A Fresh Look at John 8:1-11

[Nazaroo]

In this thread we will ask posters to avoid discussing the AUTHENTICITY of John 8:1-11.

Those interested in the AUTHENTICITY of John 8:1-11 may visit our scholarly database at the following link:

The Pericope De Adultera Homepage <-- Click Here.


In this thread we will stick to an open discussion of the INTERPRETATION of John 8:1-11.

We will also avoid posting large charts or long quotations from other scholarly works. Instead we will provide links, which the reader can click on at his own discretion.

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[annsni]

I'm certainly not going to join in any "fresh look" at this passage because you're not looking to have a discussion at all as is evident in your other thread that was closed on this very topic.

 

[Frogman]

I am confused and I think others may be as well. Perhaps my confusion will be viewed as my own ignorance, or stupidity. Nevertheless, it is real. I do not understand what type of discussion you are seeking. I think I see you are abandoning the idea that some here may oppose the authenticity of John 8:1-11. I certainly believe it to be the inspired word of God, nothing more to say.

then, I see you moving toward a discussion of the interpretation of these passages.

I followed the link you provided and noticed a source is taken from A.W. Pink. I wondered why John Gill is left off that resource list. I proceeded to look up both Gill and Pink and am now working through a comparison of the two interpretations.

Here is the first paragraph of Pink:

Exposition of the Gospel of John
CHAPTER 28
Christ and the adulterous woman
John 8:1-11​

We begin with the customary Analysis:—
1. Jesus retires to the mount of Olives: verse 1.
2. Jesus teaching in the temple: verse 2.
3. The Pharisees confront Him with an adulterous woman: verses 3-6.
4. Christ turns the light upon them: verses 6-8.
5. The Pharisees overcome by the light: verse 9.
6. The woman left alone with Christ: verse 10.
7. The woman dismissed with a warning: verse 11.
In this series of expositions of John’s Gospel we have sedulously avoided technical matters, preferring to confine ourselves to that which would provide food for the soul. But in the present instance we deem it necessary to make an exception. The passage which is to be before us has long been the subject of controversy. Its authenticity has been questioned even by godly men. John 7:53 to 8:11 inclusive is not found in a number of the most important of the ancient manuscripts. The R.V. places a question mark against this passage. Personally we have not the slightest doubt but that it forms a part of the inspired Word of God, and that for the following reasons:
First, if our passage be a spurious one then we should have to pass straight from John 7:52 to 8:12. Let the reader try this, and note the effect; and then let him go back to John 7:52 and read straight through to John 8:14. Which seems the more natural and reads the more smoothly?
Second, if we omit the first eleven verses of John 8, and start the chapter with verse 12, several questions will rise unavoidably and prove very difficult to answer satisfactorily. For example: "Then spake Jesus"—when? What simple and satisfactory answer can be found in the second part of John 7? But give John 8:1-11 its proper place, and the answer is, Immediately after the interruption recorded in verse 3. "Then spake Jesus again unto them" (verse 12)—unto whom? Go back to the second half of John 7 and see if it furnishes any decisive answer. But give John 8:2 a place, and all is simple and plain. Again in verse 13 we read, "The Pharisees therefore said unto him": this was in the temple (verse 20). But how came the Pharisees there? John 7:45 shows them elsewhere. But bring in John 8:1-11 and this difficulty vanishes, for John 8:2 shows that this was the day following.

This opening by Pink deals with the authenticity, I note Gill's exposition begins in the same place. Thus, historically as well as currently no doubt, these scripture are being doubted.

I leave off here with a link to both Pink and Gill.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/John/john_28.htm

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

May God Bless,
bro. Dallas:wavey:

 

[Ed Edwards]

In general, when some Administrator or Moderator
shuts off one of your Topics - Do not start another
in the same Forum on the same day.

Used to an Admin would give a person a ten day vacation
until they figure out how to go by the rules.
I haven't seen this done lately, but there is surely
nothing that prohibits a person from taking their
own break. I've personally had some very nice
PRIVATE MESSAGE (PM) conversations with both Admins
and Moderators. Many of them are willing to
help with an understanding of what is intended and
meant for the BB.

-- Ed, The Iconoclast:
Writer of unwritten rules

 

[Nazaroo]

I am confused and I think others may be as well. Perhaps my confusion will be viewed as my own ignorance, or stupidity. Nevertheless, it is real. I do not understand what type of discussion you are seeking. I think I see you are abandoning the idea that some here may oppose the authenticity of John 8:1-11. I certainly believe it to be the inspired word of God, nothing more to say.

then, I see you moving toward a discussion of the interpretation of these passages.

I followed the link you provided and noticed a source is taken from A.W. Pink. I wondered why John Gill is left off that resource list. I proceeded to look up both Gill and Pink and am now working through a comparison of the two interpretations.

Here is the first paragraph of Pink:



This opening by Pink deals with the authenticity, I note Gill's exposition begins in the same place. Thus, historically as well as currently no doubt, these scripture are being doubted.

I leave off here with a link to both Pink and Gill.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/John/john_28.htm

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

May God Bless,
bro. Dallas:wavey:

Thanks Frogman:


I also have to note that in almost every major commentary (never mind the footnotes in modern versions) the commentators seem compelled to take time out to raise the issue of authenticity, even when they should be commenting on the MEANING of the verses.

Inadvertently, even when trying to do the opposite, commentators often leave the reader doubting a passage they never had any reason to before. This is unfortunate and was one of the reasons I took up this study 30 years ago in the first place.

I was zealous for the word of God, and disturbed that people could do such things to undermine its authority. However, I knew that my own faith and skill was inadequate either to answer the questions raised, or to convince others. So I had to learn the technical aspects and the historical facts and the arguments, so that I could carefully sift them scientifically, and remove bias, propaganda, and hidden agendas.

In the end, you must either accept or reject them, and if you are the Christian reader, you usually want a commentary to EXPLAIN them, not discuss textual criticism.

This obviously isn't my fault, but it is usually something that I have do address, and address well if and when the question of authenticity is raised, as it usually is.

Well, I for one, probably more than anyone, would love to have a commentary that DOESN'T get sidetracked with doubt-creating red herrings, but rather deals with the CONTENT of the passage.

I confess that is one of the reasons why I wanted to post the comments on the passage in their entirety FIRST, before some bozo tried to steer the thread off-topic. I think I succeeded somewhat, as a person can read that thread without reading anything about textual criticism, and can focus on the MEANING of the verses.

Well, life is always an experiment.

This time, was once again a totally unpredictable rollercoaster ride, and I've posted on John 8:1-11 many many times.

What kind of discussion/debate would I like to have about John 8:1-11?

I would like to share what I have learned about its potential meaning, and also I am always seeking more insights into its meaning from others.

The fact is, I didn't just arrive at what I know about the verses by sitting by myself. I have had 30 years of discussion with other Christians, scholars, and even atheists about what John 8:1-11 means. So I can't really claim that ANY of these insights and ideas are my own.

I have been blessed with what I believe is some wisdom and insight concerning John 8:1-11, but I have found that it is a fantastically complex 'onion' that has layer after unexpected layer of powerful message to give us.

I cannot pretend to really KNOW John 8:1-11, but I have discovered that it is more than a lifetime study, even trying to master 12 verses of the New Testament.

I will post more direct comments on the verses shortly.


Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Frogman]

Thank you for the post. I have heard the actions of Christ explained as in keeping with the law, where adultery is committed, there is more than one to be brought to charge.

Now, reading Gill this evening I have learned his view is that this is not what the woman was guilty of committing as it were against her husband, but with her espoused husband.

Looking forward to reading your posts.:thumbs:

bro. Dallas:wavey: