Heinrich Meyer Commentary - John 8

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - John 8


Verse Commentaries:



Chapter Level Commentary:
CHAPTER 8

The section treating of the woman taken in adultery, Joh_8:1-11, together with Joh_7:53, is a document by some unknown author belonging to the apostolic age, which, after circulating in various forms of text, was inserted in John’s Gospel, probably by the second, or, at latest, by the third century (the Constitutt. Apost. ii. 24. 4, already disclose its presence in the canon), the remark in Joh_7:53 being added to connect it with what precedes. That the interpolation of this very ancient fragment of gospel history was derived from the Evang. sec. Hebraeos cannot, as several of the early critics think (comp. also Lücke and Bleek), be proved from Papias, in Euseb. H. E. 3. 39; for in the words ἐκτέθειται (Papias) δὲ καὶ ἄλλην ἱστορίαν περὶ γυναικὸς ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις διαβληθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου , ἣν τὸ καθʼ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον περιέχει , the general expression ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις and the word διαβληθ . merely are not favourable to that identity between the two which Rufinus already assumed. It is, however, only its high antiquity, and the very early insertion of the section in the Johannean text, which explain the fact that it is found in most Codices of the Itala, in the Vulgate, and other versions; that Jerome, adv. Pelag. ii. 17, could vouch for its existence “in multis et Graecis et Latinis Codd.;” and that, finally, upwards of a hundred Codices still extant, including D. F. G. H. K. U., contain it. Its internal character, moreover, speaks in favour of its having originated in the early Christian age; for, although it is, indeed, quite alien to the Johannean mode of representation, and therefore not for a moment to be referred to an oral Johannean source (Luthardt), it is, nevertheless, entirely in keeping with the tone of the synoptical Gospels, and does not betray the slightest trace of being a later invention in favour either of a dogmatic or ecclesiastical interest. Comp. Calvin: “Nihil apostolico spiritu indignum continet.” The occurrence related bears, moreover, so strong a stamp of originality, and is so evidently not compiled in imitation of any other of the Gospel narratives, that it cannot be regarded as a later legendary story, especially as its internal truthfulness will be vindicated in the course of the exposition itself, in opposition to the manifold doubts that have been raised against it. But the narrative does not proceed from John. Of this we are assured by the remarkable and manifestly interpolated link, Joh_7:53, which connects it with what precedes; further, by the strange interruption with which it breaks up the unity of the account continued in Joh_8:14 ff.; again by its tone and character, so closely resembling that of the synoptic history, to which, in particular, belongs the propounding of a question of law, in order to tempt Christ,—a thing which does not occur in John; still further, by the going out of Jesus to the Mount of Olives, and His return to the temple, whereby we are transported to the Lord’s last sojourn in Jerusalem (Luke 21); also by the entire absence of the Johannean οὖν , and in its stead the constant recurrence of δέ ; and, lastly, by the non-Johannean expressions ὄρθρου , πᾶς ὁ λαός , καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς , οἱ γραμματ . κ . οἱ Φαρισ ., ἐπιμένειν , ἀναμάρτητος , καταλείπεσθαι and κατακρίνειν , πλήν also, in Joh_8:10 (Elz.). With these various internal reasons many very weighty external arguments are conjoined, which show that the section was not received by any means into all copies of John’s Gospel; but, on the contrary, that from the third and fourth centuries it was tacitly or expressly excluded from the canonical text. For Origen, Apollinarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril, Chrysostom, Nonnus, Theophylact, Tertullian, and other Fathers (except Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Sedulius, Leo, Chrysologus, Cassiodorus), as well as the Catenae, are altogether silent about this section; Euthymius Zigabenus, however, has it, and explains it, indeed, but passes this judgment upon it: Χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν , ὅτι τὰ ἐντεῦθεν (Joh_7:53) ἄχρι τοῦ · πάλιν οὖν ἐλάλησεν , κ . τ . λ . (Joh_8:12) παρὰ τοῖς ἀκριβέσιν ἀντιγράφοις ἢ οὐχ εὕρηται , ἤ ὠβέλισται . Διὸ φαίνονται παρέγγραπτα καὶ προσθήκη · καὶ τούτου τεκμήριον , τὸ μηδὲ τὸν Χρυσόστομον ὅλως μνημονεῦσαι αὐτῶν . Of the versions, the Syr. (in Codd., also of the Nestorians, and in the first edd.), Syr. p. Copt. (in most MSS.) Ar. Sahid. Arm. Goth. Verc. Brix. have not the section. It is also wanting in very old and important Codices, viz. A. B. C. L. T. X. Δ . à ., of which, however, A. and C. are here defective (but according to Tisch., C. never had it; see his edition of Codex C., Proleg. p. 31), while L. and Δ . leave an empty space; other Codices mark it as suspicious by asterisks or an obelus, or expressly so describe it in Scholia (see especially Scholz and Tisch.). Beyond a doubt, this apocryphal interpolation would have seemed less surprising to early criticism had it found a place, not in John’s Gospel, but in one of the Synoptics. But wherefore just here? If we decline to attribute this enigma to some accidental, unknown cause and thus to leave it unsolved, then its position here may be accounted for in this way: that as an abortive plan of the Sanhedrim against Jesus had just before been narrated, it appeared to be an appropriate place for relating a new, though again unsuccessful, attempt to trip Him; and this particular narrative may have been inserted, all the more, because the saying about judging and not judging, in Joh_8:15, might find in it an historical explanation; while, perhaps, an old uncritical tradition, that John was the author of the fragment, may have removed all difficulty. But even on this view the attempts of criticism to correct the text very soon appear. For the Codd. i. 19, 20 et al., transfer the section as a doubtful appendix to the end of the Gospel; others (13, 69, 124, 346) insert it after Luk_21:38. where, especially considering Joh_8:1-2, it would appropriately fit in with the historical connection; and possibly also it might have had a place in one of the sources made use of by Luke. How various the recensions were in which it was circulated, is proved by the remarkable number of various readings, which for the most part bear the impress, not of chance or arbitrariness, but of varying originality. D., in particular, presents a peculiar form of text; the section in it runs thus: Ἰησ . δὲ ἐπ . εἰς τ . ὄρ . τ . ἐλ . Ὄρθρ . δὲ π . παραγίνεται εἰς τ . ἱερ . κ . π . ὁ λ . ἤρχ . πρὸς αὐτ . Ἀγ . δὲ οἱ γρ . κ . οἱ Φ . ἐπὶ ἁμαρτίᾳ γυν . εἰλημένην , κ . στ . αὐτ . ἐν μ . λ . αὐτῷ ἐκπειράζοντες αὐτὸν οἱ ἱερεῖς , ἵνα ἔχωσι κατηγορίαν αὐτοῦ · διδ ., αὕτ . ἡγ . κατείληπται ἐπ . μοιχ . Μωϋσῆς δὲ ἐν τ . νόμῳ ἐκέλευσε τὰς τοιαύτ . λιθάζειν · σὺ δὲ νῦν τί λέγεις ; Ὁ δὲ Ἰησ . κ . κ . τ . δ . κατέγραφεν εἰς τ . γ . Ὡς δὲ ἐπ . ἐρωτ ., ἀνέκυψε καὶ εἶπεν αὑτοῖς · ὁ ἀν . ὑμ . πρ . ἐπʼ αὐτὴν βαλλέτω λίθον . Κ . π . κατακύψας τῷ δακτύλῳ κατέγραφεν εἰς τ . γ . Ἕκαστος δὲ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐξήρχετο , ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων , ὥστε πάντας ἐξελθεῖν , κ . κατελ . μόν . κ . ἡ γυνὴ ἐν μ . οὖσα . Ἀνακ . δὲ ὁ Ἰησ . εἶπ . τῇ γυναικί · ποῦ εἰσιν ; οὐδείς σε κατεκρ .; Κἀκείνη εἶπεν αὐτῷ · οὐδεὶς , κύρ . Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν · οὐδὲ ἐγ . σ . κ . Ὕπαγε , ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε .

The Johannean authorship was denied by Erasmus, Calvin (?), Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Semler, Morus, Haenlein, Wegscheider, Paulus, Tittmann (Melet. p. 318 ff.), Knapp, Seyffarth, Lücke, Credner, Tholuck, Olshausen, Krabbe, B. Crusius, Bleek, Weisse, Lücke, De Wette, Guericke, Reuss, Brückner, Luthardt, Ewald, Baeumlein, Hengstenberg (who regards the section as a forgery made for a particular purpose), Schenkel, Godet, Scholten, and most critics: Lachmann and Tischendorf also have removed the section from the text. Bretschneider, p. 72 ff., attributing it to the Pseudo-Johannes, endeavours to establish its spuriousness, and so uses it as an argument against the genuineness of the Gospel; Strauss and Bauer deal with it in the same way, while Hitzig (on John Mark, p. 205 ff.) regards the evangelist Mark as the author, in whose Gospel it is said to have stood after Joh_12:17 (according to Holtzmann, in the primary Mark). Its authenticity, on the contrary, was defended in early times especially by Augustine (de conjug. adult. 2. 7),1[1] whose subjective judgment is, that the story had been rejected by persons of weak faith, or by enemies of the true faith, who feared “peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis;”—in modern times by Mill, Whitby, Fabricius, Wolf, Lampe, Bengel, Heumann, Michaelis, Storr, Dettmers (Vindiciae αὐθεντίας textus Gr. peric. Joh. vii. 53 ff., Francof. ad Viadr. p. 1, 1793); Stäudlin (in two Dissert., Gott. 1806) Hug (de conjugii Christ. vinculo indissolub., Frib. 1816, p. 22 ff.); Kuinoel, Möller (neue Ansichten, p. 313 ff.); Scholz (Erklär. der Evang. p. 396 ff., and N. T. I. p. 383); Klee and many others, in particular, also Maier, i. p. 24 f.; Ebrard, Horne, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T., ed. Tregelles, p. 465; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 284 ff., and again in his Zeitschrift, 1863, p. 317, Lange. Schulthess, in Winer and Engelhardt krit Journ. v. 3, pp. 257–317, declares himself in favour of the genuineness of a text purified by the free use of various readings.

Joh_8:14. ἢ τοῦ ὑπάγω ] Elz. Lachm.: ΚΑῚ ΠΟῦ ὙΠ . But B. D. K. T. U. X. Λ . Curs, and many Vss. have Ἢ ; and ΚΑῚ might easily have been repeated from what precedes, while there was nothing to occasion the change of ΚΑῚ into Ή .

Joh_8:16. ἈΛΗΘΉς ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἈΛΗΘΙΝΉ , after B. D. L. T. X. 33. Or. Rightly; ἈΛΗΘΉς was introduced from the context (Joh_8:14; Joh_8:17).

Joh_8:20. After ἘΛΆΛΗΣΕΝ Elz. has Ὁ ἸΗΣΟῦς , against decisive witnesses.

Joh_8:26. ΛΈΓΩ ] Lachm. Tisch.: ΛΑΛῶ , following important witnesses; but from Joh_8:25; Joh_8:28.

Joh_8:28. Ὁ ΠΑΤΉΡ ] Elz. Scholz: Ὁ ΠΑΤΉΡ ΜΟΥ . But ΜΟΥ is wanting in D. L. T. X. à . 13, 69, 122, al. Slav. Vulg. It. Eus. Cyr. Hilar. Faustin., and is a later addition, intended to mark the peculiar relation of the Ὁ ΠΑΤΉΡ .

Joh_8:29. After ΜΌΝΟΝ Elz. Scholz have Ὁ ΠΑΤΉΡ . A gloss which 253, 259 have inserted before μόνον .

Joh_8:34. τῆς ἁμαρτίας ] wanting only in D. Cant. 8 :Clem. Faustin., witnesses which are too weak to justify our condemning it as a gloss. It was left out on account of the following general expression ὁ δὲ δοῦλος .

Joh_8:38. ἅ ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν ] Elz. Scholz: ὃ ἑωράκατε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν . But B. C. D. K. X. à . Curss. Or. have ἅ ; B. C. K. L. X. à .** Curss. and some Vss. and Fathers, even Or., read ἠκούσατε and τοῦ πατρός . The received text, of which Tisch. has inconsistently retained ἑωράκ ., is a mechanical imitation of the first half of the verse. The pronouns μου and ὑμῶν must, with Lachm. and Tisch., following very important witnesses, he deleted as clumsy additions inserted for the purpose of marking the distinction. Finally, ἅ also in the first half has almost entirely the same witnesses in its favour as the second ἅ , so that with Lachm. and Tisch. we must read ἅ in both places.

Joh_8:39. ἦτε ] B. D. L. à . Vulg. Codd. It. Or. Aug.: ἐστε . So Griesb. Lachm. Tisch.; rightly defended by Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 474 ff. The seemingly illogical relation of the protasis and apodosis caused ἐστε to be changed into ἦτε , and ἐποιεῖτε into ποιεῖτε (Vulg. Or. Aug.).

After ἐποιεῖτε , Elz. Lachm. have ἄν , which is wanting in important witnesses, and is an unnecessary grammatical addition.

Joh_8:51. τὸν λόγ . τὸν ἐμόν ] Lachm. Tisch.: τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον , which is preponderatingly attested, and therefore to be adopted.

Joh_8:52. Instead of γεύσηται Elz. has γεύσεται , against conclusive testimony.

Joh_8:53. After σεαυτόν Elz. has σύ , which the best Codd. unanimously exclude.

Joh_8:54. δοξάζω ] Lachm. Tisch.: δοξάσω , after B. C.* D. à . Curs. Cant. Verc. Corb. Rd. Colb. Or. Chrys. Ambr. Rightly; the present (comp. the following δοξάζων ) would involuntarily present itself to the copyists.

For ἡμῶν (so also Tisch.) Elz. has ὑμῶν (as also Lachm.). The testimonies are divided between the two; but ἡμῶν might easily have been changed into ὑμῶν , after the preceding ὑμεῖς , through not observing the direct construction.

Joh_8:57. The reading τεσσαράκοντα , which Chrysostom has, and Euthymius Zigabenus found in MSS., is still in Λ . and three Curs., but is nothing save an historical retouche.

Joh_8:59. After ἹΕΡΟῦ Elz. Scholz have: ΔΙΕΛΘῺΝ ΔΙᾺ ΜΈΣΟΥ ΑὐΤῶΝ , ΚΑῚ ΠΑΡῆΓΕΝ ΟὝΤΩς , words which are wanting in B. D. à .* Vulg. It. al. Or. Cyr. Arnob. An addition after Luk_4:30, whence also ἘΠΟΡΕΎΕΤΟ has been interpolated after ΑὐΤῶΝ in several witnesses.

[1] 1 Nikon, in the 13th century, attributed the omission to solicitude lest the contents should have an injurious effect upon the multitude. See Cotelerius, Patr. Apost. i. 235.