Many biblical textual critics agree among
themselves that the story of Jesus and the adulteress that is found in John
7:53–8:11 (often called pericope
adulterae or “PA” for short)[i]
was not originally in John’s Gospel. The English Standard Version Bible, for
example, includes it in brackets and states, “The earliest manuscripts do not
include 7:53–8:11.”
Three main arguments are placed against it.
- The pericope is not in “the earliest and best” manuscripts; the oldest manuscript of John that includes this story is Codex Bezae (D), which dates to the fourth or fifth century.
- These verses in the pericope interrupt the narrative of John’s Gospel between John 7:52 and 8:1.
- These verses in the pericope feature vocabulary and grammar not common to John.
Contra these arguments we find.
- The pericope adulterae appears in the majority of Greek manuscripts.[ii]
- The details of the encounter fit well in the context, and provide an important bridge from 7:52 to 8:12, which is unexplained otherwise.
- There are points of similarity between the style of the pericope adulterae style and the style of the rest of the gospel.
The latter two points are highly subjective. One
says, “Reading from John 7:52 to John 8:12 (skipping the debated section) makes
perfect sense.”[iii] Another says, “The
reader is snatched from the midst of a dispute in the council chamber of the
Sanhedrin back to Jesus in the Temple without a single word of explanation.”
Those who reject the pericope adulterae
look for style, vocabulary and grammar not common to John, while those who accept
the pericope adulterae look for style,
vocabulary and grammar common to John – and apparently both find what they are
looking for. At least they say they do.
The first point is fairly clear cut – the pericope
is not in the oldest manuscripts but is in the majority of manuscripts. Here
one’s presupposition of oldest versus majority comes into play and most line up
their views on the pericope with their views on textual criticism.
Another area to check, when considering the antiquity
of the pericope adulterae, is the
writings of the “early church fathers.” Strangely, Bruce Metzger claimed that
the pericope was not referenced by any church father prior to the 12th century![iv]
Metzger was an exceptionally well-known, well-trained, and well-respected
scholar of the Greek texts and early church fathers – making his statement all
the more incomprehensible.
Here are a few examples that dispute Metzger.
Ambrose knew of this passage. According to Dean
John William Burgon, Ambrose
quotes the Pericope de Adultera at least nine times. In To the Emperor Gratian, Three Books on the
Holy Spirit; Book 3.3.15 (circa AD 381) Ambrose wrote, “With this Finger,
also, the Lord Jesus, with bowed head, mystically wrote on the ground, when the
adulteress was brought before Him by the Jews, signifying in a figure that,
when we judge of the sins of another, we ought to remember our own.” As found
in St. Ambrose: Selected Works and Letters (Volume 10 of Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, New York, NY: Christian Literature Company, p. 263)
Pacian of Barcelona (circa AD 310–391) mentions
it, writing, “Put to death the thief. Stone the petulant. Choose not to read in
the Gospel that the Lord spared even the adulteress who confessed, when none
had condemned her; that He absolved the sinner who washed His feet with her
tears; that He delivered Rahab at Jericho, itself a city of the Phoenicians;
that He set Tamar free from the sentence of the Patriarch; that when the
Sodomites also perished, He destroyed not the daughters of Lot; willing
likewise to have delivered his sons-in-law, had they believed the destruction
to come.” Letter
3(39) Against the treatise of the Novatians.
Augustine’s writings (circa AD 380-428)
demonstrate not only his knowledge of the pericope adulterae, but also its
current location in the Gospel of John. See, for example,
Jerome was familiar with it in the first half of
the 5th century (circa AD 415), writing in Against the
Pelagians (Book 2.17): “John viii. 3. None of the accusers of the
woman taken in adultery were without sin. Christ wrote their names in the
earth.”
The writings of early church fathers do not prove
that the pericope adulterae/John
7:53–8:11 were part of the original text of John. They do prove that the
pericope was known early, apparently about as old as the manuscripts containing
John’s gospel that exclude this section.
“When there are differences in the Greek
manuscripts, textual scholars usually depend on two basic principles to
determine the perceived original reading. First, they consider the external evidence. This means they
regard the age of a manuscript, its geographical distribution, and its
relationship with other textual families. Second, they will observe the internal evidence. This means they
consider the textual variant in light of what the original writer would most
likely have written. It takes into account style and vocabulary, the context,
and how the variant harmonizes with other passages written by the same writer.
These evidences are logical and certainly are of great value. Nevertheless, we
should also embrace the biblical promises from God concerning preservation,
thereby approaching the issue both scripturally and scholastically.”[v]
Correction; Apologies to Bruce Metzger
[i] The scholarly title for
the passage combines pericope (a passage or selection from a book, especially
the Bible) with adulterae (Latin for adulteress).
[ii]
Zane Hodges estimates at least 450 Greek manuscripts that contain this story in
its traditional place between John 7:52 and 8:12. (Zane C. Hodges, “Problem
Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John
7:53-8:11): The Text,” in Bibliotheca
Sacra 136, No. 544 (October 1979): 318)
[iii]
Curiously, those who claim the story doesn’t fit well in John’s Gospel often
claim that some scribe added this story to the Gospel in a place where it fit
well!
[iv]
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on
the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), 188
No comments:
Post a Comment