Perhaps this is a famous one among scholars and non-scholars alike.
The Woman Taken in Adultery portrayed by the author of the Gospel of John at chapter 8:1-12. Even in my Portuguese Bible, the story is included but it´s placed in brackets. The same with my English Bible (The NT in Today´s English Version). Well, here I quote Ehrman´s notion on it: “In fact, even though it is technically true that the passage “probably” does not belong in the New Testament, the reality is that it is not a debated point among textual scholars and translators. The passage was not part of the Gospel of John originally. Or any other Gospel.”
Well, here is what I want to understand a litle bit more about it and I would love to have you share your thoughts on it. Why was it added within the Gospels and by whom and around what time in history? What was the purpose of it? I mean, why would someone add this story? since it seems that all the evidence shows that this never happened.
Robert said
The manuscript evidence does not show that it did not happen. The evidence shows that it was not originally part of the gospel of John.This story, or something like it, was reportedly part of the now mostly lost gospel to the Hebrews, according to Eusebius, relying at least in part on a lost writing of Papias. Another part of the story may have circulated separately (so Bart). One or both traditions were added to the gospel of John sometime before the 5th century. In a few familial manuscripts it was added to the gospel of Luke, and some elements of the story are indeed similar to Luke’s style. Thus Bart and others have also wondered if some aspects of the story might have come from one of Luke’s sources.
Personally, I don’t think it is possible to reconstruct two separate traditions and their sources with very much confidence, but someone must have thought it was too good of a story to not include it somewhere in the four canonical gospels and added it into manuscripts, either to the gospel of John or Luke and it eventually took firm root in the later manuscripts of John.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** Bart’s article on this topic.
Robert,
What´s your thoughts on this post:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen said
…but someone must have thought it was too good of a story to not include…Precisely! How could you leave it out? It’s actual provenance will be forever unknown and questions of historicity are neither here nor there. It’s just a dang good story.
I think this is main underlying reason why most people believe the pericope wasn’t original – the story is simply too good for any christian to have removed it.
But this reasoning is flawed. Here’s what Tertullian (On Modesty) thought of adultery:
“Yet further: premising You shall not commit adultery,
(the Law) adjoins, You shall not kill.
It honoured adultery, of course, to which it gives the precedence over murder, in the very fore-front of the most holy law, among the primary counts of the celestial edict, marking it with the inscription of the very principal sins. From its place you may discern the measure, from its rank the station, from its neighbourhood the merit, of each thing. Even evil has a dignity, consisting in being stationed at the summit, or else in the centre, of the superlatively bad. I behold a certain pomp and circumstance of adultery: on the one side, Idolatry goes before and leads the way; on the other, Murder follows in company. Worthily, without doubt, has she taken her seat between the two most conspicuous eminences of misdeeds, and has completely filled the vacant space, as it were, in their midst, with an equal majesty of crime.“
“If the sins are deficient in speech, hard by (the door of the church) stands an idolater, hard by stands a murderer; in their midst stands, too, an adulterer. Alike, as the duty of repentance bids, they sit in sackcloth and bristle in ashes; with the self-same weeping they groan; with the selfsame prayers they make their circuits; with the self-same knees they supplicate; the self-same mother they invoke. What are you doing, gentlest and humanest Discipline? Either to all these will it be your duty so to be, for blessed are the peacemakers;
or else, if not to all, it will be your duty to range yourself on our side. Do you once for all condemn the idolater and the murderer, but take the adulterer out from their midst?— (the adulterer), the successor of the idolater, the predecessor of the murderer, the colleague of each?“
For Tertullian, the pericope adulterae would have been completely unacceptable.
If early christians altered the bible for their personal theological beliefs, the pericope adulterae must be considered to have had an extremely high chance of removal by the early church.
But the point of the story is not that adultery is ok. Far from it. The story is about forgiveness and compassion. It might have been that an old prig like Tertullian sympathized with the stone throwers but most people put themselves in the place of the woman. And the implicit hypocrisy of the crowd of accusers is not lost on most readers either.
It’s not lost on most readers who think adultery is forgiveable or not a crime.
But Tertullian’s point in On Modesty is that like idolatry and murder, adultery is unforgiveable. It’s a worse crime than murder.
Anyone who agreed with Tertullian would find the pericope adulterae extremely problemic. And given that we still have On Modesty lots of people agreed with him.
The break in narrative between 7:52 and 8:12 is clear and an obvious removal of something has taken place.
Well, on my side I would like to wrap up where do I stand on this matter and BTW, thank you all for sharing your thoughts on it.
Despite the brilliance of the story, its captivating quality, and its inherent intrigue, there is one other enormous problem that it poses. As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. That is not to say that it was originally somewhere else in the Gospels. In fact, it originally was not part of the Gospels at all. It was added by later scribes. PERIOD
The evidence of the earlier manuscripts of the Gospel of John suggests that this particular passage was not included by John himself in the original text of his gospel. The earliest surviving witness to this episode seems to be the sixth-century Codex Bezae, although it was received into the Koine or Byzantine family of manuscripts, on which the Textus Receptus (and the KJV) are based. Nevertheless, it appears to be an authentic account of an episode in Christ’s ministry, and it is written in characteristically Johannine style. Therefore it should be reckoned with as an authoritative word of Christ, despite the uncertainty of its relationship to the Gospel in its earliest form.
Anyone who agreed with Tertullian would find the pericope adulterae extremely problemic. And given that we still have On Modesty lots of people agreed with him.
And of course the survival of the story itself demonstrates that there were very many who did not. Look, the parable of the Prodigal Son probably doesn’t go back to Jesus either but who would want to lose it? Any cut-off for adding good stories to the gospels was purely arbitrary.
Stephen said
Anyone who agreed with Tertullian would find the pericope adulterae extremely problemic. And given that we still have On Modesty lots of people agreed with him.And of course the survival of the story itself demonstrates that there were very many who did not. Look, the parable of the Prodigal Son probably doesn’t go back to Jesus either but who would want to lose it? Any cut-off for adding good stories to the gospels was purely arbitrary.
Yes there were many people who did not agree with Tertullian but that’s not the issue.
The issue is, were there people in the early church that would have had a very big problem with the pericope adulterae? Yes. Were some of these people, like Tertullian, highly influential? Yes. Did early christians change the gospels to conform to what the believed? Yes. Does the history of the pericope adulterae bear all the hallmarks of a removed text? Yes.
Does the history of the pericope adulterae bear all the hallmarks of a removed text?
Oh I see. You think the story was originally in John and was removed hence its absence in the earliest and best manuscripts and only rescued later. I think that would be considered unlikely purely for textual reasons. And nobody seems to have heard of it before the 4th century.
Robert said
Can you quote a single scholar who uses this reason to conclude that the pericope is not original? That’s a crazy assertion. It is a reason for why the story might be added; it is not a reason for why it is not original. For that, you should look to scholars of text-criticism.
I don’t think anyone states this as a reason. i think it’s the underlying reason, all the evidence is read in light of the belief that no christian could possibly remove this story, great as it is.
Being found in most later manuscripts but not the earliest ones the possibility of its early removal is seen as too remote, it’s too good a story for anyone to remove.
Stephen said
Does the history of the pericope adulterae bear all the hallmarks of a removed text?Oh I see. You think the story was originally in John and was removed hence its absence in the earliest and best manuscripts and only rescued later. I think that would be considered unlikely purely for textual reasons. And nobody seems to have heard of it before the 4th century.
More likely to be an insertion than removed. But a probability needs to be given. Otherwise the evidence can’t be assessed.
Especially if an early removal accounts for all the manuscript evidence.
Robert said
So you can ignore and avoid the evidence and reasoning as argued by scholars because of your psychic ability to intuit their overriding subconscious reasoning? Amazing!
No one’s saying to ignore any evidence – just that people’s reading of the evidence is in light of broader understandings of the issues.
Jerome says he used the most ancient greek manuscripts when translating to his vulgate. If the pericope adulterae was seen as being damaging to the christian faith, this evidence by Jerome would be given more weight. The fourth century Sinaiticus and Vaticanus removing this damaging material but Jerome, using the most ancient sources correctly leaving it in.
But if the pericope adulterae is seen as a text beloved by all christians at all times, Jerome’s claims are taken less seriously – how could Sinaiticus and Vaticanus leave out such a wonderful story? It must have been added later.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)