Can We Reconstruct The New Testament Using The Early Church Fathers?

[patrick457]

I’m sure most of us have heard we can reconstruct the entire New Testament less eleven verses using the Early Church Father quotes from the 1st – 2nd century. I’m not sure if that statement is accurate. If it were only less eleven verses, then we would find the story of the adulteress woman in St John’s gospel among their quotes.

Does anybody know which eleven verses the Church Fathers did not quote? Are they the ending to St Mark’s gospel?

I’d like to tip you off to a book: The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers by the Oxford Society of Historical Theology (1905).

 

[patrick457]

I do

Okay, I did my survey. Before I give my results, I want to explain my methodology.

The famous 37-volume set of the Church Fathers was translated in the 19th century. I have not done a complete study of the men who did the translations, but I believe that for the most part they were Reformed or Presbyterian theologians and scholars. When translating the Fathers’ citations from Sacred Scripture, they tended to use the wording from the KJV. Therefore, I picked two text strings that are unique to each of the passages in question: “in the very act” and “and sin no more” from the John 8, and “upbraided them” and “take up serpents” from the supposed extended ending of Mark. I also expanded my search to all 9 volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Here are my results, which are pretty meager.

I found only one citation of any kind from John 8:1-11, and that was only the phrase “go and sin no more,” quoted completely out of context in Section 6 of Pope Callistus’ 2nd Epistle, which was written to the bishops of Gaul.

That’s because when most of the Fathers who are aware of the pericope reference it they simply summarize its contents rather than quote the passage wholesale. Here’s one from a Syriac work known as Didascalia Apostolorum (2.24) from the 3rd century.

Do as he also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed. But he, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her, “Have the elders condemned you, my daughter?” She says to him, “No, Lord.” And he said to her, “Go your way: neither do I condemn you.”

Note though that this reference does not indicate John’s gospel as its source and never specifies the woman’s supposed sin - only that she sinned.

It’s around the 4th century that we get references to the pericope in its present form. The thing is, most of those who refer to the passage are from the West, like St. Ambrose (c. 340-397) and his protege St. Augustine (354-430). Ambrose quoted snippets of it (the woman as an “adulteress;” “Let him who is without sin…”), but he doesn’t say which gospel he derives this story from. He provides an important insight into the reception of the episode among contemporary Christians when he remarks that some people were disturbed with the fact that Jesus in the story did not condemn the adulteress. Augustine meanwhile went so far as to claim that the passage may have been improperly excluded by “certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith” in order to avoid the impression that Jesus had condoned adultery (Confessions 4.10.17): “Certain 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 if he who had said, “Sin no more,” had granted permission to sin.”

Technically, the oldest Latin author who references the story - again not specifically stating which gospel it comes from - is bishop Pacian of Barcelona (ca. 310-391; Epistle 3.39):

Why delay ye, O Novatians, to ask eye for eye, tooth for tooth, to demand life for life, to renew once more the practice of circumcision and the sabbath? 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.

The only writer from the East who refers to this passage before the 12th century is the Alexandrian Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398), who says in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes:

We find, therefore, in certain gospels: A woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to happen. The Savior, it says, when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her, said to those who were about to cast stones, “He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and cast it. If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her.” And no one dared. Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things, they did not dare to strike her.

St. Jerome (who did for a time study under Didymus) reports that “the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord” was to be found in its usual place “in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin” in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th century. I mentioned Tyrannius Rufinus (c. 340-410), the guy who translated Eusebius’ work into Latin around 402-403 and who Papias’ more vague reference to “a woman accused of many sins” with the more pointed “adulterous woman” (muliere adultera). He’s also a former student of Didymus.

 

[DaveBj]

That’s because when most of the Fathers who are aware of the pericope reference it they simply summarize its contents rather than quote the passage wholesale. . . Here’s one from a Syriac work known as Didascalia Apostolorum (2.24) from the 3rd century.

Do as he also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed. But he, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her, “Have the elders condemned you, my daughter?” She says to him, “No, Lord.” And he said to her, “Go your way: neither do I condemn you.”

Note though that this reference does not indicate John’s gospel as its source and never specifies the woman’s supposed sin - only that she sinned.

It’s around the 4th century that we get references to the pericope in its present form. The thing is, most of those who refer to the passage are from the West, like St. Ambrose (c. 340-397) and his protege St. Augustine (354-430). Ambrose quoted snippets of it (the woman as an “adulteress;” “Let him who is without sin…”), but he doesn’t say which gospel he derives this story from. He provides an important insight into the reception of the episode among contemporary Christians when he remarks that some people were disturbed with the fact that Jesus in the story did not condemn the adulteress. Augustine meanwhile went so far as to claim that the passage may have been improperly excluded by “certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith” in order to avoid the impression that Jesus had condoned adultery (Confessions 4.10.17): “Certain 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 if he who had said, “Sin no more,” had granted permission to sin.”

Technically, the oldest Latin author who references the story - again not specifically stating which gospel it comes from - is bishop Pacian of Barcelona (ca. 310-391; Epistle 3.39):

Why delay ye, O Novatians, to ask eye for eye, tooth for tooth, to demand life for life, to renew once more the practice of circumcision and the sabbath? 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.

The only writer from the East who refers to this passage before the 12th century is the Alexandrian Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398), who says in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes:

We find, therefore, in certain gospels: A woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to happen. The Savior, it says, when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her, said to those who were about to cast stones, “He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and cast it. If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her.” And no one dared. Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things, they did not dare to strike her.

St. Jerome (who did for a time study under Didymus) reports that “the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord” was to be found in its usual place “in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin” in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th century. I mentioned Tyrannius Rufinus (c. 340-410), the guy who translated Eusebius’ work into Latin around 402-403 and who Papias’ more vague reference to “a woman accused of many sins” with the more pointed “adulterous woman” (muliere adultera). He’s also a former student of Didymus.

Two points: First, the OP was talking about reconstructing the NT, and that, by necessity, would mean putting together verbatim quotations that could be linked to other verbatim quotations. Summary paraphrases or mentions of “the story of the adulterous woman” don’t count. Second, the OP was talking about the writings of the Fathers in the first couple centuries. I expanded my search to include all the ante-Nicean Fathers. The First Council of Nicea was in 325. Jerome and the other Fathers that you mention are post-Nicean.

 

[thistle]

I’m sure most of us have heard we can reconstruct the entire New Testament less eleven verses using the Early Church Father quotes from the 1st – 2nd century. I’m not sure if that statement is accurate. If it were only less eleven verses, then we would find the story of the adulteress woman in St John’s gospel among their quotes.

Does anybody know which eleven verses the Church Fathers did not quote? Are they the ending to St Mark’s gospel?

ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml