McLachlan on the PA

Chapter 13:
The Pericope Adulterae

The Woman Taken in Adultery (Jn 7:53-8:11)

I.  The Exalted Character of the Narrative

THE episode of the woman taken in adultery is so striking and suggestive that its apparent lack of authenticity passes almost unnoticed. There is good reason for this. It is safe to say that no known disciple of Jesus could have invented the story. As Sir John Seeley ¹ said,

Keim ² thought otherwise, and, regarding the story as a "very transparent clothing of an idea" attributed it to an unknown author "who imitated the forms, colours, surprises, and dramatic style of the 4th Gospel." With discreet reserve, however, he produced no literary proofs of this hypothesis.

The sublimity of the principal figure in the story, and his unique appeal to conscience may be seen by contrast with the creation of a modern poet.

Mr. Hutton ³ thinks Tennyson has not shown himself a higher artist than in the important place which the conscience takes in his greater poems.

Yet, in the words addressed by his perfect knight to the repentant Guinevere, there is more than a suspicion of Pharisaism. To the punishment of a remorseful conscience is added condemnation, and the king declares that he loathes whilst he loves his sinning wife.

In the words of the agnostic Huxley, ⁴

Wellhausen ⁵ protests against the suggestion that intrinsic value can guarantee the age and authenticity of a saying of Jesus such as occurs in "the apocryphal pericope adulterae":

Such criticism, however exaggerated, must be met.

What follows confirms, on textual and historical grounds, the impression which the story makes of its own authenticity.

The Pericope Adulterae is important, amongst other reasons, because it is the longest passage in the NT affected by Textual Criticism.

---

1. Ecce Homo, Preface, p. v.

2. Jesus of Nazara (Eng. Tr.), v. 16-19.

3. 'Literary Essays, p. 397.

4. Lectures and Essays, p. 88.

5. Einleitung, 2te Aufl. S. 159.

---

II. Pericope Not Part of 4th Gospel

That the story is not the work of the fourth evangelist is one of the sure results of scientific study. The MSS. which omit the passage from John are not only more numerous ¹ but also much earlier than those which include it in that Gospel. The evidence of commentaries and version tells in the same direction.

The argument from silence is notoriously precarious, but in the case of Origen and Tertullian it has considerable weight in this instance.

Origen in his commentary cites and comments on every verse John vii. 40-52, and then continues from viii. 12 in the same manner. ²

Tertullian, disputing an edict of the Roman bishop on the forgiveness of adultery, declares,

Tertullian, clearly, knew nothing of the pericope adulterae (PA) as holy scripture. ³

Internal evidence is not less conclusive than external. The style and vocabulary are not John's. His favourite words and expressions are absent, and the story breaks the thread of his narrative, which, without it, runs on quite smoothly. ⁴

---

Modern Footnotes:

1. This first claim is actually false, and was known to be, even in 1920. The vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts (approx. 1,250 in number) include the PA without suspicion as an authentic part of John. The majority of Latin manuscripts (some 10,000) ranging from the 2nd to the 15th century also contain the passage. It is true that the 4 earliest Greek copies of John omit the passage (P⁶⁶, P⁷⁵, א, B), but all early manuscripts indicate a knowledge of its existance.
See our article on Early MSS here.

2. Origen's commentary is deeply problematic. Several critics cite the commentary, but actually it is not extant in this place, the book being lost. The judgement that Origen excluded it in his commentary is based on an anonymous list of contents which however was added later, and was not written by Origen. It may itself be simply a catalogue of surviving sections.
See our article on Origen here.

3. Tertullian's testimony is not reliable here either. His expressions throughout are suspicious, as he seems to reveal a guilty knowledge of the Pericope Adulterae even while ignoring it. Furthermore, no one has explained on what basis the bishop that Tertullian complained about could have issued his edict in the first place, if the passage was not in place, and had recognized authority at that time.
See our article on Tertullian here.

4. This summary of the internal evidence is wholly inadequate and uncompelling. See below, and also the many articles onsite dealing with Internal Evidence here.

---

III. Theories of Origin for PA

To whom then should it be ascribed? Must we be content with the dictum of Bousset ¹ that it is a "piece of genuine but extra-canonical tradition," or shall we go further with Mr. Hammond ² and declare it to be a "veracious, incorrupt record, yet not proceeding from the pen of the writer to whom it is ascribed" ?

Both views claim the support of eminent scholars. Whilst Julicher ³ calls it "the noblest of agrapha," Blass ⁴ finds a place for it in the Gospel according to Luke.

Mr. Nicholson ⁵ in his work on the Gospel according to the Hebrews argues that the passage "substantially and perhaps even verbally" was originally part of that gospel, an opinion shared by Nestle and others.

The chief authority for this is Eusebius ⁶ reporting a statement concerning Papias. It is necessary to examine this statement in some detail:

It is a passage that has been misread. Cassels ⁷ thus rendered it :

Westcott ⁸ met this statement with an unequivocal denial :

The force of this reasoning may have been felt, for in a later edition of Supernatural Religion the translation is correcteD. The conclusion of Dr. Adeney ⁹ seems sound and convincing.

If Dr. Drummond ¹⁰ is right in his interpretation of the language of Papias, then with all his love for oral tradition, Papias had no insurmountable prejudice against the written word. There is therefore "some degree of probability" in the suggestion underlying the remarks of Westcott:

The PA may have been known to Papias in another place than the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews.

---

1. Jesus (Eng. Tr.), p. 142, note. 2. Textual Criticism, p. 115, note a. 3. Intro. to the NT (Eng.), p. 393. 4. Philology of the Gospels, p. 160. 5. Pp. 52-58.

6. Hist. Eccles. iii. 39. 7. Supernatural Religion, p. 73, n. i. 8. Canon of the NT, p. xxiii. 9. Hibbert Journal, iii. 146. 10. Authorship of 4th Gosp., pp. 200ff.

---

5. Modern Footnote: Eusebius is vague here, but one thing can be tentatively said: Papias must have referred to a story like the PA in one of the books which Eusebius had found (5 of Papias' books were still extant in 300 A.D.). However, Eusebius never actually quotes either Papias or the PA-like text itself here, so we cannot know more.

---

Can he have been familiar with the passage in some other uncanonical Gospel? There is evidence pointing that way. An Athos MS. [GA-1006], according to Mr. Lake ¹¹ asserts that the story of Christ and the woman taken in adultery occurred in the Gospel of Thomas. This Gospel, as we now know it, professes to give an account of the childhood of Jesus, and bears upon itself the stamp of legendary invention. Irenaeus ¹² instances the story of our Lord confounding the schoolmaster who sought to teach him his letters, as an illustration of what is contained in "an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings" used by the Marcosians.

Eusebius ¹³ mentions the Gospel according to Thomas in his list of "absurd and impious books." But apparently the Gospel existed in more forms than one. From an earlier version, Hippolytus, ¹⁴ a disciple of Irenaeus, quotes a remarkable passage, not found in the extant Gospel, which the Naasenes cherished as relating to the nature of the Kingdom of God within.

As Dr. Tasker ¹⁵ suggests,

Plainly, the primitive Gospel was more mystical than the later version. It was also connected in some way with the Sayings of Jesus, discovered at Oxyrhynchus in 1903, the introduction to which makes mention of Thomas.

The conclusion of the first "Saying" is quoted by Clement of Alexandria from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and some knowledge of it is shown in the Acts of Thomas, which "may have been partly built upon the Gospel." ¹⁶ The second saying contains the remarkable words,

"Kingdom of heaven," as in Matthew, is a synonym for Luke's "Kingdom of God." More important is the use of εντος ("within"), which is rare in the NT, occurring only twice. [Lk 17:21, cf. Mt. 23:26] So unique and difficult is this word, that Dobschutz says: ¹⁷

The saying obviously comes from Luke, where alone is found this mystic idea of the Kingdom of God as an inward experience. η βασιλεια του θεου εντος υμων εστιν. So far as it goes, this evidence points to some definite relation between the "Sayings," the earliest edition of the Thomas Gospel, the Hebrews' Gospel, and Luke.

The Gospel acc. Thomas may have derived its story from that according to the Hebrews. It is also possible that it came, like the idea of God within man, from the canonical Gospel.

Harnack argues that the Gospel acc. to Peter must have contained the story. Holding with other scholars that Justin Martyr used this Gospel, he dates it at the beginning of the 2nd century.

The references to Herod in the extant fragment of the Petrine Gospel betray indebtedness to the 3rd gospel, though its chronology of the Passion and its attitude to the Jews are Johannine. The most that can be said is that if the Gospel acc. Peter did contain the PA, it may well have been taken from Luke's gospel.

Again, the oldest extant Apocryphal Gospel The Protevangelium of James in its present form a composite production, contains an allusion to the PA. The 16th chapter tells how Joseph and Mary drank the water of the ordeal, and remained unhurt. It is founded upon Numbers 5:24, "He shall cause the woman to drink the water of bitterness" The ordeal was intended to prove whether adultery had been committed.

Origen refers to this Gospel, and, in the opinion of many scholars, Justin Martyr used it. In part, the Gospel is based on the Nativity narrative in Luke. This fact, taken together with the Lucan character of the phrases in the allusion to the pericope, raises the presumption that the author of Protevangelium Jacobi was acquainted with the story of the woman taken in adultery in Luke, once we have reason to believe that the 3rd Gospel contained such a story.

The fact that Papias makes no mention of Luke or Acts is generally regarded as indicating that he was not acquainted with these writings. Lightfoot ¹⁸ notices some evidence that suggests the use of them by Papias, namely his reference to "Satan cast down to the earth" (cp. Luke 10:18), and his account of the death of Judas.

Stress cannot, however, be laid upon these points. All we can say is that if on other grounds we find that Luke contained the story of the woman taken in adultery, Papias may possibly have known Luke as well as the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews.

---

11. Studies in Biblical and Patristic Criticism or
Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica Vol. 5, (Oxford, 1903, repr.2006),
"Texts from Mount Athos", Kirsopp Lake,
Sect. VII: Catalogue of Bibl.MSS,
Iveron Library, p. 173. note (i.e., Iveron MS#) 22.
The note reads as follows (Eng. translation added):

Modern Footnote: It should hardly need to be added that the (post 11th cent.) anonymous note suggesting the PA came from or was found in the Gospel of Thomas is essentially worthless as it stands!

12. Adv. Haer. i. 20. 13. Hist. Eccles. iii. 25. 14. Philosophumena, v. 7. 15. Dictionary of the Bible, ext. vol. p. 432.

16. Grenfell & Hunt, New Sayings of Jesus, 31. 17. Eschatology of the Gospel, p. 130. 18. Contemporary Review, Aug. 1867, p. 415.

---

If the PA is original to the Gospel to the Hebrews, and thence has passed into some MSS. of the 4th Gospel, as Nestle and others suppose, our problem is solved, and we accept the authority of the passage whilst we deny its canonicity.

As Julicher says, ¹

There is much virtue in that "if" ! Recognition of a Johannine authority for the PA is not to be discovered in Papias or in any other writer earlier than the 4th century.

That the Gospel to the Hebrews is an ancient work need not be disputeD. Harnack assigns it to the period 65-100 A.D., holding that it probably belongs to the beginning of this period and is earlier than both Matthew and Luke.

Dr. Stanton ² indicates its position in the primitive Church:

A recent writer ³ says,

Unfortunately, only a few scattered fragments remain to us, and of these some are obviously legendary in character. Yet the Gospel which gives as words of our Lord, "Never be glad except when you look on your brother with charity" and puts among the greatest offenders "the man who saddened his brother's spirit" might well have contained the interview between Jesus and the woman taken in adultery.

Whether the story appeared in the Gospel according to the Hebrews in the precise form in which it survives in John, is a question not easy to determine, notwithstanding the affirmatives of many scholars. ⁴

The following points may be noticed :

αλλην suggests this was a second story, and therefore that a first was known to Eusebius.

The word might possibly be understood with reference to the marvellous tales Papias relates on the authority of the daughters of Philip, but this is not a natural interpretation of αλλην ιστοριαν in its context. Hence the judgement of Routh and Tregelles that the pericope was not inserted in a codex of the NT in the time of Eusebius is not beyond question.

πολλαις: whereas in the Johannine account one [sin] only is mentioned, namely adultery. In Codex Bezae (D, 4th cent.) the woman's offence is described generally as αμαρτια instead of μοιχεια, yet still in the singular.

διαβληθεισης: in early Greek the verb means "to slander" but Oxyr. Pap. vol. viii. gives a 3rd-century instance of the word meaning simply "to accuse". This is how Rufinus in his translation of Eusebius understood the word:

διαβληθεισης: suggests that the charge was not substantiated.

In the passage before us, there was no doubt of her guilt. She was taken επ' αυτοφωρω.

The form of the story of the adulteress as it appears in the oldest Armenian MS. which contains it, suggests indebtedness to the Hebrews' Gospel, and shows that a version other than that preserved in John was current in the Christian Church. The opening words are sufficient to prove this point.

The plural "sins", and the idea of evidence harmonize with the narrative as Papias apparently read it in the Gospel to the Hebrews, and not with that which we read in the Canonical Gospel. Again, as Dr. Adeney ⁵ bids us,

---

1. Introduction to the NT (Eng. Tr.), p. 393.

2. The Gospels as Historical Documents, i. 216.

3. Shailer Mathews, G.B. Smith, (U. of Chicago) Dictionary of Religion and Ethics (MacMill.NY, 1921) , vi. 348.[?] However, we are unable to find the quotation! The publication is post-McLachlan's (1920) and we suspect an error here.

4. So Bacon, Fourth Gospel, p. 474, n. i.

5. Hibbert Journal, iii. 147.

---

The last sentence gives rise to an interesting train of thought. It is in Luke that Blass would rest the PA. From that Gospel, it may have passed into the Gospel of Thomas. It is in Luke that the Ferrar group (Family 13) of MSS actually gives the passage. And the entire narrative is indisputably Lucan in vocabulary and in spirit. Can it be that the author of the Gospel to the Hebrews was one of the "many" whose apparent lack of certitude led "the beloved physician" to take up his pen?

Professor Bacon ² certainly suggests that an important "Semitism" which Luke alone of NT writers makes use of, was taken over from the Gospel to the Hebrews, and Dr. Moulton ³ recognises that the secondary character of extant fragments,

Professor Lake ⁴ on the other hand, reduces the "narratives drawn up by the many" to collections of Sayings similar to those discovered by Drs. Grenfell & Hunt. But the λογοι in which the first groups of Christians were "instructed" had for their object the demonstration of the Messiahship of Jesus, and this was effected, as Dr. Scott ⁵ has shown, by proofs drawn mainly from the Resurrection, from OT Prophecy, and from Miracles. In other words,

If then, Luke had the Gospel to the Hebrews before him as he wrote, in his report of the PA, he was consciously endeavouring to arrive at certainty. He therefore took occasion, as he did with the text of Mark and of the Logia, to smooth the roughness, and improve the language.

The πολλαις and διαβληθεισης of the Papias document may mark a degree of exaggeration in the Gospel to the Hebrews, the one heightening the offence of the woman, and the other, the perfidy of the scribes and Pharisees. Luke, characteristically enough, removes both, and tells the story in good Greek, as [far as] the language of the ΝΤ goes.

---

1. Luke i. i.

2. Expositor, April 1905, p. 174, n.

3. Grammar of NT Greek, i. 17.

4. Hibbert Journal, iii. 338.

5. Apologetic of the NT, pp. 42-6.

6. Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, ii. 134.

---

---

The extraordinary verbal resemblances between Luke's Gospel and the PA cannot escape the slightest examination. When we consider the "words characteristic of Luke" found in the PA, the result is astonishing.

Of such words, there are 11 in the 12 verses under consideration. ² In addition, there is one word in the pericope found in Luke more often, though not twice as often, as in Matthew and Mark together, but in Luke and Acts four times as often as in Matthew and Mark together. ³

Another word, found in the "we" sections of Acts, and used predominantly, although not exclusively, in the rest of Acts and Luke, is used also in this story. ⁴

In all, 6 words of the PA are found in the "we" sections of Acts. ⁵

The importance of the last phenomenon is increased by the fact that the "we" sections are more closely allied to Luke's Gospel, as Harnack has shown, ⁶ than are the remaining parts of Acts. πρεσβυτερος and πορευομαι are used in a way that is Lucan.

Even this does not exhaust the points of likeness. Dr. Plummer says,

It occurs twice in the course of this short narrative, and with a significance that seems distinctly Lucan. ⁸ Again, certain linguistic tendencies which Harnack has observed to be prominent in Luke's treatment of "Q" are illustrated in the PA ⁹

Then there are the words διδασκαλος 1 and κυριος, by no means peculiar to Luke, though commonly employed by him in a context and with a force which are characteristic of their use in this section. ¹⁰

Finally, the language of the passage as a whole is predominantly Lucan.

Two words, ανακυπτειν and ορθρου, are found elsewhere in the ΝΤ only in Luke/Acts, the former occurring twice in Luke, and the latter once in Luke and once in Acts. Moreover, the first named is a technical term used by medical writers, and is employed in the medical sense by Luke the Physician in the story of the woman with the spirit of infirmity. ¹¹

To conclude this examination, it may be said that even the hapax legomena, four in number in the PA, have a distinct affinity to terms used by Luke rather than to those of any other Evangelist. ¹²

Against all this Mr. Buckley only adduces as non-Lucan the historic present (αγουσιν) and the word παλιν. The latter, common in Matthew and Mark, is found only 8 times in Luke/Acts, and is omitted from Marcan passages by the 3rd evangelist;

The former, though by no means distinctive of Luke, occurs 11 times in the gospel and 13 times in the history. Though he believes the PA to have belonged to a Lucan source rather than to have formed part of the 3rd gospel, Mr. Buckley ¹³ admits that

---

1. Sir J.C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae,(1899-1909) p. 13. 2. Excursus I (below) p. 282. 3. Ibid. p. 282. 4. Ibid. p. 282. 5. Ibid. p. 283. 6. Harnack, Luke the Physician, 83. 7. Excursus II (below) pp. 283 ff.

8. Commentary on Luke, pp. 218 ff. 9. Excursus III (below) pp. 288 ff. 10. Ibid. pp. 288 ff. 11. Luke 13:2 See Exc. III. p. 291. 12. Excursus III. (below) p. 290. 13. Rev. Eric Rede Buckley, Intro. to the Synop. Prob.,(LonD. 1912) 208-211. --

---

---

When we turn from the frame and vehicle of ideas to the ideas themselves, we find in the Lucan writings parallels to the PA. That Luke had a special interest in the poor and sinful is a commonplace of NT criticism. It is admirably expressed by Julicher, ¹

Of "boundless charity towards sinners" what better illustration can be conceived than Christ's treatment of the woman taken in adultery ? Numerous writers have emphasised another characteristic of Luke, namely his sympathetic interest in women, their ways and works. Schmiedel writes : ²

Harnack, therefore, ³ though with great hesitation, includes the PA amongst those passages which show the prominent place of women in the third Gospel.

There is a further consideration. In this connection stress must be laid on the words "αυτη η γυνη κατειληπται επ αυτοφωρω." ⁴ The absence of the other culprit, whether by the connivance of the Scribes and Pharisees or not, must have impressed the Evangelist even as it strongly moved Christ when called upon to condemn one probably more sinned against than sinning.

Luke seems also to have had almost an antipathy to legal procedure, and noted, as no other Synoptist, Christ's disinclination to act as judge. In the Gospel narrative, he alone relates the parable of the Unrighteous Judge, who "feared not God, and regarded not man." ⁵

In the Acts of the Apostles, the conduct of Gallic in declining to judge Paul is implicitly commendeD. Furthermore, the refusal of Jesus to act as judge is recorded only by Luke. "Man," said our Lord to one who sought his verdict in the matter of a disputed inheritance, "Man, who made me judge or divider over you ?" ⁶

The Saying of Jesus in Matthew, "Judge not that ye be not judged" is strengthened by Luke's addition, "And condemn not and ye shall not be condemned" ⁷

In the Parable of the Pounds, peculiar to the 3rd Evangelist, the lord convicts the wicked servant, not according to any code of law, but from his own confession, "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee." ⁸

Similarly, in the Lucan story of Christ's anointing by the sinful woman, Jesus sets aside the question of her character, relates the Parable of the two Debtors, and commends the judgement of Simon the Pharisee, which conscience compels him to express, "Thou hast rightly judgeD." ⁹

Last but not least, Luke is our authority for Christ's assertion of the competence of conscience to adjudicate in litigious questions. "Why, even of yourselves, judge ye not what is right ?" ¹⁰

The phrase used here, κρινω το δικαιον, used to be regarded as unique. Bernhard Weiss explains it to mean deciding about that which God demands from, us.

It is made clearer, however, by a prayer for vengeance addressed to Demeter which was found inscribed on a tablet of lead at Amorgus. There the goddess is implored to give right judgement. So Jesus advises those who would go to law with one another not to wait for the judge to speak but to become reconciled beforehand and thus put an end to the dispute by pronouncing "just judgement" themselves. ¹¹

In a way, therefore, which Luke has made familiar to us, our Lord appeals to conscience in the case of the adulteress, and declines the office of judge:

Dr. Bacon ¹² then, states what is now fully proved when he says of the PA,

---

1. Adolf Julicher, An Intro. to the NT (London, 1904),p. 335. 2. Encyc. Biblica, vol. ii. col. 1792. 3. Luke the Physician, p. 155. 4. John 8:4. 5. Luke 18:2. 6. Luke 12:14.

7. Luke 6:37. 8. Luke 19:22. 9. Luke 7:43. 10. Luke 12:57. 11. Deissmann, Light Ancient E., 118. 12. Benjamin Wisner Bacon, An Intro.to the NT (1907), 106.

---

---

Accepting the prevailing theory of the relations of the Synoptic Gospels, namely, the dependence of Matthew and Luke upon Mark and "Q" there remain in the 1st and 3rd Gospels, large sections, amounting to almost a quarter of the whole contents, which cannot be derived from these sources.

In the materials thus collected by Luke, it is reasonable to suppose that his special interest would be most manifest. Such a supposition is more than justified. The parables of the Prodigal, the Pharisee and the Publican, and the Good Samaritan form part of the evangelical records peculiar to Luke.

Even in his more minute additions, he is frequently faithful to this subjective interest.

If the forgiving pity of our Lord extended towards the fallen woman was [originally] reported by Luke, the story will find a place, naturally and easily, amongst those passages of unmistakable authenticity, but of somewhat limited textual authority.

---

The incident seems attached by two or three links to the week of the Passion. It is of a piece with the discussions about the tribute-money, and the discussion with the Sadducees on marriage and the resurrection. There is the same attempt made to elicit from our Lord some opinion hostile to law, practice, or belief, and the interrogation is couched in similar terms. The failure of the polite inquisitors to achieve their object is the same in all three cases, and the replies of Jesus are imbued with the same spirit.

The questions submitted are scarcely considered, the discussion is lifted upon a higher plane, and a searching query indirectly addressed to the questioners. If the interview between Christ and the adulteress be admitted at the time thus suggested, it closes the series of attempts made by the Jewish authorities to catch Jesus in his talk.

The next scene introduces us at once to the betrayal by Judas. The Master had proved himself more than a match for his opponents even in the most delicate and difficult situation of all. A political question of taxation, and a speculative question of religion had failed of their purpose. A moral problem, gross and palpable, was then rudely thrust upon Christ's attention in the person of a woman taken in a shameful act.

The first question was largely theoretical, the second entirely so, the third was a practical inquiry as to the punishment of a particular offender. Christ's opinion on tribute, and on the married state hereafter involved only himself. His answer to the last question addressed to him affected another person a sinner and a woman. In many ways, the PA marks a fitting climax to what precedes, and a preparation for what follows.

Bernhard Weiss ¹ finds in the source peculiar to Luke (Special Luke, L) an account of Christ's discussion with his enemies about the tribute money. It would not be difficult to suppose that the PA, if it properly follows Luke 21:38, came originally from such a source.

---

1. Die Quellen der synoptischen Uberlieferung, S. i47ff.

---

---

There is one difficulty. No evidence exists for the infliction of capital punishment in a case of adultery. Bp. John Lightfoot (1658) says, ¹

Since stoning is specifically mentioned, it has been generally assumed that the woman in the story was betrothed; unfaithfulness on the part of a betrothed woman being liable, according to Deut. 22:24, to death - punishment by stoning. Apparently, the law was more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

The plot, therefore, consisted in putting Jesus on the horns of a dilemma, compelling him to declare for the revival of a law already obsolete, or give his sanction to the seeming infraction of the law, which divorce involved. The former alternative would be abhorrent to Christ, and hardly less to the magnanimous author of the third gospel. The latter alternative was one which Luke regarded with as little favour.

The Marcan narrative dealing with the Mosaic law of Divorce, and our Lord's abrogation of that law, is omitted by Luke, possibly, as Sir John Hawkins suggests, ² in order to "limit the amount of anti-Pharisaic controversy which he preserves." In the verse concerning divorce, which in the main he owes to "Q" Luke simply says,

Probably the words come from Mark. In any case, Luke does not admit adultery as a sufficient ground for divorce.

Matthew, on the contrary, interpolates the significant words μη επι πορνεια into the Marcan account, and the phrase παρεκτος λογου πορνειας into the passage, due to "Q". In other words, Matthew twice represents Jesus as sanctioning divorce for adultery [lit. fornication].

If Luke is the author of the PA, his statement of Christ's attitude towards divorce is consistent with that reported elsewhere in his Gospel, and conflicts with the less primitive conception of our Lord's teaching in Matthew ³ The first evangelist, indeed, apparently acquiesced in the Jewish teaching on the subject. Amongst the Jews at this period

---

1. Bp. John Lightfoot, (1658) Horae Heb. et Talmud on Mt. 19:8.

2. Stud. in the Synopt. Prob., p. 70.

3. See p. 120 above.

4. Enc. of Relig. and Ethics, (Clark, 1908) Ed. J. Hastings, i. 1 30.

---

To return to the dating of the incident in the career of Christ; from Luke 21 we learn that Jesus taught every day in the Temple and spent every night on the Mount of Olives. This exactly fits his practice as we observe it suggested in the PA.

And the language fits almost precisely, the παλιν of John 8:2 naturally referring back to Luke 21:38. (Excursus IV, below)

It is a mere coincidence due to common scenery that the Ferrar group of MSS. contains the PA at this point of the Lucan narrative?

The answer depends partly upon the character of those witnesses to the text, and partly upon more general considerations of the circumstances under which the Gospels were written.

The Ferrar group comprises the minuscules 13, 69, 124, and 346. With these 556 agrees in the position of the PA and generally in its text. ¹ The first four have been shown to be descended from a common ancestor, an uncial of good character.

Huck includes in the Ferrar group the first four minuscules, together with 543, 788, 826-828, all of which place 7:53-8:11 after Luke 21:38.

According to Von Soden ² 10 MSS. present the same type of text as the Ferrar group, and three others in a less perfect degree.

The text contains many readings of the δ-type In other words, there is a strain of "Western" influence in the stock.

The Abbe Martin & Dr. Rendel Harris argue for a Calabro-Sicilian origin.

Von Soden includes the Ferrar group amongst the independent authorities for the earlier form of his I-text, to which he attaches great importance, and which roughly corresponds with Hort's "Western" text.

The PA belongs likewise to the "Western" type, and is found, as part of John's Gospel, in many MSS. of the δ-type, notably in the Codex Bezae (D, 4th cent.).

---

1. Scrivener, Plain Intro., i. 255.

2. Die Schriften des NT, Pt. I. sect. 2.

---

---

Blass ¹ has gathered up this evidence with other curious facts in his theory of the two editions of the Lucan writings. According to this theory, the PA must give up all claim to a place in the Eastern form of Luke, and content itself with the Roman edition; the section was deliberately omitted from the Eastern edition as being likely to offend the Jews.

This is an ingenious hypothesis, and printa facie unties certain knots. How did the PA pass from Luke to John? The answer is at once forthcoming:

The Church of Rome early in the 2nd century purged its records of this passage in order to promote uniformity. The story then survived as an appendix to Luke or to the Gospels in general.

"Some authoritative person" ² not satisfied with this arrangement, found a place for it in John, where it seemed suitably placed as leading up to the saying, "Ye judge after the flesh, I judge no man" (Jn 8:15).

But the Lucan authorship of this fragment does not stand or fall with the theory of the two editions of the works of Luke. The theory of Blass does not account for phenomena in the δ-type text outside Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.

It does not provide what is required, namely,

What, then, can have produced the results for which this theory attempts to account?

The answer may be found in the words of Dr. Headlam: ³

---

1. Philology of the Gospels, p. 160.

2. Philology of the Gospels, p. 162.

3. Rev. Arthur Cayley Hedlam (1862-1947), contributor to Hastings' Bible Dictionary (1904,1911) i. 26. New Testament Criticism, 1902, editor: Church Quarterly Review, 1901-1921

---

---

As Dr. Kenyon says, ¹ ,

Luke and Acts might be most exposed to free treatment because they circulated most among the Gentile converts to the faith. Dr. Moffatt, ² in addition to the parallels of the varying editions of Piers Plowman noticed by Blass, alludes to the Religio Medici, which was by transcription successively corrupted, until it arrived at the press in a most depraved copy in 1642.

The PA may have been omitted, not by Luke, but by scribes in the East, who desired to respect Jewish prejudices. The. passage then found its way to the end of the Gospel and thence was transferred to John's Gospel. If it was again inserted in Luke's Gospel, as some think, the scribe responsible for this act showed more insight into its real character than the "authoritative person" who credited John with its authorship. We can hardly agree with Augustine that the story was removed from certain MSS. by men who feared peccandi immunitatem dari mulieribus suis, otherwise we should expect to find in the Gospels a vigorous campaign against thieves, harlots, and sinners.

Nor can we accept the suggestion ³ that the PA formed part of a lost gospel a primary source of Luke and that it was omitted by Luke because of a certain similarity to the story of the woman who was a sinner. The resemblances between the two stories are altogether too slight to sustain such a conclusion.

"Free handling by the scribes" a comprehensive expression determined not only its varying position in the Gospels, but also the variations in the text of the passage, which are more in number than in any portion of the New Testament. The settlement of the precise text of the verses under discussion is part of a larger problem.

In the Excursus IV (below) ⁴ a reconstruction of the narrative as a whole is attempted. For the present investigation Nestle's text has been adopted. If, however, the text of Codex Bezae be taken instead, the vocabulary is more decidedly Lucan. ⁵

---

1. Sir F. Kenyon, Textual Criticism of the NT, pp. 303-4.

2. Moffat, Historical NT, pp. 611 ff.

3. Eric Rede Buckley, Intro. to the Synop. Prob.,(Lond., 1912) 211.[i.e., 207fwd]

4. Pp. 292 ff.* (below)

5. P. 291.* (below)

---

---

There is one important witness, preserving a "Western" text, who cannot be claimed for the Lucan authorship. Marcion did not include the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery in his edition of the Gospel.

Many of his omissions, but not all, are explained by his dogmatic views. [But] The reason for the omission of the PA can no more be understood than the reason for the like treatment of the Parable of the Prodigal.

In the last edition of Supernatural Religion, Mr. Cassells was compelled to admit that his earlier hypothesis of the 3rd gospel as an elaboration of Marcion's gospel was untenable and that:

Dr. Sanday's discussion of style also proves that the parts excised by Marcion are undoubtedly Luke's. ⁴

The same may be said of the PA: Of all the theories advanced for the origin of the verses, Jn 7:53-8:11, none seems to satisfy so completely the demands of the passage itself as that of Lucan authorship.

---

3. Mr. Cassells, Supernatural Religion 1902 ed. p.361.

4. Dr. Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, p.229.

---

---

Hort's judgement, ¹ based upon external evidence and biassed by his general attitude towards the "Western text", is now seen to be much too sweeping:

---

1. Hort, Introduction, p. 300.

---

External evidence, it must be admitted, does not suffice to establish the authorship of Luke, but it is by no means decisively hostile.

A group of important minuscules still preserves the story in its original home, whether this is due to the fine insight of some interpolating scribe, or to the soundness of the stock from which the MSS spring.

The narrative, in a slightly variant form, was part of the Gospel to the Hebrews.

In its corrupt form, it was known to Luke, whose own version was due to the motive exhibited in his proem.

The PA was probably known to the authors of Protevangelium Jacobi, and the Gospel acc. Peter from Luke, and possibly passed from the 3rd Gospel into the 1st edition of the Thomas Gospel.

The state of the text in the 2nd century and its free handling by scribes are responsible for the varying positions of the section in the Gospels of Luke and John.

Such considerations, when taken in conjunction with the overwhelming internal evidence, provide reasonable grounds for the conclusion that the PA is the work of the 3rd Evangelist, and properly forms part of his Gospel.

---

1. Lukan Words found in the PA ¹

#	word	Mt	Mk	Lk	Ac	Jn	PA
1	παραγινομαι	3	1	8	20	1	1
2	λαος	14	2	36	48	2	1
3	πας ο λαος	1		10	6		1
4	απο του νυν			5	1		1
5	ερωταω	4	3	15	7	27	1
6	ειπεν δε			59	15	1	1
7	ως		1	19	29	16	1
8	εχω	1		5	6	2	1
9	αρξαμενοι απο	1		3	3		1
10	συ ουν			2	1		1
11	ορθρου			1	1		1

2. Words found in Luke more often than in Matthew and Mark together, though not twice as often, but found in Luke and Acts together four times as often as in Matthew and Mark together: ²

word	Mt	Mk	Lk	Ac	Jn	PA
αγω	4	3	13	26	12	1

3. Words found in the "we" sections of Acts and also used predominantly though not exclusively in the rest of Acts or Luke: ³

word	We sections	Rest of Acts	Rest of N.T.
επιμενω	4	2	94

4. Words found in the "we" sections of Acts and in the PA: πορευομαι, καθιζω, επιμενω, αγω, παραγινομαι, ως

5. Words found twice as often in Luke and Acts together as in Matthew and Mark together:

word	Mt	Mk	Lk	Ac	Jn
πορευομαι	29		50	48	13
εκαστος	4	1	5	11	3
οικος	9	12	31	25	4
καταλαμβανω		1		3	2
νομος	8		9	19	14
κατηγορεω	2	3	3	9	2

6. πρεσβυτερος:

7. πορευομαι is used in dismissing those healed, or who have asked a question, Luke 7:50, 8:48, 10:37, 17:14, cp. PA, John 8:4.

---

1 Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 16 ff.

2 Ibid. p. 21.

3 Ibid. p. 152.

4 Only in Pauline Epistles. For relation of Luke and Paul, Horae Synopticae, pp. 155-6.

5 Buckley, Intro to the Synoptic Problem, p. 209.

---

---

εν μεσω occurs in Luke seven times, and in Acts five times ; two of these in Luke, however, are missing in Codex Bezae, which in their stead reads μεσον ; and, on the other hand, the same MS in the same Gospel reads εν μεσω once when the a and j8 texts read εις το μεσον. It will be shown that D probably preserves the Lucan usage in every case.

Dr. Abbott illustrates John's use of εις το μεσον, compared with Luke's εν μεσω to show how easily the two constructions might be interchanged according as the notion of coming into an assembly was prominent or latent. ¹ The following is a list of Lucan passages in which these phrases are found :

#	phrase	Verse
(a)	καθεζομενον εν μεσω	Lk. 2:46
(b)	ριψαν εις το μεσον	Lk. 4:35
(c)	καθηκαν εις το μεσον	Lk. 5:19
(d)	στηθι εις το μεσον [D: εν μεσω]	Lk. 6:8
(e)	επεσεν εν μεσω [D: μεσον]	Lk. 8:7
(f)	αποστελλω εν μεσω [D: μεσον]	Lk. 10:3
(g)	οι εν μεσω αυτης	Lk. 21:21
(h)	εγω δε εν μεσω	Lk. 22:27
(i)	περιαψαντων δε πυρ εν μεσω	Lk. 22:55
(j)	εστη εν μεσω	Lk. 24:36
(k)	αναστας εν μεσω	Ac. 1:15
(l)	εποιησεν εν μεσω	Ac. 2:22
(m)	στησαντες εν μεσω	Ac. 4:7
(n)	εστωτος εν μεσω [D: om]	Ac. 6:15
(o)	σταθεις εν μεσω	Ac. 17:22
(p)	σταθεις εν μεσω	Ac. 27:21

But εν μεσω Mark 9:36, Matt 18:2, becomes εστησεν παρ' εαυτω Luke 9:47.

Luke's partiality for this phrase is evident from the following facts. Passages (a) (h) (j) are in sections peculiar to his Gospel, (g) is introduced by Luke into a Marcan narrative, and (o) is in a "we" section.

It will be seen that the verb ιστημι in some form occurs in conjunction with εν μεσω once in Luke (24:36), or if we follow D twice (6:8); in Acts it is found three times, or including 6:15 (D) four times. With other verbs, the phrase occurs six times in Luke (in D four times) and twice in Acts. The changes which are affected by D tend to show that "the two constructions are not in this MS easily interchanged."

In Luke 6:8, the case of the man with the withered hand healed on the Sabbath, στηθι εις το μεσον becomes στηθι εν μεσω; the notion of coming into an assembly is latent, for "the man was there."

In Luke 8:7, επεσεν εν μεσω becomes επεσεν μεσον , the accusative without preposition being used as equivalent to the whole phrase εις το μεσον, in this case the notion of "coming into" is prominent, the seeds cast by the sower were not "amidst the thorns" until they fell from his hanD.

Similarly in Luke 10:3, αποστελλω εν μεσω is in D αποστελλω μεσον , since the disciples were not in the midst of wolves, until they were sent forth. A scrutiny of passages a, b, c, g, h, i, k, l, betrays the fact that the difference between εις το μεσον and εν μεσω is somewhat strictly maintained. So far as it goes, this evidence as confirming the correctness of the Greek written by the third Evangelist tends to strengthen the case for the "Western" text.

εν μεσω in the PA occurs twice, στησαντες εν μεσω , εν μεσω εστωσα. In the latter case, the reading of the Textus Receptus is preferred, despite inferior attestation, on grounds of intrinsic and transcriptional probability. ¹ In both instances, the words suggest that the woman was "on trial"; in the first passage she is placed in the dock, and in the second, awaits the sentence of her judge. This connotation of the phrase is paralleled by examples in Luke and Acts.

In Luke 6:8 (D), our Lord said to the man that had his hand withered, "Rise up and stand forth in the midst" στηθι εν μεσω. It was a trial case. "The Pharisees watched Jesus, whether he would heal on the Sabbath day. But he knew their thoughts."

The man who stood forth was not only the recipient of the grace of Christ, he was also the representative, so to speak, of the Pharisees ; the means by which Jesus demonstrated his conviction of their thoughts.

When Jesus stood in the midst of his disciples, εστη εν μεσω, Luke 24:36, it was that he might himself be put upon trial, and so prove his bodily presence.

Luke converts the εν μεσω of Mark 9:36 (so Matt, 18:2) into παρ' εαυτω because the little child whom he took and set by his side was in no sense "on trial", but rather displayed as an example of humility to the wrangling disciples.

When we turn to Acts, the special sense of ιστημι εν μεσω becomes even more patent. Peter and John were brought before the Sanhedrin, Acts iv. 7, and "when they had set them in the midst" (στησαντες εν μεσω), they inquire, "by what power, or in what name, have ye done this." The men were on trial.

In Codex Bezae [Acts] 6:15 we are told that the members of the council saw the face of Stephen as it had been the face of an angel εστωτος εν μεσω αυτων. Stephen was being tried by the Synedrion on a charge of blasphemy.

So Paul, Acts 17:22, when he stood in the midst of the Areopagus and addressed the men of Athens, was making his defence.

It may be, as Sir William Ramsay ³ urges, that

But a legal trial is not the precise suggestion of the phrase.

As Sir William Ramsay himself says of Paul, ⁴

Paul is before the Areopagus in order that he "may give an account of his teaching and pass a test as to its character."

Finally, Paul, Acts 27:21, when the vessel conveying him to Rome was in difficulties, and all on board had been long without food, stood forth (σταθεις εν μεσω) in the midst of them. His counsel had been before this set aside by the centurion, who naturally enough, "gave more heed to the master and to the owner of the ship." Now, however, when the situation is critical, Paul stands forth to justify his advice. "There shall be no loss of life among you." Time was to justify his bold behaviour in thus putting himself to the proof.

It will be seen that the notion of coming into an assembly is not, in these passages, expressed by εις το μεσον, as elsewhere in Luke's writings was found to be the case. For example, in Acts iv. 7, Peter and John should have been set εις το μεσον not εν μεσω, for they were obviously brought before the assembly. Again, in Acts xvii. 19, the Athenians "took hold of Paul and brought him unto the Areopagus," yet Luke writes εν μεσω. Then the disciples were alone when our Lord stood in the midst of them (Luke xxiv. 36), a clear case of coming into an assembly, though it is reported in the words εστη εν μεσω.

How do we account for these exceptions to the rule ? The answer seems to be found in the employment by Luke of an idiom ιστημι εν μεσω, whenever the idea of test, proof, or trial is suggested, an idiom which overrides his somewhat strict observance of the difference between εις το μεσον and εν μεσω. Two examples of this idiom are preserved in the PA. A striking confirmation of the suggestion of trial in εν μεσω, is found also in the use of αγουσιν.

This verb is frequent in the legal sense και επι ηγεμονας δε και βασιλεις αχθησεσηε ενεκεν εμου (Matt. 10:18, cp. Luke 21:12). Luke employs it of the bringing of Christ before Pilate, and in Acts of the bringing of Paul before the Areopagus, xvii. 19, before Gallic, xviii. 12, and before Festus, xxv. 6, 7, 23.

In a petition regarding a robbery discovered in the Papyri, and dated A.D. 114, the same word is found. ⁵ διο αξιω ακθηναι τους ενκαλουμενους επι σε προς δεουσαν επεξοδον

The construction of αγειν, meaning "bring before a court of justice" with επι is regular in the Papyri as in the NT. ⁶

In Epictetus, ⁷ also, a contemporary of Luke, we meet with the phrase used in a legal sense. The philosopher is satirising an inconsistent Stoic, who, instead of taking a cudgelling quietly and loving the cudgeller, appeals to Caesar, and wishes to bring his assailant before the Proconsul :

In view of this evidence, must we not conclude with Harnack, ⁸ after his examination of the evangelist's use of ο λογος, that "in these technical and philological matters, Luke was very conscientious."

---

1. Johannine Grammar, p. 2711.

2. See Excursus IV. pp. 308 ff.

3. St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, p. 243.

4. Ibid. p. 245.

5. Berliner griechische Urkunden, 22.

6. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of Greek NT, p. 7.

7. Bk. III. c. xxii. 55.

8. Constitution and Laws of the Church, p. 334.

---

---

(1) Linguistic tendencies common to Luke's "Q"
  and to the author of the PA.
(From Harnack, Sayings of Jesus)

(a) Luke uses the strenuous prohibition where Matthew has μη with the aorist subj. Cp. John 8:2.

(b) "The participle in place of the infinitive or the finite verb belongs to the style of Luke." In the PA the participle so used occurs 8 times.

(c) "The use of the imperfect is almost peculiar to Luke." There are 6 instances of the imperfect in the PA.

(d) "Luke has replaced οπως in several passages by ινα." ινα expresses purpose in John 8:6.

(e) For αρτι, in Matt. 26:29, Luke uses απο του νυν. Cp. John 8:11. For οικια, in Matt. xxiv. 43, Luke uses οικος. Cp. John 7:53. For ηλθον, in Matt. 10:34, Luke uses παρεγενομην Cp. John 8:2. In Matt. 5:25 Luke has interpolated the temporal ως. Cp. John 8:7.

(f) The Evangelist has a "warm interest in the very poorest" and "a pictorial style is a frequent characteristic of his." Both remarks apply equally well to the author of John 7:53-8:11.

---

1. (a) Harnack, Sayings of Jesus (Eng), p. 6.

(b) Ibid. p. ii. (c) Ibid. pp. 44, 45 (d) Ibid. p. 103. (e) Ibid. pp. 30, 33 (f) Ibid. p. 121.

---

---

διδασκαλος Teacher, is the mode of address applied to Jesus by the Scribes and Pharisees, and κυριος is that of the sinful woman. διδασκαλος is a Greek translation of the Aramaic "Rabbi" "though emptied of some of its force." ¹ Rabbi was the usual form of address with which learned men were greeted, and "for the time of Jesus is expressly attested in Matt. 23:47." ²

The deferential address of "Teacher" bestowed upon our Lord by his interrogators was customary under such circumstances, and is found in all three Synoptic Gospels, both in the form of διδασκαλε and in the transliteration of ραββει, when questions demanding legal acumen, insight, or shrewdness were put to Jesus.

Says Dr. Burkitt, ³

Like the Pharisees and Herodians who consulted Jesus about the legality of paying tribute money, ⁴ and the Sadducees who asked concerning the resurrection, ⁵ the Scribes and Pharisees who dragged the adulteress before our Lord, hailed him as διδασκαλε "Teacher". ⁶

κυριος, used in narrative, is one of the characteristic words of the third Evangelist, ⁸ and in Luke, as in Matthew, our Lord is frequently addressed as κυριε, not only by his disciples, but also by others, especially such as appealed for His help. ⁹ On the other hand, Mark has this form of address only once.

These titles point to the primitive character of the PA. The use of Saviour as a designation in the recently discovered fragment of an uncanonical Gospel, indicates, in the opinion of its editors, that "this Gospel belongs to a later stage of development than the canonical Gospels." ¹⁰

In the surviving extracts from the Gospel to the Hebrews, our Lord is spoken of as "magister" and "dominus", which would represent the Greek διδασκαλος and κυριος.

---

1. Dalman, Words of Jesus (Eng. Tr.), p. 334. 2. Ibid. p. 331. 3. The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 114. 4. Luke 20:21. 5. Luke 20:28.

6. John 8:4. 7. Harnack, Sources of the Apostolic Canons (Eng), p. 22. 8. Horae Synopticae, p. 34. 9. Dalman, Words of Jesus (Eng), p. 227. 10. Grenfell and Hunt, Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel, p. n. So also Swete, Two New Gospel Fragments, p. 3.

---

---

(a) αυτοφωρον. Compounds with αυτος are Lucan. Cp. αυτοπτης Luke 1:2, and αυτοχειρ Acts 27:19 found nowhere else in the NT.

The word επαυτοφωφω is really a phrase (επ αυτω φωρω) and is applied by the best Greek writers to detection in any flagrant crime though actual derivation is from φωρος, theft.

But cp. Aelian, Nat. xi. 15, μοιχευμενην γυναικα επ' αυτοφωρω καταλαβων. The word is also found in the Papyri in the more general sense (B.G.U. ii. 372, ii. n). A.D. 154, λημφθεντες επ' αυτ[ο]φ[ωρ]ω κακουργας.

(b) καταγραφειν. Simple verb γραφειν is Lucan. Compound επιγραφειν once each in Luke and Acts, elsewhere in NT once in Mark.

(c) αναμαρτητος. Kindred words like αμαρτωλος are Lucan. This is a good classical word, meaning either impeccable or sinless. The latter is the meaning here. Cp. verse ii. "Among words peculiar to the Synoptists, there are proportionately fewer non-classical words in Luke than in any of the Synoptist Gospels." ²

(d) κατακυπτειν. Compounds of κυπτειν occur in Luke. One ανατυπτειν is peculiar to Luke and the PA, and another συγκυπτειν is found only in Luke, and in a passage as here, where ανακυπτειν is used.

---

2. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 171.

---

---

(a) A larger number of words are found occurring more frequently in Luke than in any other gospel, than is the case in Nestle's text.

(b) Of 4 words in the pericope not in Luke, but in some other gospel, three are not found in the text of D ; the fourth is a word used in Acts.

(c) There is the same number of "characteristic" words of Luke; one falling out, and another making its appearance.

---

ανακυπτειν - "to look up" is used in the PA in its literal sense. Luke uses it as a medical term in the account of the woman bound by the spirit of infirmity (Luke 13:11-17).

Says Dr. Macalister, ¹

In 21:28, Luke uses the word metaphorically. After describing the woes and sufferings that must precede the Advent, he says,

The metaphorical sense, as the context shows, has a large tinge of medical colour, and stands, as it were, midway between the technical and the literal signification. In a letter of Apollonius, written on papyrus, discovered at Memphis, and dated 153 B.C., ² and also in the LXX of Job 10:15, we find ανακυπτειν used in the same sense.

---

1. Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 328 (b).

2. Paris Papyri, No. 47.

---