Tag: johns-gospel

The Johannine Text of John Chrysostom: Brief Introduction

New Testament textual critics agree that there are three primary lines of evidence in the development of the original text: Greek manuscripts, early versions, and patristic quotations. More than 50 years ago, Gordon Fee called for more extensive studies of the Greek Fathers by reconstructing their NT texts.[1] It is amazing how little work has been done in this area.

I became interested in the Church Fathers and their biblical texts in a Ph.D. text criticism seminar led by Dr. Siegfried Schatzmann after doing a book review of all things.[2] In 2003, I completed my dissertation in which I reconstructed and evaluated the Johannine text of John Chrysostom.[3] Now deceased, Dr. Schatzmann’s encouragement and eye for detail helped me successfully pull off what was a critical lacuna in the field.

By far the most important part of the dissertation is the text’s reconstruction. Others have taken notice over the years. I was encouraged, for example, that my work was used by Dr. Roderic Mullen in The Gospel According to John in the Byzantine Tradition. Mullen compared my work, based on Mountfaucon,[4] and his, based on manuscript Sinai Gr. 369-70

Since 2003, I have wanted to lift Chrysostom’s reconstructed text produced in my dissertation and make it available in some form. Many other duties kept me away from what no doubt would be a time-consuming project – until now. Retirement, or at least something of a retirement, gives me the time I need, and last month I returned to Chrysostom’s Johannine text after more than two decades.

I plan to use this online forum to reproduce Chrysostom’s text of the Fourth Gospel. This will be done chapter-by-chapter. While I know many people will just by-pass the posts for something more interesting and understandable (since the text is Greek), there may be someone out there in cyberspace someday who might take a look. Perhaps I’ll reproduce the text in some journal in the future, but I want to use my own forum first.

The reconstructed text of John will be provided without commentary, except in a few footnotes that accompany each chapter. It’s probable that the project will take several months to complete. I will post each chapter when they are completed. There are other topics I wish to write about on my site, so the Chrysostom text will be mixed in with those. I will hashtag them the same, so it should not be hard to pull them all up at one time once the project is finished.

I’m using the electronic version of the Byzantine Tradition as I check my work from 2003 and compare it. I expect to correct any errors found in the dissertation, and I am open to making alternative decisions on the text I reconstructed. As I’ve started this work, however, it is amazing how comfortable I still am with my text decisions.[5]

The chapter posts are self-explanatory, I think. One should be able to follow what I’ve done easily. Just one note before I post chapter 1. An ellipsis (. . .) is used when there are gaps, small or large, in the reconstructed text. That happens a lot in a narrative like John as Chrysostom often leaves out introductory phrases like, “And Jesus said to them,” or, “The disciples said to Jesus,” etc.

[1] Gordon D. Fee, “The text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: A Contribution to Methodology in the Recovery and Analysis of Patristic Citations,” Biblica 52 (1971): 357-94.

[2] Bart Ehrman, Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels (Atlanta: SBL, 1986).

[3] Known as one the greatest preachers of all time, Chrysostom was given the nickname “Golden Mouth,” to describe his eloquence. Chrysostom was Archbishop of Constantinople in the 4th century.

[4] Bernardi de Mountfaucon, Sancti Patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi, Opera Omnia Quae Exstant, vol. 8 (Paris: Apud Gaume Fratres, 1839).

[5] Stephen Dale Patton, “A Reconstruction and Evaluation of the Johannine Text of John Chrysostom,” (PhD diss, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003).

PERICOPE ADULTERAE: PREACH IT OR NOT?

I believe in preaching through books of the Bible. It often forces the preacher to take on texts and subjects otherwise avoided. Practically, the preacher does not have to think about what he is going to study and present on Sundays. He just goes from one passage to the next.

John is one of my favorite books. There are many ways to approach preaching from the fourth Gospel. The preacher can focus on well known passages only – a series might include the I am statements, John 3:16, the signs, and the Upper Room Discourse, for example.  The preacher can deal with themes such as faith, light/darkness, Jesus as the One sent by the Father, etc. A third way is to focus on characters found in the Gospel like Nicodemus, the woman at the well, and the beloved disciples (John).

I have done all the above at one time or another. My favorite way, however, is to preach John verse-by-verse – from 1:1 through 21:25. It takes longer to move through John this way, but it is impactful. A close examination of the entire Gospel changes lives – starting with the preacher.

There is a critical issue, however, when you decide to preach through John systematically. That is when you get to the end of chapter 7 and head to chapter 8. What are you going to do with the Pericope Adulterae (PA)?

The story of the woman caught in adultery is famous. It is so famous that I do not have to summarize it here. The powerful words from Jesus, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”[1] (8:7) warn us all about judgementalism and condemning others harshly. His response to the woman, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more” (8:11) gives us a sense of hope that even our sins can be forgiven by God.

But here is the problem. There is doubt whether the PA is part of John’s Gospel. If it is, there is no problem. It is inspired Scripture which should and must be preached. If it is not, however, the question of whether it is inspired Scripture hangs over the preacher like a dark cloud. Can a preacher legitimately teach the passage if he believes it is apocryphal?

Let us look again briefly at the external and internal evidence. Metzgar wrote, “The evidence for non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.”[2] You are hard pressed to find anyone disagreeing with him.[3]

When you look at the external evidence, it is hard to disagree with the overwhelming majority of scholarship.  

  • The story is missing from early, diverse manuscripts such as p66 75 א B L N T W X Y Δ Ɵ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193.
  • The passage is missing from the oldest form of the Syriac version as well as from the Sahidic and the older Bohairic manuscripts.
  • In the West, the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts.
  • No Greek Church Father quotes from or comments on the passage before the 12th century.[4]
  • It is a bit problematic as well that the pericope appears in different places in a few manuscripts – after 7:36; 7:44; and Luke 21:38.

What about the internal evidence? Despite the insistence of scholars like Kӧstenberger, it is not as conclusive.[5]

  • Some scholars point to 7:53-8:1, “And everyone went to his home, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives,” as an awkward transition from the discourses in chapter 7 to the PA. I do not see it that way. Jesus had been teaching in the Temple. At the end of the day the people were dismissed, Jesus possibly stayed in the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. Bethany was very close to the Mount of Olives. The pericope then picks up Jesus’ teaching the next morning (8:2). John inserts the fact that chapters 7 and 8 happen on separate days.
  • The argument that the PA interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12 is less than compelling. If one looks at John at this point with objectivity, the day of teaching in the Temple ends with division among the people about Jesus (7:40-44); then there is division among the religious leaders (7:45-52). Jesus’ teaching starts again the next morning early (8:2), and the religious leaders bring the adulterous woman to Him (8:3-11). After that incident, Jesus begins again to teach (8:12 ff). 8:12 can be an even stronger statement considering the PA, “I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness but shall have the light of life.” My disciples, Jesus was saying, will not condemn as they did (darkness), but instead will show mercy as I did (light).”
  • Scholars point to the PA’s vocabulary and style. It is true that in virtually every verse are found words nowhere else in John. But, as Kӧstenberger admits, context can account for several of the Johannine hapax legomena. Style arguments should never be a deciding factor about originality – for example, we can admit the Pastoral Epistles lack many Pauline features but are authored by the Apostle.

How does one weigh the evidence? The external evidence seems hard to overcome, but a reasonable explanation of the internal evidence can be given to support authenticity and its original location in John.

There are those who simply throw the PA out as inauthentic and therefore non-canonical. It is not inspired Scripture and should not be preached as such. Case closed.[6] Others, hold that the PA has “all the earmarks of historical veracity” as a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and was “subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places.”[7] Borchert calls the PA a text looking for a context and advocates for its Lukan and not Johannine origin. He believes it is inspired Scripture.[8]

So, what does a preacher do with this woman caught in adultery? It is what I call an exegetical situation. As one writer put it, “If the pericope . . . is an inspired text that has been inserted into an inspired text, then in spite of the text-critical issues surrounding it, the church may legitimately receive it and use it as sacred scripture.”[9] Practically, because of its long tradition in the church, it would be difficult to tell a congregation as you preached through John that you were skipping the PA. Some might want to elect a new pulpit committee, even though their Bible version probably has brackets around the passage and a note explaining its doubtful authenticity.

Yet that is exactly what I did when I preached through John. The inescapable conclusion based on external evidence is the PA is not part of the fourth Gospel. John did not write it. I would feel different if it could be proven it was a text looking for a context, but as much as I would love that to be true, the scholars who advocate for it simply cannot provide strong enough evidence to support that. Would I put it past the religious leaders to parade a woman caught in adultery before Jesus as the PA portrays it? No. The Gospels testify that they could very well do such a thing. Does it sound like Jesus to treat the woman with compassion and forgiveness? We do not have to know much about Jesus to say, “Absolutely!” Yet (and that is a big three letter word!) if the PA is inauthentic, then inspiration cannot be tied to it. You cannot preach apocryphal stories; you can only preach from the biblical canon.

The old cliché is good enough for ducks but not for inspired Scripture.

[1] Scripture quotes are from the NASB unless otherwise indicated.

[2] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1998), 187. Metzger’s quote prefaces his discussion of the external evidence.

[3] A voice crying in the wilderness, advocating for the pericope’s place in John, is Maurice Robinson. See for example, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of Nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and over One Hundred Lectionaries,” paper presented at the annual meeting of ETS, Orlando, FL, 1998.

[4] John Chrysostom, who never knew a Scripture he did not quote, is among the Greek Church Fathers silent on the pericope, as my dissertation shows, Stephen Dale Patton, “A Reconstruction and Evaluation of the Johannine Text of John Chrysostom,” Ph.D. diss. (Fort Worth: SWBTS, 2003).

[5] Andreas Kӧstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 246.

[6] Kӧstenberger, John, 248.

[7] Metzger, 188.

[8] Gerald L. Borchert, John 1-11, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 1996), 369-70. Borchert advocates for the PA’s canonicity.

[9] Scott J. Kaczorowski, “The Pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery: An Inspired Text Inserted into an Inspired Text?” JETS 61, no. 2 (2018): 336-7.

SIGNS IN JOHN’S GOSPEL

The Gospel of John is considered by some one of the two great pillars of the New Testament, with Romans as the other pillar.[1] The lofty place of the fourth Gospel cannot be overstated. Augustine wrote eloquently, “John flies like an eagle above the clouds of human weakness and gazes most keenly and steadily with the eye of his heart at the light of unchangeable truth.”[2]

While there is some debate about the Gospel’s structure, it is straightforward, and there is widespread agreement about its divisions. The Gospel begins with the Prologue (1:1-18) and ends with an Epilogue (chapter 21). Between there are two major sections. The Book of Signs (1:18-12:50) and the Book of Glory (13:1-20:31).

The Book of Signs revolves around seven miraculous signs performed by Jesus, providing evidence that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (20:31). The signs are:

  • Turning water into wine (2:1-11)
  • Healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54)
  • Healing of the lame man (5:1-15)
  • Feeding the 5,000 (6:1-15)
  • Walking on water (6:16-21)
  • Healing the blind man (9:1-41)
  • Raising of Lazarus (11:1-44)

I could focus on any of the signs or provide a summary of all seven, but I think it is interesting that only the first two signs are numbered (2:11; 4:54). Why? I am persuaded by Borchert that the first two serve as an inclusio. They should be seen together.

Following the first sign, the disciples believe in Jesus (2:11). The result of the second sign – the nobleman believed (4:53). It is clear from John’s purpose statement that the signs are used to invoke faith (20:31). Mission accomplished. Yet if one considers the inclusio, it is the nobleman’s faith that is emphasized here. The disciples believe after they see Jesus turning water into wine. The nobleman believes his son will be healed by Jesus without seeing it take place. The disciples believe after seeing; the nobleman believes without seeing.  

By numbering the first two signs, John communicates that they form a unit. They are telling us something about believing. The nobleman’s faith is the primary goal of the Gospel. The disciples had to see, but for the rest of us, we must believe without seeing. Jesus would say later to Thomas, who demanded physical evidence of the Lord’s resurrection, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (20:29). As Borchert states, “The ultimate goal of this Gospel was not a believing that was based on seeing. It was a believing that was based on accepting the testimony of the witnesses without seeing.”[3]

The signs did not persuade everyone, perhaps even most. Among the saddest words in Scripture come toward the end of The Book of Signs, “But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him” (12:37). As Michaels points out, “Those who would not believe in Him are therefore not just one crowd at one Passover (12:29, 34), but all the crowds and all the Jewish leaders from the first Passover until now.”[4] In fact, the raising of Lazarus, the climatic sign in the first half of the Gospel, led the religious leaders to decide that Jesus had to die (11:53). To emphasize a point I made above, seeing was not always believing.

The signs John chose to focus upon in his Gospel reveal who Jesus is – the Christ, the Son of God. The purpose of those signs is to elicit faith from readers from the end of the first century when the Gospel was written until now. The result of that faith is ‘eternal life in His name’ (20:31). Believing while seeing the signs is not ideal, but a seeing faith is better than no faith. Faith without seeing is preferred and results, according to Jesus, in blessings (20:29).

[1] Andreas Kӧstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 1.

[2] De consensu evangelistorum 6.

[3] Gerald L. Borchert, John 12-21, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 2002), 353.

[4] J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 738.