B*********e
发帖数: 254 | 1 Bible Research > Textual Criticism > Story of the Adulteress
Concerning the Story of the Adulteress
in the Eighth Chapter of John
Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (al
so known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually prin
ted in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel. On this p
age I present some extended quotations from scholarly works that explain the
reasons for this judgment. On another page I give an extract from one of th
e few scholarly defenders of the passage. To give my own opinion, it seems c
lear to me that the story does not belong in the Bible. If despite its absen
ce from the early manuscripts this passage is thought to be so edifying that
it is worthy of being treated as Holy Scripture, we might with equal justic
e add any number of edifying ancient stories to the Bible. The Quo Vadis leg
end about Peter's martyrdom, for instance, might just as well be added to th
e canonical book of Acts. For more on this, see my essay, Quo Vadis?
M.D.M.
Marginal annotations of various versions
American Standard Version (1901). Marginal note: "Most of the ancient author
ities omit John vii. 53--viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from eac
h other."
Revised Standard Version (1946). 7:53-8:11 given in the margin, with the not
e, "Most of the ancient authorities either omit 7.53-8.11, or insert it, wit
h variations of the text, here or at the end of this gospel or after Luke 21
.38." Since 1971 the section is printed as ordinary text, with the note, "Th
e most ancient authorities omit 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage
here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of t
ext."
New American Standard Version (1963). "John 7:53-8:11 is not found in most o
f the old mss."
New International Version (1973). "The most reliable early manuscripts omit
John 7:53-8:11." Later editions of the NIV have, "The earliest and most reli
able manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."
New King James Version (1980). "NU [that is, the United Bible Societies' Gre
ek text] brackets 7:53 through 8:11 as not in the original text. They are pr
esent in over 900 mss. of John."
Samuel P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testame
nt (London, 1854), pages 236-243.
In the application of criticism to some of the longer passages which are fou
nd in some copies, but omitted in others, it is necessary to state the evide
nce fully and distinctly, so as to obviate, if practicable, all possible mis
conception as to its value and bearing. A few such passages will now be cons
idered; in doing which, it is only needful to premise that the principle of
following the evidence which Divine Providence has caused to be transmitted
to us, must in these cases, as well as in all that are similar, be strictly
maintained.
St. John vii. 53--viii. 11, is a passage which has held its place in the tex
t by a very doubtful tenure, as is familiar to all who are acquainted with t
he simple facts relative to biblical criticism; and even in the copies which
contain these twelve verses there are peculiarities of a singular kind.
This narrative is found in some form or other in the following authorities:
D F G H K U, and more than 300 cursive copies, without any note of doubt or
distinction, as also in a few lectionaries. In E it is marked with asterisks
in the margin; so, too, in sixteen cursive copies (two of which thus note o
nly from viii. 3). In M there is an asterisk at vii. 53, and at viii. 3. In
S, it is noted with obeli, and so, too, in more than forty cursive codices.
This narrative is placed at the end of the Gospel, by itself, in ten cursive
copies; four others similarly place viii. 3--11. Four MSS. (of which Cod. L
eicestensis, 69, is one) place this passage at the end of Luke xxi., and one
copy has it after John 7:36.
As to versions, it is found (i.) in Cod. Colbertinus and some others of the
Old Latin (Cod. Veronensis is here defective); (ii.) the Vulgate, (iii.) ?th
iopic, and (iv.) Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary. (As to the other versions, see
below.)
It is mentioned by Jerome as being found in many copies, by Ambrose, Augusti
ne, and other writers since the fourth century. But, though cited from the t
ime of Augustine and onward, that father was well aware that the passage was
far from universally read in the copies then extant; and he endeavored to a
ccount for the fact by a conjecture: "nonnulli modic?, vel potius inimici ve
r? fidei, credo, metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud,
quod de adulter? indulgentia dominus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis, qu
asi permissionem peccandi tribuerit, qui dixit, Deinceps noli peccare. [Cert
ain 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 i
f he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin]" (De Adult. C
onj., ii. 6, 7.) But this supposition of Augustine would not account for the
fact of the omission of this passage having been so general, as it will be
shown to be when the testimony of the versions against it is stated.
This passage is omitted by A B C T [also now Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, N, W] (
MSS. of the oldest class (1)), by L X D [also Y Q Y], by Cod. 33, and more t
han fifty other cursive copies, by more than thirty lectionaries, in some of
which, if not all, this passage is omitted where it would occur in the midd
le of a section. In connection with MSS. which omit this section, reference
must be made to those mentioned above, which mark it as doubtful, or transfe
r it to the end of the Gospel, or place it elsewhere; for all these are so f
ar witnesses against its insertion.
The versions to which this section do not belong are (i.) the Old Latin (as
found in Cod. Vercellensis, the revised Cod. Brixianus, and some others), (i
i.) the Peshito and (iii.) the Harclean Syriac, (iv.) the Memphitic, in the
MSS. of value and authority, (v.) the Thebaic, (vi.) the Gothic, (vii.) the
Armenian.
It is true that, in some of the editions of the Peshito Syriac, subsequent t
o that in Walton's Polyglot, this section is found; but it does not belong t
o that version: and so, too, such MSS. of the later Syriac as are cited as e
xhibiting it at all, mention that it is an addition. As to the Armenian, six
old codices of those used by Zohrab omit the whole passage, as also do the
MS. lectionaries; nineteen MSS. have the section separately, at the end of t
he Gospel, while only five (and those the most recent) place it here. One pr
oof that it is a later addition, and not an original part of this version, i
s found in the great variety of forms in which it exists in those Armenian c
opies which contain it at all; some of these are quite peculiar, and resembl
e none of the Greek copies. It is thus rejected, as not a genuine part of th
at version. (For this precise statement I am indebted to Mr. Charles Rieu.)
Though the mere silence of ecclesiastical writers is no proof that they were
unacquainted with a particular section, yet that silence becomes significan
t when they wrote expressly on the subject to which it relates, and when the
y wrote in such a way as to show that they could hardly by possibility have
been acquainted with it. So, too, with regard to such ecclesiastical writers
as wrote Commentaries.
Thus it may be held for certain, that Tertullian (2) and Cyprian knew nothin
g of the passage; while Origen and Chrysostom show in their Commentaries, th
at they were not aware of its existence. It has been indeed objected that no
thing is proved by Origen's silence; because he often passes by portions of
St. John's Gospel, and he had no occasion to mention this narrative: but, in
reading his Commentary on this part of the Gospel, it is difficult (if not
impossible) to imagine that he knew of anything between vii. 52 and viii. 12
nce continues from viii. 12 in the same manner (iv. p. 299, ed. De la Rue).
The silence of Chrysostom on the subject, as well as that of Cyril of Alexan
dria, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, was long ago noticed.
The omission of this section by Nonnus, in his metrical Paraphrase of this G
ospel, is worthy of notice; for though he does pass by parts, yet no narrati
ve portion of certain genuineness, and of such length as this, is unnoticed.
It thus appears that the oldest MS. authority for this narration is D, and t
hat the only important versions in its favour are the Vulgate, and such copi
es of the Old Latin as contain it. The Vulgate resolves itself into the test
imony of Jerome, who mentions that copies existed of both kinds,--those whic
h contained it and those which did not. I have put together the authorities
which contain this narration, because, in fact, those in which it is found g
ive it in such a variety of phraseology, as exceeds the difference commonly
understood by the term various readings. In D, the oldest MS. which contains
it, it is utterly unlike the other copies; and they, too, abound in extraor
dinary variations. This circumstance would weaken the testimony of the autho
rities which contain this narration, even if there had been a less conclusiv
e array of witnesses (all the oldest MSS. except D, most versions, and decid
ed testimony of fathers) on the other side.
In the fourth century, this section seems to have obtained a place in some c
opies (first perhaps in the West, where it was first mentioned), but even th
en it is spoken of doubtfully; it gradually was received into most MSS., but
still with expressions of uncertainty, and with notes of its doubtful authe
nticity; and thus, even though it was adopted as a part of the printed text
by the first editors, yet its genuineness was not believed by Erasmus himsel
f: the same opinion was held in that century by Calvin, Beza, (3) and other
biblical scholars. If the last three hundred years have removed all feeling
of question from many, it has not been from better grounds of certainty havi
ng been discovered, but from that kind of traditional inertness of mind, whi
ch has rendered many unconscious of what have been deemed the most manifest
facts of criticism.
We can no more canonise this passage, if it were not genuine Scripture from
the beginning, than we can the books of the Apocrypha, or any other writings
. If the best MSS., versions, and fathers, know nothing of such a portion of
Holy Scripture, it behoves all who value God's word not to adopt, as part o
f it, what is not only unsupported by sufficient evidence, but which is oppo
sed by that which could hardly be surmounted. The ancient translators in gen
eral could not have agreed, in so many countries, to pass by so considerable
a portion of this Gospel, if they knew it, or had it in their Greek copies.
I do not rest at all on the internal difficulties connected with this passag
e, on the supposition that it is genuine Scripture; because, if it had been
sufficiently attested, they would not present anything insurmountable. The p
eculiarities of the language are indeed remarkable, and very unlike anything
else in St. John's Gospel; but to this it might be said, that the copies di
ffer so much that it is almost impossible to judge what the true phraseology
is. Perhaps the difficulties in the passage have been over-estimated: at le
ast we have no reason to conjecture that any omitted it on account of such d
ifficulties, any more than we have to think that any expunged it on doctrina
l grounds, as suggested by Augustine.
It may be felt by some to be a serious thing to conclude, that twelve whole
verses which they have been accustomed to read are no part of Holy Scripture
; and yet if they are only in possession of a moderate share of information,
they must know well that they are and have always been regarded as of unpro
ved genuineness: I would also ask such, if it is not a very serious thing to
accept, as part of the word of God, what (as they have the full opportunity
of knowing) rests on precarious grounds, and is contradicted by the best te
stimonies? Would it not render all Scripture doubtful, and go far to undermi
ne all true thoughts of its authority, if all that rests on utterly insuffic
ient evidence, and all that is supported by unquestionable testimonies, were
placed on the same ground? It is impossible to give real and sufficient san
ction to that which is not attested to be a genuine part of a book of Script
ure, and thus, while it is in vain to attempt to raise it to the place of au
thority, the only consequence will be to depress the true Scripture to the l
ow and unsatisfactory level of such unattested additions.
Though I am fully satisfied that this narration is not a genuine part of St.
John's Gospel, and though I regard the endeavors to make the evidence appea
r satisfactory to be such as would involve all Holy Scripture in a mist of u
ncertainty, I see no reason for doubting that it contains a true narration.
There is nothing unworthy of the acting of the Lord Jesus detailed in this h
istory. And thus I accept the narrative as true, although its form and phras
eology are wholly uncertain, and although I do not believe it to be a divine
record. No doubt, that there were many narrations current in the early chur
ch of some of the many unrecorded actions of our Lord, and the only wonder i
s that more have not been transmitted to us. This, from the variety of its f
orms, seems to have been handed down through more than one channel. Perhaps
some one added it at the end of John's Gospel, as one of the "many things wh
ich Jesus did which are not written in this book," and others afterwards pla
ced it where it seemed to them to belong.
We learn from Eusebius, that Papias transmitted an account of a woman who wa
s accused before our Lord, "Papias also put forth another history concerning
a woman accused of many sins before the Lord; and this history is contained
in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." (H.E., iii. 39) The Hebrew origina
l of St. Matthew's Gospel appears to have been the basis of "the Gospel acco
rding to the Hebrews"; and it seems, from the mode in which Eusebius mention
s the narrative as having proceeded from Papias, that he regarded it as a la
ter addition introduced into that Hebrew document. It has been much discusse
d whether this is the same as the narration in John vii. 53--viii. 11. In fa
vour of the identity may be mentioned that in D (Cod. Bez?) the sin of the w
oman is spoken of in a general manner, a woman seized for sin, instead of a
woman caught in adultery. And if it had been circulated in the fourth centur
y in a Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic) dress, the leading forms in which it is now fo
und might have originated in different Greek translations of the narrative;
or else from the writings of Papias in Greek, and from a Greek translation o
f the Syro-Chaldaic form of the narration. From Ruffinus's version of the pa
ssage in Eusebius, it seems clear that in the age immediately subsequent to
that historian, it was thought that the narration to which he referred, was
the same as that which had by this time found its way into some copies. Ruff
inus renders, "Simul et historiam quandam subjungit de muliere adultera, qu?
accusata est a Jud?is apud Dominum." Attention to this, and also to the poi
nt of resemblance between the Cod. Bez? and the words of Eusebius, was direc
ted by Dr. Routh; who adds, "Evidenter constat, etiamsi suspecta h?c evangel
ii pericope eadem esse censeatur atque historia Papiana, nondum eam codici N
ovi Testamenti tempore Eusebii insertam fuisse" (Rel. Sac., i. 39). The judg
ment expressed in these last words, however contrary to the notions of those
who prefer modern tradition to ancient evidence, is fully confirmed by the
most searching investigations. We first hear of this narrative in any copies
of the New Testament after the middle of the fourth century. The statement
of Eusebius gives us a probable account of its origin, and I believe that we
shall not err if we accept this as a true history, transmitted not by the i
nspired apostle St. John, but by the early ecclesiastical writer Papias.
-----------------------------
1. A and C are defective in this part of St. John's Gospel; but it is certai
n, from the exactitude with which the quantity in each page of these MSS. ca
n be calculated, that they could not have contained these twelve verses.
2. Granville Penn, in his "Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant," sta
tes well the argument which may be drawn from Tertullian's silence: he says,
"That the passage was wholly unknown to Tertullian, at the end of the secon
d century, is manifest in his book De Pudicitia. The Bishop of Rome had issu
ed an edict, granting pardon to the crime of adultery, on repentance. This n
ew assumption of power fired the indignation of Tertullian, who thus apostro
phised him: "Audio [etiam] edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium,
Pontifex scilicet Maximus [quod est] episcopus episcoporum, dicit [edicit]:
Ego et moechi? et fornicationis delicta, poenitentia functis dimitto" (c. 1)
. He then breaks out in terms of the highest reprobation against that invasi
on of the divine prerogative; and (c. 6) thus challenges: "Si ostendas de qu
ibus patrociniis exemplorum pr?ceptorumque coelestium, soli moechi?, et in e
a fornicationi quoque, januam poenitenti? expandas, ad hanc jam lineam dimic
abit nostra congressio." "If thou canst show me by what authority of heavenl
y examples or precepts thou openest a door for penitence to adultery alone,
and therein to fornication, our controversy shall be disputed on that ground
." And he concludes with asserting , "Qu?cunque auctoritas, qu?cunque ratio
moecho et fornicatori pacem ecclesiasticam reddit, cadem dedebit et homicid?
et idololatri? poenitentibus subvenire." "Whatever authority, whatever cons
ideration, restores the peace of the church to the adulterer and fornicator,
ought to come to the relief of those who repent of murder or idolatry." It
is manifest, therefore, that the copies of St. John with which Tertullian wa
s acquainted did not contain the exemplum coeleste,--the divine example, dev
ised in the story of the "woman taken in adultery" (pp. 267, 268). Was this
edict that of Callistus, referred to in the recently-discovered Philosophoum
ena (of Hippolytus), ix. 12, pp. 290, 291?
3. Theodore Beza [whose annotated Greek text was the basis of the King James
version] did not suppose that a text ought to be traditionally adopted, and
then, as it were, stereotyped: his notes gave him the opportunity for expre
ssing his opinions; and he thus proved that if his attention were properly d
irected to ancient evidence on a passage, he so weighed it as to consider th
at it ought to prevail. Thus the passage in John viii. 1-12, the omission of
which by critical editors has seemed to some such a proof of temerity, or o
f want of reverence for Holy Scripture, was differently regarded by Beza: he
states the manner in which various ancient writers knew nothing about it, a
nd the great variation in MSS.; he then concludes thus:--"As far as I am con
cerned, I do not conceal that I justly regard as suspected what the ancients
with such consent either rejected or did not know of. Also such a variety i
n the reading causes me to doubt the fidelity of the whole of that narration
." [from Tregelles p. 34. Notice also the comment of John Calvin (Commentary
on the Gospel of John, on John 8:1). Calvin introduces the passage thus: "I
t is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churc
hes; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and
inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and
is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an
Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to ou
r advantage." Notice that Calvin does not pretend to decide the question of
authenticity here. - M.D.M.].
F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament
(4th edition. London, 1894), volume ii, pages 364-368.
. . . on all intelligent principles of mere criticism the passage must needs
be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by all the critical edi
tors . . . we cannot help admitting that if this section be indeed the compo
sition of St. John, it has been transmitted to us under circumstances widely
different from those connected with any other genuine passage of Scripture
whatever.
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1
971), pages 219-221.
The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress
is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Pap
yrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230
1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John,
but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful
measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the mis
sing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the E
ast the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s
. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub
-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscr
ipts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent
from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q).
No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) commen
ts on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Go
spels do not contain it.
When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence t
he consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ notice
ably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and t
hat it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff., the case against its be
ing of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.
At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It
is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of
the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various man
uscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would i
nterrupt John's narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 (D E F G H K
M U G P 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44
(several Georgian mss.) or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or afte
r Luke 21.38 (f13). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses which con
tain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, thou
gh the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfac
tory credentials.
Sometimes it is stated that the pericope was deliberately expunged from the
Fourth Gospel because it was liable to be understood in a sense too indulgen
t to adultery. But, apart from the absence of any instance elsewhere of scri
bal excision of an extensive passage because of moral prudence, this theory
fails "to explain why the three preliminary verses (vii 53; viii 1-2), so im
portant as apparently descriptive of the time and place at which all the dis
courses of chapter viii were spoken, should have been omitted with the rest"
(Hort, "Notes on Select Readings," pp. 86 f.).
Although the committee [that is, the editorial committee of the United Bible
Societies' Greek New Testament] was unanimous that the pericope was origina
lly no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of t
he passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square bra
ckets, at its traditional place following John 7.52.
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), in the Anchor Bible
series (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), pages 335-6.
Problems of Authorship and of Canonicity
These problems must be treated as a series of distinct questions. The first
question is whether the story of the adulteress was part of the original Gos
pel according to John or whether it was inserted at a later period. The answ
er to this question is clearly that it was a later insertion. This passage i
s not found in any of the important early Greek textual witnesses of Eastern
provenance (e.g., in neither Bodmer papyrus); nor is it found in the Old Sy
riac or the Coptic. There are no comments on this passage by the Greek write
rs on John of the first Christian millenium, and it is only from about AD 90
0 that it begins to appear in the standard Greek text. The evidence for the
passage as Scripture in the early centuries is confined to the Western Churc
h. It appears in some Old Latin texts of the Gospels. Ambrose and Augustine
wanted it read as part of the Gospel, and Jerome included it in the Vulgate.
It appears in the fifth-century Greco-Latin Codex Bezae.
However, a good case can be argued that the story had its origins in the Eas
t and is truly ancient (see Schilling, art. cit.). Eusebius (Hist. III 39:17
; GCS 91: 292) says, "Papias relates another story of a woman who was accuse
d of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according t
o the Hebrews." If this is the same story as that of the adulteress, the ref
erence would point to early Palestinian origins; but we cannot be certain th
at our story is the one meant. The third-century Didascalia Apostolorum (II
24:6; Funk ed., I, 93) gives a clear reference to the story of the adulteres
s and uses it as a presumably well-known example of our Lord's gentleness; t
his work is of Syrian origin, and the reference means that the story was kno
wn (but not necessarily as Scripture) in second-century Syria. From the stan
dpoint of internal criticism, the story is quite plausible and quite like so
me of the other gospel stories of attempts to trap Jesus (Luke xx 20, 27). T
here is nothing in the story itself or its language that would forbid us to
think of it as an early story concerning Jesus. Becker argues strongly for t
his thesis.
If the story of the adulteress was an ancient story about Jesus, why did it
not immediately become part of the accepted Gospels? Riesenfeld has given th
e most plausible explanation of the delay in the acceptance of this story. T
he ease with which Jesus forgave the adulteress was hard to reconcile with t
he stern penitential discipline in vogue in the early Church. It was only wh
en a more liberal penitential practice was firmly established that this stor
y received wide acceptance. (Riesenfeld traces its liturgical acceptance to
the fifth century as a reading for the feast of St. Pelagia.)
The second question is whether or not the story is of Johannine origin. The
fact that the story was added to the Gospel only at a later period does not
rule out the possibility that we are dealing with a stray narrative composed
in Johannine circles. The Greek text of the story shows a number of variant
readings (stemming from the fact that it was not fully accepted at first),
but in general the style is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar. S
tylistically, the story is more Lucan than Johannine.
Nor is the manuscript evidence unanimous in associating the story with John.
One important group of witnesses places the story after Luke xxi 38, a loca
lization which would be far more appropriate than the present position of th
e story in John, where it breaks up the sequence of the discourses at Tabern
acles.
If the story was not of Johannine origin and is really out of place, what pr
ompted its localization after John vii 52? (actually, a few witnesses place
it elsewhere in John: after vii 36 or at the end of the Gospel.) There are s
everal views. Schilling, p. 97 ff., insisting on the parallels with the Susa
nna story, draws attention to echoes of Daniel in John, and thus makes the D
aniel motif a guiding factor to the introduction of the story of the adulter
ess into John. A more certain explanation for the localization of the story
in the general context of John vii and viii can be found in the fact that it
illustrates certain statements of Jesus in those chapters, for example, vii
i 15, "I pass judgement on no one"; viii 46, "Can any of you convict me of s
in?" Derrett, p. 13, who thinks that the key to the story lies in the unwort
hiness of the accusers and the witnesses, points out that the theme of admis
sibility of evidence comes up in the immediate context of vii 51 and viii 13
. Hoskyns, p. 571, hits on a truth when he says that, while the story may be
textually out of place, from a theological viewpoint it fits into the theme
of judgment in ch. viii.
The third question is whether the story is canonical or not. For some this q
uestion will have already been answered above, since in their view the fact
that the story is a later addition to the Gospel and is not of Johannine ori
gin means that it is not canonical Scripture (even though it may be an ancie
nt and true story). For others canonicity is a question of traditional eccle
siastical acceptance and usage. Thus, in the Roman Catholic Church the crite
rion of canonicity is acceptance into the Vulgate, for the Church has used t
he Vulgate as its Bible for centuries. The story of the adulteress was accep
ted by Jerome, and so Catholics regard it as canonical. It also found its wa
y into the received text of the Byzantine Church, and ultimately into the Ki
ng James Bible. And so the majority of the non-Roman Christians also accept
the story as Scripture.
-------- Works cited by Brown ---------
Becker, U., Jesus und die Ehebrecherin (Beihefte zur ZNW, no. 28; Berlin: T?
pelmann, 1963).
Derret, J.D.M., "Law in the New Testament: The Story of the Woman Taken in A
dultery," NTS 10 (1963-64), 1-16. Abbreviated in StEv, II, pp. 170-73.
Riesenfeld, H., "Die Perikope von der Ehebrecherin in der frühkirchlichen T
radition," Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 17 (1952), 106-11.
Schilling, Frederick A., "The Story of Jesus and the Adulteress," Anglican T
heological Review 37 (1955), pp. 91-106.
Page NB (52) of Papyrus 66, a codex of John's Gospel from about AD 200, illu
strates the omission of the Story of the Adulteress from early manuscripts.
The text begins in the middle of the word εραυνησον ("search") in J
ohn 7:52. On the second line the sentence ends with a punctuation mark and i
s immediately followed by Παλιν ουν αυτοι? ελαλησεν ο
Ι? ("again Jesus spoke to them") in 8:12. The manuscript has been annotated
by a scribe who used diagonal strokes to note a word-order variant in the f
irst and second lines, but the Story of the Adulteress is omitted without an
y scribal notation. Click on the image for a larger view.
Bible Research > Textual Criticism > Story of the Adulteress
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html |
|
