Apocryphal Gospel of Peter and Jn 8:1-11

The following is an excerpt from the Article by Nazaroo on G-Peter. 

 

Gospel of Peter:
& John 8:1-11

The Gospel of Peter does not quote John 8:1-11. Yet it provides an interesting piece of circumstantial evidence which, while by no means 'proving' its existance and placement in the 2nd century, can only be interpreted as a mild positive inference.
The 'Gospel of Peter' (GPeter) is agreed by most scholars to be a 2nd century production, secondary to the canonical Gospels. Nonetheless its existance in some form by the mid 2nd century is confirmed by its mention by early Christian writers, and some smaller found fragments.
The next significant fact regarding GPeter is that whoever wrote it appears to be familiar with the (real) Gospel of John. Of particular note is the detail given regarding the taunting of the soldiers:

'And they threw a purple robe round Him and made Him sit upon the Judgement Seat, and said, "Judge justly, king of Israel!".

- Gospel of Peter 3:2 (v7)

This appears to be a plain reference to John 7:24,

"Judge not according to (mere) appearance, but judge righteous (true) judgement!"

- John 7:24

This particular way of expressing things only appears in John. The concept is more developed and simplified in Matthew for instance:

"Judge not, that you not be judged: for with the judgement that you judge, you shall be judged; and with the measure you mete out, it shall be measured back to you again."

- Matt. 7:1-2

GPeter 3:2 (v7) then, seems most closely related to John 7:24, and appears to have been inspired by that Gospel. While this does not 'prove' a dependancy upon John, the evidence is in favour of this view and has some substance.
But if we accept this plausible and reasonable premise, something else becomes immediately of import:

Why does GPeter emphasize this?

GPeter records the soldiers actually mocking Jesus as a judge, a back-reference to something in His earthly ministry that relates to this theme.
If the Gospel of John contained only the terse saying in Jn 7:24, but no actual 'trial-like' incident such as the one immediately following (John 8:1-11), then this would be non-sequitous, and almost inexplicable.

'What's the big deal?' the reader might ask, upon reading GPeter. What is GPeter trying to say?

But if we assume that the Gospel of John was in the basic form we have it now, complete with the incident of John 7:53-8:11 in its traditional place, at least by the middle of the 2nd century A.D., then immediately the story detail in GPeter becomes obvious.
The "Judeans" (scribes and Pharisees) are furiously mocking Jesus because He had in fact 'acted as a judge', making a ruling which humiliated and defeated His accusers before all of Israel. And now both the motivation and specific reference to this unique act of revenge recorded in GPeter becomes clear.
Whether or not John 7:53-8:11 is authentic or was found in every copy of John is not the main point. Its simply this: GPeter may have known of it and had apparently accepted the story as an authentic tradition about Jesus in the mid 2nd century A.D., and his knowledge of the passage appears to have come from John's gospel.
While this evidence is only circumstantial and indirect in nature, its preponderance is in favour of the existance of John 7:53-8:11 in John's gospel, however slim this preponderance may be.


Remarkable New Linguistic Evidence
 
Of special significance is the unexpected testimony regarding grammar and style that GPeter unconsciously provides. It was formerly argued (by Samuel Davidson in 1848 and others) that as a matter of style, John the Evangelist preferred words like "πρωιας" for "early morning" and that the presence of "Ορθρου" in the Pericope de Adultera (v. 8:2) was a "Lukanism" (it also appears in Acts), indicating that John 7:53-8:11 was by another hand.
Yet the 2nd century Greek author of Gospel of Peter clearly used both expressions, ("πρωιας" 9:1/ v34 & "Ορθρου" 12:1 / v50 ) and had no stylistic preference for one or the other. Whether or not GPeter varies his vocabulary for reasons of style or for precision of meaning hardly matters. The point is that a near-contemporary of John the Evangelist found no difficulty in using both expressions, just as they appear together in the Gospel of John.
If someone were to object that GPeter must have copied this conflated stylism from John, then obviously the author of GPeter inadvertantly testifies of the presence of the Pericope de Adultera in John's Gospel.

Eerie Parallels to Pericope De Adultera

The surviving passage from the Gospel of Peter provides even more eerie parallels to John 8:1-11:

In verse 1:1, GPeter refers to the "judges of Herod", an expression seemingly unheard of elsewhere. Why 'judges' rather than 'princes' or 'rulers', 'captains' etc.?
In 2:3 (v5) we find the unusual "For it is written in the Law..."...While the dialogue is suspiciously artificial, the expression is also similar to that of the Pharisees in John 8:5.
In 3:2 (7), 'they...made Him sit upon the judgement seat and said, "Judge justly, King of Israel!"' has already been mentioned. (John 8:2 etc.)
In 4:1 (10), "but He kept silent..." again stands out, as the phrases accumulate. (see John 8:6,8)
In 5:3 (17), "they ... brought their sins upon their own heads' is again remarkable, as the story builds.
In 5:6 (20), the mention of "the temple" is also striking. (John 8:2)
In 6:1 (21) we find Jesus' "hands" mentioned in close proximity to the phrase "on the ground", both rare expressions in themselves (e.g., John 8:6 etc.)
In 7:1 (25) we have repeated 'over-determination' in "Jews and elders and priests", and again in 8:1 (28) "scribes and Pharisees and elders". The inclusion of elders is unusual in passion accounts, and raises an eyebrow. 8:4 (31) also mentions "elders" (e.g. John 8:9)
8:1 (28) needs a second mention, for "all the people" (ho laos), and "He must have been innocent" (John 8:2, 7)
9:1 (34) is surely unique, mentioning "At dawn..." ('orthrou'), a phrase only appearing in John 8:2 and Luke 24:1. Later, GPeter also uses "early" ('proi') in 12:1 (50), just as John the Evangelist does (John 8:2, John 20:1)
7:1 (25) 'the elders and the priests, ...began to lament and say "Woe unto [us for] our sins! The judgement and the end of Jerusalem is near!"' The mention of the destruction of Jerusalem (c. 70 A.D.) makes the text relatively late, but the similarity to John 8:9 is striking, even if GPeter actually exaggerates and inserts anachronistically here.
8:6 (33) "they pitched a tent there" could ironically allude to the Feast of Booths, the occasion of John 8:1-11. It is an odd detail as well.
12:1 (50) "Early on the Lord's Day, Mary Magdala..." a woman with a dubious past takes the central stage for a moment. (see John 8:3)
12:5 (54) the "stone" and the verb "cast" are cleverly placed together, although the story hardly requires this embellishment. (compare John 8:7)
14:2 (59) is perhaps most remarkable of all, for each "went to his own home" (compare John 7:53!)



We honestly couldn't contrive more parallels if we deliberately set out to fabricate a passion account. Can so many coincidences really be accidental? No such similar parallel can be drawn from any other passion account. The best one can do is a few minor parallels here and there.
It seems from this evidence that something more than just "having the Gospel of John before him" was at work in the composition of this piece. Why so many seemingly superfluous insertions, all bearing a relation to John 8:1-11?

T. S. Green (1856) on the PA

Shortly before the Revised Version fiasco, Rev. Thomas Sheldon Green (M.A. Christ's College Cambridge) published a manifesto on how to improve the English Authorized Version (KJV), called A Course of Developed Criticism (Bagster - London, 1856), subtitled remarkably enough, "Passages of the NT materially affected by Various Readings" (!).
Green's influence, himself influenced by Tregelles and Tischendorf, was strongly felt by those who would shortly begin work on the Revised Version.  Yet his analysis of the PA, like so many of his other examples, simply doesn't cut it:

JOHN 7:53 - 8: 11

'The question which arises respecting the spuriousness of this entire passage, is one of special interest, not only from its import ance, but on account of singular points involved in the evidence.

In the first place, there must be noted the circumstance of its shifting position. It is placed by one MS. after 7:36 of this Gospel, at the end of it by at least ten, and at the end of Luke 21 by four. Though none of these MSS. are of high antiquity, yet on this particular point their evidence is not impaired on that account. (1)  Now the several copyists that respectively first gave to the passage these various positions, must have encountered it in some detached state, which left them free to give it a location according to the judgment or fancy of each. (2)   But it is not easy to conceive a genuine portion of the Gospel narrative thus set adrift, to find a fresh lodgment as it may. (3)

Next, there is a remarkable variation of shape. One distinct phase or cast of the passage is exhibited by D alone; (4)  and in the other copies that contain it, the text fluctuates more broadly than to the extent of various readings, ordinarily so called, (5)  and seems to indicate the existence of two other shapes. (6)

The passage is visibly wanting in B, L, T, X, Δ, and more than fifty others, besides lectionaries; (7)  and though A and C are here defective, its absence from them in their complete state is ascertainable by strict calculation, based on the uniform amount of matter in their pages. (8)  Of the mass of MSS which contain the passage more than 60 stigmatise it with marks of suspicion. (9)

It is wanting in a, f, etc., of the Old Latin, in the Sahidic, the Gothic, and the best authorities of the Coptic, Armenian, and both Syriac versions.  (10)

The commentaries of Origen and Chrysostom evince no knowledge, or, at least, no recognition of this section: and the same may be said of Tertullian, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril, Basil, and others. The paraphrase of Nonnus has nothing answering to it. (11)

Though the judgment of Jerome is in favour of it, and hence its place in the Vulgate, yet this is accompanied with an admission of its absence from many copies: (12) and to the same purport are the scholia in various MSS.  (13)

In the face of evidence thus varied and significant, the genuineness of the passage cannot be maintained. It may be regarded as having been originally a detached narrative, founded on a real transaction, and one of a probably numerous class that obtained more or less currency.  (14)  Such a view agrees well with an air of strangeness, that, apart from the miraculous, is not observable in the other Gospel narratives. The cast of the story has an artificial look, as designed for effect. (15)
In this case, as elsewhere, recourse has been freely had, both in ancient and modern times, to the suggestion of wilful suppression. With respect to the likelihood of such a proceeding, opinions may vary; but one thing at least is certain, that such a supposition will not serve, in the case of the present passage, to account for two principal facts of adverse evidence, namely, its shiftings of place and shape. (16)
It may be well to note the entire coherence of the narrative on the removal of this section. (17)  The scene has been transferred, and with it also the dispute about Galilee, from the populace to the conclave (vs. 7:45, 52). This, however, implies no suspension of the discourse of Jesus with those about him; and the broken report of the really unbroken discourse is at once resumed after the digression by the words παλιν ουν, κ.τ.λ. [i.e., 8:12 fwd] (18)

Nazaroo has given the following notes to Rev. Green's argument:

(1)  Green wishes to dismiss the fact that all the MSS which displace the PA or put it at the end of John are very late (10th century or newer).   But these shuffles cannot be traced further back, and they are well accounted for by von Soden and others as the result of its absence in some copies and perhaps an attempt to preserve (by hiding) the passage.  That is, some scribes disobeyed their orders to delete it (cf. Rev. 22:18) and stuck it where it would not be noticed (in Luke or at the end of John between 2nd last and last verse). 

(2) Green's own explanation here is entirely fanciful and highly improbable.  What copyist, finding a story in a detached state, would insert it into a Holy Gospel, no matter how good it was?  The idea that this happened multiple times is even more improbable.   Scribes generally did not have any such freedoms or attitudes.  They carried their work out with almost superstitious awe and reverence.   Green's imaginative story is anachronistic to the Middle Ages.

(3)  Green's explanation rightly appears difficult to believe, as he himself acknowledges.  But we don't need fanciful conjectures, when straightforward mechanical explanations are more than sufficient (e.g., see von Soden).

(4) Codex D's unique version of the passage is not unique however to Codex D in this place alone.  That is, Codex D often exhibits an idiosyncratic and plainly edited text, replete with displacements, omissions and additions in many other places.  So the behavior of Codex D here says nothing about the PA, but a lot about itself.

(5)  We have documented the exaggerated claims of variation for this passage elsewhere.  The fact is, (a) other important MSS have not been collated as thoroughly in other passages, and (b) the count of variants has been inflated by counting Codex D, when this is not done to the same extent elsewhere.

(6) The existance of two basic versions of the text is perfectly normal, given that one is the Lectionary text, and the other is the one found in the continuous-text MSS.  This is true of every other passage in the NT which is also used in the Lectionary, although the differences vary with each case.

(7)  The absence of the passage in many Lectionaries is meaningless, since the Lectionary systems don't cover the entire NT.  For instance the whole book of Revelation is omitted by all Lectionary systems.

(8) This may be the first claim of a calculation having been made.  The actual calculation however, as usual is omitted.  But even granting that someone did such a calculation adequately, this misses the point.  Now that the pages are actually missing for these two MSS, there is no way of knowing if there was a mark or note at this point in the text, or what it might have said.   The witnesses have been rendered worthless, probably by abuse.  This itself is interesting evidence, but impossible to evaluate, because it merely reflects the vandalism of an unknown party, post-4th century.

(9)  Dr. Maurice Robinson, who has personally examined all available MSS in this place, has ascertained that the marks are all late, and there are no early MSS including the PA with such marks (excepting possibly Codex B).  Further, he has established that the marks (asterisks and obelii) are not in the main text-critical marks, but are in fact Lectionary marks for use in public reading of the text in services.

(10)  Green sadly here omits any list of MSS (Greek or Latin) which contain the verses, giving a wrong impression of the state of the MS evidence at the time they were produced.

(11)  The early commentators wrote their commentaries for use in church, and strictly follow only the texts which were actually read during the services.  They cannot comment on texts which were not read to the public attending church.  Other examples are problematic:  Tertullian appears to have known the PA, and Nonnus was just a poet, while Theodore's fragmentary scholia are too late to be of text-critical value.

(12)  Green here actually reverses the testimony of Jerome!  Jerome actually noted that the PA is CONTAINED in many copies, implying its absence in less copies, and in less accurate copies.  This is an unscrupulous use of patristic testimony, which goes completely against the evidence that Jerome gives us.

(13)  The 'scholia' (marginal notes) are again all found in very late copies, post 9th century, and are not traceable to earlier authorities, but are in fact anonymous comments which cannot be granted credibility without corroboration.

(14)  There is no evidence of this being a 'detached narrative' or floating pericope, as many critics have claimed.  In the first place, there is no evidence that any such hypothetical entities ever existed.  It appears that the NT documents were written documents from their very inception (e.g. Paul's letters, the Gospels, Acts etc.).  Some may incorporate earlier written documents, but there is little evidence of any  'oral tradition' independent of and different from the NT.

(15)  This is the first time we have seen this claim proposed in print.  But even if the passage were judged 'artificial' or contrived in some sense, it would be impossible to differentiate it from any other similar pericope or passage in the NT gospels.  In what sense for instance are the parables not 'contrived'?  Or does the 'walking on water' incident seem less artificial than a debate in the temple?

(16)  Green here claims suppression or deletion does not account for variation in story or displacement.  But we have already seen that 'displacement' is late and fully accounted for by other factors, like the historical situation that some copies had already omitted the passage.   Since the only significant 'variation' in versions of the story stems from Codex Bezae (D, 4th cent.), there is no need for a theory of omission to account for it.  To this very day, NO textual critic has ever given an adequate account of the many unusual and bizzare textual variations found in Codex D.   More importantly, no account of early omission of the PA needs to nor should it provide any explanation for Codex D.  How could any explanation for the PA account for Codex D?  The suggestion is preposterous.

 (17)  While noting that the 'omission' of the PA allows for the reconnection of 7:52 to 8:12, Green actually fails to note the most important problem: that one must make the cuts at 7:53, grouping the unrelated ending of the prior incident with the actual PA story (8:2-11).    This is tautological and demonstrates nothing, except that whoever made the cut did so purposefully so as to minimize the damage.  But we can already assume the deletion was intentional, since it is too large a section to be simply accounted for by homoeoteleuton (an eye skip).
This problem was noted by John  Burgon also.
Perhaps more importantly, others, even those who reject the authenticity of the PA, don't accept the rejoining of 7:52 to 8:12 as original or natural, such as for instance Bultmann.  He felt compelled to chop off several more large portions of chapter 9 of John, in order to fit the pieces together.

(18)  It is surely remarkable that after all is said and done, Green admits also that there is a change of scene twice, from Jesus publicly speaking, to the backroom with the Pharisees, and back again at 8:12 without even a 'hello', or an explanatory notice.  "Again then Jesus said..." is hardly adequate for such leaps in time and place.

-------------------------------
mr.scrivener

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

19th cent. confusion over Jn 7:53-8:11

C. K. Barrett's popular but brief introduction to the New Testament for students, Companion to the Greek Testament  , (1867) para. 24, gives the following brief sketch:

"b. The story of the woman taken in adultery, contained in John vii. 53—viii. 11, is rejected as spurious by many.

It is not found in some of the best MSS, including א, A, B, C, (A and C are deficient in this part of the N. T., but from the space which is wanting it is clear that they did not contain the passage); in several of the MSS in which it is found it is marked with asterisks or obeli; in some it is placed at the end of John, and in others at the end of Luke xxi. It is omitted in some MSS of the Old Latin, the Peschito, and some other versions; it is not quoted in any extant writing of the second century, and appears to have been either unknown to, or rejected by Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian. It differs in style from the rest of the Gospel; ο λαος is used instead of ο οχλος, εις after  πορευομαι and rapaylvofiai, and δε to connect two sentences instead of ουν.

On the other hand, it is found in D, some of the later uncials, many cursives, several MSS of the old Latin, the Vulgate, and some other versions; and it is quoted in the 4th century by Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine.

The general opinion is, that the passage was not in St. John's written Gospel, and is not therefore a part of canonical Scripture; but that the history is nevertheless a true one, derived (perhaps through a narrative of Papias, mentioned by Eusebius,) from the oral teaching of the Apostle himself."

It is not however the brevity, but the inaccuracy of Barrett's statement which misleads a whole generation of students:

 a)  No real quantitative survey of opinion was done.  In fact, in the mid-1800s most scholars still held that the passage was genuine.  The "rejected as spurious by many." misleads the reader as to relative numbers of scholars. 

b)  The markings "asterisks or obelii" are not explained.  Subsequent investigations by Dr. Maurice Robinson (who personally examined every manuscript containing the PA) have shown that the markings are ecclesiastical instructions and are all very late.  There are no early manuscripts which mark the passage with such signs.

c)  The late date of manuscripts which misplace the passage is not indicated. In fact, all of them are later than the 10th century, and most are later than the 12th.  They are not relevant to the early history of the text.

d)  The omission of the PA in some ecclesiastical manuscripts, such as the Old Latin and Syriac, points to the church's avoidance in reading the passage out in public during services.  In fact, many passages of the NT are never read in church, nor are they found in the Lectionary system (selected passages for services).

e)  The lack of commentary for the PA in the ancient commentaries is traceable to the same cause.  The commentaries were designed for church services.  Commentators such as Origen could not comment on passages which were not actually read out in public services. 

f)  The fact that the passage  "appears to have been either unknown to, or rejected by Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian" shows the uncertainty of interpreting "arguments from silence".   There is no evidence at all that these early writers actually rejected the verses.  Origen naturally passes over the passage in his commentary (although this is apparently hasn't even survived, and what we know of it comes from a later table of contents!).  Tertullian on the other hand, actually does provide some rather suspicious evidence of his own knowledge of the passage.  In Cyprian's time the passage was already well-known to other writers, so his omission is not surprising or relevant.

g)  Both  Jerome   and Augustine provide important information about the state of the text in their time, and heretical movements which were actively editing the text.  This information is crucial to understanding what really happened in the 4th century regarding the PA.  

h)  Barrett's "general opinion" is in fact only a popular opinion held among Protestant Unitarians and historical-critical investigators in Germany and England.  Many other scholars had other opinions, both on the passage, and on Unitarianism and Rationalist approaches to Holy Scripture. 

i)  The theory that the story originates in Papias and migrated into John's gospel is only a conjecture, and a dubious one at that.

j)  Internal Linguistic evidence regarding the PA has been examined in detail here:   

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

k)  The whole approach of analyzing vocabulary has been invalidated by R. Heard (1950) 

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

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

Metzger on the PA...again.

For a while we were treated to somewhat of a vacation from the usual amateurish and frivolous Metzger quotes whenever the subject of the Pericope de Adultera (Jn 7:53-8:11) arose.    Most seemed to have taken the hint that textual criticism, and criticism of the PA in particular, was a dangerous reef sporting many a shipwreck.

But the recent attempt to resurrect Metzger's luring siren song by Hubner has forced us once again to deal another blow to this crumbling dinosaur.

We have already given ample examination to the details of Metzger's claims elsewhere, and James Snapp Jr.'s recent review of textual evidence in all categories may be reasonably called exhaustive.

What is left to say about Metzger's work?  Only this:


Here Comes the Judge:

(1)  The whole approach Metzger uses ought to have been abandoned by serious textual critics by the 1850s.   That was when people had no scientific method, and didn't know any better.    In fact, as Samuel Davidson (1848) demonstrates, the method of the day was apologetic in tone, not neutral by any stretch of the imagination.  The model in use was the 'judge, seated to hear evidence'.  

Manuscripts were trotted out as if they were witnesses, each with some important statement to make about this or that passage.  They were lined up carefully in a black-and-white fashion, and allowed to vote 'yay' or 'nay' regarding some proposition about the authenticity or authorship of a passage or its wording.

Today such song and dance performances should be laughable.  This is just not how science is done, or has been done, since 1906 and the publication of Special Relativity.  There are no faces to be saved that aren't long dead.  No reputations to protect (the whole concept has been reduced to peer-fawning).   There are no concerned agendas regarding Calvinism, Nomism, or Catholicism to desperately defend.  The only dogma of interest to religion is Providential Preservation, and this has been wholly abandoned by secular academia.  The only dogma of interest to secular academia is historical-criticism, and this is scoffed at by those of faith.

In short, the time is ripe for honest and scientific review of textual and historical evidence, not parades of the supermodel fashion-show type.

Here are the real facts:

Manuscripts don't testify regarding authenticity.  They don't vote, they don't have expert opinions, and in fact, they are inanimate objects.

What they can do, is tell us the earliest outside time-spot that a given reading must have been in circulation, or what amounts to the same thing, its latest cutoff point.  They can sometimes tell us who made use of a certain passage.  They can suggest a reading's status in a given era or place.  They can provide hints about possible controversies arising from variants. They can instruct us about church practices surrounding a passage.

After that, we are on our own.

The question of authenticity must be solved on other more important grounds, such as apparent knowledge revealed in the containing document about the existance of the passage. 

The question of authorship must be solved based on a combination of historical information and literary analysis of content, grammatical and historical knowledge found in both author and passage.

Manuscripts don't speak of authenticity or authorship; they speak of controversy and tampering, debate and policy, local historical understanding and practice.

In fact, manuscripts can't tell us directly about original documents at all.  They can only tell us about their subsequent treatment in a history of copying and usage.  All manuscripts and post-publication evidence is just that:  Evidence about what happened AFTER the publication of a document, and its release into the public domain. 

That is why Metzger's little parade of witnesses "for" and "against" "non-Johannine origin" is such a farce. 

His terse note that Papyri P66/P75,  Codices Aleph and B leave it out, without mentioning their condition or age.

His note that A and C must have omitted it, without any explanation for the mutilation of these manuscripts.

His guesses about what unknown copyists must have meant when putting an asterisk in the margin beside it in a few late copies.

His cleverly worded remark that "no Greek father" before the 12th century comments on the PA, skipping quickly over a dozen Greek-speaking Latin fathers who do comment on it.  (and the sad failure to correct this by his final editor Ehrman, the very scholar who wrote a book on Didymus the Blind - a 4th century Greek father who does comment on it..).

His deliberate omission of the late dates of all the manuscripts that displace the passage (they are all post 9th century documents).

His sluffing off of the real controversy around the fact that the three beginning verses are included in the omission (Jn 7:53-8:2, connecting narrative and context).

His bald assumption concerning the "earlier and better" manuscripts.

His failure to mention that the other editor on the UBS committee was an apparently nonconformist Roman Catholic Cardinal.

These are things that make Metzger's summary of the "evidence" laughable as a scientific document.

peace
Nazaroo

James Snapp Jr. on textual evidence for the PA

Syriac PA...

Yesterday James posted quite a lengthy examination of the textual evidence in regard to the PA.   I reproduce it here for those who may not have ready access to the TC-Alt Yahoo Group:

------------------------------------ QUOTE ---


"I am not a PA-defender. I am still waiting for the PA-specialists to publish
something definitive on the subject. ...

"Meanwhile, as I said, I'm not a PA-defender, but I do like accuracy, and Jamin
Hubner's writings on this subject are not accurate. He is not writing as a
textual critic; he's writing as an apologist, and he leans heavily on Metzger.
Although I've been pretty busy, I felt motivated to respond vigorously to some
of Hubner's questionable claims, and to express some additional thoughts about
the PA.

Apparently Hubner does not allow comments at his blog, so I hesitate to disturb
his pleasant, comfortable world. But, he might have good reasons for that.
Anyway, here are some things I noticed in his blog-entry called "Case Studies in
King James Onlyism: The Woman Caught in Adultery Was In the Original?" --

Hubner correctly notes Riddle's note that the NKJV has a footnote stating that
the PA is "present in over 900 manuscripts." Has Wieland Willker been writing
to the wind? In his textual commentary on the Gospels, Willker includes a note
from Maurice Robinson that includes an up-to-date count of pertinent
manuscripts: "The number of MSS + lectionaries that contain the PA is at least
1350+43+470 = 1863 total MSS (there are somewhat more than 280 continuous-text
MSS that do not include the PA (excluding lectionaries, where the PA only
appears sporadically, when certain specified saints happen to be honored
therein)." So let there be an end to the "over 900 MSS" statement; we should
refer instead to "at least 1,393" (1350+43) MSS that include the PA, versus
"somewhat more than 280" MSS that do not contain it, not counting lectionaries.

Hubner stated, "Riddle's basic argument for the inclusion of the pericope is (1)
over 900 manuscripts contain it, (2) some 5th century Christians include it, and
a few earlier sources."
Whatever led him to the conclusion that the defense of the PA comes down to
these two points, the evidence is not really so simple. First, as I just said,
the PA is in at least 1,393 continuous-text MSS, and is absent from somewhat
more than 280; using round figures (1,400 with, 300 without), it looks like
inclusion of the PA is supported by 82% of the extant Greek MSS, and opposed by
18%. That's not close. Now, authenticity is not decided by democratic
election. I just bring up the numbers to improve the accuracy of the count, and
because I have noticed that some of the very same people who reject the PA have
been quick to enlist a numerical majority when it supports their own favored
variant.

Second, if some Christians in the 400's included the PA in their text of John,
and "a few earlier sources" also do so, how does that stack up against the MSS
which Hubner refers to as "the earliest texts of the New Testament," namely P66,
Aleph, B L N T W X Y Delta, Theta, and Psi? Hubner's list consists of four MSS
(P66, Aleph, B, and W) from before the 400's. The others break down as follows:
L = 700's. N = 500's. T = 400's. X = 900's. Y = 800's. Delta = 800's.
Theta = 800's. Psi = 800's (or 900's). I'll add to this list A and C (both
from the 400's), which are damaged but do not have enough space on the missing
pages to include the PA.
Instantly granting that the Alexandrian Text lacks the PA, we set P66, Aleph, B,
C, L, Delta, and Psi on the scales as its representatives.

But then we take L and Delta off the scales, because they both have features
which clearly attest to their copyists' awareness of the PA; though they cannot
attest to variants within the PA, they are two-voiced on the question of its
existence.

So, if we consider just the Greek evidence initially cited by Hubner, it's the
Alexandrian Text, + A, N, T, W, X, Y, and Theta against the PA. Waitaminute --
the testimony of W should be qualified; it has a blank page (blank on both
sides) between John and Luke; Willker notes, "It is possible that this indicates
knowledge of the PA." Okay; now we're ready to compare -- waitaminute again.
We might have to adjust the testimony of B, because it has an umlaut (distigme)
at the end of John; Willker states that it is "roughly in the middle of the free
space beneath the colophon. It is not clear what this means. It is in
principle possible that this indicates the PA, too." Indeed, figuring that B's
umlauts indicate the presence of a textual variant, the only textual variant
that occurs in the space after John is the inclusion of the PA in family-1 MSS.
(This could be nothing but a trace of a late medieval critic putting dots in B
where it disagrees with whatever other (Latin?) exemplar he possessed. But
until a case is made one way or the other it bears considering.)

Okay then: the crystal-clear, unequivocal Greek witnesses for non-inclusion of
the PA, before the 500's, are: P66. P75. B (at least, B's main exemplar).
Aleph. T. W. (I'll even toss in A and C.) That's it?? Eight Greek
manuscripts? And seven of the eight are either directly from Egypt (P66 and T)
or are leading representatives of the Alexandrian Text (Aleph and B and, to a
lesser extent, C) or both (P75 and W (in this part of John))?? We could just as
easily say that as far as Greek manuscripts before the 500's are concerned, the
manuscript-evidence for non-inclusion of the PA consists of representatives of
the Alexandrian Text plus Codex A (which is non-extant here in John;
non-inclusion of the PA in A is discerned via space-calculations; Metzger states
that non-inclusion of the PA in A is "highly probable" but Willker considers it
certain. I'm with Wieland on this one).

Eight manuscripts, seven of which represent one locale. Meanwhile, Ambrose, c.
375, made a clear reference to the pericope, from his Latin text. And where was
his Latin text from? Some earlier source. Pacian, c. 380, also referred to the
pericope. The Apostolic Constitutions also refer to the pericope. Jerome,
writing before 417, stated that he found the PA in "many codices, both Greek and
Latin." And, destroying Metzger's claim that "No Greek Church father prior to
Euthymius Zigabenus" comments on the pericope, Didymus the Blind mentions the
events in the pericope, in his commentary on Ecclesiastes (extant in the Tura
Papyrus, discovered in 1941 but not known to Metzger, apparently, when he wrote
his Textual Commentary. Regarding the Tura Papyrus see
http://lib.byu.edu/dlib/didymus/ ). Ehrman, as I recall, has attempted to
excuse Didymus' statement that he found the pericope "in some Gospels" by
pointing out that this allows the possibility that Didymus might have been
referring to some Gospel-text other than the Gospel of John, but neither he nor
anyone else has explained why Didymus' statement should not be understood to
naturally mean that he was referring to codices containing the four canonical
Gospels. For wouldn't Didymus have been more specific if he had had some other
Gospel-text in mind?

And then there's Augustine, who treated the PA as an integral part of John, and
who surmised that some enemies of the true faith excised the PA because they
were afraid that their wives would use it as an excuse for, or defense of,
infidelity. Augustine also reported, according to Hort, that some pagans
ridiculed Christ's writing on the ground. Now, figuring that Augustine was
being honest, and that he hadn't shared his copies with those sacrilegious
pagans, their copy or copies of John should also be in the equation somewhere.
So should the reference from Augustine's correspondent Faustus, a Manichean.

Ambrosiaster, too, briefly chimes in about the PA.

About 100 years after Augustine, according to the Syriac translation of
Zacharias Rhetor's Ecclesiastical History (which is not the work of Zacharias at
this point; see Willker's commentary for details), Mara of Amid (519-527)
possessed a Greek copy of the Gospels that included the PA, probably added at
the end of the Gospel of John with a note that it belonged in Section 89, (which
is a mistake; Section 86 would be correct).

Now let's see here: what are the patristic witnesses for the PA before the
500's? Ambrose + Pacian + Apostolic Constitutions + Didymus' Gospels-text +
Jerome's "many codices, both Greek and Latin" + Ambrosiaster + Augustine +
Faustus + Augustine's pagans, and, figuring that Mara's Greek copy did not come
into existence ex nihilo, one other witness. Even if we were to make the silly
assumption that Jerome's "many codices" should be counted as a single witness,
this would still be ten witnesses. And consider the geographical variety
involved: Ambrose is in Milan. Pacian is in Barcelona. Augustine is in North
Africa. Didymus is in northern Egypt. Jerome is, well, all over the place.
Mara had his Greek copy when he was in exile in Alexandria.

And we're not quite done. In Codex Lambda (800's), the PA is obelized and there
is a scholium: TA WBELISMENA EN TISIN ANTIGRAFOIS OU KEITAI, OUDE APOLINARIOU.
EN DE TOIS ARCAIOIS OLA KEITAI (followed by a reference to the use of the PA in
Apostolic Constitutions). -- The obelized section is not in some copies, or in
Apollinaris'. In the old ones, it is all there. -- The same note appears in MS
262. [Apollinaris = Apollinaris of Laodicea, d. 390, who is said in a scholium
to have made a text-critical comment at Mt. 6:1. Probably.] Codex Lambda also
has the Jerusalem Colophon ("copied and corrected based on the ancient exemplars
from Jerusalem preserved on the holy mountain," or words to that effect) after
all four Gospels. (Other confirmatory margin-notes appealing to older MSS to
vindicate the inclusion of the PA are in MSS 135, 301, and 34.)
Then there's 565 (from the 800's or 900's). NA-27 says that 565 omits the PA,
but that is not entirely true. 565 has the PA after John, but the page is in a
very deteriorated and unreadable condition. Willker does not mention the note
that F. C. Burkitt said (in the first note in "Two Lectures") was in 565 (read,
perhaps, when the MS was not in such bad shape as it is now): TO PERI THS
MOICALIDOS KEFALAION EN TW PARA IWANNOU EUAGGELIW WS EN TOIS NUN ANTIGRAFOIS MH
KEIMENON PARELEIPSA. KATA TON TOPON DE KEITAI OUTWS EXHS TOU OUK EGHGERTAI.
Burkitt comments: "In other words, the Pericope stood in the usual place in the
MS from which 2-pe [ = Tischendorf's siglum for 565] was copied, but the scribe
left it out for what we may call critical reasons." We should recollect that
565 also has the Jerusalem Colophon. We should also recollect that that the
text of John in 565 is Caesarean; it's in sync with the text of f-1. So
although 565 attests to the presence of the PA after Jn. 21, this note makes it
clear that 565's exemplar had the PA in the normal place.

And let's not forget the Old Latin evidence: there's the Latin text in Codex
Bezae, which Parker assigns to c. 400. Another piece of evidence in Codex D is
its variant in Acts 5:18, which seems to be based on John 7:53 -- EPOREUQH EIS
EKASTOS EIS TA IDIA. Now, Codex D is from the 400's or 500's, but the Western
Text to which it attests is considerably earlier, so this is no trivial piece of
evidence -- but it would carry more force if there were another witness with
this reading in Acts 5:18. Oh wait -- we *do* have another witness for it:
none other than G67!

And there's e (Palatinus), from the 400's. Willker lists seven Old Latin
copies, which appear to echo three or four earlier strata, each echoing a
pre-Vulgate text.

But Metzger notes that the PA is absent from Old Latin a (Vercellensis, c. 370),
l*, and q. It's also absent from the Sinaitic Syriac, the Curetonian Syriac,
and "the best manuscripts of " the Peshitta. The Armenian text which was the
base-text for the Old Georgian version did not include the PA. On the other
hand, another form of the Armenian text does include the PA, and (as one might
expect in a Caesarean text-witness) some Armenian copies have the PA at the end
of John; see the footnote in Metzger that begins "According to a note in
Zohrab's edition" for details. Matenadaran 2374 includes the PA but in a very
unusual form, which Burkitt presents in English in "Two Lectures." (Matenadaran
2374 is an especially important Armenian MS, for various reasons.)

Metzger did not mention Old Latin b. Could that be because Old Latin b
(Veronensis, from the 400's) has been mangled so as to be bereft of the whole
page where the PA had been before (from 7:44 onward)? Just as
space-considerations preclude the presence of the PA in Codex A,
space-considerations insist on the inclusion of the PA in OL Veronensis. The
thing to see is that it looks like somebody deliberately detached the PA from
this copy, ruthlessly rendering it useless at this point -- which is just the
sort of thing that Augustine said was being done to the pericope. I wonder why
Metzger didn't mention the testimony borne by Old Latin b.

By the time we finish considering the external evidence outside Egypt, things
are not nearly as overwhelming as Hubner's parroting of Metzger makes it appear.

We now turn to the rest of Metzger's comments that were repeated by Hubner:
"Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John's narrative least
if it were inserted after 7:52." How did Metzger know what the copyists of
roughly 1,400 manuscripts were thinking? There is no evidence that most
copyists of John who included the PA did anything but attempt to mechanically
reproduce the contents of their exemplars. MS 225 (in which the PA comes after
7:26) shows that the PA was grafted into that particular MS at the wrong place
(Hort suggests that this was an accidental error; 7:53-8:11 is transposed with
7:37-52), but it does not set a precedent. Ditto for the smattering of Old
Georgian copies Metzger mentions -- which, as far as I can tell, is just one
copy. (If the Alexandrian Text had not supported non-inclusion of the PA, these
items would not be given a second thought.) As for family-13, the group of MSS
in which the PA appears in Luke, after Lk. 21:38, this placement is nothing,
more or less, except an adaptation to the lectionary-order of readings.

Having adopted Metzger's recipe, Hubner proceeded to add plenty of yeast: "When
it does appear in later manuscripts" -- as if this is rare, instead of the
reading of 80% of the MSS -- "it is inserted in different places (e.g., after
Luke 21:38, 24:53, John 7:36, 52, and end of John)." (The reference to an
appearance after Lk. 24:53 must refer to MS 1333, which Maurice Robinson
describes in a note that is included in Willker's commentary.) Some perspective
is in order: the copies that have the PA after Lk. 21:38 (= f13), or after Lk.
24:53, or after John 7:36 are a smattering; they occupy a thin borderline, so to
speak, between inclusion and non-inclusion of the PA. As for the copies that
have the PA after the end of John, well, we are always being told to weigh MSS,
so let's weigh this batch: their weight boils down to their shared ancestor-MS,
from the 400's. Important? Certainly, especially since it agrees with part of
the Armenian evidence, testifying to the Caesarean Gospels-text. But the
misplacement of the PA does not settle the question, it only frames it.

Hubner stated that the PA "is usually marked off by obeli or asterisks to let
people know it probably wasn't in the original" but that is false. He also
stated that "It is recognized as Scripture by almost no early church father,"
but this is essentially an argument from silence.

Hubner proceeds: "The references to Augustine, Ambrose, etc. are virtually
irrelevant, as it does nothing to over-turn all of the evidence summarized
above." This is wishful thinking on Hubner's part. The patristic quotations
from Augustine and Ambrose (and the others I have mentioned) reflect the
contents of their manuscripts, and cannot be realistically dismissed so
cavalierly. This is, perhaps, a teaching moment: when patristic writers are
silent, their silence is interpreted as support. But when patristic writers
gush with support, their testimony is "virtually irrelevant." Jerome, virtually
irrelevant! What a sense of humor.

He continues: "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." The reader who takes the time to review the
production-dates of the manuscripts listed by Hubner will see that the rate is
about even among the 12 MSS that he listed; that is, P66, Aleph, B, T, and W are
earlier than, or contemporary with, the patristic testimony from Ambrose,
Augustine, Jerome, etc., while L, N, X, Y, Delta, Theta, and Psi are later.
Five out of twelve? A vast majority, you say? Even if one donates P75, A,
and C to the list, there's still no /vast/ majority.

The juggernaut keeps on rolling as Hubner engages Edward Hills' presentation of
evidence. I will address just a few points, though, in the interest of brevity:

What about Codex Bezae? Oh, that thing was written in 400-450 and is therefore
dismissed like the patristic evidence, of course! It's a manuscript "of
secondary importance." As if all the contents of D sprang up no earlier than
the MS.

What about Apostolic Constitutions? Hey, that's from 375-380 -- a whole 25
years later than the estimated production-date for Codex Sinaiticus. So that's
just trivial! It was produced "after the vital manuscript evidence." We have
reached another teaching moment: the "vital manuscript evidence" is not f-1 or
f-13 or anything other than P66, P75, Aleph, and B. (All the other Greek
manuscripts for non-inclusion, except T, which is clearly from Egypt, is later
than 380.) There you have it, folks: in Hubner's world, the "vital manuscript
evidence" is all Alexandrian.

Hubner rejects Hills' idea that the silence of Origen, Chrysostom, and Nonnus
does not necessarily imply that they were not aware of the PA. Hills proposed
that "they may have been influenced against it by the moralistic prejudice of
which we have spoken and also by the fact that some of the manuscripts known to
them omitted it." Hubner regards this as largely conjectural, which it is, but
it is not an unreasonable idea, considering how controversial the
What-To-Do-With-Those-Who-Commit-Adultery question was in the early church.
It's not a strong enough mechanism to elicit the excision of the passage from
the text, but it could elicit the non-inclusion of the passage in public
reading, and that could cause it to be avoided in homilies (thus explaining a
lot of the "stunning" patristic silence), and even to be obelized (and that, in
turn, could cause it to be excised). I think there's more to it. But Hills
should not be taken to task for offering suggestions and theories; this is
something that Metzger does on page after page (when he reads the copyists'
thoughts, for example).

Hubner states that we have "Lots of texts of Scripture in both manuscripts and
church father references that go from John 7:52 to 8:12. Is that not true? No
"omission" exists unless we presuppose it." If the evidence is against the
pericope, then what occurred is an "insertion." Hills says there is no motive
for this insertion." Of course it is true that 18% of the Greek manuscripts of
John do not have the PA between John 7:52 and 8:12. This is not the question.
All that Hubner is doing at this point is, in essence, saying that if Hills is
wrong, then Hills is wrong. That is certainly true, but it does not build a
case. Hills' point that there is no motive for this insertion is a strong one.
It is not hard to see why strict-minded moralists would not be fans of this
pericope; the motive for avoidance is easy to see. Where is the motive for
inclusion? There were lots of sayings and anecdotes floating around in the
early church; some of them slip into the NT text here and there, but they are
quirks, whereas the PA is in 1,300 Greek MSS, not to mention its Old Latin and
Vulgate support. Why would this controversial story receive such special
treatment, so as to be grafted into the Gospel of John?

As he wraps up, Hubner offers a theory: "My conjecture is that the popular
version was first inserted by the scribe of Codex Bezae � not only because this
is the earliest extant manuscript to include the story but also becase the
Bezaean editor had a proclivity for enlarging the text." It's not clear if
Hubner is citing himself or someone else. But a comparison of the PA's text in
Codex D to the PA's text in Byzantine MSS should quickly relieve everyone of the
notion that the Byzantine form of the PA was derived from the Bezan form. Next
comes a paragraph bolstering the idea that Codex Bezae was the first MS to
include the PA in the text of John. I won't address this idea simply because I
think Hubner is able to think his way out of it without my help.

Now you might be wondering what I think of the PA. I consciously avoid reaching
a firm decision, waiting for the experts who have been researching it to deliver
a decisive case. But I have developed a theory which would explain why, if the
passage is original, it was excised. Leaving the critique of Hubner's
blog-entry, here's the theory, expressed as a narrative, with supportive
citations given along the way:

The final form of the Gospel of John was not written down by the apostle John.
In Ephesus in the late first century, there were two individuals names John:
John the apostle, son of Zebedee, and his prot�g�/assistant who was also named
John. It was this second individual who assembled the Gospel of John, using
source-materials provided by his mentor -- some written sources, and some
memorized recollections. Meanwhile, nearby in Hierapolis, Papias (a man
described by Irenaeus as a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp) was
ministering and writing, and in his writings he included one of John the
Apostle's many anecdotes which he had heard. Eusebius mentions this in Eccl.
Hist. III:39 -- "He also notes another story about a woman, who has been accused
of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews
contains."

Now, if you'd like a refreshing review of the available citations about Papias,
consult http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html . There you will find the
following extract from the Arabic writings of Agapius of Hierapolis (who lived
in the 900's -- in Hierapolis-in-Syria, not the Hierapolis in Asia Minor): "At
this time there lived in Heirapolis a prominent teacher and author of many
treatises; he wrote five treatises about the gospel. In one of these treatises,
which he wrote concerning the gospel of John, he relates that in the book of
John the evangelist there is a report about a woman who was an adulteress. When
the people led her before Christ our Lord, he spoke to the Jews who had brought
her to him: whoever among you is himself certain that he is innocent of that of
which she is accused, let him now bear witness against her. After he had said
this, they gave him no answer and went away." (This is from Holmes'
translation.)

A statement by Vardan Vardapet is also presented: "That story of the
adulterous woman, which the other Christians have written in their gospel, was
written by a certain Papias, a disciple of John, who was declared and condemned
as a heretic. Eusebius said this." The heresy in question is chiliasm, the
belief in a future earthly kingdom which shall be ruled by Christ for a thousand
years. Of course this was not considered heresy in the early church; Vardan
Vardapet here has projected upon Eusebius' description of Papias his own (i.e.,
Vardan's) opinion of chiliasm.

Papias' five books are not extant today except in disjointed fragments, but they
seem to have been available to Eusebius in the early 300's, to Apollinarius of
Laodicea in the late 300's, and even to Maximus the Confessor in the 600's.
Thus, Papias' five books, while not exactly commonplace, were extant somewhere
or another all that time. And in one of those five books was the anecdote that
Eusebius mentions, "A report about a woman who was an adulteress." When we
align Eusebius' statement with Agapius' statement that one of Papias' five books
was about the Gospel of John, it seems safe to deduce that Papias' report about
a woman who was an adulteress was in that book.

Now advocates of the authenticity of the PA might be celebrating, thinking, "If
the PA was in Papias' book on the Gospel of John, then we have a witness for the
text of John with the PA in it -- and this witness, Papias, was a contemporary
of the author (or co-author) of the Gospel of John! We have here a witness that
outweighs everything else that is to the contrary!" But before you light the
fireworks, remember that Agapius is a tenth-century source (see
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/agapius_history_00_eintro.htm ), and his claim
that one of Papias' books was about the Gospel of John might be merely a
surmise, based on Eusebius' statement that Papias had reported a story about an
adulteress; figuring that Agapius used a text of John that included the PA, he
may have taken the small step of deducing that Papias must have been writing
about the Gospel of John when he wrote about the story of the adulteress.

Why shouldn't we picture one of Papias' five books as a commentary on Jesus'
statements in the Gospel of John? Because, in the extract from Papias provided
by Eusebius, Papias expressly states his preference for oral statements over
books: "I inquired about the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter had
said, or what had been said by Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or
Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, [and] the things which both
Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not
suppose that things from books would profit me as much as things from a living
and remaining voice."

Such a statement would seem rather out of place in a book about another book.
But it would be right at home in a book about sayings of Jesus which Papias had
collected over the course of his inquiries about what Jesus' companions
(including John) had said that Jesus had said. The focus of Papias' five books
was, as their title implies, the sayings of the Lord, but those sayings were
frequently framed or prefaced by short narratives; there is no need to picture
the collection as a list of raw proverbs and axioms. And one of those short
narratives was an anecdote about Jesus' encounter with a woman accused of
adultery, framing Jesus' instructions to the woman's accusers. This anecdote
was not from the Gospel of John, but had come directly from one of the oral
sources that Papias listed, possibly John the son of Zebedee or John of Ephesus.

Papias' anecdote, while recognizably reporting the same incident that was
reported in the Gospel of John, was very different verbally. But it was
sufficiently similar that when someone with ecclesiastical influence in the
second century encountered Papias' Five Books, and then read the Gospel of John,
this person said to himself, "This section is from Papias!" And, determined to
preserve only the text from the author, without any unauthorized additions, this
person proceeded to excise the passage in his copy of the Gospel of John, and
exerted whatever influence he had so as to assure that future copies of the
Gospel of John would not contain what he considered to be an intrusion from
Papias' Five Books.

And thus the PA was removed from the Gospel of John, sometime in the 100's. The
misunderstanding that the PA was from Papias (instead of being another report of
the same event) was considered sufficient grounds to obelize or excise the
passage, sometimes beginning at 7:53, and sometimes beginning at 8:3 or
thereabouts. This had a widespread impact on the text of the Gospel of John in
Egypt and in Syria. What Augustine assumed to be the work of people concerned
about how their wives might misinterpret the passage was actually the work of
meticulous second-century scribes who had unfortunately misidentified the PA in
the Gospel of John as an intrusion of a similar passage in the works of Papias.

Later on, things got complicated. The influence of Papias' anecdote sometimes
worked in the opposite direction. Somewhere in the east, an influential reader
looked into this textual question and concluded that the PA belonged in the text
of John -- but none of his copies of John contained it. But he had access to
Papias' five books, and so, thinking that Papias' anecdote and John's pericope
were one and the same, he extracted the anecdote from Papias' text, and placed
it in his text of the Gospel of John. Thus we ended up with texts such as what
is found in the Armenian Matenadaran MS 2374 (an English representation of which
can be read in the first appendix-note of Burkitt's "Two Lectures").

And here we must revisit the evidence from Mara of Achid. John Gwynn (in
Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 27) mentions that in one of the
earliest copies of the Peshitta (Add. MS 14470, from the 400's or 500's), there
is a note, "written in a ninth-century hand on a leaf prefixed" to the rest,
which states, "Yet another chapter from the Gospel of John son of Zebedee. This
SUNTAXIS is not found in all copies, but the Abbat Mar Paul found it in one of
the Alexandrian copies, and translated it from Greek into Syriac, according as
it is here written; from the Gospel of John, canon tenth, number of sections
96,* according to the translation of Thomas the Harklensian." (The * refers to
a footnote: "* A mistake for 86. The number of sections in the Harklensian St.
John is the same as in the Greek, 232." Gwynn adds citation-references.)

Let's read the rest of what Gwynn had to say about this: "It then starts from
vii. 50 ("Nicodemus saith unto them . . . ."), giving it and the two following
verses as in the Harklensian text, then proceeds with the disputed passage,
beginning vii. 53, and ends with viii. 12, modified as in our MS. [By this he
means that the Syriac text of 8:12 is different from what normally appears in
the Peshitta; it reads the equivalent of "When therefore they were assembled
together, Jesus spoke, saying, 'I am the light of the world,' etc.] A note
nearly the same, but abridged, is found in a Paris MS. (XXII, Catal. Bibl. Reg.)
of the Harklesian Gospels, dated A. Gr. 1503 (i.e., A. D. 1192, not 1202, as
Adler wrongly states), which also contains the Pericope; appended to, but not
inserted in, St. John's Gospel. This copy (b) begins with vii. 53, and ends
with viii. 11, to which it subjoins the note. Adler has printed the whole,
Verss. Syrr., p. 57. In the third copy (c) the Pericope takes its place in the
text of the Gospel: this is another Harklensian MS., known as Cod. Barsalibaei,
now in the Library of New College, Oxford (No. 334), from which White has
printed the Pericope as an appendix to his edition of the Harklensian Gospels
(p. 559). In this MS., viii. 12 is given in its altered form. A marginal note
states that "this SUNTUCION is not found in all copies"; when the Greek word,
evidently a blunder for SUNTAXIS, points to a common origin with the notes in
the two MSS. last mentioned. Thus in these three MSS. the Pericope appears
associated more or less directly with the Harklensian version."

(I note in passing that at the very least, this Syriac evidence echoes Greek
copies accessed in Alexandria by Thomas of Harkel when he produced the Harklean
Syriac in the early 600's --616, to be precise, using two or three Greek copies
in the Gospels, according to Syriac colophons.)

No doubt you noticed, when I read the Syriac note provided by Gwynn, stating
that the Abbat Mar Paul found the story of the adulteress in an Alexandrian
copy, that it bears a certain resemblance to Burkitt's description of Mara's
codex, as drawn from the text that incorporates Zacharias Rhetor's Church
History. Gwynn and Burkitt both point out errors in their sources' description
of the section-number; Burkitt's source refers to Section 86, and Burkitt points
out that this should be 89; whereas Gwynn's source refers to 96, and Gwynn says
that the correct number is 86 (the same number that Burkitt considered a
mistake).

Let's take a moment to get acquainted with Mara of Amid. Mara must be the same
individual who is called Moro Bar Kustant in the reworked form of Zacharias
Rhetor's Church History, in which we find the following in Book Eight, at Roger
Pearse's Tertullian
website�http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/zachariah08.html�and here
is the excerpt (about events after the death of Nonnus of Seleucia, who came
from Amida) to prove it:

"And in succession to him again, in the presence of three bishops, as the canons
require (namely, Nonnus of Martyropolis, Arathu (?) of Ingila, and Aaron of
Arsamosata, who were on the spot), they ordained Moro Bar Kustant, the governor,
who was steward of the Church, an abstemious man and righteous in his deeds,
chaste and believing. And he was fluent and practised in the Greek tongue,
having been educated in the monastery of St. Thomas the Apostle of Seleucia,
which in zealous faith had removed and had settled at Kenneshre on the river
Euphrates, and there had been rebuilt by John the Archimandrite, a learned man,
who was at that time an ex-pleader (?), a native of Edessa, the son of
Aphthonia. And this Moro had been trained up in all kinds of right instruction
and mental excellence from his boyhood by Sh'muni and Morutho, his grave,
chaste, and believing sisters.

"And after remaining a short time in his see he was banished [by Justin] to
Petra, and from Petra to Alexandria; and he stayed there for a time, and formed
a library there containing many admirable books; and in them there is abundance
of great profit for those who love instruction, the discerning and studious.
These were transferred to the treasury of the Church of Amida after the man's
death. And in every matter which I record, in order not to cause annoyance by
blaming one man or praising another, I have related whatever the truth of the
matter is without any falsehood. However, the man progressed more and more in
reading in Alexandria, and there he fell asleep. And his body was conveyed, by
his sisters, who were with him and ministered to him, comforting him in
affliction, as it is written, and laid in his own Martyrs' Chapel in the village
of Beth Shuro. And as a record of the eloquent expression of his love of
instruction I will set down at the end of this Book the prologue composed by him
in the Greek tongue and inserted in his Tetreuangelion."

It is at the end of Book 8 of the reworked text of Zacharias Rhetor's Church
History that we find the same material to which Burkitt (and, as Burkitt noted,
Dionysius Bar-Salibi) referred:

"Now there was inserted in the Gospel of the holy Moro the bishop, in the
eighty-ninth canon, a chapter which is related only by John in his Gospel, and
is not found in other manuscripts, a section running thus: "It happened one day,
while Jesus was teaching, they brought Him a woman who had been found to be with
child of adultery, and told Him about her. And Jesus said to them (since as God
He knew their shameful passions and also their deeds), `What does He command in
the law?' And they said to Him, `That at the mouth of two or three witnesses she
should be stoned.' But He answered and said to them, `In accordance with the
law, whoever is pure and free from these sinful passions, and can bear witness
with confidence and authority, as being under no blame in respect of this sin,
let him bear witness against her, and let him first throw a stone at her, and
then those that are after him, and she shall be stoned.' But they, because they
were subject to condemnation and blameworthy in respect of this sinful passion,
went out one by one from before Him and left the woman. And, when they had gone,
Jesus looked upon the ground and, writing in the dust there, said to the woman,
`They who brought thee here and wished to bear witness against thee, having
understood what I said to them, which thou hast heard, have left thee and
departed. Do thou also, therefore, go thy way, and commit not this sin again.'
""

We should notice that Zacharias Rhetor died around 550, and Gwynn states that
the manuscript (British Museum Syriac Add. 17202) that incorporates his Church
History is from the 600's, so the antiquity of the text seems securely
established.

It seems possible that someone may have confused the Mara of Amid with Paul of
Tella, since both were scholarly fellows working in Alexandria. But nothing
precludes that idea that Mara found a Greek manuscript at Alexandria in the
early 500's that included a story about the adulteress, and that Paul of Tella,
working with Thomas of Harkel in the early 600's, also found the same story in a
manuscript there. Maybe Paul and Thomas knew of Mara's manuscript and somehow
obtained it, or a copy of it.

The thing to see is that the text of the pericope that is presented in Mara's
note, as preserved in the postscript to Book 8 of Zachariah Rhetor's Church
History in a Syriac MS from the 600's, is far different from the usual text of
the PA. As Gwynn says, "The original of this version must have differed
considerably from all existing Greek copies; keeping at first pretty close to
the Textus Receptus, but approximating especially towards the end to that of
Cod. Bezae (D), which is the oldest extant Greek of the passage."

Why this variation? Because, via the collision of copies (or recollections of
copies) in which Papias' anecdote had been inserted into the text of the Gospel
of John, and copies in which the PA itself appeared, variants from the anecdote
intruded into the text of the PA, and variants from the PA intruded into the
text of Papias' anecdote. We can't verify this regarding Papias' anecdote,
since his works are not extant in anything like an intact form, but in the text
of John, this mechanism accounts for the extreme variations in the form of the
PA that are observed in Mara's copy, and for some of the variations in the text
of D (which are listed by Willker), and for the variations in the Armenian codex
Matenadaran 2374. These variants are echoes of a competition between the PA as
it appeared in the Gospel of John, and a very similar anecdote that appeared in
one of Papias' Five Books -- a competition that began in the 100's. It never
had a strong effect on the Old Latin, though, perhaps because Papias' Five Books
were not translated into Latin and for that reason the PA never had a Latin
doppelganger. (There was, nevertheless, some effect, in a, l, and q.)

Matenadaran 2374 exhibits this phenomenon. In the 900's, Nikon accused
Armenians of "casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was
taken to Jesus," and, indeed, figuring that the Armenian Gospels-translation, by
450, was conformed to the Caesarean text (exemplified in f-1), how natural it is
to see the PA, in Armenian copies, placed at the end of John instead of within
the narrative (not, as Nikon thought, because the Armenian copyists thought it
was improper to read, but mainly because they were following their Caesarean
exemplars). But in Matenadaran 2374, something else happened: the PA was
inserted into the text of John -- not from the Caesarean text (as if a scribe
had merely moved the passage from the end of John, in his exemplar, to the place
after Jn. 7:52, in the copy he was making), but from a substantially different
text, namely, the text of Papias' Anecdote.

Matenadaran 2374 was produced in 989, but its exemplar was probably produced no
later than the 600's. It's a tenth-century MS with a seventh-century text. Its
copyist -- or /somebody/ -- was at least a little familiar with Papias' writings
(perhaps indirectly via Eusebius and/or Rufinus), considering the "Aristou
eritzou" note that preceeds Mk. 16:9 in this MS. I can't think of any other
source for Matenadaran 2374's version of the story of the adulteress other than
Papias' Five Books. Vardan said that this is the source.

To summarize the theory: with Papias' Anecdote in the equation, a mechanism
exists for the early excision of the PA in Greek texts that affected
transmission-streams in Egypt and Syria, as reflected by the Alexandrian Text,
the Proto-Byzantine Text, and the Peshitta. Greek copies of John containing the
PA continued to circulate in areas unaffected by the initial excision (as Jerome
explicitly declared), and these copies are echoed in about 80% of the extant
Greek MSS. When, at various times and places, copyists whose copies of John did
not have the PA decided to insert the PA, they sometimes took it from copies of
John, but on one occasion (in the case of Matenadaran 2374) a copyist inserted
Papias' Anecdote instead, and in other cases copyists used forms of the PA which
had been contaminated by variants that may be traced to Papias' Anecdote.

Now, I am not endorsing this theory today; I could take the same evidence and
assemble a case for the prosecution. But if you want a theory that defends the
PA as original and accounts for the strong external evidence against the PA, as
well as the high rate of textual variation within the text of the PA, there you
have it.

In other news: "Assorted Essays on New Testament Textual Criticism," a
collection of some materials that are in the Files here at TC-Alternate is now
available for the Kindle (in conveniently edited, slightly condensed, annotated
form).

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

(P.S. -- about Euthymius Zigabenus: as one might suspect by now, Metzger did
not give the whole story. Here's Euthymius' comment, drawn from Donaldson's
thesis: "It is necessary to know that from there until 'Then, again, Jesus
spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world,"' among the accurate copies
is neither found nor obelized. Wherefore these words appear written alongside
the text and as an addition; and the proof of this is that Chrysostom does not
remember them at all. But nevertheless we must attempt to elucidate even these
things; for the section in these texts concerning the woman caught in adultery
is not without benefit." Does this reflect a thorough investigation on
Euthymius' part, or simply reliance upon an earlier scholium? I would say the
latter.)


---------------------------------------- END QUOTE ---


Our very grateful thanks to James Snapp,
for the Herculean effort here at thoroughness
and clarity regarding the complex textual evidences.


mr.scrivener