Page Index

Section 1: - Introduction and Excerpt
Section 2: - Analysis
Section 3: - Response

---

Introduction

Background to the Current Article

Well, we have found something: After tediously going through 100's of internet links, and finding page after page that just quotes Metzger's useless but at least brief summary in defence of the UBS Greek text, we actually found a supposedly newly researched article on John 8:1-11.

The following paper would be of little significance. However, it was released onto the internet, and so will be one of many similar papers and articles found using a search engine. It is typical of the quality and viewpoint of seminary papers to be found on this topic, and reflects well the attitude and level of sophistication of recent academic attacks on the verses.

Textual Criticism and the Adulterae Pericope

By:
Sarah Wagner

Biblical Criticism
Professor Smith
12 December 2002

...

[I have skipped the first half of the paper, Intro to Textual Criticism, a general talk about TC which is not directly relevant to the question of the Pericope de Adultera - Nazaroo]

The Adultera Pericope

"Textual Criticism has been very useful in determining ancient interpolations of the New Testament and finding out where they came from and what kind of authority they have. One of the largest portions of the New Testament that is under extreme suspicion is John 7:53-8:11. This pericope tells of the woman who was caught in adultery and was brought for questioning before Jesus. These twelve verses are under suspicion because there are many manuscripts where it is lacking, is elsewhere in John’s Gospel, or is even in the Gospel of Luke. The places where it is found is [sic] so widely variant that it is very unique among all the disputed passages of the New Testament.

Textual Evidence

The evidence for a non-Johannine origin of this passage is overwhelming. It is absent from Sahidic p 66, 75 (Papyrus Bodmer II and XIV-XV) Dating to early 2nd century and the third century respectively. The uncials Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), which are proto-Alexandrian and the oldest witnesses, dating to the 4th century. Vaticanus is a relatively complete and superior text of the enrire Bible, with the Sinaiticus only slightly inferior to it. It is also missing from L (Regius) an Egyptian text of 8th century that includes the double Marcan ending, T (Borgianus) another Egyptian text dating to the 5th century, W (Washingtonensis) which is also dates to the 5th century, X (Monacensis) a Byzantine text of the 10th century, and 'D' (Sangallensis) a Greek-Latin diglot of the ninth century. Also N, Y, Δ , Θ , Ψ ,[These last 3 Uncials have been restored from Burge's list: the original online article has damaged unicode here.], the oldest forms of the Syriac version, older Bohairic, and some Armenian, Old Gregorian, Gothic, and Old Latin manuscripts omit it. No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century makes mention of this passage, saying [i.e., Euthymius says] that the most accurate copies of the Gospel of John do not contain it.

There is also some confusion as to, when the pericope is included, where exactly it belongs. In the Ferrar group of manuscripts, which are of a Caesarean text type copied between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries, the adultera pericope occurs not in John, but after Luke 21:38. In MSS 225 the pericope stands after John 7:36. In several Georgian manuscripts, MSS I 565 1076 1570 1582 it stands after John 21:25. In several Armenian versions it also is in a separate section at the end of the Gospel. In Sinai Georgian manuscript 16 it follows John 7:44. In many manuscripts it is marked with asterisks and obeli, indicating that although it was included the scribes were aware that it might not be authoritative.

Critical Evidence

Some have suggested that the reason why this pericope is missing is because it seems to breach the seventh commandment. So scribes would intentionally omit it in order to preserve the unity of the Bible. Another reason for its omission is suggested by the fact that John 7:37-8:12 was used for the liturgy on Pentecost and it was judged expedient to do away with the unnecessary and inappropriate incident of adultery. These theories follow the common types of scribal errors, but there is no evidence to support them. There is no evidence, whether from marginal note or commentary, that these verses were deemed by scribes to be too morally imprudent to be included in the Bible. Also, these theories fail to take into account why the descriptive verses of 7:53-8:2 were also omitted.

It has also been suggested that this pericope is original because of the lack of clear demarcation from the surrounding verses. Verses 7:53-8:2 seem to immediately follow the antecedent narrative. Also, in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus there is no transition between 7:52 and 8:13, making the flow of the text seem awkward. In later manuscripts there is usually a two to three word transition at the end of 7:52. This may or may not fall under the second common category where the more difficult reading is preferred to the easier one. As we have seen, the passage has been in many different places in the Gospels. It is very possible that the original text of John 7-8 was rather disjointed and that this passage was added to even things out and to expound upon the disagreements between Jesus and the Pharisees.

This passage is a good example of why the sheer number of manuscripts that support a reading is not a conclusive way of determining the reading of the original text. Many study Bible’s point out the fact that this pericope is present in over 900 manuscripts of John. This in and of itself seems convincing for the genuineness of the passage except it ignores that the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society critical editions of the New Testament are unanimous that the passage was originally not a part of the Gospel of John. The number of early and good manuscripts that support the omission gives a high level of certainty to exclusion of this pericope.

Altogether, the antiquity of the adultera pericope itself is maintained. The tradition of the story itself may be early and it was probably circulated among the churches before it was included in the Gospel of John. The pericope has all the trappings of historical veracity and it was most likely a piece of oral tradition that circulated in parts of the Western church. It most likely began to be inserted into the Gospels in the second century when there was greater freedom with the text. However, this insertion obviously did not spread to all already existing text families, thus the confusion as to its actual place in the canon.

Conclusion

The science of textual criticism is indispensable to Christianity. Through this method all variations and differences of our Scripture become a joy, not something to be feared. Using this method we can determine the original reading of a text and what passages were added later. The adultera pericope is one passage where this method has proved most fruitful. Not only can we safely say that the pericope does not belong where it is at, we can also determine where it came from and how it was included and spread. Because of all of this, although the pericope was not originally in the text and possibly should be excised from the Gospels, we can assume that it is based on an actual event in the life of Jesus and it is a story that all Christians should enjoy."

(http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/oracleofdelphi/bib_crit_paper.htm)

---

Analysis

First Glance

First let me congradulate Ms. Wagner on a first rate summary of the modern position. She has admirably covered the basic points, and written in a conservative, neutral style, using the correct phraseology, and approved by University faculty everywhere.

If I were her professor, I should no doubt give her a 90% mark and an encouraging word or two of praise concerning her non-controversial presentation of the problem. I could not assign 100% however, for the reason that a couple of small details are lacking from the report:

Namely, accuracy and truth.

Although an excellent piece for the purpose of securing the required mark in the university course, this object, like so many thousands of others, needs to be placed quietly in the shredder once the diploma is awarded. The fact is, the contents are exactly what is commonly produced on the spot by orangutans in captivity, for the purpose of flinging at the plexiglass to shock and amuse the spectators on the other side.

A Unique Case

Has 'Textual Criticism' been very useful in determining ancient interpolations?

99.9% of all simple interpolations are between one and ten words in size. Certainly the ordinary rules of textual criticism applied appropriately should be able to help in sorting explanatory glosses or over-zealous corrections from the original text.

However, there IS no rule or 'canon' of textual criticism that can be appropriately applied to the problem of the Pericope de Adultera. That is absurd. This case must be treated on its own, thoughtfully and in great depth.

Textual Criticism has certainly been useful to those opposed to orthodox Christianity. It provides 'plausible arguments' for accepting minority readings or unusual readings and offers an 'alternate New Testament'. This in turn undermines the authority and trustworthiness of the traditional text. But since this is the very point at issue, the question is being begged.

But regardless, all this has no relevance to the case of the Pericope de Adultera, which the author has admitted already is a unique case.

Can the Pericope De Adultera be classed as or compared to an 'interpolation'?

Not in a thousand years could any honest investigator convince himself that the Pericope is some kind of simple 'interpolation'. It is not just in a class by itself, it is the only possible instance of twelve whole verses being 'added' to a gospel. And the proposal is so fantastic that it demands a thorough investigation, BEFORE 'extreme suspicion' is branded upon the backside of a possible part of the Holy Word of God, as though it were a cow to be earmarked and quarantined from rest of the herd.

"Elsewhere in John's Gospel"?

What can this mean? Does she also want to count a position at the end of the Gospel? It is placed there occasionally by scribes who noticed it missing in the text. But no one, not even the scribes putting it there could possibly imagine that is where it is supposed to be. The actions of these late Medieval scribes would obviously be best interpreted as a concern that the verses might be lost.

As for the text appearing somewhere else actually in John, only a handful of extremely late MSS place it incorrectly in John (from memory?) , either after verse 7:36 or a few verses off from its original position. We are told that "In MSS 225 the pericope stands after John 7:36.". That is, one late manuscript stands against the 1,350+ others, plus versions, fathers and 1000 lectionaries. Not even a textual note or a mention by an early father even hints that the reading of codex 225 even existed as an error before the 10th century.

This was probably the kind of thing that happens when a scribe exits to relieve himself, and the wind blows a page over, causing him to copy a portion from the wrong part of an exemplar (master copy). How can the toilet habits of a 12th century copyist be of any use to us whatsoever?

Also, the closely related handful of late manuscripts called the Ferrar Group try to place it in Luke (to save it from being deleted?). But since they are all admittedly descended from the same ancient (9th cent.?) copy, they stand again as one rather late witness against all the rest of the MSS base, including those who mark the passage with asterisks, include it in the margin, or drop it entirely.

That is, two idiots in the latter days clumsily inserted the passage in the wrong place; but no textual critic in 400 years of studying the problem has even considered these two cases as being anything but preposterous. Hardly a single critic considers either of these two cases as significant in any way, or having a bearing on either the position or the authenticity of the passage.

That is, these two irrelevant anachronistic anomalies are just a smoke-screen, which vanishes with the slightest disturbance caused by a bit of sunlight.

Indeed. If it actually were found in widely variant places that would make it unique. Since it is not, this cannot be the reason that this textual problem is 'unique'.

Internal Evidence Obscured

So much for the external evidence, so fraudulently offered. What about the 'internal evidence'?

Once again we find something strange going on:

You'll pardon me for re-splitting and restoring the two separate threads running through this paragraph, which were blended to create an additional distraction and smokescreen.

This is an old hypnotic / political technique, to bamboozle the audience while selling snake-oil. Seeing the two separate arguments separately exposes clearly the fraud:

Why hasn't she told us who? The answer is simple: The 'some' are three of the most important and earliest witnesses to the shenanegans being played with the text:
Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome!

Augustine says,

And Jerome adds,

And there are other witnesses. But the point is, what better witnesses could be hoped for? Who knew more as to what was going on in the 4th and 5th centuries to account for the minority of ancient manuscripts which omit the verses, and at the same time the near unanimous rejection of the omission by the churches (except the Syrians of the Far East)?

Yet she can boldly say (lets hope she's just misquoting her professor):

- after she has just referred to the evidence above, so widely known? Who could possibly so misleadingly state the case, unless they meant to deceive?

Technically, yes, no public (liturgical) commentary comments on the verses, since they were not publicly read, and you don't comment during a service on what nobody has heard. And perhaps 'technically' one might also claim that there are only one or two marginal notes that fall into the category of 'evidence' here.

But this is such a dirty method of hiding the very evidence you are citing and its significance, that it can hardly be accidental.

Once again, a scandalously weak point is made to appear fatal to the opposing arguments, and the sources are left unnamed, unreferenced, uncredited.

In fact, the strong arguments referred to in favour of the verses were made by a dozen near-famous textual critics, all recognized experts. And these men knew all about the variants. Every one of them to a man presented plausible explanations for those variants: certainly more plausible than the proposal that the verses were later 'additions' to John.

No argument to date is a complete or perfect account of what has happened in the history of transmission. But there are good arguments on both sides of the case here, that should be properly presented and accredited.

In making one's own case for or against these verses, it is dishonest not to acknowledge or account for the counter-evidence and arguments properly and fairly.

The point is, this is not just a case of sloppy footnoting, or incomplete documentation of sources. This is deliberate deception as to the nature and sources of the counter-evidence, counter-arguments.

In a word, fraud. (again.)

All Sales Final for modern versions...

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't:

Here, in an incredible but modern and quite sophisticated switcheroo, the critics have apparently caved in and admitted that the Gospel without the passage as presented by the two 'oldest and best' witnesses is almost nonsensical with the seam crudely reclosed from the obvious hernia operation. The scar, which for 200 years was simply denied in homage to the Gods Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, is now praised as a 'beautymark'!

Yes, the evidence that the passage is genuine, so long denied, is now simply evidence that the passage is fake. Amazing that. What evidence could ever be presented in a court like this? It reminds us of the trials of Manson and his gang, where to get a conviction on Manson, they claimed he 'controlled' his followers: then to convict them, they 'proved' he didn't!

The End Justifies the Means (?):

This may be true for crafty lawyers, but most Christians would strongly object to this philosophy (I hope). And what is the 'end' here? To eject the Pericope de Adultera at all costs! What kind of goal is that?

That's right, in case someone tries to use one 'canon' or rule of textual criticism to reinstate the passage, the critics can pull out another arbitrary but contradictory one to neutralize it and maintain face while doing an 'about-face', or ordered retreat.

The more difficult reading is preferred to the easier one. (?)

This old 'canon' (which was never a 'common category' or general rule) was based upon the idea that 'a scribe was more likely to emend a difficult reading or perceived error than introduce a difficult reading with a plain one in front of him.' This would be true (only) for deliberate but small emendations or corrections.

Can this possibly apply as any kind of explanation for the deliberate invention and insertion of an entire story or paragraph? Give us a break. Even the author knows this is ludicrous, but tries to give it a spin anyway!

"As we have seen, the passage has been in many different places in the Gospels." (?)

Again the lie is repackaged and slipped in where tired or sloppy readers will perhaps just nod their heads; the lie now relies upon hypnotic suggestion rather than facts.

To ease the pain, the exaggerated claims of Bultmann and Dodd are trotted out but without acknowledging the source, in case it spooks the orthodox. All in all, it looks like a tale nurses tell children just before jabbing in the needle: "This may prick a bit..."

"this passage was added to even things out" (?)

What? Now we are supposed to imagine that a whole story was added to John, to smooth out a wrinkle? Wouldn't a simple sentence or two have done the same thing? Can arguments get any more implausible than this? Why not smooth out another five 'rough' patches with a half-dozen great anecdotes from the oral traditions? John is so brief, it could use beefing up...

Really? Or is the exact opposite the case? What case has been offered, that would somehow reverse the defacto probability that the majority of MSS would be right in most cases, while a minority of MSS with a minority reading would be wrong? I guess we'll have to await better arguments than this.

Wow: The two votes of NA/UBS overwhelmingly override the combined testimony of the majority of manuscripts of all ages, the versions, the early fathers, the Latin Vulgate, the acceptance of nearly every major branch of the church for 1400 years, and the united lectionary tradition.

But what can you do? They have 'Metzger'.

Or gives a high level of suspicion over the Alexandrian manuscripts of the 4th century, and a high level of absurdity for the opinions of the critics in control of the NA/UBS 'critical' Greek text.

Conclusion:

This 'piece', planted on the internet, was obviously either ghost-written by a devious but clever proponent of the UBS text, or a professional essay writer who knew just what the professor wanted to hear. In either case it appears to be a total fake from A to Z.

The closing statement, geared to reassure bible believing Christians that the 'assured results' of textual criticism are just dandy, reveals the true purpose and person(s) behind the document, just as surely as the bad grammar and childishly unrealistic statements in the Protocols of Zion betray that forgery.

Buyer beware.

---

Appendix:
Subsequent Exchange over Internet

Another Textual Critic Replies:

---

Nazaroo's Final Response:

And you also finally have something useful to say here. You are quite right. This is a form-criticism/redaction-criticism problem, not a textual one.

Is there a (real) doctor in the house?

And I would rather debate with a thousand Bultmanns over this intelligently, than listen to the nonsensical parrotting of previous textual critics.

---