Internal Evidence

Index for John 8:1-11

Linguistic, Structural, Literary Criticism

Last Updated: Nov 3, 2010

Internal Evidence
Page Index

Internal Evidence Chronological by Author
Featured Articles Worth Special Notice
Linguistic Resources - Literary and Historical
In House Articles - New avenues of investigation

Linguistic Criticism on John 8:1-11
1826S. T. Bloomfield- a masterly defence!
1848S. Davidson- linguistic claims refuted
1863H. Alford- reviewed by Nicolson
1886 J. Burgon- int. evidence assessed
1896J. Burgon- the classic defence!
1900H. Wendt- More interpolations?
1912E.R. Buckley - conflicting 'Lukan' evid.
1917H. Cadbury- 'Lukan theory' weak...
1918H. L. Jackson - state of scholarship
1932A. T. Robertson- scholarly hari kari
1940A. Pink- basic contextual evidence
1950R. Heard methodology useless!
1966A. Johnson a new stylistic trait found
1984B. Witheringtonhistorical integrity
1994J. P. Heil internal evidence!
1997M. Schneider MORE internal evidence
1998R. A. Culpepper NEW internal evidence!
1999J. Staley Chiasm, Unity of ch 7-8 new!
2000J. M. C. Scott MORE internal evidence
2007A. W. Wilson MORE internal evidence
2010J.D. Punch - a thorough review!
Check also our Textual Critics List < - here.

  Featured Articles

Prof. R. Heard, M.A., M.B.E., M.C.
Cambridge U.
Examines past approaches to 'Internal Evidence' and finds them bankrupt. The methodology cannot distinguish between passages in John.

R. Heard (1950) on Jn 8:1-11 - new approaches needed

Ben Witherington
Compares the PA to authentic passages of Jesus' teaching in the Synoptics and finds its historical integrity as a tradition remains both intact and useful.

B. Witherington (1984) - Historical Intregrity of PA

John Paul Heil
Professor of New Testament, Curley Hall,
Catholic University of America,
Washington, DC: Shows strong connections to John's Gospel

J. P. Heil (1994) on John 8:1-11 with new rejoinder

A.W. Wilson
examines both internal linguistic evidence,
and contextual evidence from John's Gospel:

A. W. Wilson (2006) on John 8:1-11 (link)

J.D. Punch
- re-examines internal vocabulary evidence against the PA:

J.D. Punch (2010) on John 8:1-11 - thorough review

  Linguistic & Literary Resources

General Articles:
R. M. Fowler (1982) on Literary Criticism of the Gospels
Hawkins (1909) Synoptic Vocabulary - Classic Ref.
BAG (1957) on NT Greek Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich
G. Mussies (1971) on Methodology and Linguistics new!
List of Literary Terms - for students (offsite)

On John's Gospel:
Alford (1863) John's Style: Thematic Structure new!
Godet (1874) on John: Integrity of Christ's Discourses
MacLean (1895) John's Style: Keywords and Usage new!
Edw. Abbott (1905) Johannine Vocabulary - Opus Study
Nigel Turner (1972) Johannine Style solid analysis
Marlowe (2004) on bias - in interpreting John's style

On John 7:53-8:11:
Burgon (1886): Internal Evidence- re: the PA
R.M. Grant (1963) on John 8:1-11 vocabulary, style sources
B. Witherington (1984) - Historical Intregrity of PA

  In-House Articles

New Linguistic Evidence favours Authenticity!

Why 'δε' is irrelevant in John - more claims implode
'ει μη' in John 8:1-11 - NOT a stylistic marker

New Structural Evidence for Authenticity Found!

Moses and John 8:1-11 - Thematic Structure discovered!
O.T. Quotation Structure in John - powerful new evidence
CHIASTIC Structure (2008) & Jn 8:1-11 - new evidence!
Mount of Olives CHIASM - English Version!
Mount of Olives CHIASM - Greek Unicode

New Literary Evidence re: Authenticity

more coming soon!

Reconstructions of John's Gospel Reviewed

Bultmann's rearrangement of John - critiqued
Anderson's Two-Edition theory - critiqued

Return to Onsite Main Page <-- Click Here to return.

Coming soon:
Lukanisms reassessed
John's Style: the current state of affairs

Creative Commons License Unless otherwise stated, all original material of whatever nature created by Nazaroo and Mr. Scrivener and included on this Website and any related pages, including the website's archives, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Canada License.

This website is an excellent educational resource and any information can be used and reproduced as long as the use of the information complies with the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Canada License.