these four chapters relate most closely to John 7:53-8:11 and that they have the most extensive observable connections that have been suggested, the present discussion will focus on these chapters instead of the Gospel as a whole, beginning with Culpepper’s assessment of chapters 5 and 7, followed by Schnackenburg’s work. Once these observations have been discussed, attention will turn towards the possibility of additional connections between chapter 6 and John 7:53-8:11.

Before considering these connections, it should be noted that not everyone is convinced by such theories. Instead, some argue that the various dislocations can account for these similarities (cf. Quimby, 1947:26- 30; Bultmann, 1971; Fortna, 1988), claiming that various sections of the Gospel have been rearranged by a later redactor or even by accidental misplacements (see sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 in Chapter 2 for a discussion of such theories).

Yet, as will be demonstrated in the following chapter (see section 7.0), such complicated Source Theories do not provide satisfactory explanations for all of these similarities. Further, no such theory has ben proven. While such Source Theories remain possibilities, none seems to be the most probable explanation of the current form of the Fourth Gospel. Instead, work like that of Culpepper and Schnackenburg appears to provide substantial evidence that certain chapters were thoughtfully crafted together, perhaps by the same person or persons who wrote the entire Fourth Gospel.


12.2 Chapters 7 and 8

Likewise, Schnackenburg (1982:171ff) has observed a parallel structure and common themes between chapters 7 and 8, though his observations are not as methodical; because these two chapters comprise a single discourse, “the Tabernacles Discourse,” they are perhaps not as enticing as Culpepper’s either. Similarly, Schnackenburg does not provide this information in the same convenient format of a table as Culpepper has done. Nevertheless, his findings are demonstrable ...

12.3  Chapter 6 and 7:53-8:11   (p.249)

The real question now becomes, does one find a comparable structure when chapters 6 and 7:53-8:11 are compared? The answer seems to be yes. Similar to Culpepper’s findings in chapters 5 and 7, these links are not always in a chronological order, but as will demonstrated below, less backtracking is required than in Culpepper’s observations. At the same time, some of the connections between chapter 6 and 7:53-8:11 may not be quite as pronounced as that which precedes. Thus it could be seen as speculative, yet the more numerous amounts of connections may nullify this claim. The following table, Diagram 6.0, illustrates the links between these two sections, John 6:14-47 and 7:52-8:11, which will be further discussed below:

Diagram 6.0

ch 6themech 7/8
6:14 the Prophet to come 7:52 .
6:15 Jesus retires to a mountain alone 8:1.
6:17 night/darkness 8:1.
6:22-25 the following day the people stand 8:2.
6:37,44 the people came to him 8:2.
6:21,45 taught of God 8:2.
6:25 Rabbi/teacher 8:4.
6:30-32 Moses gave 8:5.
6:30 "What will you do/say?" 8:5.
6:36 Unbelief 8:6.
6:21 earth/ground 8:6.
6:41-2, 60-1 they murmured at/pressed him 8:7.
6:66 Jesus ' words cause many to exit 8:9.
6:39-40 raised up 8:10.
6:40, 47 life 8:11.

12.3.1 The Prophet to Come

This first connection includes 7:52, which is not part of the Pericope Adulterae per se, but because it does lead into the passage, it is considered in this discussion. 6:14 indicates that discussions are swirling among the Jewish people and leaders, presumably including Pharisees (and possibly the scribes), about the possible appearance of “the Prophet.” Ever since the words were penned in Exodus 18:15, the people of Israel had been looking for “a prophet like [Moses] from among [their] own brothers.” When the prophecies of the Book of Daniel were combined with this passage providing a timetable for the appearance of this Prophet, speculation grew even more; it is the very period of time in which Jesus lived that was foretold by these prophecies, giving rise to much expectation and speculation. [264]

It is presumably within this context of heightened first century Messianic expectations that the people in John 6:14 question whether or not Jesus is this “Prophet.” Similarly in 7:52, when the Jews’ questions about Jesus’ identity are circling around the room, Nicodemus appeals for a refrain from quick judgment. The Pharisees immediately respond that “a prophet does not come out of Galilee.” With no prior discussion of this subject, it appears that they clearly knew that there was great speculation about Jesus being a prophet, if not “the Prophet,” and that Nicodemus’ suggestion was offered out of the possibility that this might be true. Thus, in both chapter 6 and the end of chapter 7, Messianic expectations are attributed to Jesus, providing the first link.

12.3.2 Retiring to the Mountain

The next connection is found in the pericope proper, that of Jesus retiring to a mountain alone. In the first case of 6:15, the text indicates that Jesus did so because he knew that the people “would come and make him king by force;” in order to avoid this situation, Jesus “withdraws again to the mountain alone” (ανεχωρησεν παλιν εις το ορος αυτος μονος). In the latter case (8:1), Jesus retires to the Mount of Olives because he has no home. He leaves the city at the end of the Feast of Tabernacles, but having no place to call home, unlike the majority of others stated in 7:53, he spends the night outdoors. There is no discussion about whether or not the apostles went him; the text only indicates that Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, a place that is often described as a resting spot of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 21:1, 24:3, 26:30, Mark 11:1, 13:3, 14:26, Luke 21:37, and 22:39)(Hoskyns, 1940:678; O’Day 1995:628; Moloney, 1998b:260). This is likely done to indicate the isolation of Jesus from the rest of the people, especially in light of the context of Tabernacles. The Feast has concluded and everyone returns to his/her home, but Jesus has no home. It is also possible that this is connected with the earlier account where Jesus retires alone in chapter 6. Growing speculation about Jesus’ being “the Prophet” (7:40) and/or “the Christ” (7:26-27, 31, 41) could have led to further attempts to make him king. This is uncertain and the reasons for Jesus’ stay on the mountain in solitude may be slightly different, but the connection can still be seen: after a busy day of teaching, facing the questions of the people, and heightened expectations about his identity/role, Jesus withdraws from the public eye seeking shelter.

12.3.3 Night

The third link is the reference to night/darkness. This is admittedly not an overwhelmingly-powerful observation because explicit reference to “night” in not indicated in either text, but it is a link nonetheless because “night” is implied in each. John 6:16 states that “evening came” (οψια εγενετο), and 6:17 further adds it was “dark” (σκοτια). While neither of these terms, nor νυξ, is used in the Pericope Adulterae, the text does state that Jesus went to the Temple at “dawn” (ορθρος) in 8:2. This is following mention of the fact that the people had gone to their own homes and that Jesus had gone to the Mount of Olives the previous day, indicating that night had passed. Both passages reference night without using the term νυξ, and both do so in subtle fashion.

12.3.4 Standing the Following Day

The events immediately following provide the next textual link; the following day, the people “stand” and seek out Jesus. In 6:22-25, the people realize that Jesus has left them behind, and they are standing on the shore, or literally “standing beyond the sea” (εστηκως περαν της θαλασσης). In 6:24, they go after Jesus, seeking to hear (and/or eat) more. In the Pericope Adulterae, the people seek out Jesus in the Temple in order to hear more, and they stand to listen to him while he teaches (8:2). While one does not find direct reference to “standing,” it is clearly implied, for Jesus sits in the position of a rabbi to teach while the people gather around him standing in traditional fashion to hear what he has to say. [265]

This seeking out of Jesus for further teaching is also paralleled in each of the passages. In chapter 6, Jesus gives his famous “Bread of Life” discourse (6:1-15) where he claims to be superior to the one who provided the manna in the Wilderness, Moses. Jesus goes beyond simply giving the manna, claiming to be the true manna itself and the true Giver of manna, God himself. Because of this, the people come to Jesus to hear more of this teaching (and perhaps to eat again as Jesus comments in 6:26). The significance is that Jesus’ claims to fulfill Old Testament imagery, particularly that of the Wilderness period (see sections 2.1 and 2.3 in Chapter 4), causes the people to seek him out to hear more. Likewise in the Tabernacles Discourse, Jesus claims to fulfill much of imagery associated with the Feast, most notably the living water (7:37-38), but also the giving of the Law. If the Pericope Adulterae is in its proper location and chronological sequence, then the people are found coming to Jesus for more teaching on the day following significant claims of prophetic fulfillment. It is possible that they are standing by in expectation hoping to satisfy their spiritual thirsts, similar to how they stood by in expectation of having their spiritual hunger satisfied in chapter 6.

12.3.5 Teaching of God

Another link, though not admittedly a very strong one, is reference to “teaching of God.” In John 6:45, Jesus quotes the Prophets (Isaiah 54:13) stating that “they will be taught by God;” then, he adds where (or to whom) these people go when they have been taught of God: they will come to Jesus and willingly receive him. A possible example of this was demonstrated earlier when Jesus’ disciples “willingly” (θελω) receive Jesus into their boat in verse 21 after learning that he is mysterious figure walking on the lake (6:20). They are some of those who have been taught by God, and who have come to Jesus. The connection with chapter 8 is subtle, but nevertheless apparent. The people have been taught in the preceding days and now willingly come to Jesus for more in 8:2. These are not Jesus’ opponents who would come to interrogate Jesus in later verses, but the λαος who come to him openly, willingly receiving him into the position of a teaching rabbi. This demonstrates a willingness to come to Jesus and to be taught by, inspired by his earlier teaching found in both chapters.

12.3.6 Rabbi/Teacher

It can be further added that Jesus is addressed as “rabbi/teacher” in both chapters. Διδασκαλος is virtually synonymous with ραββι, in the Fourth Gospel, as demonstrated by the work of Köstenberger (1998:97-128)(see discussion in section 10.1 above). Contrary to Carson’s (2003:334) dispute of this, most seem scholars seem to agree with Köstenberger. For example, many lexicons such as that of Louw and Nida (1988), the Friberg Lexicon (2000), and the United Bible Societies Lexicon (2008), as well as several commentators such as Bruce (1979:414) and van der Watt (2007:49-50) note this connection. This majority opinion is likely due to the fact that the Gospel of John itself appears to validate such as claim, explaining that ραββι, means Διδασκαλος in 1:38, as well as demonstrating that the Aramaic equivalent ραββουνι, likewise means Διδασκαλος in 20:16. It is with this in mind that link between 6:25 where Jesus is addressed as “rabbi” in 6:25 and 8:4 where he is addressed as “teacher” is suggested.

12.3.7 Moses

Next is reference to Moses and what he gives. In 6:30-31, it is suggested that Moses gave manna to the Israelite forefathers. The name Μωυσης is not used by the Jews in these verses, but Jesus confirms in 6:32 that the name Moses is implied when he corrects their misunderstanding of the situation. Jesus states that the manna was not given by Moses, but rather by God through Moses, God’s mediator. In 8:4, the scribes and Pharisees claim that Μωυσης had given them instructions in the Law. Similar to John 6, it can observed that it was not actually Moses who gave the Law, but God; Moses was again just the mediator and that which was given was given through him. In each case, Moses gives as the mediator of God, and in each case the Jews have mistaken Moses with the true giver, God himself.

12.3.8 What Will You Do/Say? & Unbelief

Jesus is also questioned and asked to defend himself in both of these chapters. In 6:30, Jesus is asked to perform a miraculous sign to validate his claims: “What will you do?” In 8:5, Jesus is asked to give his opinion in regards to the legal situation that is unfolding: “What do you say?” In both instances, Jesus is placed on the defensive, and in both instances the people refuse to believe. His opponents suggest that they know what the Law says (8:5) or what works God does (6:30-31); now they want to know what Jesus will do. In each case, the event that is unfolding is a test/trap rather than a legitimate attempt to seek validation from Jesus. This is confirmed by Jesus’ reference to unbelief in 6:36 and the narrator’s informing the reader of the trap in 8:6. These examples are connected in that unbelief leads to an interrogation of Jesus in both, where Jesus is pitted against God/the Law (or Jesus’ opponents’ misunderstanding of God/the Law).

12.3.9 Earth

The next link might be considered the weakest, but it still is worth mentioning; both chapters reference the ground or earth, γη. The context is clearly not the same, but there are explicit references to the land and similar terminology used in both accounts. In John 6:21, the boat in which Jesus and his disciples were sailing reaches the γη; in 8:6 and 8:9, Jesus writes on the γης. Outside of its two appearances in the Pericope Adulterae, this term is only found nine times in the Gospel of John (3:22, 3:31, 6:21, 12:24, 12:32, 17:4, 21:8, 21:9, and 21:11). In these appearances, the term γη carries a variety of meanings ranging from a region/countryside (3:22) to the planet earth itself (3:31 and 17:4) to the “land” (21:8, 21:9, and 21:11) (Brown, 1975:517-518). The use of this term in 6:21 is similar to this last example of usage where it means dry land in contrast to the water which was being sailed upon. There are additional examples where γη is used to reference the ground or dirt itself, such as 12:24 where Jesus describes a seed dying and falling to the earth (γη) and presumably 12:32 as well where Jesus claims that he will be lifted up from the earth. It is possible that Jesus is referring to the planet earth in 12:32, but in the close proximity of his statement in 12:24 it is more likely that he is referencing being lifted up from the ground after being buried like the seed (resurrection). Similar usage of the term γη can be found in 8:6; Jesus writes on the land/the earth/ the ground. Once again, this is not very forceful link, but the use of term γη in both passages does provide some similarities for comparison.

12.3.10 Grumbling/Murmuring, Then Departure

The next two links are related and therefore discussed together. In each of the encounters in chapters 6 and 8, the people continue to pressure Jesus for answers and ultimately leave due to their dissatisfaction. The first example of grumbling/murmuring against Jesus is found in 6:41-42 where the people are said to grumble (γογγυζω) about Jesus’ claim to be “the bread that came down from heaven.” Jesus responds demanding that they stop “grumbling” (γογγυζω) amongst themselves. The second example is found later in 6:60-61 when Jesus’ own disciples grumble (γογγυζω) about his teaching. In response to this, Jesus expounds upon what he has been saying, ultimately turning away many of his disciples; these would discontinue following Jesus, no longer being able to remain with him because of their dissatisfaction with his teaching/actions (6:66).

The events of the Pericope Adulterae are very similar. After being questioned, Jesus stoops and writes on the ground as if he is not paying attention. The scribes and Pharisees begin to press him not willing to let him off the hook that easy. The term γογγυζω is not used indicating that the scribes and Pharisees were grumbling, but their displeasure is obvious as they “persisted in asking [Jesus]” (επεμενον ερωτωντες αυτον). Similar to the example in chapter 6, they end up getting more than they bargain for. Jesus stands and confronts them over their own sin, and being convicted, the accusers are forced to leave his presence no longer being able to endure the matter. The reasons for departure are slightly different in nature, but at the same time similar; in both scenarios, Jesus is pressed until he responds. In ach case when Jesus does respond, Jesus discloses more information that drives people away. Those who continue to press Jesus are forced to ask themselves if they want to remain with Jesus and face the necessary consequences, enduring the hard teaching in chapter 6 and carrying out the Law in chapter 8.

12.3.11 Raising Up

Of the final two connections, one is more subtle, while the other is more overt. First one can observe the link between “raising up” found in 6:39-40 and 8:10. In the former, Jesus states that those whom the Father has given him will be raised up (ανιστημι) at the last day. In the latter, it is Jesus himself who straightens/stands up (ανακυπτω). It could be said that Jesus “raises himself up,” as the term allows (Friberg, Friberg, and Miller 2000; Louw and Nida, 1988). Though the terms are different, a connection is formed when it is emphasized that those who are raised up are only raised up because Jesus is raised up. His resurrection ensures the resurrection of all who come to him. Jesus raises himself up to give life to those whom the Father has given him in chapter 6, and similarly, he raises himself up to give the adulterous woman life in chapter 8, freeing her from what would have been a sure death-sentence. This connection is subtle and not as forceful as it could be provided that the same term was used, but given the regularity of verb variation in the Fourth Gospel (Grant, 1963:149-152), it is not entirely without warrant.

12.3.12 Life

This leads us to the last suggested connection, the theme of life. In at least two locations in chapter 6, verses 40 and 47, life (ζωη) is promised to those whom Jesus raises up. This is a promise of acquittal, for life is granted where death is expected. While no death sentence is handed down in chapter 6, Jesus does make statements about receiving life in the context of eating manna in the desert. The Israelites who wandered in the Wilderness were certain to face death had God not miraculously provided manna; the Israelites even complained that they had been brought out into the desert to die (Exodus 16:3). Instead, bread from heaven is given and life is granted to those who partake. Similarly, Jesus claims to be the bread from heaven that gives life to those who partake. Death is certain unless one eats from God’s provision, Jesus’ body and blood. The connection with the Pericope Adulterae is that death has been sentenced for the woman, and it is only by Jesus’ “raising up” on behalf of the woman that life is granted. There is a stay of execution, and life is granted where death was certain. Whereas the scribes and Pharisees are ready to carry out a stoning according the Law of Moses, Jesus gives new life.

This link between chapter 6 and the Pericope Adulterae, along with all of those detailed above, some subtle and some more overt, provides a strong sense that whoever wrote John 7:53-8:11 was well-acquainted with chapter 6, just as whoever penned chapters 5-7 appears to have been well aware of chapter 8. This likely provides further evidence that the Pericope Adulterae is Johannine in style. This begs the questions: is more probable that such connections are the results of an uncalculated insertion of a totally unrelated ancient tradition, the careful rewriting of the Gospel of John in its entirety to include the Pericope Adulterae (see sections 7.0 and 8.0 in Chapter 6), or that John 7:53-8:11 was part of the original manuscript to begin with? Further investigation is required to fully answer this.

264. Prophecies in Daniel 2,7, and 9 foretold that the Anointed One, the Messiah, would come during the reign of the Roman Empire but before the destruction of the Temple. The Jews of the first century had a very heightened expectation for the Messiah, while many were coming claiming to be the Messiah (Ferguson, 1973:114; Moloney, 1998b:52).

265 Westcott, 1980:126; Hodges, 1980:43; Köstenberger, 1998:100; Schnackenburg, 1998:100.

13.0   CHIASM   (p.257)

Before moving on to a discussion of the external evidence, we will consider one final suggestion of the interconnectedness of chapters 6-8, that of a possible chiastic structure. This has been reserved for the end, for it is arguably the most subjective piece of evidence. It has been argued that the Gospel of John is written as one large A-B-C-A’-B’ chiasm that bifurcates into several smaller chiasms, with chapters 6-8 forming the “conceptual center” of the Gospel, highlighting Jesus as the new Moses. [266]

Others have argued for a simple chiastic structure of particular portions of the Gospel (cf. Burridge, 1994:140), including chapters 7 and 8 (cf. Staley, 2005:92- 97). According to the former theory, the Pericope Adulterae (in its traditonal position between chapter 7 and Jesus’ “light of the world” statement in 8:12) helps to form this center of the Gospel; chapters 7 and 8 mirror chapter 6 in an A-B-A’ chiastic structure (cf. Goodier, 2008:7). This “core” of the Fourth Gospel is surrounded by the two healing miracles of illnesses/physical deformities, one of the lame man in chapter 5 and the other of the man born blind as detailed in chapters 9 and 10. These chapters are further enclosed by the healing of the officer’s son’s fever in chapter 4 and the raising of Lazarus who had died in chapter 11.

It could be suggested that by removing the twelve verses of the Pericope Adulterae, this literary pattern would thus be broken. Though this theory has not been widely accepted, when one compares the similarities listed between these central chapters of 6-8 as detailed above, it becomes apparent that this theory might be substantiated. On the surface, it appears that Gospel of John is not a haphazard collection of stories and teachings that have been shuffled around and/or redacted into its current form, but rather that it very well may be a complete literary work that includes a common Near Eastern and Mediterranean feature of chiasm (Østenstad, 1998; Tasker, 2004). If this is indeed the case, John 7:53-8:11 forms an essential link to this literary structure of the Gospel of John and is therefore indispensable in its current location. While this lends further support to suggestions of a Johannine authorship of the Pericope Adulterae, such an argument is difficult to defend. Therefore, it does not factor into the current discussion too heavily.

266 Cf. Ellis, 1984:101ff, 135ff; Østenstad, 1998; Brown, 2003:287ff; Breck, 2004:72-90; Gerhard, 2006; Goodier, 2008:7.

14.0   CONCLUSION   (p.258-9)

In conclusion, the internal evidence of vocabulary and style may not be as much of a hindrance to belief that the Pericope Adulterae is Johannine as at first imagined. In fact, the evidence actually tends to point in favor of Johannine authorship in many cases. In this chapter, both the presence of so-called “Johannine” and “non-Johannine” features have been explored.

There appears to be sufficient reasons to explain the appearance of virtually all of the non-Johannine words that are found in the pericope. Unique terms are quite common throughout the Fourth Gospel, as observed in the analysis of similar twelve verse sections of the Gospel. Likewise, there appears to be legitimate reasons for missing “preferred” Johannine words that have been suggested as being typical of Johannine style. While there are certainly terms that the Evangelist seems to favor which are missing from the pericope, this passage is not alone in its absence of such terms.

There are numerous undisputed passages that are very similar to John 7:53-8:11 when it comes to the missing of standard Johannine vocabulary. Thus, the pericope in question is not unique in its oddities when compared with the rest of the Gospel. If one chooses to expunge the Pericope Adulterae based on arguments of style and vocabulary, one must also be prepared to do this same thing with numerous additional passages in the Gospel of John.

The counter to this discussion is the surprising number of standard Johannine vocabulary and stylisms that are present in the pericope. Several terms and phrases that were either uniquely or at the very least most- typically Johannine rather than Synoptic have been detailed above.

Additionally, several similarities in style have been noted between the Pericope Adulterae and other Johannine literature, some subtle and others more blatant. Finally, this chapter analyzed what appears to be several literary links between John 7:53-8:11 and parts of chapter 6. These links fit a pattern that can be observed between chapters 5-8, thereby giving reason to believe that all the texts may come from a single source. This argument may be further strengthened when the possible chiastic structure of the Gospel is considered."

Return to Index

Return to Top

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional Valid CSS!