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

AC Clark on the PA

I'm stealing this quote from Dean's post on KJV0nly2, because it happens to encapsulate A.C. Clark's remarkable statements concerning John 8:1-11:

Here is A. C. Clark's original (1914) preface to The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts (1914):

'The chief result of my investigation has been to show the falsity of the principle brevior lectio potior ['prefer the shorter reading']. This was laid down by Griesbach as a canon of criticism in the words :

'Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt quam ad omittendum.'  ["A shorter reading, unless the authority of the witnesses completely lacks weight and antiquity, is preferable to a verbose one.  For a copyist is much more prone to further additions than to make omissions."]

Unless my method is based upon a delusion, this statement has no foundation in facts. I may also observe that it is not so easy to invent as it is to omit.
It will be understood that my work has been almost exclusively confined to the text of Cicero. It was only recently, after I had gained confidence in the use of my method, that, in a spirit of curiosity, I happened to apply it to the text of the Gospels. The results were so surprising that I gave up, for the present, my work upon Cicero, which can only interest a small circle, and devoted myself to this more important inquiry.
I must here state that when I began my investigation, I had not made any study of New Testament criticism. I had been brought up to look on the Revised Text [1881] as final, to smile at persons who maintained the authenticity of St. Mark 16:9-20, or St. John 7:53-8:11, and to suppose that the 'vagaries' of the 'Western' text were due to wholesale interpolation. The object which I had in view was merely to study the mutual relations of the oldest Greek Uncials, notably, the Vaticanus (B), the Sinaiticus (א), and the Alexandrinus (A). I was, however, soon dislodged from this arrogant attitude, and irresistibly driven to very different conclusions.  These I can only briefly indicate here, and must refer the reader to my subsequent discussion for the evidence. 

Nowhere is the falsity of the maxim brevior lectio potior more evident than in the New Testament. The process has been one of contraction, not of expansion. The primitive text is the longest, not the shortest. It is to be found not in B/א, or in the majority of Greek MSS., but in the 'Western' family, i. e. in the ancient versions and the Codex Bezae (D). If my analysis is sound, we are brought back to an archetype of the four Gospels in book-form, which cannot be later than the middle of the 2nd century. This archetype appears to have contained the passages which have been most seriously suspected by recent critics, e.g. the End of St. Mark and St. John 7:53-8:11.  

This statement concerning St. Mark 16:9-20 will appear so startling that I must insert a caveat. I do not pretend to go one step further than I am led by the method which I have followed. The ultimate problems of New Testament autographs do not concern me. I only deal with one set of phenomena, and my starting-point is the text current in the second century. I have made no attempt to acquaint myself with the Synoptic problem, and do not venture to encroach upon the domain of the Higher Criticism. Also, I do not regard my method as a panacea. I am sensible that much must be due to accident and to mere coincidence. It is for the reader to determine, whether the cumulative evidence which I adduce is so great as, in certain cases, to transcend the limits of coincidence.
The results at which I have arrived in the case of the Acts are even more striking. It is here that the problem of the 'Western' recension has been felt most strongly. Thus a recent writer says   : 

'It is the correct method to study the Western readings in Acts first of all, and to form some kind of judgement on them, and after this to turn to the Gospels and apply to them the conclusions derived from the study of the Acts.'  (Lake, The Text of the New Testament, p. 91.)

This was not the process which I followed, but the conclusions arrived at in the case of the Acts greatly confirm the results furnished by the study of the Gospels.
It is briefly this, that all our MSS., including D, are descended from an ancestor written not in lines of equal length, as in the case of the Gospels, but in cola and commata, i. e. sense-lines of varying length, such as those found in D. The ordinary text has been developed from this by the frequent omission of lines, followed by modifications in the text. For proof of this statement I must refer the reader to the chapter upon the Acts.
I have not extended my inquiry to other parts of the New Testament, since I found that the Gospels and Acts provided more material than I could deal with in the time at my disposal. It appeared to me from some preliminary observations that the Pauline Epistles must be studied together. It is unnecessary to point out that the Apocalypse is a unique document which must be considered separately.'

Richard Heard (1950) and the PA

 

Richard Heard on John 8:1-11

Heard fully acknowledges the difficulties created by the fragmentary and contrary textual evidence available. But he goes on to point out the most fatal circumstance against not only the supposed 'internal evidence' presented against the passage, but also against the entire enterprise.
Heard shows that the methodology itself, originated by 19th century German critics, is from a scientific viewpoint utterly worthless. The point is this:

(1) The Passage could be utterly devoid of 'Johannine' style and content and still be a product of John the Evangelist. In fact, a genuine passage of this type is more likely to be "un-Johannine" than "Johannine".
(2) Looking for "Johannine" features within the passage is a worthless enterprise. A scientific approach would look instead for 'internal evidence' in the rest of the Gospel.

The logic is devilishly simple: The question cannot be, "Does the passage know anything of John?", but rather:

"Does John know anything of the existence of the passage?"

Heard on John 8:1-11

Excerpt from:
An Introduction to the New Testament (Harper Bro. NY, 1950)
by Richard Heard

Chapter 10: The Gospel of John

The Unity of Composition
The gospel shows a remarkable unity of style and language. Many distinctive words, phrases, and constructions occur repeatedly in the gospel and nowhere else in the New Testament except in the Johannine epistles which are probably by the same author.
This unity extends to the Appendix (21) as a whole although it is disputed in the case of the last two verses (24-25).
Only in the story of The Woman taken in Adultery (7: 53-8:11) are the distinctively ‘Johannine’ characteristics altogether lacking, ¹ and the textual evidence -- only one early Greek MS. contains the story -- as well as the way in which it breaks the close connection between ch. 7 and 8:12, make it clear that this story is a later insertion in the gospel.
It has been shown, however, that there are a number of passages in the gospel where the ‘Johannine’ characteristics of style, although not entirely absent, are relatively scarce. (E. Schweizer, Ego Eimi, 1939 [a German work, not yet translated into English]).
These following passages are all narratives of a synoptic type and include:

the Miracle at Cana (2:1-11),
the Cleansing of the Temple (2:14-16),
the Healing of the Nobleman’s Son (4:46-53)’
the Anointing at Bethany (12:1-8) and the
the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (12:12-15);
It is at least possible that the evangelist was here using a written source or oral tradition that had become comparatively ‘fixed’ in form.'

- Richard Heard,
Introduction to the NT, ch 10, p. 

---

1. However, even on this point, both the critics and Mr. Heard are in serious error. The passage actually abounds with "Johannine" grammatical and stylistic features, as well as literary ones!
Some examples include the strong linguistic parallels to John chapter 6:

Comparison of John 8:1-11 and John 6:1-21: 

6:3 : ανηλθεν δε εις το ορος Ιησουν (Jesus went to the mount...)
8:1 : Ιησουν δε ανηλθεν εις το ορος (Jesus went to the mount..)

6:5 : πολυς οχλος ερχεται προς αυτον (a great crowd came to Him)
8:2 : πας ο λαος ηρχετο προς αυτον (all the people came to Him)

6:6 : τουτο δε ελεγεν πειραζων αυτον (but this He said testing him)
8:6 : τουτο δε ελεγον πειραζοντες αυτον (but this they said testing him )

6:10 αναπεσειν...αναπεσαν...οι ανδρες (sit ... they sat down)
8:6 : ο δε Ιησους κατω κυψας ...(but Jesus bent down...)
8:2: και καθισας... (and having sat down...)

8:6b κατεγραφεν εις την γην ([Jesus was] writing in the ground )
6:21 και ευθεως εγενετο το πλοιον επι της γης
(and instantly the ship was upon the ground)

The minor changes in word order and vocabulary are simply stylistic variants to avoid repetition and boredom.
Then there are the many other parallels in content and thematic connections:

5:14: μηκετι αμαρτανε... ("Go, and sin no more!..")
8:11: μηκετι αμαρτανε... ("Go, and sin no more!..")

3:2 Ραββι...διδασκαλος... ("Teacher (/Rabbi)!..")
8:4 "διδασκαλε... ("Teacher (/Rabbi)!..")

4:18 ("...and the man you have now is not your husband!")
8:3 ("...this woman was taken in adultery...")

8:15 ("...I judge no one: ...")
8:11 ("...nor do I judge thee: ...")

It is difficult to imagine how more linguistic, literary and thematic parallels could be crammed into 12 short verses, even if that were one's deliberate goal, and highest priority.

Baljon (1898) on PA: State of Art and state of confusion

J.M.S. Baljon

In 1898, J. M. S. Baljon attempted to give the public a corrected, lean and mean version of Tischendorf's epic 8th edition Greek NT.  Tischendorf's original major critical edition was under-printed and overly expensive, as well as being massively cluttered with patristic citations which, unfortunately as Tregelles had shown, were simply carried over from previous collators and so were both unreliable and useless (for accurate patristic citations Tregelles' GNT is preferred).
Baljon's solution was to drop the bulk of the superfluous notes and present the readings of the main Uncial MSS and important minuscules and versions.

Interestingly, Baljon's approach to the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11) reflects both the state of the art, and the state of confusion surrounding the passage at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries.

Facsimiles of the relevant pages of Baljon's Greek New Testament regarding the PA can be found here: Baljon on the PA  < - - click here.

"The edition of J. M. S. BALJON is in the main an abridgment of Tischendorf's octava maior. He avails himself, however, of later discoveries, such as the Sinai-Syriac Palimpsest for the Gospels, and the Syriac version published by Gwynn for the Apocalypse. In Acts, Blass's restoration of the so-called Forma Romana is regularly indicated. No other edition, for one thing, shows more conveniently where recent scholars recognize glosses or other interpolations, or propose transpositions or conjectural emendations and such like. So far, therefore, it may be commended to those who do not possess an edition with a more copious critical apparatus. But even Baljon's New Testament fails to realize the ideal of a practical edition."

In Baljon we see a repeat of earlier editors' approach to the textual problem (such as that of Tregelles, Wordsworth,  and Tischendorf): He simply presents a recap of the discussions in almost impenetrable Latin as a three-page footnote, then presents the two best attested textual versions of the passage, (1) that of the TR (Traditional Byzantine text), and (2) that of Codex Bezae (4th cent. bilingual MS D/d).
 His detailed apparatus for the text itself is however helpful, and represents a clearer but earlier precursor to the apparatus of von Soden (1913), who later extensively collated the Byzantine MSS themselves in this passage.  von Soden's apparatus, while providing a more detailed view of the Byzantine text-type, suffers from a complex and cumbersome system of notation which is most difficult to interpret.

mr.scrivener

Scholz and MacMichael (1831-1854) on the PA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nazaroo

Cambridge U., A. Plummer, and the PA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Deanery, Peterborough, 1880."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 - J.J. Stewart Perowne, 1881.

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

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

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

(to be continued)

Adam Clarke on the PA

The original "New Edition" (1832) of Clarke's Commentary and Critical Notes, as the 1884 preface tells us, reigned for 50 years as the standard commentary, outselling almost all other similar works.  Its continuing usefulness and popularity caused the publishers to sponsor a Revised Edition (1884), supplemented by advances since that time.  The publishers chose only the best scholars in harmony with the original evangelical orthodoxy.  The final editor (Daniel Curry) expressed his own accord with the original work, accepting the Bible as the word of God, itself the revelation of Jesus Christ, and his intent to carry on in the original spirit of this great work. 


In 1825 Clarke had written:

"Bishop Pearce says,

"It would have been strange if Jesus, when he was not a magistrate, and had not the witnesses before him to examine them; and when she had not been tried and condemned by the law and legal judges, should have taken upon him to condemn her. This being the case, it appears why Jesus avoided giving an answer to the question of the scribes and Pharisees; and also how little reason there is to conclude from hence, that Christ seems in this case not enough to have discouraged adultery, though he called it a sin.

And yet this opinion took place so early among the Christians, that the reading of this story was industriously avoided in the lessons recited out of the Gospels, in the public service of the churches; as if Jesus' saying I do not condemn thee, had given too much countenance to women guilty of that crime. In consequence of this, as it was never read in the churches, and is now not to be found in any of the Evangelistaria [Lectionaries], and as it was probably marked in the MSS. as a portion not to be read there; this whole story, from verse 1 to verse 11 inclusive, came in length of time, to be left out in some MSS, though in the greater part it is still remaining." (- Pearce)

Thus far the judicious and learned Bishop. How the passage stands in all die MSS. hitherto collated, may be seen in Wetstein & Griesbach."

Daniel Curry (the 1884 editor) deletes the previous quotation, and substitutes newer material from Horne and Harman. 

After the insertion of T. H. Horne's overview on the PA (from his Introduction), and the opinion of Dr. H. M. Harman (from his Introduction),  The new editor summarizes Adam Clarke's position:

"Dr. Clarke disposes of the matter in this wise:  After weighing what has been adduced in favour of its authenticity, and seriously considering its state in the MSS, as exhibited in the Var. Lect. of Griesbach, I must confess, the evidence in its favour does not appear to me to be striking.   Yet I by no means would have it expunged from the text.  Its absence from many MSS, and the confused manner in which it appears in others, may be readily accounted for on the principles laid down by Bishop Pearce.  It may, however, be observed, that a perfect connexion subsists between verse 52 (ch 7) and 12 (ch 8) - all the intermediate verses having been omitted by MSS of the first antiquity and authority.  In some MSS it is found at the end of this Gospel; in others a vacant place is left in this chapter; and in other it is placed after the 21st chapter of Luke." 

A few comments are in order:

a)  Clarke had at his disposal only the variants and MSS recorded by Griesbach in 1805.   Since that time, thousands more MSS have been discovered, catalogued and collated in regard to the PA, showing its overwhelming inclusion in some 1,240 continuous-text MSS and over 1,000 lectionaries.

b)  Bishop Pearce understood the problematic content of the passage in the light of European morals and nomist concerns.   Indeed, von Soden has accurately collated the features of the passage's removal, reinsertion and interpolation at other locations, and shown how this came about during the later history of copying, due to confusion.

c) The connexion (or rather lack of a jarring discordancy) between 7:52 and 8:12 is not so smooth and close as might be claimed.  "Then again Jesus spoke to them..." (v12) makes no direct sense given Jesus is out of the scene in the previous verses, where the religious authorities are in private talks elsewhere in the temple.   No clear location is indicated, even though there is an obvious change of scene between 7:52 and 8:12.

d)  The vacant spaces provided in some of the most ancient Uncial MSS indicates a clear knowledge of the existence of the passage and an intent to either include it or leave an explanatory marginal note at this point, probably to tell subsequent readers of its omission in the master-copy used.   Thus rather than evidence of its absence, we have in these copies evidence of its existence, but absence only in the master-copy being used.

mr.scrivener