On some textual variants in the Gospels

[patrick457]

That is how John’s gospel would run without 7:53 and 8:1-11. As you can see, the narrative still runs smoothly without it - in fact, it flows even better. Now the section we have omitted runs thus (again from the ESV):

They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

The two earliest manuscripts of John (both 3rd century) which have the relevant section, Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75, do not contain this section (known as the Pericope Adulterae) without any indication that something is missing at this point. It is also not found in two of the four great uncials: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (both 4th century), nor in many of the other uncials like Washingtonianus and Borgianus (5th century; note however that Washingtonianus has a blank leaf between the end of John and the beginning of Luke, which some interpret as exhibiting a knowledge of the section - given how no such space appears between Matthew and John or between Luke and Mark in the manuscript), Regius (8th), nor in many of the early translations (e.g. manuscripts in languages such as the Sahidic and Bohairic dialects of Coptic, the majority of Syriac versions, Gothic, some Armenian copies, and some Vetus Latina versions), nor even the majority of lectionaries. (See the Wikipedia page on the pericope for a full listing.)

Curiously, in the text of Codex Vaticanus there are umlauts (double-dots) of uncertain age which may be text-critical symbols. Two of these can be associated with the pericope: the first is next to the line which has the end of John 7:52, with the other being found at the end of John’s gospel. It is possible that the first umlaut indicates the missing pericope, but on the other hand this umlaut may equally well indicate the word-order variant at this position (“no prophet arises from Galilee;” the difference is untranslatable into English), where the codex reads ek tēs Galilaias prophētēs ouk egēgertai against the Byzantine reading prophētēs ek tēs Galilaias ouk egēgertai.

The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope in its present position is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae (late 4th-early 5th century), which is also the earliest surviving Latin manuscript to contain it. Generally speaking, the section only begins to become common in Byzantine manuscripts starting from the 9th century (up to then the manuscript attestation is - as one can see - rather sporadic), but even there scribes expressed reservations about it by making editorial marks or comments in the margin of the text. (A very curious example is the comment from the 11th-century Minuscule 1006, where the scribe somehow claims that the pericope is “according to the gospel of Thomas”!)

Not all the manuscripts that do contain the pericope place it in the traditional position. Manuscripts belonging to the Family 1 group of minuscules, for example, contain it at the end of the gospel (along with a slightly-lengthy editorial comment), while leaving a long space between 7:52 and 8:12, where the passage would have been. In fact, the pericope is known to have been placed in between John 7:36-37, 7:44-45, 8:12-13, 8:14a-14b, 8:20-21, or even Luke 21:38-39 or after Luke 24:53 in some manuscripts. Also, not every manuscript which have it contains every bit of the text: minuscule 759 for one contains John 7:53-8:2 but not 8:3-11.

Taking a break for now (again)…

 

[57Bill]

WOW!!! Thanks for the detail. Had wondered about this because the “Pericope Adulterae”
as it is called (and now I know more Latin:blush didn’t seem to ‘read’ as smoothly even maybe non-Johannine to me at least. Then I discovered through Thomas Brodie OP that it wasn’t in early manuscripts. Thanks again for your time taken!!

 

[dronald]

I must ask, does the adulterous woman story belong in the Bible or not? Did it actually happen?

 

[patrick457]

WOW!!! Thanks for the detail. Had wondered about this because the “Pericope Adulterae”
as it is called (and now I know more Latin:blush didn’t seem to ‘read’ as smoothly even maybe non-Johannine to me at least. Then I discovered through Thomas Brodie OP that it wasn’t in early manuscripts. Thanks again for your time taken!!

I’m not finished yet. Let’s move to the Fathers.

The 2nd century writer Papias, as referenced by the 4th-century historian Eusebius in Church History 3.39, referred to a story “of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.” This is usually taken as referring to an early version of the pericope, showing that it already existed in some form by the 2nd century. Note that Eusebius traces this story from the elusive ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’, and also, what sins the woman was said to have committed were never specified - only that she was “accused of many sins.” The Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum (2.24) from the 3rd century, meanwhile, tells a story of a sinful woman forgiven by Jesus which is similar to our pericope. Note that this reference does not also indicate John’s gospel as its source and never specifies the woman’s supposed sin.

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.”

References to the pericope in its present form increase from the 4th century onward. The interesting thing about it is, most of those who refer to the passage are from the West. St. Ambrose and his protege St. Augustine are two of the main writers who testify to the existence of this pericope in John. Ambrose refers to this pericope a number of times, while Augustine 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 Christ had sanctioned adultery:

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.

The sole Eastern writer who refers to this passage pre-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.

Didymus’ testimony is somewhat confirmed by the umlauts of Codex Vaticanus I’ve mentioned earlier.

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/7940/sf5.gif

Of note, however, is the fact that Didymus still does not specify which gospel this pericope is to be found (only noting that it is found “in certain gospels,” i.e. in certain manuscripts) nor the woman’s sin.

Jerome (who did for a time study under Didymus in the famed Alexandrian School) 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. Another person who studied under Didymus, Tyrannius Rufinus (c. 340-410) translated Eusebius’ work into Latin around 402-403 and substituted Papias’ reference to “a woman accused of many sins” with an “adulterous woman” (muliere adultera), reflecting his conviction that Papias was indeed discussing the pericope.

 

[57Bill]

Thanks again!!!

 

[patrick457]

The oldest Latin source for the pericope is Pacian, bishop of Barcelona (ca. 310-391), who makes a brief reference to the story in one of his letters (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.

This brief reference indicates only that he knew a story in which the Lord did not condemn an “adulteress” (as in the canonical version, but not Papias/Eusebius or Didymus) and that it stood in a “gospel.” Ambrose himself, while quoting snippets of it (the woman as an “adulteress;” “Let him who is without sin…”) does not 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 the pericope’s Jesus did not condemn the adulteress. (cf. his student Augustine’s theory that the story was suppressed for precisely this reason.)

A 6th-7th century Syriac translation of an anonymous Greek work known as Historia Eclesiastica (Church History) makes reference to a particular version of the pericope.

Now there was inserted in the Gospel of the holy Moro the bishop, in the 89th canon, a chapter which is related only by John in his Gospel, and is not found in other manuscripts, a section running thus:

It happened one day, while Jesus was teaching, they brought him a woman who had been found to be with child of adultery, and told him about her. And Jesus said to them, since as God he knew their shameful passions and also their deeds, ‘What does He command in the law?’ and they said to him: ‘That at the mouth of two or three witnesses she should be stoned.’ But he answered and said to them: ‘In accordance with the law, whoever is pure and free from these sinful passions, and can bear witness with confidence and authority, as being under no blame in respect of this sin, let him bear witness against her, and let him first throw a stone at her, and then those that are after him, and she shall be stoned.’ But they, because they were subject to condemnation and blameworthy in respect of this sinful passion went out one by one from before him and left the woman. And when they had gone, Jesus looked upon the ground and, writing in the dust there, said to the woman: ‘They who brought you here and wished to bear witness against you, having understood what I said to them, which you have heard, have left you and departed. Do you also, therefore, go your way, and commit not this sin again.’​

Moro (aka Mara) bar-Kustant was a Monophysite bishop of Amida who settled down in Alexandria at around AD 525 after being earlier expelled from his see, accumulating an extensive library, which was eventually transferred to Amida after his death. As Moro was said to have a good command of Greek, he presumably translated this passage from a particular Greek manuscript he had come across in Alexandria.

This is our first attestation of the pericope in Syrian sources. It is not found in the writings of Aphrahat (aka Aphraates; ca. 270-ca. 345), nor in the works of St. Ephrem (ca. 306-373), nor is it contained in the oldest Syriac versions of John. (Later manuscripts place it either after 7:52, in the margin, or as an appendix to the entire gospel. Several medieval Syriac copies ascribe the section to an ‘Abbot Paul’ - either Paul bishop of Tella, author of the Syro-Hexaplar version of the OT or less likely, the “abbot Paul” who translated the works of St. Gregory of Nazianzus into Syriac in Cyprus, both of whom lived around the early 7th century - who is said to have found it in Alexandria.) This “Mara” version of the pericope, consisting only of 8:2-11, shows some divergences from the canonical version: there is no attempt to entrap Jesus, who voluntarily interpolates Himself into the scene; the woman is “found to be with child of adultery;” the challenge to cast the stone is less pointed; Jesus writes in the ground after the accusers had left.

A third version of the pericope can be found in a 10th century Armenian manuscript (the Echmiadzin Gospels) standing at the common place after 7:52:

A certain woman was taken in sins, against whom all bore witness that she was deserving of death. They brought her to Jesus (to see) what he would command, in order that they might malign him. Jesus made answer and said, “Come ye, who are without sin, cast stones and stone her to death.” But he himself, bowing his head was writing with his finger on the earth, to declare their sins; and they were seeing their several sins on the stones. And filled with shame they departed, and no one remained, but only the woman. Saith Jesus, “Go in peace, and present the offering for sins, as in their law is written.”

 

[patrick457]

Thanks again!!!

Again and again, you’re welcome!


Codex Sangallensis 48 (9th century) with a blanked space where the pericope would have been

After centuries of silence, the first Greek writer to speak of the pericope (aside from Didymus the Blind) is the monk Euthymius Zigabenus/Zigadenus from the 12th century, who comments on 7:52:

But it is necessary to know that the things which are found from this place to that where it is said: “Therefore Jesus again spoke of these things saying, I am the light of the world:” in the more exact copies, these are either not found, or marked with an obelus, because they seem illegitimate and added. And the argument for this is because Chrysostom makes no mention anywhere of this; but for us we must also declare that this, because it is not without usefulness, is the chapter on the woman taken in adultery, which is placed between these.

Speaking of silent witnesses, none of the two early Greek fathers who made commentaries on John’s gospel, e.g. Origen and John Chrysostom, discussed the pericope. (While Origen’s commentary on John is in a fragmentary state, the parts where he quotes chapters 7 and 8 are extant: 7:25-30, 37-42, 46-48 and 51-52. He then skips to 8:12-25, 28-34 and so on.)

Two other silent witnesses, this time from the Latin side, include Tertullian (ca. 160-ca. 225) and St. Cyprian of Carthage (ca. 200-258). In Tertullian’s case, he was somewhat of a hard-line rigorist, which contributed to his adoption of Montanism late in life. In his De Pudicitia (On Modesty) - written after his becoming a Montanist - he has become disgusted with the complacent willingness by the orthodox Church to forgive almost anything, up to and including adultery and fornication. Responding to an episcopal decree that adultery and fornication could be forgiven after repentance, he argued - in characteristically rather harsh words - that those who committed adultery or fornication can only be forgiven once (just as people could only marry once), and must thereafter be left excommunicate; otherwise, the Church will be polluted with such people. For Tertullian, sins could be classified into ‘forgivable’ and ‘unforgivable’; adultery and fornication for him belonged in the latter category.

In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus—that is, the bishop of bishops—issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” (ch. 1)

Plainly, if you show by what patronages of heavenly precedents and precepts it is that you open to adultery alone, and therein to fornication also, the gate of repentance, at this very line our hostile encounter will forthwith cross swords. (ch. 6)

Tertullian then discusses a lot of scriptural evidence, and holds strictly to his view that adultery cannot be forgiven. With no word he mentions the pericope. One might argue that it is evident that he did not know the passage; otherwise the whole work would be unthinkable - after all, it’s written right there that Jesus forgave the woman.

 

[patrick457]

On the opposite end of the scale is Cyprian, who while holding the view that adultery is a grave sin, allowed for the possibility of repentance. In Letter 51 (To Antonianus) Cyprian cites John 5:14 and 2 Corinthians 12:21 in support of this view:

And, indeed, among our predecessors, some of the bishops here in our province thought that peace was not to be granted to adulterers, and wholly closed the gate of repentance against adultery. Still they did not withdraw from the assembly of their co-bishops, nor break the unity of the Catholic Church by the persistency of their severity or censure; so that, because by some peace was granted to adulterers, he who did not grant it should be separated from the Church. While the bond of concord remains, and the undivided sacrament of the Catholic Church endures, every bishop disposes and directs his own acts, and will have to give an account of his purposes to the Lord.
…]

Or if he appoints himself a searcher and judge of the heart and reins, let him in all cases judge equally. And as he knows that it is written, Behold, you are made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing happen unto you, (John 5:14) let him separate the fraudulent and adulterers from his side and from his company, since the case of an adulterer is by far both graver and worse than that of one who has taken a certificate, because the latter has sinned by necessity, the former by free will. …] And yet to these persons themselves repentance is granted, and the hope of lamenting and atoning is left, according to the saying of the same apostle: I fear lest, when I come to you, I shall bewail many of those who have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness which they have committed. (2 Corinthians 12:21)

One could argue that Cyprian could have made a better case by citing the pericope had he known about it (although granted, this is an argument from silence), but he does not.

 

[patrick457]

Before I go further, let’s recap the various versions of the story:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...t_and_the_Woman_Taken_in_Adultery_Bruegel.jpg

They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” (John 7:53-8:11)

And he [Papias] relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. (Papias/Eusebius)

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.” (Didascalia Apostolorum)

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. (Didymus the Blind)

It happened one day, while Jesus was teaching, they brought him a woman who had been found to be with child of adultery, and told him about her. And Jesus said to them, since as God he knew their shameful passions and also their deeds, ‘What does He command in the law?’ and they said to him: ‘That at the mouth of two or three witnesses she should be stoned.’ But he answered and said to them: ‘In accordance with the law, whoever is pure and free from these sinful passions, and can bear witness with confidence and authority, as being under no blame in respect of this sin, let him bear witness against her, and let him first throw a stone at her, and then those that are after him, and she shall be stoned.’ But they, because they were subject to condemnation and blameworthy in respect of this sinful passion went out one by one from before him and left the woman. And when they had gone, Jesus looked upon the ground and, writing in the dust there, said to the woman: ‘They who brought you here and wished to bear witness against you, having understood what I said to them, which you have heard, have left you and departed. Do you also, therefore, go your way, and commit not this sin again.’ (Mara of Amida)

A certain woman was taken in sins, against whom all bore witness that she was deserving of death. They brought her to Jesus (to see) what he would command, in order that they might malign him. Jesus made answer and said, “Come ye, who are without sin, cast stones and stone her to death.” But he himself, bowing his head was writing with his finger on the earth, to declare their sins; and they were seeing their several sins on the stones. And filled with shame they departed, and no one remained, but only the woman. Saith Jesus, “Go in peace, and present the offering for sins, as in their law is written.” (Echmiadzin Gospels)

While the structure of the story is basically the same across all of these - a woman accused of some sin/s is brought before Jesus, who forgives her - there are some divergences over the details, something noticeable if you’ll read carefully.

 

[patrick457]

I forgot to mention one point: the cycle of readings in the Eastern Church. In the Byzantine lectionary, John’s gospel is usually read during the fifty days between Pascha (Easter) and Pentecost Sunday - with some exceptions. It so happens that the gospel for Pentecost is John 7:37-52+8:12 - without the Pericope Adulterae. Because of this it is thought that at the time of the creation of the Lectionary system (which is usually thought to be around the 7th-9th century), or at least at the time of the fixation of the Pentecost reading, the text of the pericope was not yet present in John’s text. This probably (partly) explains the reason why a number of minuscules tended to place the pericope at different places in Luke or John: they already knew the pericope, but they did not want to disrupt the text as read in the Liturgy by inserting it in between 7:52 and 8:12.

Now for internal evidence. It is often said that the wording of the pericope is un-Johannine. While it is possible to trace several words and phrases which have Lukan characteristics (for example, the word kathisas “having sat down,” found four times in Luke and three in Acts; plēn “but (rather)/nevertheless/yet,” found fifteen times in Luke; pas ho laos “all the people,” found three times in Luke; or poreuomai “to go,” found forty-eight times in Luke, thirty-seven times in Acts and fourteen in John - three of which are from this pericope), it is somewhat difficult to name typically Johannine words and phrases from the pericope (possibly gynai “woman” - five times in John and two in Luke - or lithazō “to stone” - four times in John, twice in Acts - or touto de elegon peirazontes auton “they said this to test him;” cf. John 6:6, 7:39, 11:51, 12:6, 12:33, 21:19 etc.) Note however that that Lukan characteristics also appear in the secondary variants, which means that a special “Lukan” influence can be excluded. The authors of Luke and the pericope simply share a similar vocabulary and style. Hence, from its wording, the text of the passage does not appear characteristically Johannine, but also not characteristically Lukan. On the other hand it is also not dramatically different from John and Luke.

The first three verses of the pericope (7:53-8:2) are quite similar to Luke 21:37-38. In fact, minuscules belonging to Family 13 have the passage at this point.

(John) They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.

(Luke) And every day he was teaching in the temple, but at night he went out and lodged on the mount called Olivet. And early in the morning all the people came to him in the temple to hear him.

An important argument against a secondary omission is that it is difficult to explain why 7:53-8:2 have been omitted when these verses would have fitted well with the preceding verses and there is no reason for an omission.

 

[patrick457]

As for the narrative context, it can be argued that the presence of the pericope (specifically, 8:3-11) actually disrupts the flow of the story, which flows better without it: I think that the reference to “the Pharisees” in 8:13 provides a good continuity link to 7:45-52 (where the temple guards return to “the chief priests and the Pharisees,” having failed to seize Jesus).

In fact, the pericope proper seems to create a continuity error. In 8:9, “the scribes and the Pharisees” who brought the woman to Jesus “went away one by one, beginning with the older ones.” (I should also note another thing: the phrase “the scribes and the Pharisees” occurs only here and sounds rather un-Johannine, being more commonly found in the synoptics; John more often prefers to pair the Pharisees with “the chief priests,” as in 7:45.) But in 8:13, “the Pharisees” accuse Jesus of false witness. This ‘continuity error’ becomes more serious if one takes the comment that “Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him” to mean that “all the people” mentioned in verse 2 left along with “the scribes and the Pharisees,” thus literally leaving only Jesus and the woman on the scene, since in 8:12 Jesus is said to address a “them” (presumably either “the Judaeans”/“the crowd” mentioned in 7:15, 20 or “all the people” mentioned in 8:2).

Philip Comfort had argued that Jesus’ “light of the world” statement in John 8:12 is an allusion to Isaiah 9:1-2 ("…the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone.") In this reading, Jesus appears to respond to the Pharisees’ assertion that no prophet comes from the Galilee in 7:52 by referring to this passage. If this is correct, it shows how better a fit 8:12 is with chapter 7 than 8:11.

On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”
Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This really is the Prophet.”
Others said, “This is the Christ.”
But some said, “Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?”
So there was a division among the people over him. Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him.
The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why did you not bring him?”
The officers answered, “No one ever spoke like this man!”

The Pharisees answered them, “Have you also been deceived? Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.”
Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?”
They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.”​

Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
So the Pharisees said to him, “You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.”​

Again, here is a link to Wieland Willker’s more comprehensive (and I daresay, probably more accurate than my incoherent ramblings) discussion of the textual variant.

 

[patrick457]

I must ask, does the adulterous woman story belong in the Bible or not? Did it actually happen?

If you’re asking about the pericope’s canonical status, at least within the Catholic Church the pericope, despite its probably not being a part of the original gospel of John, is still officially considered Scripture, by virtue of the Council of Trent’s declaration.

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

The Vulgate includes the pericope.

“Did it actually happen”? I don’t have a time machine handy, but I personally think that while the pericope may not have been Johannine, the reference to a similar story from the 2nd-3rd century from Papias and the Didascalia Apostolorum may show that the episode is very early tradition and thus probably even likely to have been authentic.

 

[patrick457]

Moving on:

8.) "The sixth hour"

So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Aramaic Gabbatha. Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” (John 19:13-14 ESV)

There is a variant that reads, instead of “the sixth hour” (ὥρα … ἕκτη hōra … hektē), “the third hour” (ὥρα … τρίτη hōra … tritē). This is the reading found in such as Codex Regius, Athous Lavrensis (Ψ, 9th-10th c.), Sangallensis, Monacensis (X, 9th/10th c.), and Bezae (part of a later supplement; note that the variant is only present in the Greek). The second corrector (7th century) of Codex Sinaiticus had also ‘fixed’ the reading from “sixth” to “third.”

Unlike the variants we have discussed earlier, the following variant is pretty easy to explain. It simply involves an attempt to smoothen out what may seem to be a contradiction between two gospels, in this case, Mark 15:25 (“It was the third hour, and they crucified him”).

Speaking of Mark, some scribes had also changed the reading there from “third” to “sixth,” this time in an attempt to harmonize the text with that of John’s version. This is the reading of Codex Koridethi (Θ, 9th century) and some Syriac manuscripts (the margins of the Harklean version).

 

[patrick457]

9.) The two thieves

Now for totally minor and relatively unimportant variants found in Vetus Latina manuscripts.

The medieval (11th-12th century) Latin manuscript Codex Colbertinus attempts to give names to the two robbers crucified with Jesus in the texts of Matthew and Mark.

(Matt. 27:38) Tunc crucifixerunt cum eo duo latrones unus a dextris nomine Zoatham et unus a sinistris nomine Camma ("…one on the right, named Zoatham, and one on the left, named Camma")

(Mark 15:27) Et crucifixerunt cum eo duos latrones unum a dextris nomine Zoathan et alium a sinistris nomine Chammatha ("…one on the right, named Zoathan, and another on the left, named Chammatha")

Codex Rehdigeranus (l, ca. 7th-8th century) does the same for the Lukan passion account (23:32): Ducebantur autem et alii duo latrones cum eo, Ioathas et Maggatras, ut crucifigerentur. The fragmentary codex Usserianus Primus (r1, 6th-7th century) reads*…et Capnatas* ("… and Capnatas").

As is often the case with nameless characters in the Bible, a lot of names have been applied to the two robbers (naming first the criminal on the right, followed by the one on the left):

(Western)

Zoatham, Camma (Colbertinus, Matthew 27:38)
Zoathan, Chammatha (Colbertinus, Mark 15:27)
Ioathas, Maggatras (Rehdigeranus, Luke 23:32)
…], Capnatas (Usserianus I, Luke 23:32)
Ioaras, Gamatras (Inventiones Nominum, 8th century)
Ionathas, Gomatras (Adrian and Epictus)
Matha, Ioca (Pseudo-Bede, Excerpta et Collectanea, 8th century?)
Dismas, Gesmas (Golden Legend)
Vicimus, Iustinus (Historia Christi Persice conscripta, Jerome Xavier)

(Eastern/Oriental)

Dysmas, Gestas (Acts of Pilate)
Demas/Dimas/Damas/Dymas/Dēmas/Dymakus, Stegas/Kustas/Kestas/Titas (variants in Greek/Latin/Syriac/Armenian/Coptic)
Demas, Gestas/Geustas (Story of Joseph of Arimathaea, Greek)
Titus, Dumachus (Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, Book of the Bee, Bar-Hebraeus, Arabic/Syriac)
Titus, Zumachus (Book of the Holy Hierotheos, Syriac)
Ṭeṭos, Dârkès/Dâkrès (The Miracles of Jesus, Ethiopic)
Ṭiṭus, Daumakas/Dūmakas (Arabic Apocryphal Gospel of John)

 

[patrick457]

Anyone got anything?

 

[patrick457]

I’d be happy if someone brought up the so-called Western Non-Interpolations (which admittedly isn’t the very best term in the world).

 

[57Bill]

maybe something a wee bit lighter?

Well I’ll ask a tangent question… Did any of the Gospels contain Nomina sacra?

If so was it because many of these were being shared in codex and not scrolls?

Was it in earliest manuscripts? Is it present in most of the NT manuscripts and for that matter any ECF writings?

Thanks…

 

[patrick457]

maybe something a wee bit lighter?

Well I’ll ask a tangent question… Did any of the Gospels contain Nomina sacra?

If so was it because many of these were being shared in codex and not scrolls?

Was it in earliest manuscripts? Is it present in most of the NT manuscripts and for that matter any ECF writings?

Thanks…

Just a little introduction on what the heck nomina sacra is for people who don’t know. Nomina sacra (Latin for ‘sacred names’) is basically this scribal practice of abbreviating certain words or names which have some connection with God or Jesus and thus are deemed to be ‘sacred’. These contractions were usually indicated with overlines.

Nomina sacra are formed by taking the first one or two letters of the words, plus the final letter(s) to determine the inflection - since Greek is an inflected language (meaning that each word actually changes form, or inflection, based upon the role that it plays in the sentence). So for example the word θεός theos (‘god’, nominative) would be abbreviated as ΘϹ (= ΘEOϹ); Ἰησοῦς Iēsous (‘Jesus’, also nominative) could be abbreviated either as IHC or IC (= IHCOYC). The accusative of theos (θεόν theon), meanwhile, would be abbreviated as ΘΝ (= ΘEOΝ), and so on and so forth. You probably get the drift.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The above is a list of the fifteen standard nomina sacra that has been adopted in the Byzantine period. Earlier than that there wasn’t really a fixed standard - while words like ‘Lord’ or ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ’ was contracted from early on, in the case of the other words, a certain scribe might abbreviate it while another scribe might not. (The word for ‘mother’ in fact was not abbreviated until after the 4th century - coincidentally around the time we see an increasing veneration of Mary. Note that there is another Marian nomen sacrum: ΘKC for t(heoto)k(o)s ‘God-bearer’.) Early usage was also quite haphazard: some might abbreviate a given word regardless of the context in which it appears, while others would reserve it for specific instances. For example, some scribes might use the abbreviation IC for Joshua (who is also sometimes known as Iēsous ‘Jesus’ in Greek!), but in later use it would have been reserved exclusively for Jesus Christ.

Anyone who is familiar with Eastern iconography will recognize some form of nomina sacra in the identificatory inscriptions found in icons. Look for example at this one:

http://www.stjohnaz.org/tasks/sites/stjohnaz/cache/file/B63B8E14-DAB8-47D7-973083985D9C9815.jpg

You would notice the abbreviations MP ΘY (standing for Μήτηρ Θεόυ Mētēr Theou, ‘Mother of God’) and IC XC (I(ēsou)s C(hristo)s ‘Jesus Christ’).

On the Western side, the famous IHS (JHS)/IHC monogram is also a carryover of this practice:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/OFM_Holy_Name_Province_-San_Damiano_Hall_Provincial_Offices_IHS.jpg/640px-OFM_Holy_Name_Province_-San_Damiano_Hall_Provincial_Offices_IHS.jpg

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[patrick457]

To get back at your question:

Did any of the Gospels contain Nomina sacra?

If so was it because many of these were being shared in codex and not scrolls?

Was it in earliest manuscripts? Is it present in most of the NT manuscripts and for that matter any ECF writings?

I would tell you something: the practice of nomina sacra is really a specific characteristic of Christian scribes. In fact, it has become quite universal among Christians by the 3rd century that you can tell a Christian copy of the Old Testament from a Jewish one by the presence or the absence of nomina sacra.

Yes, it is present in most (or should I say all) early Christian manuscripts, Scripture or not - the practice became standard at a very early date. Some of the earliest papyri we have like Papyrus 32 (Titus 1:11-15; 2:3-8, late 2nd century), Papyrus 46 (most of Paul’s letters, ca. 175-225), Papyrus 66 (John, ca. AD 200), Papyrus 75 (Luke-John, ca. 175-225), or Papyrus 90 (John 18:36-19:7, late 2nd century) all have nomina sacra. However, it wasn’t of course always the case. It is most likely that the original autographs did not have them. In fact, it is still debated whether Papyrus 52 (the earliest fragment of a canonical New Testament text we have, from around the early 2nd century) contained nomina sacra or not.

We don’t exactly know why the practice of nomina sacra started. There could be the practical element involved (back when people still wrote books by hand and when writing materials cost some money, abbreviating words, particularly common ones, served the practical purpose of conserving both space and energy), or perhaps Christians (also) wanted to visibly and visually denote that these names and titles are in some way special.

 

[57Bill]

Thanks patrick457, the “MP ΘY” is gorgeous! There is some fascinating early church art in The London National Museum. If you ever get a chance. Focus of this art was the Passion and Death, Mary as Mother of God and Mary’s coronation in heaven.

BTW in reading a book on ECF’s there was mention of the “missing” part of Gospel of John in the Papias scroll/fragments. (which you mentioned above) …a small bell rang!

Thanks…again.