Excerpt on: Alan Johnson (1966), Review by J. Punch, (2010)
Johnson on the PA - Review by J. Punch:
Background
Since Johnson's original dissertation (1964) and his article in JETS are difficult to obtain, we have chosen to quote a brief review of it by
Exerpted for review from:
J.D. Punch,
"The Pericope Adulterae:
Theories of Insertions and Omission"
Radbound U., Doctoral Thesis, (2010)
Formatting/Headings may have been added for clarity and navigation purposes.
3.9 Alan Johnson on the PA (p.42)
In 1964, the second doctoral dissertation of the century was submitted by Alan Johnson at Dallas Theological Seminary. Much of this work would be later repackaged in a 1966 article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, (JETS) entitled "A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae?".
Johnson's dissertation, unlike Becker's before him, argues for the Johannine authorship of the Pericope Adulterae; however, Johnson's work is based more on internal evidence than external evidence.
In spite of what he believes to be a "settled" argument in the minds of most textual critics (1966:91), Johnson argues that while the external evidence must still be considered to some extent, the lack of certainty of the origin of our "earliest" manuscripts and the subsequent disagreement of scholars in regard to particular types of texts, "the internal evidence of linguistics and context play a most vital role in recent methodology and should demand more careful consideration of the internal character of the Pericope Adulterae" (1966:92).
The Weakness of Internal Evidence Arguments
In focusing on this internal evidence of vocabulary and context, Johnson makes a few interesting observations regarding the state of the generally accepted internal evidence. First, he admits that context can be highly subjective (1966:92). Secondly, he argues that the limited vocabulary of the Gospel of John is insufficient to conduct a full analysis of the pericope that would be substantial enough to determine what is Johannine and what is not Johannine.
In doing so, Johnson cites Bruce Metzger in support of this claim, who in turn had cited G. Udney Yuke, claiming that 10,000 words or more are necessary to form any solid basis for authorship (Metzger, 1985:93-4); Johnson then highlights the fact that the Fourth Gospel only has 174 words (1964:178-9).
Counter-Examples and Untenable Results
Based on this hypothesis, Johnson attempts to show how certain vocabulary analyses could be used to discredit portions of the Gospel of John that are not generally in dispute. For example, he demonstrates that John 2:13-17 could be considered to be non-Johannine if the same criteria that was applied to John 7:53-8:11 is used. By comparing the total number of words, the total vocabulary, hapax legomena (see section 4.0 in Chapter 5), what he called "preferred" Johannine words such as (kai., oxlos), etc, 1 and "preferred" Lukan words, Johnson shows that 2:13-17 has a higher percentage of hapax legomena and preferred Lukan terms, while having a lower percentage of preferred Johannine terms (1966:93-4).
The result is that 2:13-17 appears to be even more non-Johannine than the Pericope Adulterae, underscoring Johnson's main point that vocabulary analyses may be inaccurate in the Fourth Gospel. Johnson further suggests that such an approach can discredit extra-biblical pieces of literature as well, citing Guthrie's findings regarding a similar study conducted on Cicero's work (1966:93).
Positive Evidence for Johannine Authorship
Beyond his attempts to question the existing internal evidence, Johnson does put forth his own strand of evidence in favor of a Johannine authorship of the text. In fact, this is what the majority of his dissertation centers on, what Johnson called "a stylistic trait." He claims that one of the most common Johannine literary patterns is,
"short explanatory phrases by the author that help to interpret the significance of the words that have just been spoken in the narrative" (1966:95).
These explanatory phrases are said to be united by three common elements: the conjunction "now" (de), the demonstrative "this" (touto), and a form of the verb "to speak" (legein).
According to Johnson, this stylistic trait that is found in John 8:6 is also found in ten other locations within in the Fourth Gospel, seven of which possess all three elements, the other three possessing at least two elements (6:6, 71, 7:39, 11:13, 11:51, 12:6, 12:33, 13:11, 13:28, and 21:29).
Internal Evidence Question Unsettled
Johnson concludes his work by stating that because the internal evidence raised against the passage is questionable and because his "stylistic trait" is so substantial, that new questions need to be raised in study of the Pericope Adulterae.
This includes a re-investigation of the external evidence, which Johnson himself unfortunately does not offer. It appears that few if any have followed Johnson's suggestion either. This may be due to the fact that some consider Johnson's proposed stylistic trait in 8:6 to more likely be the work of a later redactor (cf. Keith, 2007:382).
Textual Evidence Reinvestigation Hanging
Though Johnson's internal evidence is occasionally discussed (cf. Trites, 1974:137-146; Hodges, 1980:41-53), there does not appear to be any new, major re-explorations of the external evidence for John 7:53-8:11 that Johnson has recommended.
Original Footnotes:
1. For a fuller discussion on these "preferred" Johannine words, see section 6.0 in Chapter 5. There is little discussion offered in Johnson's work detailing so-called "preferred" Lukan words.