Luke and the PA

"The Synoptic Problem becomes significant here:

Did John (or an interpolator) have access to Luke, or did Luke have access to John in writing Luke/Acts?

John appears to take great pains to maintain independance from the Synoptic Gospels, in regard to both style and content. He appears only to make direct reference to Mark, and makes no effort to use or even confirm the 'Q' material from Luke and Matthew.
Yet a handful of peculiar clauses and expressions are shared between John and Luke: Why would John insert these phrases into his own Gospel in such a random manner, with no apparent purpose?

If Luke made Use of John...

But what if Luke was composed after John, and had access to it, or at least to traditions originating in the Johannine community? In fact, a remarkable number of passages in Luke appear to depend upon the Johannine tradition, such as Luke 9:55-56 (cf. Jn 3:16-17), Luke 10:1-24, especially 10:2-3 (cf. Jn 4:35-36), and 10:21-22 (cf. Jn 5:25-27, 8:42-43, 10:27-30 etc.), Luke 11:29-36 (cf. Jn 2:18 etc.), and Luke 12:14 (cf. Jn 8:15-16).
The parallels between Luke 11:20 (cf. Jn 8:6,8!), and especially Luke 21:37-38/Acts 5:21 (cf. Jn 7:53-8:2) become now become more explicable. Luke takes the Johannine traditions and works them into his compilation of previous written and oral tradition, modifying them extensively just as he has done with Mark. Luke openly confesses as much, in the first 4 verses (Luke 1:1-4).
Most importantly, now the amazing parallel in Luke 21:37-38 takes on a new meaning: Besides providing the authoritative background for Luke's following material, Luke carefully preserves together material from both sides of the apparent 'seam' between John 8:1 and 8:2. Could Luke have done this to prevent or combat the physical cutting apart of this seam and removal of John 8:2-11?
If so, Luke would become the earliest known witness to the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera!

- Nazaroo

G.A. Clark on the PA and TC

G.A. Clark

In 1986 (revised 1990) G.A. Clark issued a small book(let) entitled, Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism   (Trinity Foundation, Maryland; 70 pgs).

It is only an introductory view of the subject, but before dismissing it out of hand, a word or two about G. A. Clark is in order. He was a well-educated, highly respected Presbyterian theologian.

"He began teaching at the University of Pennsylvania after receiving his bachelor's degree and also taught at Reformed Episcopal Seminary in Philadelphia. In 1936, he accepted a professorship in Philosophy at Wheaton College, Illinois, where he remained until 1943, when he accepted the Chairmanship of the Philosophy Department at Butler University in Indianapolis. In 1973, he retired from Butler University and taught at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia, and Sangre de Cristo Seminary in Westcliffe, Colorado.  ...Clark was a prolific author who wrote more than forty books, including texts on ancient and contemporary philosophy, volumes on Christian doctrines, commentaries on the New Testament and a one-volume history of philosophy. "

- wikipedia on  G. H. Clark.

When approaching Textual Criticism, Clark was humble, but his extensive knowledge, scientific and linguistic training, should not be underestimated.   In writing his booklet, his concern was always to clarify and assist the ordinary Christian layman, not pander to academics.  He remained a firm believer in the traditional Bible and the Protestant faith.  In his chapter on John's gospel, he faces the Pericope de Adultera head-on:

"This is the passage concerning Jesus' judgment of the woman whom the Pharisees caught in the very act of adultery.  It is the longest and probably the most peculiar textual problem in all the New Testament; and though the liberal critics would not say so, the consevative scholars must admit that it is the most difficult also." ( - Gordon H. Clark, p. 37)

He is certainly right in recognizing both the size and difficulty of the textual problem.  Dean John Burgon held the same view over 120 years ago:

"I have purposely reserved for the last the most difficult problem of all: namely, those 12 famous verses of St. John's Gospel (7:53-8:11) which contain ...the Pericope de Adultera ... It is altogether indispensable that the reader should approach this portion of the Gospel with the greatest amount of experience and the largest preparation."  

( - John Burgon, the Pericope de Adultera)

On pg 39, Clark briefly reviews the so-called 'textual evidence' as typically presented, and remarks:

"On the basis of this evidence [alone], it is doubtful that the original contained the verses because it is unlikely that so many scribes would have deleted it. On the other hand, if it was not in the original , how can one explain so many manuscripts that include it?"  (Clark , p. 39)

This is the other side of the same coin.  The very 'textual evidence' that is held to be against the passage simply cannot be explained any better by just rejecting the passage.   This is because the evidence itself is irrepairably split, and some other mechanism and/or explanation must be sought beyond textual evidence alone; that evidence is not only ambiguous, but self-contradictory, and self-condemning.

Clark then turns to the pre-textual situation (the extant manuscripts only go back to about 250-300 A.D. with Papyri P66 and P75).  Since all critics are in the same boat, Clark proposes  an alternate conjecture: 

"...it will be at least a possibility [that] just perchance the Apostle John himself wrote a second edition of his Gospel, adding a paragraph.  [second editions often have additional material added].  ...Could not John have don similarly?" ( - Clark, p. 39)

Its an interesting idea.  Many critics have felt this both a necessary and plausible solution to the fact that there are two very divergent versions of the book of Acts (i.e., 2 editions released by Luke).   But as Clark himself acknowledges, this is not a necessary hypothesis.  

Instead Clark prefers to turn to internal evidence, like Hodges and Farstad do (Majority Text, etc.), to seek additional evidence that could tip the scales in one direction or another.  Both find evidence of John's linguistic style in John 8:6 of the passage: τουτο δε ελεγον πειραζοντες ('this they said tempting him').  Similar phrases are found in: John 6:6, 7:39, 11:51, 12:6, 33, and 21:19.  Hodges and Farstad mention other keys also, but  Clark is happy not to insist too strongly on those evidences: 

"the [presence of] favorite introductory phrases is far from proving that someone else could not have used it occasionally.  The most that can be concluded is that the phrase does not destroy authenticity. 

The authors add three other, less striking items.  At least the second is less striking:  It is the argument that the passage fits nicely in its place.  This can hardly be contested, though their evidences are slightly too many [i.e., overstated].   

But if the authors have not demonstrated authenticity, their argument is quite satisfactory in undermining any counter claim.  There is also a third argument, a very complex genealogical argument, too difficult to reproduce here.  The data are important, but the whole requires further investigation." (p. 39-40). 

Given G. H. Clark's state of knowledge in 1990, his position is a most reasonable compromise, worthy of and similar to  F.H.A. Scrivener's position in the 1880s. 

We now know that there is substantive additional structural evidence for the authenticity of the passage, far stronger, and more reliable than mere linguistic or stylistic evidence.  We recommend reviewing this additional material below:

1997	M. Schneider	MORE internal evidence
1998	R. A. Culpepper	NEW internal evidence!
1999	J. Staley	Chiasm, Unity of ch 7-8 new!
2000	J. M. C. Scott	MORE internal evidence
2007	A. W. Wilson	MORE internal evidence

Nor should one miss the following new findings:

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 

 All in all, Gordon H. Clark's position on the PA has indeed held up over time, in an era of many new discoveries and advances in the study of the Holy Scriptures.

John's Connection to Mark and the PA

Mark as a Base Outline for John

Mark and John are also similar in size and in the arrangement of their contents. And there seems to be a much stronger correspondence than would be indicated by the strictly 'parallel' material between the Synoptics and John.
At the same time, we can expect any Gospel to have a significant body of common material, with a (practically forced) standard arrangement /order (e.g. triumphal entry, passion, resurrection). And certain major events will act as a backbone against which the rest of the material is chronologically arranged.
We can see this basic structural outline in the position of several key events and sequences:

Shared Backbone

Its from this shared backbone that all the other elements find their relative chronological placement and correspondence between the two Gospels, Mark and John.
Although a few items are clearly displaced (e.g. the Temple Cleansing, the Annointing etc.), most other items have a surprising correspondence and connection between the Gospels. Some sections, although displaced, are only slightly and locally rearranged. One may discover that most of these minor oddities seem to have an additional structural purpose of their own.
Before assuming that diverse material is completely unrelated, we are obligated to examine the possibility that various segments which are chronologically parallel (relative to the Gospel frameworks) are related in other more subtle ways. Three obvious relations are:

(1) that parallel but divergent material is supplementary, and expands upon the (previous) narrative/discourse with which it has been paired off.
(2) that the alternate material is complimentary in some sense or function, such as for didactic purpose or ritual use.
(3) that this material is meant to create a larger wholistic 'meta-picture' which is only partially seen in individual Gospel accounts, or is even non-existant in fragments themselves.

It is only when avenues like these are exhausted, that we should probably abandon the idea that there may be a deliberate relation between the opposing passages in each Gospel. Opening up these lines of investigation allows us to consider many ways in which the Gospels may have been composed, and designed to work together.

---

Mark / John
Interconnections: Part I

Having accepted the possibility that John for instance has used Mark as a blueprint or structural basis for his own outline, the investigation is straightforward. Let us take the first third of the Gospel(s) and see what can be plausibly connected.

Stunning Parallels
Relaxing the requirement for strict literal parallelism gives a dramatic result: It is clear that a large portion of John interconnects with Mark. But most importantly, John is clearly meant to act as a kind of commentary or 'midrash' on Mark.
Many of the once puzzling Johannine Discourses, thought by some to have been virtually made up by John, are seen to be direct verbal interpretations of physical acts in the public ministry of Jesus. Its as though while Jesus is traveling through Galilee and Samaria, he is simultaneously debating with the Judaean authorities in Jerusalem.
We can see for instance how the Third Discourse (the Son of God Discourse, Jn 5:19-47) follows closely the narrative events in Mark 5:21-6:29. Both the chronological order of events is matched by the Discourses and the thematic content also is strongly connected, emphasized, and expanded.
Perhaps some of this exchange was historically carried out in a kind of long distance 'correspondence' between representatives from Jerusalem and Jesus/John during their public activity among the Lost Tribes of the North.
John has been written not only to function as a complete Gospel in itself, but also as a detailed commentary on Mark. This is now so evident that trying to write a commentary on Mark without consulting John appears foolish.

A Door Closes
The first Third of Mark's Gospel fittingly begins and ends with John the Baptist's ministry and testimony. What is left ringing in our ears, because of details only provided by Mark is that the Herodians (Mark 3:6) were actively behind the plot to kill Jesus. We recall that Herod had appointed and controlled the 'puppet priests', and his will was behind their organized activity, supported by the powerful Pharisees.
The Herodian party had already murdered John the Baptist, and John the Baptist's indictment against them was headed by the blatant "Accusation of Moses"(Jn 5:45) against their 'king': ADULTERY (Exod. 20:14) -




"It is not lawful for you to have her." (John Baptist, in Mark 6:18). And so this large section of the Gospel closes.

---

Mark / John
Interconnections: Part II

Now examining the next section, we are able to see again the same remarkable connections across both Gospels:

While some material undergoes a significant rearrangement locally, the main backbone remains full and solid, and the ADULTERY connection is glaring.
It seems quite plain that the confrontation between the Herodian religious authorities and Jesus in John's account (Jn 8:1-11) is meant to illustrate and resonate loudly with Jesus' teaching in Mark on ADULTERY and DIVORCE.
But the most powerful and remarkable feature of the whole correspondence, is that the two very difficult, almost impenetrable mysteries in John taken alone, the seemingly random "Jesus went to the Mount of Olives",(Jn 8:1) and the equally weak, almost disconnected Jn 8:12, "I am the Light of the World", suddenly jumps out at us and hits us over the head with a hammer:
John is calling to rememberance the Transfiguration on the Mount, but does not speak of it openly (he was under oath not to discuss it - Mk 9:9, but this no longer holds: yet there may be danger to parties still living in Jerusalem). Mark, writing in Rome from Peter's intimate testimony, is not under any such restriction, and happily reports the amazing event that transpired on the Mountain, including the discussion with Moses and Elijah.

---

Conclusion

Of course all study of Holy Scripture is a rewarding endeavour in itself.
We are content at the moment however, with revealing to the reader the remarkable evidence from the Gospel of Mark itself, as to the Authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera .
Even though we happily concede that Mark was probably written before John wrote his own Gospel, the fact that John used Mark as a base for his own supplementary historical and teaching material exposes for us the remarkable feature that John intended his story of the Woman Taken in Adultery to resonate with Mark's report.
Jesus' teaching regarding the Accusation of Moses exposed by John the Baptist against the Herodians, His teaching regarding Divorce and Adultery, is aptly contrasted with His tender mercy toward a woman caught in the middle of this epic battle between the corrupt Religious authorities of Jerusalem and the King of Kings.
Mark has become the earliest textual witness for the authenticity of John 8:1-11, being acknowledged to be the first gospel written, and penned some 150 years before the oldest known copy of any gospel.
Some may think it must end here. For how could there be an even earlier witness to the existance and authenticity of John 8:1-11?
We can only remind our brothers and sisters in Christ, that with the Lord, anything is possible. And more evidence will surely follow, since it is a task of the Holy Spirit to bring the truth of the Gospel to the light of day.

Malan on the PA (12 Ancient Versions with Notes!)

The following are the original pages from Solomon Malan's opus Gospel of John (1862).  He gives 12 major versions (translated into English with notes):  the AV, Syriac, Ethiopic, Sahidic, Memphitic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon (Old Saxon), Arabic, and Persian texts :
(Click on picture to enlarge, backspace to return.  To save pictures, right-click on them while viewing large versions).

Scholz and MacMichael (1831-1854) on the PA

Scholz (1830), Roman Catholic professor of Sacred Literature in Bonn*, searched extensively all over Europe, and discovered an additional 600 manuscripts of the NT.  He personally collated many of these in full, and prepared a new edition of the Greek NT based on Griesbach's earlier (1806-1818) work.

Scholz, like Griesbach, was convinced of the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11, although he was well aware of the difficult textual problems surrounding the passage.

MacMichael (1854) republished a newer and almost completely corrected final edition of Scholz' Greek text, spending nearly 20 years carefully checking and correcting Scholz.   He tells us:

"In a few instances, where deliberate consideration of the text and readings led to the adoption of some other reading than that of the original text [Scholz], the latter is presented in the notes.  These deviations, however are very rare; their number, it is believed, will not be found to exceed twenty." (MacMichael, Preface, iii)

MacMichael adds extensive English notes to the text of Scholz in the lower margin (apparatus).  On the PA he states:

"The genuineness of the text from 7:53 to 8:11 (both inclusive) has been much questioned: see Olsh., following Beza, Grotius, Hammond, Wetst.  It is defended by Whitby, Mill, Selden (d Uxor. Heb.), Bloomfield.
Of its antiquity there can be no doubt (it is noticed by Tatian, A.D.160), and its authenticity, or truth as a genuine fragment of the Gospel narrative, handed down from Apostolic times, has hardly been questioned.  Its position here, unconnected as it stands with what precedes or follows it, has suggested the idea that it was originally inserted in the margin, as an incident illustrative of our Lord's words, εγω κρινω ουδενα (8:15)."

MacMichael, although properly allowing for the weakness of connection of the three adjoining sections, comes in on the side of the essential authenticity and integrity of the passage.

It may be noted that many sections in John are weakly joined, and John's gospel does not purport to be a continuous and complete narrative, but rather a collection of key incidents in Jesus' ministry, often vaguely connected. (cf. John 20:30-31).
_________________________________________

* John Martin Augustine Scholz (b. at Kapsdorf, near Breslau, 8 February, 1794; d. at Bonn, 20 Oct 1852), the German Catholic Orientalist and exegete

Nazaroo

Cambridge U., A. Plummer, and the PA

We previously discussed Plummer's misquotation (1889) of Godet (1860s) on the number of variants in the PA and the significance (none) of this 'false positive'.

Today, we want to look at his work in more detail, and in context.

How and why should Reverend Plummer have become an expert on the PA in the first place?   Of course the answer is that he wasn't an expert on the PA.

Westcott and Hort, and their allies in the 1880s were desperately seeking to promote their new "Revised Version" of the English Bible, which was not a strict revision at all, but actually a substitution of a critically reconstructed NT text, based on the school of Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, & Hort.

It quickly became obvious that many seasoned scholars and experts would not be going along with the all the changes to the text.  The only way to advance their cause was to raise a whole new generation of students, lacking the that background, and indoctrinate them in the Westcott/Hort viewpoint.

For this, the Cambridge group began a new series of Bible commentaries, specifically targeted for schools and colleges, i.e., the next generation of Bible students.  The principles of the new commentary were transparent

"The General Editor [J.J.S. Perowne, Dean of Peterborough] thinks it right to say that he does not hold himself responsible either for the interpretation of particular passages which the editors of specific books have adopted, or for any opinion on points of doctrine that they may have expressed.
On the NT more especially questions arise of the deepest theological import, on which the ablest and most conscientious interpreters have differed and will always differ.
His aim has been in all such cases to leave each contributor to the unfettered exercise of his own judgment, only taking care that mere controversy should as far as possible be avoided.
He has contented himself chiefly with a careful revision of notes, with pointing out omissions, with occasionally suggesting a reconsideration of some question, or a fuller treatment of difficult passages.
Beyond this he has not attempted to interfere, feeling it better that each Commentary [on each book] should have its own individual character, and being convinced that freshness and variety of treatment are more than a compensation for any lack of uniformity in the series." 

- Deanery, Peterborough, 1880."

It is obvious that the Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools, (1889) like the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, by the same editors, was from the start to be a wild mix of every theory and notion circulating, intended to expose vulnerable young minds to the fads of recent scholarship.
Looking backward, most of the editors were hardly qualified for the task, and their mediocre works were soon forgotten.   Only a few names are occasionally referenced today, such as A.B. Davidson, and H. C.G. Moule (who wrote Hebrew and Greek grammars respectively).
Plummer became known because he happened to land the job of commenting on John's Gospel and Epistles, always popular and important NT books.  His work was recycled for the later ICC commentary.

Just as remarkable as the charter regarding the commentaries, was the method that was chosen to provide the Greek text to accompany them:

"..the Syndics of the Cambridge U. Press have not thought it desirable to reprint the text in common use [Stephen's text (TR) as published by Scrivener].

To have done so would have set aside all the materials that have since been accumulated towards the formation of a correct text, and to disregard the results of textual criticism...

On the other hand the Syndics were unable to adopt one of the more recent critical texts [copyright?], and they were not disposed to make themselves responsible for the preparation of an entirely new and independent text [no one with the necessary skills on hand, or a budget]:

At the same time it would have been obviously impossible to leave it to the judgement of each individual contributor to frame his own text, as this would have been fatal to anything like uniformity or consistency. [what a startling admission!]

They believed however that a good text might be constructed by simply taking the consent of the two most recent critical editions, those of Tischendorf and Tregelles, as a basis.  ...allowing a determining voice to Stephen's text where the two critical editions were at variance and it agreed with either, and to a third critical text, that of Lachmann, where the three disagreed.  In this manner peculiar readings [lone decisions] would be passed over...while readings having double authority [two critics] would [possess] confidence.  ...in all other cases, Scrivener's edition of Stephens has been followed. [So in Acts, Epistles, Rev.]

In the Gospels, a single modification has been rendered necessary by the importance of the Sinai MS (א) [Aleph], discovered too late to be used by Tregelles, except for [John 21 & forward]. 

Accordingly, if a reading in Tregelles' margin agrees with Aleph, it is given the same authority as his text [i.e., it is assumed that Tregelles would have switched!], and bracketed words omitted by Aleph are treated as rejected. 

The spelling and accents and Iota subscripts and composite forms of Tischendorf are adopted.  The punctuation of Tischendorf's 8th edition is usually adopted, except as mentioned in the notes. Paragraphs correspond to the [Revised Version].  The commentator is free to express other preferences.

It is hoped the text formed will fairly represent the results of modern criticism, and will at least be ...preferable to the Received Text, for use in schools."

 - J.J. Stewart Perowne, 1881.

 It follows that the opinion of two colluding critics, Tregelles and Tischendorf, will take precedence over the Traditional text and the vast majority of manuscripts, versions, and early Christian writers (ECW),  in all cases, and where the two critics differ, a third critic Lachmann will be brought in to outvote the Traditional text in any case.  Its a lose-lose situation with a crude, stacked voting system.  The NT text will be decided by three favoured critics, of the Lachmann school, with all others, equally expert, such as Hug, Griesbach, Scholz,  Scrivener, Burgon, Bloomfield, Wordsworth, Canon Cook, Whitney, Vincent, Godet, Baljon, even Alford, being carefully avoided.  The vote is further prejudiced by altering Tregelles' more cautious choices to conform to Codex Aleph, the most abberant text of the Gospels known.  the result again stacks the deck further toward the Aleph/B (Alexandrian) text-type.

The method certainly delivers a text substantially like Westcott/Hort (without the copyright problems) and is more or less true to its claim:  "the text formed will fairly represent the results of [one school at least of] modern criticism".

But as a method it must be judged crude, unscientific, and heavily biased to favor the opinions and agenda of the Cambridge "Syndics", and not the needs of honest scholarship.

(to be continued)

Trollope's Cogent stance on PA

Turning to William Trollope's Analecta Theologica (1842 2nd ed.) Vol. 2, p. 87, we find the following breath of fresh air:

"The narrative of the Woman taken in Adultery, contained in the opening of this chapter [ch.8], together with the last verse of ch. 7, are wanting in a great number of the best MSS. [1]  Many of those also, which retain the passage, mark it with obelisks, as an indication of supposed spuriousness; [2] and it exhibits a greater variety of readings than any other portion of the Scriptures whatsoever. [3]  In some copies [family 1, 10th cent.] it is found at the end of the Gospel; in others, elsewhere[late copies], and in others, again, at the end of Luke 21 [fam. 13, 10th cent.]; Origen, Chrysostom, and Theophylact have taken no notice of it in their commentaries; [4]  and it is first explained by Euthymius, a writer of the 12th century. [5]  Many of the older versions are without it; [6]  and several of the ablest critics have rejected it as spurious. [7]   

Now Papias, in a fragment cited by Eusebius, relates a tradition respecting a woman who was accused of many crimes before our Lord, which was taken from the Apocryphal Gospel of the Nazarenes;  and it has been thought that this was the legend in question, which has by some means found its way into the narrative of St. John.   Others have thought that the incident is the relation of a real fact; but that it is one of those events in our Lord's ministry which were not inserted, for want of room, in any of the four canonical Gospels, though they were long preserved in the Church by oral tradition.   (See Luke 1:1, John 20:30).

Several of these histories were recorded in the margins of early copies, so that some of them at length obtained a place in the text; and it may not be impossible, from the remarkable variations in the MSS, that the preservation of this story is to be thus accounted for.  (See on Matt. 20:28, Luke 6:1). 

The weight of the evidence however, both internal and external, unquestionably preponderates in favour of its authenticity.  The majority of MSS are considerably on its side; and its absence from those in which it does not appear, is traced by Augustine (de Adult. Conjug. II.3) to a scrupulous fear, that the ignorant might be thereby induced to think lightly of the sin of adultery. 

At the same time it is sufficiently evident, why Jesus thought proper to evade the question of the Scribes.  A snare was laid for him similar to that which lurked in the insidious question respecting the tribute-money in Matt. 22:17.  Had he countenanced the punishment of the woman, they would have accused him to the Romans of invading their judicial authority; and had he, on the other hand, referred them to the pro-consular tribunal, they would have held him up to popular hatred., as sanctioning an infringement of their liberties and rights.  That he did not palliate the atrocity of the offence is evident from the caution with which he finally dismissed her.  pro- Whitby, Lightfoot, Mill, A. Clarke, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Doddridge, &c. (con - Grotius, Beza, Le Clerc, Wetstein, Tittman, &c.)  See also Horne's Introd. Vol. IV. p. 315. 

Trollope is to be appreciated for his insight into the reality behind the textual evidence, especially given the spotty knowledge available in his time, and the primitive state of textual criticism as a 'science'.   The following modern footnotes clarify what was missing from view for Trollope and his contemporaries, but which is readily known to us today:

1.  The final count of extant MSS missing the passage is actually quite small.  Some 1,350 MSS do have it, while only a few dozen have left it out.

2.  From the thorough research of Dr. M. Robinson and others, it is now clear that all manuscripts containing such marks (obelisks, asterisks, archus and telos) are in fact very late.  There are no early manuscripts containing the passage with such marks.   The only early manuscript with a special mark, Codex B (4th cent.) does not actually have the passage, and there is some doubt as to whether this mark (a double horizontal dot, an 'umlaut') refers to the passage, or a textual problem in the preceding verse.

3.  The alleged great number of variants in this passage is at best a guess, and no similar passage of John has ever been collated for comparison. (See our previous post on this).   In any case, variants are an indication of copying errors subsequent to the existance of a passage, and have no bearing on authenticity.

4.  Its now known that the early commentaries, specifically prepared for public reading in church services, don't comment on any passages which are not actually read to the congregation first during the service.  Many passages were never publicly read during services, for instance the book of Revelation.

5.  We now know that Didymus (c. 350 A.D.), an early popular Greek commentator, also cited this passage when commenting upon another O.T. passage.   This disproves the theory that the passage was unknown and unquoted until the time of Euthymius (12th cent.).

6.  Several of the ancient translations (e.g., Syriac, Coptic, Armenian) were not strictly continuous-text copies, but were ecclesiastical copies prepared for liturgical church worship.  These versions follow early 'lectionary' practices, and exclude passages not read publicly in services. 

7.   Here Trollope, writing in 1840s, is referring to early critics and commentators, such as Wetstein and Grotius.  Many of these people were anti-supernatural rationalists and skeptics, with heterodox doctrinal beliefs, and paranoid attitudes spawned from the violent and controntational early Reformation environment.   Wetstein for instance, rejected all ancient Uncials, because he believed they were laced with "Latin" interpolations.   Lachmann wrongly imagined that the traditional text (TR) originated in the late Middle Ages!  Griesbach naively embraced the belief that older manuscripts were more accurate, because he did not fully comprehend the many independent lines of transmission in the Christian period.

Nazaroo

Plummer (1886): 80 variants in 12 verses? not likely

Plummer also wrote for the ICC series

In Alfred Plummer's commentary, The Gospel Acc. to St John (London, 1880-1892), p. 175 fwd, he makes the following incredible remark:

"The extraordinary number of various readings (80 in 183 words) points to more than one source."

  Here are Nazaroo's comments on the problematic statement:


Plummer's statement here remains extraordinary and unverifiable even today. By 'various readings', he must mean alternate readings, not variation units (places in text).
But the number itself would only be 'extraordinary' if we could compare it to collations in other places of the text, which have never been done. The Pericope Adulterae (Jn 7:53-8:11) has been extensively collated; initially by Tischendorf (1870), then more thoroughly by von Soden (1911), and finally exhaustively by Dr. Maurice Robinson (2000).
However, no other portion of the Gospels has been collated in all extant MSS, like the PA has. So we have no similar portion of text to compare to.
The number 80 is at any rate inaccurate.¹ The method Plummer used to get this number is unknown, but it may simply be something gleaned from the Prolegomena of Tischendorf's 8th ed. GNT, ghost-written by Gregory, Davidson, Tregelles, and of dubious accuracy. If it includes all the quirks of Codex Bezae, these have not similarly been so thoroughly catalogued in any known GNT apparatus anywhere else in John.
Most remarkable of all, is Plummer's unique conclusion that this variant count implies "more than one source". Can he simply mean more than one source for the variants, or more than one source for the PA itself? We can never know at this point what Plummer had in mind. His statement here is worthless.

---

1. It turns out a similar statement is found 15 years earlier in Godet (1865):

"Besides, there is an extraordinary variation in the text in the documents which present this passage; 60 variants are counted in these twelve verses."

Note that the number is lower by ten. It is unlikely that any special collations were done between 1865 and 1880 when Plummer published. The similar numbers seem to indicate that he has simply mis-read Godet's "60" as "80", and although Plummer went through a dozen editions from 1880 to 1904, this was never corrected. 

The actual problem of accurately counting variant readings for a verse or passage is an ever-retreating mirage, and an unsolvable problem in mathematical terminology.  The more that manuscripts are copied, the more the errors will accumulate.  The more manuscripts we collate, the more variants we collect.  The actual variants for any passage or portion of scripture is a complete unknown, even if we only consider "extant" (surviving) copies.  

Such minute and exact collating has never been done, nor can it be.   Even with the more modest goal of 'surviving MSS', we cannot do it, because a large number of manuscripts remain in private hands are unavailable and unreported.  These documents are often priceless family heirlooms and the owners are completely uncooperative in even revealing their existance.

 mr.scrivener

Hubner's garbage on the PA (Part 8)

With Hubner's next blurt, its obvious that he either doesn't understand the point Hills has made, or else he doesn't care:

5.  Hills’ argument regarding the Montanists and the pericope is equally poor and deserves no weight (though it is creative!). Honestly, I have a hard time really following the argument and how it requires that the pericope as a Greek text has an early origin.

(- Hubner)

E.F. Hills' actual original argument runs as follows:

"Not only conservatives but also clear thinking radical scholars have perceived that the historical evidence favors the belief that the pericope de adultera was deleted from the text of the fourth Gospel rather than added to it. Hilgenfeld (1875) observed, "The bold presentation of the evangelist must at an early date, especially in the Orient have seemed very offensive." ⁽⁴³⁾ Hence Hilgenfeld regarded Augustine's statement that the passage had been deleted by overscrupulous scribes "as altogether not improbable." And Steck (1893) suggested that the story of the adulteress was incorporated in the Gospel of John before it was first published.  Concluded Steck, "That it later was set aside out of moral prudery is easily understandable." ⁽⁴⁴⁾

Rendel Harris (1891) was convinced that the Montanists, an ascetic Christian sect which flourished during the 2nd century, were acquainted with the pericope de adultera.   He wrote, "The Montanist Churches either did not receive this addition to the text, or else they are responsible for its omission; but at the same time it can be shown that they knew of the passage perfectly well in the West; for the Latin glossator of the Acts has borrowed a few words from the section in Acts 5:18. ⁽⁴⁵⁾ In Acts 5:18 we are told that the rulers laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison. To this verse the Latin portion of D adds, and they went away each one to his house. As Harris observes, this addition is obviously taken from the description of the breaking up of the council meeting in John 7:53. If the Montanists were the ones who added these words to Acts 5:18, then the pericope de adultera must have been part of John's Gospel at a very early date.

Naturalistic scholars who insist that John 7:53-8:11 is an addition to the Gospel text can maintain their position only by ignoring the facts, by disregarding what the ancient writers say about this pericope de adultera and emphasizing the silence of other ancient writers who say nothing about it at all.

This is what Hort did in his Introduction (1881). Here the testimony of Ambrose and Augustine is barely mentioned, and the statement of Nikon concerning the Armenians is dismissed as mere abuse. ⁽⁴⁶⁾ Contrary to the evidence Hort insisted that the pericope de adultera was not offensive to the early Church. "Few in ancient times, there is reason to think, would have found the section a stumbling block except Montanists and Novatians." ⁽⁴⁷⁾ With the implications of this sweeping statement, however, Rendel Harris could not agree. "Evidently," he observed, "Dr. Hort did not think that the tampering of the Montanists with the text amounted to much; we, on the contrary, have reason to believe that it was a very far reaching influence." ⁽⁴⁸⁾

---

43. Einleitung, p.782.

44. T Z aus der Schweiz, vol. 4, p.98.

45. "Codex Bezae," Texts and Studies (Cambridge University Press), vol. 2 (1891), p.195.

46. N. T. In The Original Greek, vol. 2, Appendix, p.82.

47. Idem, p.86.

48. "Codex Bezae," Texts and Studies (Cambridge University Press), vol. 2 (1891), p.195.

In fact E.F. Hills himself has made no claim at all regarding the Montanists.

The original idea that the Montanists may have omitted the passage was from Augustine.  Since Augustine was actually there, and battled the Montanists and their successors for many years, its likely he knew more about them than we ever will.
What Hills does succeed in showing is that even Hort thought the Montanists had motive for removing the passage.   Hort downplays this, but he could hardly deny the the hostility of the Montanists, since the only reason we know anything about the Montanists at all is through Augustine's descriptions!

But E. F. Hills biggest score is the obvious fact that critics who reject the passage must also effectively reject the testimony of  all the 4th century Early Christian writers:

350 A.D.	Ambrosiaster	- a solid quotation
360 A.D.	Didymus	- quotes PA as scripture
370 A.D.	Pacian	- Supports Jerome
380 A.D.	Jerome	- on John 8:1-11
380-390 A.D.	Ambrose	- quotes Jn 8:1-11
350-400 A.D.	Epiphanius	- Euseb. Canon has PA
380-400 A.D.	Faustus	- quoted by Augustine
390-400 A.D.	Augustine	Supports PA and TR

And this stance by modern textual critics is wholly unscientific and unhistorical.  Real historical investigation gives due weight to credible witnesses, who have been corroborated on other issues.
Nazaroo

(to be continued...)

Hubner's garbage on the PA (Part 7)

E. F. Hills

Hubner continues to attack E. F. Hills, rather than analyze the current data on the PA (John 7:53-8:11).  By now the siren song is getting tedious.  The examination is superficial, and so inaccurate as to border on dishonesty:

" 5.  Hills makes another poor conjecture:

'...offence was taken at the story of the adulterous woman brought to Christ, because she seemed to have received pardon too easily. Such being the case, it is surely more reasonable to believe that this story was deleted from John’s Gospel by over-zealous disciplinarians than to suppose that a narrative so contrary to the ascetic outlook of the early Christian Church was added to John’s Gospel from some extra-canonical source.'          (E. F. Hills, - KJV Defended)

This is a conclusion based on one citation from early church history. It is a leap of logic that is incredible – especially given that all of the external and internal witness (see above quote by Metzger) points in the other direction."

The fact is, Hubner is just slagging Hills again.   Before quoting Cyprian,  Hills has actually just finished quoting some half-dozen early Christian writers;

(a) Ancient Testimony Concerning the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11)

The story of the woman taken in adultery was a problem also in ancient times. Early Christians had trouble with this passage. The forgiveness which Christ vouchsafed to the adulteress was contrary to their conviction that the punishment for adultery ought to be very severe. As late as the time of Ambrose (c. 374), bishop of Milan, there were still many Christians who felt such scruples against this portion of John's Gospel. This is clear from the remarks which Ambrose makes in a sermon on David's sin. "In the same way also the Gospel lesson which has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation . . . Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously? It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds etc." ⁽³²⁾

According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. He wrote, "Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin." ⁽³³⁾ Also, in the 10th century a Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of "casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus . . . saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things." ⁽³⁴⁾

That early Greek manuscripts contained this pericope de adultera is proved by the presence of it in the 5th-century Greek manuscript D. That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance in the Old Latin codices b and e. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that "in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord." ⁽³⁵⁾ There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome's statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in Codex W. And that Jerome personally accepted the pericope de adultera as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate.

Thus E.F. Hills' "poor conjecture" is not based on a single citation (i.e., Cyprian), but rather the surviving patristic evidence combined.  Hills could have cited another half-dozen more early Christian writers, which lend even more corroborative support to the view given by early Christian writers (ECWs).

Again, it looks like Hubner is hoping that readers simply won't check his omitted facts.   The full section written by E. F. Hills is available online here:

E. F. Hills on the PA  - - click here.

Dozens of other textual critics who have analyzed the evidence are available here:

Experts on the PA  - - Click here.



Nazaroo

W. Webster (1855) on the PA

A refreshing and no-nonsense review of the authenticity question was given by William Webster in his The Greek Testament with notes...(Princeton, 1855).  A conservative scholar, with little concern for the confusion of previous commentators, provides a good overview on page 442 fwd:

"The external evidence for and against the genuineness of this passage, derived from the number and value of the MSS and versions in which it is contained or omitted, is very nearly equal.  For a full account of it, see Bloomfield's Recensio Synoptica.   The internal evidence preponderates greatly in its favour as genuine. 

(1) No real discrepancy can be pointed out between its style and the usual style of the Evangelist.  On the contrary, see 2, 4, 6, 9, n.  

(2) The conduct of our Lord on the occasion here recorded is in accordance with his general conduct, with his character, and with several of his express declarations; so much so, that it might be adduced as a good instance of undesigned coincidence with them (See v. 15.  3:17, 12:47, L. 9:56, 12:13-15, 19:10. )

(3) At the same time, his treatment of the accused woman was obviously liable to be misunderstood, and would present many difficulties to the earliest commentators on the NT.  Their views of the nature and object of Christ's mission, and of the distinction between the covenants of the law and the Gospel, were imperfect and limited.  This was the result of the prejudices of their philosophical and religious education, whether Jewish or Gentile.  And they were all more or less embued with the spirit of that Gnostic asceticism which afterwards so extensively prevailed.  Hence this passage would be a stumbling block to them which they would be glad, on any pretence, to remove. 

To say the least, its omission by them is much more easy to bet accounted for than its introduction at a later date.  For if the story appeared improbable, from moral considerations, to expositors of the 3rd and 4th century, it would appear far more so, on the same grounds, to those of the 7th and 8th.  The former were more likely to pass by unnoticed, and their contemporary transcribers to omit, a narrative not found in all copies of S. John's gospel, and difficult to reconcile with their notions of the character of Christ and Christianity, than the latter were to insert in the sacred books a floating tradition, which had not previously appeared in them, and which their known opinions would lead them rather to reject than to receive.  

For the principles on which the rejection or omission of this narrative may be accounted for, see Dr. Wordsworth's Lectures on the Apocalypse, Lect. I, pp. 12-15. 

(4)  The contrivance of the Scribes to find matter of accusation against Jesus is in accordance with the attempts related in L. 20, viz. the enquiry concerning his authority, and the question about the tribute money.  And the subject, on this occasion, is nearly allied to that of divorce which the same parties brought before him, 'tempting him'.  M. 19:3, Mk. 10:2. 

(5)  His answer is of the same character as in the two former cases, creating a difficulty or dilemma, (see also L. 20:44.).   And yet the similarity is not so close as to suggest the idea of imitation by a pseudo-Evangelist.   Moreover, the conduct of our Lord in teaching by action on this occasion, corresponds with the instances of his setting a little child in the midst of his disciples, and his washing their feet. 

(6)  Each of the other three Evangelists has related, or alluded to , the attempts of the Scribes and Pharisees above mentioned.  Such attempts, therefore, were particularly important occurrences in the life of Christ.  Hence it appears natural that S. John should relate one; and it is in entire consistency with the general character of his Gospel, that he should pass by those described by the others, and record one not referred to by them.  See also on v. 15 and v. 20." 

peace
Nazaroo

Hubner's garbage on the PA (Part 6)

Hubner continues with more fluffery:

4.   "The argument regarding Eusebius is poor and carries no weight. It is based on conjecture (e.g. “Eusebius may have been hostile to the story of the woman taken in adultery not only because of moralistic objections but also because it was related by Papias.”) and straw men (“Instead of stressing Eusebius’ silence it is more reasonable to lay the emphasis upon his positive testimony, which is that the story of the woman taken in adultery is a very ancient one, reaching back to the days of the Apostles.” – who is suggesting that the story of the woman in adultery is not ancient? No one. Most scholars agree that the story probably happened, which means it goes back to the life of Jesus Himself)."

Actually, no.

In fact, the evidence regarding Eusebius is relatively  very important, because it can be firmly dated around 300-320 A.D., making it  some of the earliest testimony we have.   Since we all apparently agree that the PA story is 'ancient', i.e., coming from the late 1st to early 2nd century (e.g. Papias, Didaskalia, Apost.Const.  etc.), we are glad Hubner concedes that issue is established.
But it is even more important, because it shows that in certain cases, Eusebius is willing to fudge the facts himself.  He cannot be seriously or credibly claiming that the PA was unknown to him other than from a citing of Papias.  Something is horribly wrong here, and its pretty obvious what it is:

(1) We know that the PA was left out of copies in the 3rd century in Egypt (P66, P75), and there are obvious factors here:

(a) Certain scriptures could not be read publicly, even in secret meetings, when the Church was underground and illegal, persecuted by Romans and Jews, and infiltrated, spied on, and betrayed by both enemy camps.   Thus for instance, no one dared read from Revelation, especially after the Roman/Jewish Wars (cf. Josephus), and key passages from all books were avoided.   Special manuscripts prepared for 'public services' were prepared from the earliest times, modeled after Jewish synagogue practices (P66 and P75 are of this type).

(b)  There was a large Jewish population in Alexandria and Egypt (cf. Jeremiah, Josephus etc.) being actively proselytized by early Christian Jews.  They had their own Greek OT translation (the LXX), and were extremely volatile, sensitive and hostile to stories that made the Jewish authorities and the Jews look bad.   They even later removed the Story of Susanna from the Greek Daniel, because it slagged the Babylonian Jewish Authorities (cf. Origen ,  Theodoton etc.).   Its obvious that the Alexandrian Jews were willing to alter texts in their own interest. 

(c)  The PA was offensive to Jews, and dangerous.  Unlike other recorded conflicts between Jesus and the Jerusalem authorities, this story made it appear that the Jewish parties were willing to stone a woman to death, just to entrap Jesus.  This was not a mere disagreement over Torah interpretation.  It painted the Jews as murderous, lecherous monsters.

(2)  We know that the PA was left out of later copies in the 4th century,  from the Constantine Period (e.g., Aleph, B).

Boiled his Queen Alive for Adultery

(a)  The PA was offensive to Emperor Constantine.  Although the omission of the PA was not originated by Constantine or Eusebius, its omission clearly served Constantine's interests and safeguarded Eusebius' Christianity, only recently made legal and winning official support.  Constantine had executed his own son from an earlier marriage based on testimony of his new queen, re: alleged adultery.  Later Constantine found out she had apparently lied, being an adulteress herself, and having caused Constantine to wrongly kill his own son.  Emperor Constantine had his Queen boiled alive for this.   It is clear from this horrific record that Constantine was not inclined to forgive adultery in any form.  At the same time, Constantine apparently bribed the bishops with extraordinary promises of immunity and protection and he actually quoted the PA during the discussion!

(b)  Constantine and Eusebius actually edited the Bible.  Eusebius was in the unfortunate position of trying to keep the decision by Constantine to embrace Christianity, while providing a text for public worship services acceptable to Constantine.   This often involved severe abridgments and deletions of Holy Scripture.  For instance, when approving of a translation into the Gothic language for his Goth troops, Ulfulas, following the policy set by Constantine and Eusebius earlier, omitted the entire Books of Kings, because in their view, the Goths were "already too warlike", and these books would only encourage them.   

The foregoing facts make the testimony of Eusebius and other historians regarding the events in the 4th century very important to establishing why the PA was missing from key manuscripts of this period.


E. F. Hills' opinion is not based on mere conjectures, but rather a careful evaluation of a combination of important historical evidences.

Hubner's garbage on the PA (Part 5)

Lets proceed further down Hubner's list of points against E. F. Hills:

2.   "The same principle goes for Codex Bezae Cantibrigiensis, which was written from 400-450 AD (compare to P66, B,  א, all of which were written earlier and do not contain the pericope).
3.  The same principle goes for Apostolic Constitutions, which was written from 375-380 AD – again, after the vital manuscript evidence. But more importantly, this source isn’t a biblical manuscript at all."

Hubner proceeds with the same naive and flawed 'textual criticism' of the 19th century.  His whole argument again centers on the actual crude dates of manuscripts.

(1)  However, the dating of most manuscripts is a joke. The 'dates' provided in the literature are guesstimates that have a typical range of plus or minus 50 years, or about a 100 year window, when dated by crude and ambiguous palaeographic assessments of 'style' and scribal technique.   But these factors are not only complicated by the wide range of scripts and styles which existed in every age, but also by the fact that these features could vary between copyists or within the same manuscript, before a manuscript ever left the scriptorium.
Futher, copyists would often deliberately imitate older styles, to give a manuscript a prestigious look, or an authority, which also gives a false impression of the date of manufacture.  

(2)  No one even knows the origin of even the most famous manuscripts.   Copies like Codex B and Aleph are of completely unknown origin, but can hardly be dated earlier than 340 A.D., when such expensive MSS were first made.  But the wild variations between the styles, format, and text of these MSS betrays a time-spread of 50 or 100 more years, pushing the date of Aleph closer to the time of Jerome (c. 400 A.D.) or even later.   (See our examination of the text and dating of Sinaiticus here.)  Manuscripts like Codex Bezae show signs of being in the possession of magicians and alchemists, more interested in fortune-telling and astrology than Christian dogma.

(3)  There aren't enough MSS from the 4th century and earlier to give us a proper sample of the texts in circulation from these early centuries.  It is ridiculous to pretend that less than 4 copies which vary wildly among themselves can possibly represent 4 centuries of copying involving many thousands of manuscripts.  Reports from contemporaries like Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine make it clear that there were many problems with the text.  The narrow geographical area of out of the way Egyptian settlements is not any kind of finger on the pulse of the mainline copying lines of transmission.

(4)  Hubner completely misunderstands the meaning and proper use of patristic and ECW evidence.  For our purposes, it doesn't matter that the Apostolic Constitutions are 'not a manuscript'.  They are a datable record of when the passage was in circulation and viewed as authoritative.  From this data, the reasonable conclusion is that the Pericope de Adultera was found in copies of John going back to the 2nd century or earlier.  This coincides with what can be gleaned from the testimony of other Early Christian Writers (ECW) like Jerome etc.   The first thing that patristic evidence does is establishes the earliest verifiable date for a passage or verse.  For purposes of establishing its existance, it matters not what condition that verse or passage is in the source, or even the credibility or accuracy of the source.

(5)  What Hubner calls "vital manuscript evidence" isn't 'vital' at all.  Its fragmentary, sporadic, undatable, and untraceable anonymous 'testimony' which must be carefully and cautiously evaluated.   We don't actually need it at all to do rational historical research and reach reasonable conclusions about the early text.

Click to Enlarge

(to be continued...)

peace
Nazaroo

Hubner's garbage on the PA (Part 4)

Lets turn to Hubner's attack on E. F. Hills now.

Granted that Hills' article is out of date (1984), and Riddle should perhaps have appealed to more recent work, the question raised is whether Hills' defense of the PA is reliable and sound or not, in the first place.   Hubner spends a page and a half blasting Hills, so it is important to examine his claims point by point:

Hubner's Case against Hills:

1.  "The references to Augustine, Ambrose, etc. are virtually irrelevant, as it does nothing to over-turn all of the evidence summarized above. It does little to the external evidence of manuscripts since the vast majority of early Greek manuscripts listed above were written prior to the Christians that Hills cites. Furthermore, this says nothing about the dozens of other Christians who quoted and preached from John and show no evidence that the pericope is even there."

Are Augustine, Ambrose etc. "virtually irrelevant"?   According to Hubner, this is because 'the vast majority of early Greek MSS" cited by Metzger were written prior to these writers.  Lets test the theory:  We have at least five EWCs who lived before 400 A.D., all commenting on the state of the text before this time (Didymus, Pacian, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine): 

350 A.D.	Ambrosiaster	- a solid quotation
360 A.D.	Didymus	- quotes PA as scripture
370 A.D.	Pacian	- Supports Jerome
384 A.D.	Jerome	- on John 8:1-11
388 A.D.	Ambrose	- quotes Jn 8:1-11
350-400 A.D.	Epiphanius	- Euseb. Canon has PA!
380-400 A.D.	Faustus on PA	- quoted by Augustine
400 A.D.	Augustine	- Supports PA and TR

So we have a solid witness, in fact a consensus on the existance and placement of the PA in John for the 50 years between 350 and 400. 

But this is just the tip of the iceberg regarding patristic evidence.  There is far more evidence available than either Dean Burgon or E.F. Hills ever suspected:

Patristic Evidence for the PA click here.

Now look at Metzger's list:

Early Papyri and Uncials:

P66 (c. 200-250 A.D.)
P75 (c. 250-300 A.D.)
א  (c. 350-400 A.D. )
B  (c. 350 A.D. )

Other Later Uncials (5th - 10th century) : ... L (8th), N (5th),  T (5th),  W (5th),  X (10th c. commentary!), Y Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 

Minuscules  (9th-15th century): 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al.  Codices A and C are defective."

First, Hubner's language is deliberately deceptive: "vast majority of early  MSS..." ?!?  What is he talking about?  Lets talk clearly about either the majority, or the early MSS in the list, but not both, please.   The 'vast majority of MSS' in the list are LATE, not early.   The 'early MSS' are not a vast majority, but a tiny minority.

To give Hubner a break, we've included P75 in the list (Metzger may have left it out on purpose, given the suspicious nature of this copy and its relation to B). 

Only two papyri are earlier than the list of Early Christian Writers.  

Even א and B are merely contemporary survivors from the period between 350 - 400 A.D.   This was a period when there were literally thousands of copies of the NT made all over the Empire, and two surviving copies are simply not an adequate sample for determining the state of the text in this period.  We have to turn to the contemporary writers in this period to get any real information about it.

The rest of the copies, by Hubner's own reasoning, are 'virtually irrelevant' to the text in the 4th century, and in any case are completely outnumbered by other late copies that include the PA in its normal place.

'Silence' of Early Fathers?

Regarding the fact that no clear evidence survives of other writers quoting the PA, simple logic dictates the reasons why:

(1) We don't know what other writers said or wrote about the PA.  Only a handful of samples of even the most popular writers survive.   We simply can't expect to find Patristic evidence for every line or passage of the NT.  Its unreasonable. 

(2)  Writers often had no occasion to quote the PA.  In making the great Church Commentaries, they could only comment on parts of Scripture publicly read in the service.  Whole books are neglected, such as Revelation.

(3)   Some writers avoided quoting the PA.  In heated debates, its natural that writers would skip over scriptures that don't help their case.  Thus Tertullian for instance, seems to sidestep the PA in his dispute with a Roman bishop. 

All these factors lead us naturally to expect a lack of evidence regarding the PA from at least some quarters.  Its unreasonable to claim any special weight for the apparent 'silence' of some writers.  Such special pleading is worthless.

When we actually turn to the four earliest manuscripts omitting the PA, we find that contrary to the impression given by modern critics, these manuscripts seem to be well aware of the existence of the passage:

 (to be continued...)

peace
Nazaroo