Preaching Textual Variants? John 7:53-8:11

This is based on an assignment I did. Of course, this is not intended to be in-depth. For some helpful work on textual criticism, see Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman. The picture is of Luke 11:2 and it is from Codex Sinaiticus (compiled around 330-360 CE, generally).

Various modern English translations confirm in footnotes that John 7:53-8:11 is an interpolation. The CEB notes that “critical editions of the Gk New Testament do not contain 7:53-8:11” and the NRSV supports this with “most ancient authorities lack 7.53—8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.” Metzger explains that John’s pericope is missing from the “most early and diverse manuscripts” (Metzger, 187). There are external factors besides its manuscript omission: early church fathers don’t quote it until the twelfth century, showing a lack of awareness of the text in question (Metzger, 188) and that it also appears in multiple locations through John’s Gospel as the NRSV footnote states. This shows that scribes were uncertain about its placement within the narrative.

The text’s addition may have been due to a scribe’s belief in the truthfulness of the account, and because of this they had little issue in trying to place it within the narrative. Coupled with this, the story is moving and shows Jesus in a consistent and compassionate light (c.f. his interactions with the unmarried Samaritan woman in John 4). After all, Metzger acknowledges, “the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity” (Metzger, 188) as a self-contained story. It may have happened, but John in his original Gospel did not include it.

In explaining this text, a minister must be careful to gently articulate the problems. Text-criticism is a highly specialized field, and requires precision and clarity in explaining the various complexities of the issue. Part of the issue may involve the long, steady process of educating a congregation. It is not as simple as ignoring an issue, especially in an age of Internet experts and popular level works from Barth Ehrman. Educating the congregation would establish a base in the more conservative areas of the Christian family, especially since there are many conservative textual scholars (c.f. Bruce Metzger and Philip Barton Payne) who have not abandoned their faith.

As for preaching this text, one again has to be careful not to overstress historical critical issues to a congregation, for fear of undermining one’s faith. A pastor has several options: she could mention the text critical aspects of this text by pointing to the footnotes in the Bible and suggest that these issues could be covered in greater detail in an adult bible study apart from the main sermon. Some pastors—such as Greg Boyd—do video blogs after their sermons on the more technical aspects of the text. I would personally have no problem preaching from John 7:53-8:11, provided my congregation was aware of the issues within the text, and I would happily explain it in greater detail on the side to anyone interested. Scripture is, after all, an open book and all great and inspired books have history.

NQ

The Legacy of F.F. Bruce

Furthermore, in his methodology, he practiced a high degree of objectivity at a period when this was still sought and prized as the scholarly ideal. That objectivity was rooted in his conviction that all truth was God's truth, which made him open to receive truth from wherever it came. He did not fit the caricature of the ignorant and narrow-minded fundamentalist which most people expected a member of the Brethren to be, but learned from and related to scholars of all persuasions. As he put it, 'I have sometimes learned most from scholars with whom I have agreed least: they compel one to think, and rethink'(1). He was the least defensive person imaginable, secure in his own faith, never attributing unworthy motives to those with whom he disagreed, and won respect from many for his willingness to argue on the basis of the evidence rather than adopting a party line(2).

In conclusion, we could view Bruce as a 'believing critic', and his sympathy for William Robertson Smith tends to confirm this(3). Perhaps too he was a popularizer of scholarly work, in the best sense of the word. but I would suggest that the most important way to regard him is as a teacher who sought to use his gifts to build up the church and to offer a credible account of the sources on which the Christian faith is founded; David Hubbard, who was president of Fuller Seminary, testified to how Bruce's 'blend of learnedness, clarity, diligence, even-handedness, and devotion to the gospel' had influenced him during the 1960s(4). And Bruce taught not only by his words and writings, but by his life. For that life, many continue to give thanks.

F.F. Bruce, a Life by Tim Grass, pgs226-7.

A life I wish I had known, but I believe that his example offers much to me personally. Hopefully I can be as such as he was.

--Nick

Footnotes:

1. The Epistle to the Colossians, To Philemon and to the Ephesians, pg. xii.

2. IR, pg172-3. Various personal confirmations as well.

3. e.g. F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture.

4. David A. Hubbard, 'Evangelicals and Biblical Scholarship, 1945-1992: An Anecdotal Commentary', Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993): PP. 1-16

A Solution to the Synoptic Problem?

The Gospel of Mark was the first draft of a doctoral candidate’s dissertation. He submitted it to his advisor who suggested the need for more background information about Jesus’ birth, maybe some more teaching material, and a stronger ending.

The student rewrote his dissertation and submitted the Gospel of Matthew.

His advisor thought the revision was much stronger but felt that the teaching material should be better integrated into the narrative, thought a story about Jesus’ youth might be helpful, and suggested that the genealogy could be expanded back to Adam, etc.

The PhD candidate did another major revision and produced the Gospel of Luke. Once again the advisor was critical and asked for major revisions.

Frustrated, the student took drugs and wrote the Gospel of John.

According to Jordan Scharf here.

--Nick

Thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and the Interpolation Hypothesis

I was reading through Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians[1] and managed to make my way into a studded field of land mines and hand grenades when I broached the section on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Before I get into my thoughts on the matter (and I acknowledge I write from the standpoint of an egalitarian), I should just post the text and get on with it.

ACCORDING TO PAUL

According to BibleGateway (TNIV):

³⁴ Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. ³⁵ If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.^[a]

Footnotes:

1. 1 Corinthians 14:35 In some manuscripts these verses come after verse 40.

Kurt Willems, a blogger I enjoy very much (who is a fellow egalitarian), offers his response to this "seemingly" clear section of verses in what follows.

Kurt:

In this first Corinthian letter, Paul spent several chapters discussing orderly worship.  In the flow of the letter, this text seems out of place and what some scholars refer to as an interpolation.  It appears to be an appendix that was added by a second or third generation Pauline letter compiler. This means that it was not authentic to Paul, but was inserted by a scribe because of some pressing agenda that was facing a segment of the church.  Both Richard B. Hays and Gordon Fee believe that this is indeed the case.  [1] If interpolation is not viable and this is authentically Pauline, then there are several explanations; one of which seems to be plausible.  Clearly, in 11.2-16, Paul has already stated that women may pray and prophesy in church as long as their head is covered in appropriate cultural dress.  Therefore, it is proposed that in the ancient Middle East women and men would sit in separate parts of the gathering area.  Most likely, worship gatherings in Corinth would have been taught in the popular language of the day: Greek.  Unschooled women lacked education and were less likely to understand, as they were fluent in their own local ethnic dialects.  They could have become bored or had questions that caused them to talk loud amongst themselves until the minister would have had to say: “Women, be quiet!  Ask your husbands at home.”  Paul may have written this to promote order in the Corinthian context so that worship would be orderly.  In any case, it was not a prohibition on women in a general sense, but an occasional circumstance.[2] 

You can read the rest of the post and his series here. I don't find his reasons compelling, but I won't rule them out as impossible. Just highly unlikely. I will offer my thoughts on the interpretation of this text below.

For my part, I never was quite certain what to do with these verses. My initial response was to laugh and say Paul was contradicting himself again (given my annoyances with Paul initially when I started studying him). But this wouldn't do.

So I ventured into the bombed out realm of this terrain and discovered a few different hypotheses, none of which seemed to make sense entirely of the text. The refutation of a "false prophecy" seemed to initially solve some of the issues, but when I started listening to textual critics, I considered a different option. I still consider the "false prophecy denouncement" to be a possible option, but it still doesn't answer my questions.

A QUESTION ON INERRANCY

The reason I write this is because inerrancy is the first thing people think about when these sorts of issues are discussed. As of this current moment, I affirm the inerrancy of the original autographs of Scripture. However, if these verses (or any other verses) were not in the original autographs, then they are to be rejected.

DEFINITION

Simply, an interpolation is an addition to the text not originally written by the author.

SWINGING THE PENDULUM

The list of scholars who argue for the interpolation explanation is impressive. Seriously. Most text critics analyses of this passage have concluded that it is indeed an interpolation[2]. I will list a few:

Richard B. Hays[3]. E. Earle Ellis [4]. Eldon J. Epp [5]. Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger [6] [7].

So, just thinking about the likelihood of this interpretation is not without it's heavy hitters in support.

My (tentative) reasons:

One, they contradict Paul's affirmation of women of women elsewhere. People have tried to reinterpret those verses, but haven't been successful.

Two, as you can see with the footnote from BibleGateway, some manuscripts have the two verses at the end of the chapter, several verses away. The movement to verse 40 doesn't assuage any of the problems, introducing more issues into the text, both theologically and exegetically.

Three, in accordance with the nearly universal recognition of John 7:53-8:11 as an interpolation (an interpolation far longer than 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which should silence comments about "length"), we see that both manuscripts contain varying locations of both texts. The movement or replacement of "texts" is a strong sign of an interpolation[8].

Four, I believe verses 1-25 are an affirmation of prophecy, and verses 26-40 are instructions for such principles and is of chiastic structure. The climactic moment is in verse 33, where Paul announces that God is "not a God of disorder, but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints." Verses 34-35 do not reflect the arguments made in the previous chapters and interrupt the flow of the argument.

Five, most manuscripts have verses 34-35 as separate from 33.

Six, the phrase "just as the Law says" does not fit Paul's use of language as we cannot find any OT law that restricts the speech of women. Also, he speaks of Christ "redeeming us from the Law" (Galatians 3:13).

I'm still wading through this territory, but having read D.A. Carson and various other responses to the arguments made, I haven't been convinced. As the evidence stands, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is most likely an interpolation.

As I mentioned, if this text is not from Paul and wasn't in the original autographs, then it does not carry authority. It should not be used to establish doctrine nor should it be given a proper place in studying the Scriptures to determine the standing of women in ministry.

--Nick

Footnotes:

1. D.A. Carson, "New Testament Commentary Survey" pg94, recommends Fee's commentary as one of the best general commentaries on the epistle despite what Carson terms "extraordinary lapses" in Fee's treatment of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as an interpolation. I found Carson's response far from compelling.

2. For the long list, P.B. Payne, "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pgs226-227. Its all one footnote. Its an entire page long. Seriously.

3. Richard B. Hays, "The Moral Vision of the New Testament" pgs54-59 for footnotes. Also see "First Corinthians" pgs244-248.

4. E. Earle Ellis, "New Testament Textual Criticism, Its Significance For Exegesis" pgs213-220.

5. Eldon J. Epp, "Junia: The First Woman Apostle" pgs15-20.

6. Meztger and Ehrman, "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" pgs288-290. Say what you will about Ehrman, but he is a studied textual critic and I consider him an authority on textual criticism.

7. See Payne, "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pg247 for Dr. Payne's conversation with Dr. Bruce Metzger. Dr. Metzger is in agreement with Dr. Payne on the likelihood that Bishop Victor of Capua (who commissioned the writings of Codex Fuldensis) regarded 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as an interpolation.

8. D.A. Carson, "The Gospel According to John" pg333. However, Carson unfortunately doesn't apply the same principle to 1 Corinthians 14.