I posted the following comment on the recent posting on the ETC blog, below.
It seems to have been deleted.
In any case, I'm reposting my comments here, for those interested:
RE: The Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11)
"Focusing narrowly on the "textual evidence" and using it so crudely doesn't help enlighten those who want useful information on how these variants arose, or whether they are genuine or not.
All "textual evidence" has to be evaluated and interpreted, and this ought to be done in the light of internal evidences and transcriptional probabilities.
Modern advances in understanding of transcriptional (copying) evidence suggests that 'Prefer the Shorter text' is not supportable by current knowledge of copying habits.
Royse's recent studies seem decisive on this issue.
In any case, neither Mark's Ending nor the PA can be explained away
as mere scribal glosses or 'accidental interpolations'. Even if copyists sometimes erroneously included mistaken 'corrections' into the text, neither the ME or the PA could be so accounted for. These were major editorial decisions made by ecclesiastical authorities in the light of textual knowledge now no longer accessable to us.
What Causes Large Omissions?
At the same time, the complimentary advances in knowledge about the vocabulary and syntactical features of gospel pericopes has shown that nothing can be concluded by the presence or absence of "Johannine" or "Markan" features.
All gospels present spans of text that do not conform to author usage or style, and yet which are not in any doubt as to their authenticity. The significance of this is that tests of vocabulary or style are not significant and therefore inconclusive.
Dr. Heard on Vocabulary Questions
Finally, it is significant that deeper and newer studies of John's Gospel for instance, have revealed structural, chiastic, and thematic patterns that indicate the authenticity of the PA, and the probable composition of John with the PA included.
Chiastic Patterns in John