No Robots

So I actually side with Metzger over Hodges, who assigns a Johannine origin. It is Metzger who opens the door to the tantalizing prospect that the pericope is a persisent remnant of an oral Gospel.

No Robots

Actually, though, I still do hold out the possibility that the pericope was part of early versions of GJohn, as Hodges insists. Altogether a fascinating little item.

No Robots

Oh, and by the way, neither Metzger nor Hodges rule out censorship as a factor in the history of the pericope.

fta

I read somewhere that at the time of JC & His Merry Men the death penalty for adulterous women had actually been abolished by the Jews - meaning the entire story of the attempted stoning is an anachronism and/or fictitious. Is this correct?

mens_sana

Although neither rule it out, I haven't seen where Metzger even considers the possiblility. Metzger thinks the pericope to be a floater in the Western church, giving it even a lower chance of Johannine authenticity — unless, of course, we are supposed to give the Western tradition something of a special status. (Not in my book. )

No Robots

In the Hodges article that I have linked to twice, there is a quotation from Metzger that reads:

Sometimes it is stated that the pericope was deliberately expunged from the 4th Gospel because it was liable to be understood in a sense too indulgent to adultery.

Metzger completely ignores the Greek father Didymus the Blind. See here for commentary, where it is stated that Ehrman corrects Metzger on this point.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ignores? This is a sheer mis-statement of the facts. Metzger was well aware of Didymus. What he does (along with von Sodden, Becker, Schnakenburg, and others) is to reject what Didymus says as something that clearly attests to knowledge of the PA on the part of the Greek Fathers. And with good reason. As can be seen when one examines the Didymus text, he "story" of the adulteress that Didymus relates is sufficiently different from the PA as we know it from GJohn that it cannot be used without forcing the evidence to say that it is as a witness to knowledge among Greek fathers of the PA.

I take it that you yourself have no direct acquaintance with the Didymus text, yes?

Here it is:

Φερομεν ουν εν τισιν ευαγγελιοις· Γυνη, φησιν, κατεκριθη υπο των Ιουδ[αι]ων επι αμαρτι και απεστελλετο λιθοβοληθηναι εις τον τοπον, οπου ειωθει γιν[εσθ]αι. ο σωτηρ, φησιν, εωρακως αυτην και θεωρησας οτι ετοιμοι εισιν προς το λιθ[οβολ]ησαι αυτην, τοις μελλουσιν αυτην καταβαλειν λιθοις ειπεν· Ος ουχ ημαρτεν, αι[ρε]τω λιθον και βαλετω {ε}αυτον. ει τις συνοιδεν εαυτ το μη ημαρτηκεναι, λαβων λιθον παισατω αυτην. και ουδεις ετολμησεν· επιστησαντες εαυτοις και γνοντες οτι και αυτοι υπε[υθυ]νοι εισιν τισιν, ουκ ετολμησαν καταπταισαι εκεινην.

Perhaps you can point out to us how this shows that Didymus knew (and is quoting) the story as it now appears in Jn. 7:53-8:11?

Jeffrey

Ray Moscow

It's all Greek to me.

Ba-da-boom!

No Robots

A critique of Dr. Gibson's position is available here.

No Robots

For a complete analysis of the relationship between the text from Didymus and the text from John, see here, and especially here.