hatsoff

Well, of course it's imaginative. And no, there's no hard evidence for it. But I don't see any hard evidence for any other explanation for the Lukan anomalies, so I think his is more or less as valid as any other. Also, by the ninth century (when the Lukan entries first appear) I am fairly certain Revelation had been firmly accepted into the canon, with few if any orthodox exceptions--not that it would matter in this case (since it is not required that all accept Revelation for a number of scribes to do so).

Chris Weimer

Actually they would likely have just corrected it instead, like they do over and over again.

Nazaroo

Again however, it is not the investigator's responsibility to make it convincing. There are many cases in which the various possibilities available seem equally low. There is no point in trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. Thats just how it goes.

This is one of those cases where there is some freedom to consider alternatives. My inclination is to think that the original insertion into Luke was deliberate, and had a purpose, the primary one being to preserve the passage. It was known to be questioned and under attack for many centuries.



But this 'wrench' must be seen against the background that all the MSS (Family 13) are late, and have the same narrow range of date, the same narrow range of 'location' or origin, and the same narrow range of text!

Its obvious they are closely related, and some have been directly mapped as copies within a single generation or two. We don't need to look for multiple scribes 'coincidentally' inserting it into Luke, but only one, from whom the others copied, or emulated. Its obviously a good fit (see the preceding Lukan verses), and solves a problem quietly in a way that pleases at least some parties.


Again it doesn't have to be a 'likely' scenario, or even a popular one. We only have to account for a half-dozen closely related MSS out of 1,350 contemporary ones. We are not trying to account for the most likely case, but rather the minority exception to the rule. What scribes were most likely to do is almost irrelevant here.



Obviously MOST scribes didn't take this option, even if it was known. Most scribes, if they had any concerns, were happy to asterisk the verses and leave them in place in John.


It is clever enough, but you can thank the scribe, not me. I wouldn't have thought of it, if I hadn't been told of the placement, and asked the obvious question: Why?

Niall Armstrong

Nice one. Sorry if I clumsily throd on any toes! My scenario was neither particularly articulated nor one I'd subscribe to myself. (This conflict between superstitious scribes and pettifogging scholars seems rather contrived. Or is the scribe named Costello? ) Why couldn't scribes and scholars simply agree, when confronted with versions of John without PA, that it had to come from somewhere, and seemed more akin to the Social Gospel?

But if your scribe was merely copying the exemplar, then surely your just passing the buck: someone else must have inserted PA into Luke previously (or have I misunderstood what you mean with an exemplar...).

Nazaroo

What is really anachronistic here is the idea that these scribes operated autonomously. This of course is projecting the modern idea of democracy and free societies onto monks who have given their very lives in sincere devotion to God and the Church in all earnestness.

Contrary to Ehrman and others, early scribes simply didn't freely edit texts at all. The vast majority committed themselves to scrupulously copying their exemplars, regardless of what they found.

Just to put some numbers to this, Editors and Scribes were clearly separated and defined in the minds and training of the church.

For instance, there are 1,350 MSS of the PA. But there are only 7 (or perhaps at most 10) different versions, even though every MS has a few 1st generation errors.

So, being generous, there were 100 accurate copyists for every 'editor'. That's less than 1% of the 'Scribal Population' willing to tamper with the text they were copying.

This partly explains why there is more than one copy of Luke with the PA crammed into it. copyists tended to copy their exemplar come hell or high water. So the original MS was copied a few times, before someone higher up called a time-out.


And of course this is not just 'passing the buck', but realistically trying to explain the actual textual situation. With only 1% of scribes being editors, it is unlikely that all of the scribes responsible for Family 13 (about a half-dozen MSS with PA in Luke) did this independantly, unless in one little monastery they were all smoking pot.

What really happened must have been that ONE editor/scribe made the move of placing the PA in Luke, under extreme duress, and others inadvertantly copied this MS, generating new copies, and resulting in a mini-'family' before the line was noticed, and stopped.

Nazaroo

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

Those who want to make something of the insertion of the PA into Luke must overcome the largest body of hard MSS evidence ever found for any passage, which places it firmly in John:



This chart does not and need not represent all the transmission lines of all text-types. But it is obviously the line of transmission of the Byzantine/traditional text-type, and it includes the Latin (and versional) counter-part of the transmission of the Gospels.

The exponential curve is the natural extrapolation, since the nature of the copying and multiplying of MSS will be Fibonacci-like (bunny rabbits breeding).

It is reasonable to extrapolate from such a large, wide and diverse group of MSS and traditions, that the placement of the PA in John is much earlier than any placement in Luke.

In fact, the only evidence that it was ever in Luke earlier than about 900 A.D. is a handful of old 'lectionary' readings in the text of Family 13. However, this evidence is very weak and indirect, and simply can't sustain the thesis that the original location for the PA was Luke.

While the versional evidence is weak and secondary for the PA in John (the Syriac for instance seems to have originally been without it), the historical fact is, that the versions and the churches that used them were clearly dependant upon and deferred to the Greek tradition (the original language of John). They quite happily corrected their texts to the main lines of transmission. But since the Syriac etc. inserted the PA into their versions by the 5th century, they testify to a strong tradition of the PA in John by this time.

At best, Family 13 suggests that someone saw the similarity in language and context to the previous verses in Luke, and placed it there. This probably happened long after the PA was accepted into the lectionary tradition.

Those advocating that the PA is an insertion in John also claim that it was first inserted into the Lectionary tradition, and found its way from there. This itself is a weak thesis, but if true, the MSS suggests again that the passage was placed in John, and placed more firmly and popularly, than its apparent later insertion in Luke.

This is why the majority of scholars, even skeptics, don't make much of the insertion into Luke in the late 12th century, except to try to use this as evidence that the PA somehow 'floated' around. But even here, the idea is a flimsy one.

It seems more likely that the 'blip' on the radar is just the result of an experiment performed in ignorance, late in the MSS history.

Nazaroo

A look at the main events in the formative years of the text is also instructive.

It shows clearly that major changes (like the insertion or omission of the PA) or changes in text-type were not 'natural processes' or accidental, but were accompanied by serious and severe battles over doctrine, truth, and racial issues.

The appearance of P66/P75 without the PA must be interpreted in the light of the political and 'military' activities taking place at the time they were produced.

They accompany important political battles and changes of situation.

Nazaroo

More on Papyrus 66, the oldest MS of John


P66: (John 7:53/8:12)



Note in particular the space with a dot in the center, marking the omission of John 7:53-8:11. This Egyptian scribe plainly knew of the existance of the Pericope de Adultera.


A look at the various marks on the page makes this clear:





This scribe is sloppy with contractions (as in line 6: all' ). In fact this scribe shows no concern even for the division of words, preferring to fill up each line with letters rather than end lines on a word. In Line 17 for instance, leaves half the word oudena on the previous line just before the last Space and Dot.

The special Space and Dot mark is not a breathing mark, or a grammatical or punctuation mark. In both other cases (line 12 and 17), this mark improperly divides two sentences, while the correct end of sentence is left to run on, as do sentences elsewhere on the page:

Line 12:
kan egw marturw peri emautou alhqhV estin h marturia
mou (dot) oti oida poqen hlqon kai pou upagw. (sentence end)
"Even though I witness of Myself my witness is true
since I know where I came from and where I go." (Jn 8:14b)

Line 17:
umeiV kata thn sarka krinetai. egw ou krinw oudena (dot)
kai ean krinw de egw h krisiV h emh alhqhV estin oti...
"You judge according to the flesh. (sentence end)
I don't judge anyone, but if I were to judge my judgement would be true,
since..." (Jn 8:15-16)

In both cases, the Space and Dot split up the compound sentences unnaturally, breaking the line of thought in each sentence. Taken along with the failure to mark the true end of the sentence this simply confuses the argument.

In these last two cases however, the connection of the Space and Dot to known textual variants is also hampered. Although there are variants nearby, the mark should naturally refer to what precedes it, either the word or phrase, and here we have nothing obvious in a typical critical apparatus. The bigger problem is of course that this is the oldest and the only MS to compare to. Only searching quotations of Early fathers might turn up a match.

But a more plausible connection is right in front of us: We have the omitted Pericope de Adultera, duly marked, and two strongly related clauses, also clearly marked!

Pericope de Adultera (dot 1) = omitted

"My Witness is true!" (dot 2) = John 8:7!

"I judge no one!" (dot 3) = John 8:11!

Even if the scribe of P66 himself isn't trying to tell us something, he may have accidentally copied the partial notes of the previous scribe from his exemplar!

Even though we lack a complete explanation for the dots, they appear to be strong evidence that the scribe of P66 himself or the scribe of his exemplar had knowledge of the Pericope de Adultera.

That is, the oldest known copy of John witnesses to the existance of the PA, and more than that: it witnesses to the PA in its standard position in John between 7:53-8:11.

Chris Weimer

Wow. Have you never looked at other manuscripts before? That's not a sign of a lazy scribe - that was a fairly normal practice.

jgibson000

What is your evidence that such a mark indicates an omission of something?

If he knew of its existence, why did he leave it out?

Jeffrey Gibson