No Robots

Just go to Amazon. Both books have search in book. Search "adultery".

Zeichman

The United Bible Society gives its ommission an "A" rating, and Metzger provides a lengthy explanation for this conclusion in his "Textual Commentary..."

The consensus is the non-Johannine origin of the pericope, further evidenced by its occasional inclusion in Luke in some manuscripts. Furthermore, the vocabulary is decidedly non-Johannine.

Is this what you're asking for?

Buster Daily

Is it not possible than an early recognition of its non-Johannine nature caused it to be moved to Luke? Do the versions in Luke vary dramatically with the versions in John? Were they copied from the same source or do they only represent a retelling of the same material?

Zeichman

It's important to keep in mind that within the pericope itself, much is textually uncertain. f13 places it after LUke 21:38, and 1333c places it after Luke 24:53. f13, from what I can see, offers no otherwise unknown readings to the pericope. 1333c only contains vv. 3-11. All of these are of the minuscules, and can't be considered "early" by any stretch of the imagination. Also, 1 places it after John 21:25, and 225 after 7:36. Many other manuscripts only have vv. 2-11 or 3-11 and some denote it with asterisks, probably indicating a knowlege its questionable authority.

The earliest witness to the full pericope is Codex Byzae, written in the fifth century. No other non-Byzantine uncial attests to it in its entirity. Granted, it IS included in many old Latin versions, along with other ancient translations and a few fathers.

Does anyone know how it got so widespread? Perhaps Vulgate influence?

andrewcriddle

The pericope was well known in the Old Latin before the Vulgate, obviously its inclusion in the Vulgate helped its spread within the Latin world.

In the Greek world its spread appears associated with being the reading for the feast of Pelagia the reformed courtesan on October the 8th.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

What evidence from Papias? The reference in Papias is so vague that any identification of it with the story of a woman accused of adultery is a reminder of the shockingly low standards accepted in Biblical scholarship. It is just junk. Any scientist making a similar identification based on equally vague similarities would be laughed at.

Can you imagine a scientist arguing that a certain particular species of big cat lived in Africa 2,000 years ago on the grounds that somebody claimed to have seen an unspecified big cat? He would be ridiculed mercilessly, and yet Biblica scholars solemnly tell us that when Papias talks about a woman accused of many sins, he is referring to a certain particular woman accused of adultery. This is just junk.

No wonder there is no methodology for sorting truth from fiction in the Gospels.

Islam teaches us that people would invent huge numbers of stories about founders of religions. The story of the woman taken in adultery is another invented story. Get over it.

No Robots

You and I have been over this.


Get over what? The suppression of this text on the basis of misrepresentation of its history? No, I don't think I will just "get over it".

Steven Carr

Intriguing to hear people say that texts are authentic, because scribes would deliberately suppress stories they did not like.

I wonder how much of the rest of the NT was suppressed by scribes , unable to stomach the teachings of Jesus.

No Robots

Now, that's a good question.