The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 474

Joh. 8chriftt,n.' 271) ne I\ gloss on eh. viii. Pnpias, w:th reference to the extrnordinary 15); thnt th<' <'X,.<'l'nnl evidence is extremely fertility of the vine in the lntter de.ye- tmsntisfnrt0ry nnn conflicting; yet it must a passage wltich Lightfoot thinks mo.y hnve he ndmitted thnt the silence of the groat bron originally attached to Me.tt. xxvi. 29. <:T<'ck Fnthers conc-{)rning it is 11<'<'-0untable Thnt such an event di<! hl\ppen, and thnt without disbeli<'ving in its existence. While we 1111,0 here nn e.uthentio reoord of what Chrysost-Om ignores it, Ambrose insists upon occurred, is accepted by the great bulk of its teac-hing, o.nd Jerome does not see suffi- r.ritios, who, nevertheless, expunge it from cient reason to expunge it. The profound the text of John, ou the combined ground ori!(inality of the lessons it conveys, and the of its intcrnnl difficulty and deficienoy of difficulty involved in a careless reading, externo.l ntteste.tion. The difficulty, how- may aCC'ount for the non-appearance of it ever, is one indication of the surpassing in the earliest manuscripts, and make the originality of the narrative. It is hard to motive which could have maliciously devised imagine the motive whioh should induce or imngincd such a scene inconceivable. any of the followers of Christ or of John to Liicke, in his elaborate treatment (vol. ii. have invented it, while there e.re reasons, pp. 243-278), Tregelles, and Alford, Godet, drawn from the ascetic tendencies mightily in lor,0, Lightfoot (Contemporary Review, at work in certain sections of the Church, Yol. xxvi.), Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, for its omission or the silence of homilists_ decbre against it in the most positive wo.y. Though the spirit, atmosphere, and phrase M<'ycr urges that it is not to be for a moment suggest the synoptic tradition rather_ than referred to nn ornl J ohannine source, while it the Johe.nnine, yet it must not be forgotten is in keeping, he says, with the tone of the the.t there are many synoptic passages in synoptic Gospels. This is open to criticism. John's Gospel, e.nd Johannine phrases in Scathing denuncie.tions of every kind of the synoptists. The criticism proceeding corruption are far more frequent in the sy- from moral timidity has failed to recognize noptic Gospels (cf. Matt. v.-vii., :xxili-, etc.) the grandeur of the entire prooeeding. It than in the Fourth Gospel contains no pe.lliation of incontinence, but 'l'he most formide.ble objection is the state e. simple refusal of Jesus to assume the posi- of the text, which, in addition to its defl- tion of a civil Judge or Executor of the le.w ciencv of fuat-class testimony, is nnusue.lly in face of the este.blished political supremacy discr;pant in the authorities which preserve of Rome; while the Lord me.de e. demand it. Thns there is the abridged form of the for personal holiness, e.nd an appee.l to con- ne.rrative in Codex. Bezm (D) e.nd the text science so pungent the.t, in lieu of condemn- of 'f.R., which rest£ on e. large number of ing to dee.th a sinful woman, he judged a later uncinls e.nd eureives ; e.nd e. third whole crowd of men, convincing them of text, which seems like e. mixture or con- sin, while he gave the overt transgressor ftation of the two texts.. Lii.cke e.nd Godet time for repentance end holier living. have suggested that the pe.ssage contains a?' CIL vii. 53-viii. 11.-(b) The plot agaimt c::.:tra-scriptural fact preserved by ore.I tradi- the honour or loyalty of the Lo1·d Jesus foile1, tion that was first placed at the end of the Ch. vii. 53.-And every one went 1 to his Go~pels, and therefore at the end of John's own house. If the plural be here taken, it Gospel, nnd was by some editors nnd copy- more obviously refers to the bree.king up of ists inserted in this particular connection, the assembly, of the divided groups, e.s well as of the angry Sanhedrin for the day now and by others in Luke :xxi. 8, in the midst drawing to its close. The strong opponents of the teBting to which the Se.nhedrin and of the passage see in the cle.use the me.rk of the sectional parties submitted our Lord an interpolator who me.kee use of a phre.se during the last week of his life. Bishop strictly applicable from its presumed plaoe Lightfoot (Contemporary Review, voL xxvi- to the Sanhedrin, but intended clum,ily to refer to the crowda who had been taking 847) thinks it may have been one of the pa.rt in the dramatic scene. There would, illnstrati ve anecdotes in the Collectanea of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- l'apiJI.S. The only other illustration to 1 D reads brop,68 ; but the J?lurnl is 11 which he refers is the supposed saying of better e.ttested. Some Jl18.nuscr1pts nnd our Lord pr~served i11 Eusebius's account of versio11e read «11'11M•11 or a;,r,fll.Bo•. ttn. vm. 1-gO.J TRt GOSPEL ACCORDtNO TO 8T. ,JO'FTN. 347