hatsoff

I would tend to agree that it seems to have been a phenomenon limited mostly to the twelfth and surrounding centuries.

Greek mss? I'm not so sure. It is difficult to say what was the majority Greek text in century XII. I'd be curious to see what the extant mss. evidence from that period indicates. A lot of textual corruptions seem to have originated in non-original languages. In this case, I'd be suspicious of a Syriac interpolation which migrated to the Latin before the Greek.

Well, obviously the scribes were working from mss. missing the pericope, but I would have to see some direct evidence before I agreed with you on how they attempted to correct those omissions. Can you cite some parallel variant readings between lectionary texts and the "aberrant" mss.?

I agree, but that only means that the scribes believed they were restoring the original, not that they actually were.

You'll have to explain what you mean in a bit more detail. It sounds to me like you're suggesting the scribes intentionally left a textually genealogical fingerprint on their productions for the benefit of future sleuths--a wholly absurd notion.

Even if what you say about the similarities between lectionaries and the aberrants is true (and let me stress again that I need to see some specific examples of this if I am ever to be convinced on the larger issue), your explanation for them seems both unlikely and irrelevant to authenticity of the PA. More likely would be that the scribes responsible for the "floating" placed an unusual importance on lectionary texts, forcing their productions to conform where their source ms. or mss. did not. The only way I can see how a scribe might have patched together lectionary fragments into a framework of a complete non-lectionary source is if the he were not copying but rather translating (or back-translating), and lectionaries already written in the target language were used to ease their work burden. But of course that would be an inventive explanation based not on evidence but wishful thinking--a term I think you yourself used recently.

Except that the omissions stretch back to at least the fourth century. And anyway, it makes considerably more sense even without those early examples that the mss. which included, not omitted or misplaced, the pericope are the reconstructions, based on lectionaries or not.

I highly doubt scribes would be concerned with such things. More likely they were simply interested in restoring (as they saw it) and thus improving their own copies.

Plausible is a relative term; anything is possible, as the saying goes. Yet not only are both of your proposed explanations very unlikely on their own merit, but they are countered by much more likely alternatives.

We might expect something like that among Greek mss. But there are other explanations.

Among Greek mss.? Again, I'm not so sure.

Or maybe the older mss. were in decay and required copying. This could easily explain the lag between its probably original insertion in the fourth century and the floaters in the twelfth.

It would be if the variants did not agree. 95% is great...but so is the other 5%. An explanation is required, and it is not a simple case of majority rules.

If that were the case I would reserve opinion, not run to the opposing camp.

I already told you. I made a suggestion (and I am making it again) that you take a step back, as it were. I'm not making ad hominem attacks, but simply noting the impression I get from you. I should hope that you can see that from the substance of my posts.

It has already been shown. You just have raised inappropriate objections to the arguments most consider conclusive.

Gamera

Let's assume it's Eusebius. Does that influence the likelihood that the pericope is authentically johannine?

Roller

From what I understand, either way it does not help the PA as being authentically Johannine. Its not sure what the story exactly was (since there are similar stories in gospels), and its not mentioned in connection with PA.

Roller

Gamera, try here at p. 8 and here at p. 11

JoeWallack

JW:
For reference purposes here is the Complete Metzger and UBS related commentary from their 1994 Edition of A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament. Enjoy!:


"7.53–8.11 Pericope of the Adulteress

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as P66, 75 א B L N T W X Y Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc, s and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts1 and the Old Georgian version2 omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita, l*, q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.

When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.3

At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John’s narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 (D E (F) G H K M U Γ �* 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44 (several Georgian mss)4 or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after Lk 21.38 (f 13). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses that contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials.

Sometimes it is stated that the pericope was deliberately expunged from the Fourth Gospel because Jesus’ words at the close were liable to be understood in a sense too indulgent to adultery. But, apart from the absence of any instance elsewhere of scribal excision of an extensive passage because of moral prudence, this theory fails “to explain why the three preliminary verses (vii 53; viii 1–2), so important as apparently descriptive of the time and place at which all the discourses of c. viii were spoken, should have been omitted with the rest” (Hort, “Notes on Select Readings,” pp. 86 f.).

Although the Committee was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following Jn 7.52.

Inasmuch as the passage is absent from the earlier and better manuscripts that normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make a decision among alternative readings. In any case it will be understood that the level of certainty ({A}) is within the framework of the initial decision relating to the passage as a whole.

P P = Papyrus.
66

ms. nr.
*P66

saec.
ca. 200

bibliotheca
Cologny, Bibl. Bodmer., P. Bodmer II; Dublin, Chester Beatty Libr., P. Chester Beatty s. n.; Köln, Inst. für Altertumskunde, Inv. Nr. 4274/4298

cont.
J 1,1-6,11; 6,35-14,26.29-30; 15,2-26; 16,2-4.6-7; 16,10-20,20.22-23; 20,25-21,9

75

ms. nr.
*P75

saec.
III

bibliotheca
Cologny, Bibl. Bodmer., P. Bodmer XIV. XV

cont.
L 3,18-22; 3,33-4,2; 4,34-5,10; 5,37-6,4; 6,10-7,32. 35-39.41-43; 7,46-9,2; 9,4-17,15; 17,19-18,18; 22,4- fin.; J 1,1-11,45.48-57; 12,3-13,10; 14,8-15,10

א

ms. nr.
*א 01

saec.
IV

bibliotheca
London, Brit. Libr., Add. 43725

cont.
eapr

B

ms. nr.
*B 03

saec.
IV

bibliotheca
Citt�* del Vaticano, Bibl. Vat., Vat. gr. 1209

cont.
eap (vac 1T-Phm; H 9,14-fin.)

L

ms. nr.
*L 019

saec.
VIII

bibliotheca
Paris, Bibl. Nat., Gr. 62

cont.
e (vac. Mt 4,22-5,14; 28,17-fin.; Mc 10,16-30; 15,2-20; J 21,15-fin.)

ms. nr.
(*)L 020

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Roma, Bibl. Angelica, 39

cont.
ap (vac. Act 1,1-8,10; H 13,10-fin.)

N

ms. nr.
(*)N 022

saec.
VI

bibliotheca
St. Petersburg, Ross. Nac. Bibl., Gr. 537; Patmos, Joannu, 67; Citt�* del Vaticano, Bibl. Vat., Vat. gr. 2305; London, Brit. Libr., Cotton. Tit. C. XV; Wien, Österr. Nat. Bibl., Theol. gr. 31; Athen, Byz. Mus., Frg. 21; Lerma/Alessandria, A. Spinola; New York, Pierpont Morgan Libr., 874; Thessaloniki, Byz. Mus., Byz. Ms. 1

cont.
e (vac. Mt 1,1-24; 2,7-20; 3,4-6,24; 7,15-8,1.24-31; 10,28-11,3; 12,40-13,4.33-41; 14,6-22; 15,14-31; 16,7-18,5; 18,26-19,6; 19,13-20,6; 21,19-26,57; 26,65-27,26.34-fin.; Mc 1,1-5,20; 7,4-20; 8,32-9,1; 10,43-11,7; 12,19-14,25; 15,23-33.42-fin.; L 1,1-2,23; 4,3-19.26-35; 4,42-5,12; 5,33-9,7.21-28.36-58; 10,4-12; 10,35-11,14; 11,23-12,12.21-29; 18,32- 19,17; 20,30-21,22; 22,49-57; 23,41-24,13.21-39. 49-fin.; J 1,1-21; 1,39-2,6; 3,30-4,5; 5,3-10.19-26; 6,49-57; 9,33-14,2; 14,11-15,14; 15,22-16,15; 20,23-25.28-30; 21,20-fin.)

T

ms. nr.
*T 029
cum [0113];
[0125];
[0139]

saec.
V

bibliotheca
Citt�* del Vaticano, Bibl. Vat., Borg. Copt. 109 (Cass. 7,65,2); ibidem, Copt. 109 (Cass. 18,65); New York, Pierpont Morgan Libr., M 664A; Paris, Bibl. Nat., Copt.129,9, fol. 49. 65; 129,10, fol. 209 (= 0113); Copt. 129,9, fol. 76 (= 0125); Copt. 129,7, fol. 35; 129,8, fol. 121. 122. 140. 157 (= 0139)

cont.
L 6,18-26; 18,2-9.10-16; 18,32-19,8; 21,33-22,3; 22,20-23,20; 24,25-27.29-31; J 1,24-32; 3,10-17; 4,52- 5,7; 6,28-67; 7,6-8,31

W

ms. nr.
*W 032

saec.
IV/V

bibliotheca
Washington, Smithsonian Inst., Freer Gall. of Art, 06.274

cont.
e (vac. Mc 15,13-38; J [1,1-5,11 suppl.]; 14,26-16,7)

X

ms. nr.
X 033

saec.
X

bibliotheca
München, Univ. Bibl., 2° Cod. ms. 30

cont.
eK�*

Y

ms. nr.
Y 034

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Cambridge, Univ. Libr., Add. Mss. 6594

cont.
e�*

Δ�*

ms. nr.
(*)Δ 037

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
St. Gallen, Stiftsbibl., 48

cont.
e (vac. J 19,17-35)

Θ�*

ms. nr.
*Θ 038

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Tbilisi, Inst. rukop., Gr. 28

cont.
e (vac. Mt 1,1-9; 1,21-4,4; 4,17-5,4)

Ψ�*

ms. nr.
*Ψ 044

saec.
IX/X

bibliotheca
Athos, Lavra, B´ 52

cont.
eap (vac. Mt; Mc 1,1-9,5; H 8,11-9,19)

0141

ms. nr.
0141

saec.
X

bibliotheca
Paris, Bibl. Nat., Gr. 209

cont.
eK: J

0211

Number
0211

Content
e

Date
IX

22

ms. nr.
22

saec.
XII

bibliotheca
Paris, Bibl. Nat., Gr. 72

cont.
e�*

33

ms. nr.
*33

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Paris, Bibl. Nat., Gr. 14

cont.
eap (vac. Mc 9,31-11,11; 13,11-14,60; L 21,38-23,26)

124

ms. nr.
124

saec.
XI

bibliotheca
Wien, Österr. Nat. Bibl., Theol. gr. 188

cont.
e

157

ms. nr.
157

saec.
ca. 1122

bibliotheca
Citt�* del Vaticano, Bibl. Vat., Urb. gr. 2

cont.
e



209

ms. nr.
209

saec.
eap: XIV
r: XV

bibliotheca
Venezia, Bibl. Naz. Marc., Gr. Z. 10 (394)

cont.
eapr

788

ms. nr.
788

saec.
XI

bibliotheca
Athen, Nat. Bibl., 74

cont.
e

828

ms. nr.
828

saec.
XII

bibliotheca
Grottaferrata, Bibl. della Badia, A. α. 5

cont.
e

1230

ms. nr.
1230

saec.
1124

bibliotheca
Sinai, Katharinen-Kl., Gr. 193

cont.
eK

1241

ms. nr.
(*)1241

saec.
XII

bibliotheca
Sinai, Katharinen-Kl., Gr. 260

cont.
eap (vac. Mt 8,14-13,3; Act 17,10-18; [1K 2,10-fin.; 2K 13,3-fin.; G; E 2,15-fin.; Ph; Kol; H 11,3-fin.; Jc-Jd suppl. vel alia manu])

1242

ms. nr.
1242

saec.
XIII

bibliotheca
Sinai, Katharinen-Kl., Gr. 261

cont.
eap

1253

ms. nr.
1253

saec.
XV

bibliotheca
Sinai, Katharinen-Kl., Gr. 303

cont.
eK�*

2193 2193 No information available on this manuscript.
al alia (other witnesses)
A

ms. nr.
*A 02

saec.
v

bibliotheca
London, Brit. Libr., Royal 1 D. VIII

cont.
eapr (vac. Mt 1,1-25,6; J 6,50-8,52; 2K 4,14-12,6)

C

ms. nr.
*C 04

saec.
V

bibliotheca
Paris, Bibl. Nat., Gr. 9

cont.
eapr (vac Mt 1,1-2; 5,15-7,5; 17,26-18,28; 22,21- 23,17; 24,10-45; 25,30-26,22; 27,11-46; 28,15-fin.; Mc 1,1-17; 6,32-8,5; 12,30-13,19; L 1,1-2; 2,5-42; 3,21-4,25; 6,4-36; 7,17-8,28; 12,4-19,42; 20,28-21,20; 22,19-23,25; 24,7-45; J 1,1-3; 1,41-3,33; 5,17- 6,38; 7,3-8,34; 9,11-11,7; 11,47-13,7; 14,8-16,21; 18,36-20,25; Act 1,1-2; 4,3-5,34; 6,8; 10,43-13,1; 16,37-20,10; 21,31-22,20; 23,18-24,15; 26,19-27,16; 28,5-fin.; R 1,1-2; 2,5-3,21; 9,6-10,15; 11,31- 13,10; 1K 1,1-2; 7,18-9,6; 13,8-15,40; 2K 1,1-2; 10,8-fin.; G 1,1-20; E 1,1-2,18; 4,17-fin.; Ph 1,1-22; 3,5-fin.; Kol 1,1-2; 1Th 1,1; 2,9-fin.; 2Th; 1T 1,1- 3,9; 5,20-fin.; 2T 1,1-2; Tt 1,1-2; Phm 1-2; H 1,1- 2,4; 7,26-9,15; 10,24-12,15; Jc 1,1-2; 4,2-fin.; 1P 1,1-2; 4,5-fin.; 2P 1,1; 1J 1,1-2; 4,3-fin.; 2J; 3J 1-2; Jd 1-2; Ap 1,1-2; 3,20-5,14; 7,14-17; 8,5-9,16; 10,10- 11,3; 16,13-18,2; 19,5-fin.)


syr syr Syriac.
c syrc Curetonian (Burkitt, McConaughy). Old Syriac, third/fourth century.
s syrs Sinaitic (Lewis, The Old Syriac Gospels). Old Syriac, third/fourth century.
p syrp (Pusey/Gwilliam; Gwilliam/Pinkerton/Kilgour; cf. Aland/Juckel). Peshitta, first half of fifth century.
1 According to a note in Zohrab’s edition of the Armenian version, “Only five of the thirty manuscripts we used preserve here the addition [i. e. the pericope of the adulteress] found in Latin manuscripts. The remainder usually agree with our exemplar in placing it as a separate section at the end of the Gospel, as we have done. But in six of the older manuscripts the passage is completely omitted in both places” (translated by Erroll E Rhodes, who comments as follows in a note to the present writer: “When the pericope is found in manuscripts after 7.52, it is frequently accompanied with an asterisk or other symbol”).
2 The pericope is lacking in the Adysh ms. (a.d. 897), the Opiza ms. (a.d. 913), and the Tbet’ ms. (a.d. 995).
it it Old Latin
a

ms. nr.
a 3

saec.
IV

bibliotheca
Vercelli, Bibl. Capitolare

cont.
e (vac. Mt 25,2-12; Mc 1,22-34; 15,15–16,20; L 11,12-26; 12,37-59)

l

ms. nr.
l 11

saec.
VIII

bibliotheca
Berlin, Staatsbibl., Depot Breslau 5 (Rehdigeranus 169)

cont.
e (vac. Mt 1,1–2,15; L 11,28-37; J 1,1-16; 6,32-61; 11,56–12,10; 13,34–14,22; 15,3-15; 16,13–21,25)

* * The original reading of a manuscript (when the reading ofa manuscript has been corrected); correlative with c.
q

ms. nr.
q 13

saec.
VI/VII

bibliotheca
München, Bayer. Staatsbibl., Clm 6224 (Frising. 24)

cont.
e (vac. Mt 3,15–4,23; 5,25–6,4; 6,28–7,8; 23,13-28; Mc 1,7-21; 15,5-36; L 23,23-35; 24,11-39; J 10,11–12,38; 21,9-17.18-20)

3 Occasionally an attempt is made to support the Johannine authorship of the pericope by appealing to linguistic and literary considerations (e. g. J. P. Hell in Biblica, lxxii [1992], pp. 182–191); for a convincing rebuttal of such arguments, see D. B. Wallace in New Testament Studies, xxxix (1993), pp. 290–296. For patristic evidence of other forms and interpretations of the pericope, see B. D. Ehrman, New Testament Studies, xxxiv (1988), pp. 24–44.
D

ms. nr.
*D 05

saec.
V

bibliotheca
Cambridge, Univ. Libr., Nn. 2. 41

cont.
ea (vac. Mt 1,1-20; 6,20-9,2; 27,2-12; J 1,16-3,26; Act 8,29-10,14; 21,2-10.16-18; 22,10-20.29-fin.; Jc-Jd [Mt 3,7-16; Mc 16,15-20; J 18,14-20,13 suppl.])

ms. nr.
*D 06

saec.
VI

bibliotheca
Paris, Bibl. Nat., Gr. 107 AB

cont.
p (vac. R 1,1-6; [1,27-30; 1K 14,13-22 suppl.])

E

ms. nr.
E 07

saec.
VIII

bibliotheca
Basel, Univ. Bibl., AN III 12

cont.
e�*

ms. nr.
*E 08

saec.
VI

bibliotheca
Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Laud. Gr. 35

cont.
a (vac. Act 26,29-28,26; Jc-Jd)

F

ms. nr.
F 09

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Utrecht, Univ. Bibl., Ms. 1

cont.
e�*

ms. nr.
*F 010

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Cambridge, Trin. Coll., B. XVII. 1

cont.
p (vac. R 1,1-3,18; 1K 3,8-15; 6,7-14; Kol 2,1-8; Phm 21-fin.; H)

G

ms. nr.
G 011

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
London, Brit. Libr., Harley 5684; Cambridge, Trin. Coll., B. XVII. 20

cont.
e�*

ms. nr.
*G 012

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Dresden, Sächs. Landesbibl., A 145b

cont.
p (vac. R 1,1-4; 2,17-24; 1K 3,8-15; 6,7-14; Kol 2,1- 8; Phm 21-fin.; H)

H

ms. nr.
H 013

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Hamburg, Univ. Bibl., Cod. 91 in scrin; Cambridge, Trin. Coll., B. xvii. 20, 21

cont.
e�*

ms. nr.
H 014

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Modena, Bibl. Estense, G. 196, α. V. 6.3

cont.
a�*

ms. nr.
*H 015

saec.
VI

bibliotheca
Athos, Lavra s. n.; Kiev, Centr. Nauč. Bibl., F. 301 (KDA), 26p; St. Petersburg, Ross. Nac. Bibl., Gr. 14; Moskva, Hist. Mus., 563; Moskva, Ross. Gosud. Bibl., F. 270. 1a. 70.1 (Gr. 166,1); Paris, Bibl. Nat., Suppl. Gr. 1074; Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coislin 202; Torino, Bibl. Naz., A. 1

cont.
1K 10,22-29; 11,9-16; 2K 4,2-7; 10,5-11,8; 11,12- 12,4; G 1,1-10; 2,9-17; 4,30-5,5; Kol 1,26-2,8; 2,20- 3,11; 1Th 2,9-13; 4,5-11; 1T 1,7-2,13; 3,7-13; 6,9-13; 2T 2,1-9; Tt 1,1-3; 1,15-2,5; 3,13-15; H 1,3-8; 2,11- 16; 3,13-18; 4,12-15; 10,1-7.32-38; 12,10-15; 13,24-25

K

ms. nr.
(*)K 017

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Paris, Bibl. Nat., Gr. 63

cont.
e

ms. nr.
(*)K 018

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Moskva, Hist. Mus., V. 93, S. 97

cont.
apK (vac. Act; R 10,18-fin.; 1K 1,1-6,13; 8,8-11)

M

ms. nr.
M 021

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Paris, Bibl. Nat., Gr. 48

cont.
e

U

ms. nr.
U 030

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
Venezia, Bibl. Naz. Marc., Gr. 1,8 (1397)

cont.
e

Γ�*

ms. nr.
(*)Γ 036

saec.
X

bibliotheca
Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Auct. T. inf. 2.2; St. Petersburg, Ross. Nac. Bibl., Gr. 33

cont.
e (vac. Mt 5,31-6,16; 6,30-7,26; 8,27-9,6; 21,19- 22,25; Mc 3,34-6,21)

�*�*

ms. nr.
�* 041

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
St. Petersburg, Ross. Nac. Bibl., Gr. 34

cont.
e�*

28

ms. nr.[*]28

saec.
XI

bibliotheca
Paris, Bibl. Nat., Gr. 379

cont.
Mt�* (*)Mc L�* J�*

700

ms. nr.
(*)700

saec.
XI

bibliotheca
London, Brit. Libr., Egerton 2610

cont.
e

892

ms. nr.
(*)892

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
London, Brit. Libr., Add. 33277

cont.
e (J 10,6-12,18; 14,23-fin. suppl.)

225

ms. nr.
225

saec.
1192

bibliotheca
Napoli, Bibl. Naz., Cod. Neapol. ex Vind. 9

cont.
e

mss mss manuscripts.
4
So Eberhard Nestle, who, however, identifies no specific manuscripts (Einführung in das Griechische Neue Testament, 3te Aufl. [Göttingen, 1909], p. 157). According to information kindly provided by Dr. J. N. Birdsall, the pericope follows 7.44 in Sinai ms. georg. 16.

In the editio princeps of the Georgian Bible (Moscow, 1743), as well as the editions of the New Testament of 1816, 1818, 1878 (Gospels), and 1879, the pericope stands in its traditional place after 7.52.

1

ms. nr.
1

saec.
XII

bibliotheca
Basel, Univ. Bibl., A. N. IV. 2

cont.
eap

565

ms. nr.
(*)565

saec.
IX

bibliotheca
St. Petersburg, Ross. Nac. Bibl., Gr. 53

cont.
e (vac. J 11,26-48; 13,2-23; in Mt, L, J 6 foll. suppl.)

1076

Number
1076

Content
e

Date
X

1570

Number
1570

Content
e

Date
XI

1582

ms. nr.
1582

saec.
948

bibliotheca
Athos, Vatopediu, 949

cont.
e

arm arm (Künzle; Zohrab). Armenian, from the fifth century.
mss mss manuscripts of an early version, or of a Church Father’s text, when differing from the edited text.
f f 13 = 13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689’, 1709, et al., cf. K. and S. Lake, Family 13 (The Ferrar Group), (Studies and Documents XI) London 1941 [= Mark]; J. Geerlings, Family 13 (The Ferrar Group), (Studies and Documents XIX-XXI) Salt Lake City 1961-1962 [= Matthew, Luke, John]; W. H. Ferrar, A Collation of Four Important Manuscripts of the Gospels, ed. T. K. Abbott, Dublin/London 1877.
Hort F. J. A. Hort’s “Notes on Select Readings,” in The New Testament in the Original Greek, the Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort; [vol. II] Introduction [and] Appendix (Cambridge and London, 1881; 2nd ed., 1896).
{A} {A} The letter {A} signifies that the text is certain.
Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York"



Joseph

SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Than I suggest that you lower the minimum threshold for participation in this Thread from "idiot" to "imbecile".

JW:
I can certainly understand why you don't want Metzger quoted here but isn't a complete quote potentially more useful than less than a complete quote (rhetorical, no need to answer).


JW:
"3 Occasionally an attempt is made to support the Johannine authorship of the pericope by appealing to linguistic and literary considerations (e. g. J. P. Hell in Biblica, lxxii [1992], pp. 182–191); for a convincing rebuttal of such arguments, see D. B. Wallace in New Testament Studies, xxxix (1993), pp. 290–296. For patristic evidence of other forms and interpretations of the pericope, see B. D. Ehrman, New Testament Studies, xxxiv (1988), pp. 24–44."

From my complete quote of Metzger in the previous post (thereby giving me one more correct prophecy than John the Baptist whom Jesus described as the greatest prophet of all time had in his entire career). I can practically guarantee that this was written after 1968. I suppose you will still claim that it wasn't due to a conspiracy involving Stephen Spielberg, Dan Rather, Valerie Plame and of course, The Vatican.

And it's not just any Revision, is it? "Occasionally an attempt is made to support the Johannine authorship of the pericope by appealing to linguistic and literary considerations". Isn't that what your argument is going to be based on? If so, than hasn't Metzger already considered what you will proffer here and referred the Objective reader to swell rebuttals (Wallace and Ehrman).

The later dates here remind me of Simon Greenleaf's god-awful The Testimony of the Evangelists where the dumbshit completely Ignored Textual Variation. Subsequent Christians stuck a Tischendorf Textual Criticism article at the end of Greenleaf's original writing to give it the appearence that it was part of Greenleaf's original work. To the masses it all appears to be part of an Original as there is no notification in the book that it was Forged to the Original. The problem is Tischendork wrote after Greenleaf.


JW:
Metzger was a little too old at this point to write much of anything other than his name. But the above does indicate that Ehrman considered if there was any Substantial change needed to Metzger's classic work.

So actually, the current Version of Ehrman/Metzger, which was not simply a re-issue, was published in 2005 which is Later than Peterson/Petersen's article. So you don't really have any point about supposed advances in Bible research after Metzger/Ehrman wrote on the subject, do you.

I know, I know, you were just trying to be funny/entertaining when you wrote what you did so I'll tell you what. From now on, whenever you are demonstrated to be wrong we'll all just assume that it's because you were just being funny and move on to the next point.


JW:
Hah, hah. That's a good one.


JW:
Well at least you give Metzger credit for something (Disguising himself as a Presbyterian clergy for 70 years to hide that fact that he was really a Catholic stooge).

Now can we please move on to TSD for your NHO why the PA is PC? Off the top of my head I see:

1) Textual evidence

2) Scribal evidence

3) Patristic quotes

4) Patristic commentary

5) Authority

6) Internal evidence

as all indicating Forgery. Trying to take all of these usual forms of evidence away reminds me too much of the classic episode of The Addams Family
where they give Cousin It a haircut and when they finish there is nothing left.

I Am starting to get a little worried that Jesus may SOON return before you Reveal what you have.



Joseph

REVELATION, n.
A famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Gamera

Thanks for the link.

Nazaroo

Dear Mr. Wallack:

You have now posted Metzger twice more than necessary. If you think an injustice has been done by the failure to include Ehrman's footnote, Why didn't you just post it, like so:

And for utility also include his note on the Georgian version:

This is the only deficiency in the original quotation, which you could have helpfully supplimented.

Why subject us to pages and pages of improperly formatted and completely unreadable MSS bibliographies, which are simply a useless mess because of your clumsy <edit> cut & paste methods?


Do you mean lower my expectations for participation? You have certainly achieved this. Congratulations again, for your amazing self-characterization.

Are you seeking a Darwin Award?

Nazaroo

I have added all four footnotes from Metzger's 1994 edition to the online article on Metzger here, as well as the last sentence on the use of brackets in the UBS text.

Metzger on John 8:1-11 (1994 4th ed.) <-- Click Here.

Now readers here can see what they missed without having to try to wade through the mess that Wallace posted.

What they missed was nothing of any significance.

The only important footnote, was footnote 3:

However, we have posted the complete correspondence betweeen Mr. Heil and Mr. Wallace already, on our website here:

We are not hiding anything. On the contrary, we wish readers would take a look at the debate between Heil and Wallace closely.

Heil and Wallace on John 8:1-11 <-- Click Here.


Whatever point Wallack was trying to make was lost when he inflated his post with a bunch of meaningless MSS lists from the introduction to the UBS text, which in fact are garbled and incomplete.

If the reader wants to learn about the MSS of the NT, we suggest the useful link here:

NT MSS Catalogued and described <-- Click Here for UNCIALS.

NT MSS Catalogued and described <-- Click Here for MINISCULES


Enjoy.

Nazaroo

By the way, your incredible post, for all its length, is actually seriously incomplete.

The all-important footnote added by the editor, Bart Ehrman, regarding Metzger's ridiculously incorrect statement:

namely the note to the effect that,

is completely missing from your 'complete' post.

Why don't you post the footnote now?

Could it be because you don't even have the volume itself, but have grabbed some html text sprinkled with UNICODE from some Moslem website?