No Robots

I accuse Ehrman of insinuating that the pericope is an interpolation on television and in his popular work, while not daring to do so in his scholarly work.

Furthermore, the pericope was mentioned by Didymus the Blind, a 4-century Eastern father.

You have all implied that mainstream scholarship regards the pericope as an interpolation. Ehrman himself denies this when he writes:

Most scholars think that it was probably a well-known story circulating in the oral tradition about Jesus, which at some point was added in the margin of a manuscript.
Misquoting Jesus, p. 65.

I still haven't seen anyone put up a quotation from a scholar saying it is an interpolation.

Here is a resource that looks helpful. Before you all crap all over me about it, I haven't read it. It just looks useful, and it has the reference for Didymus the Blind.

Diogenes the Cynic

Huh?

How does your quoted portion amount to a denial that the passage is interpolated? What do you think "added in the margin" means?
You've posted at least two yourself.

No Robots

What do you think "circulating in the oral tradition" means?

Amaleq13

It means people were telling the story but it does not mean Ehrman thinks it should be considered to have been written by the author of the Gospel or that it is historically reliable.

The phrase relating to the question you failed to answer, however, clearly does establish that Ehrman considers it to be an interpolation.

You have clearly misunderstood Ehrman's comments.

Diogenes the Cynic

It means it's a possible source for the pericope but that it wasn't originally part of the Gospel of John. If it was added to the Gospel, then it's an interpolation by definition. I wonder if you're confusing the question of interpolation with that of historical authenticity. Even if the story came from an authentic oral tradition (something Ehrman does not claim), it would still be an interpolation in the Gospel of John.

RUmike

I think No Robots has no idea what the word "interpolation" means.

gregor

No Robots - There's no harm in admitting you were mistaken.

Diogenes the Cynic

No Robots, at the risk of sounding patronizing, the word "interpolation" just refers to an addition or insertion of material into text by someone other than the author. It has nothing to do with whether that material is "true" or not. If it wasn't part of what the original author wrote, it's an interpolation. Interpolations can be true and still be interpolations.

S.C.Carlson

The United Bible Societies' critical edition of the Greek N.T. gives an "A" rating (virtually certain) to the exclusion of the adulteress passage from the original text of John.

No Robots

This is a fair statement.

This issue came to my attention when a poster attacked Constantin Brunner for taking the pericope as historically authentic (see here):

Vorkosigan clearly holds the view that the pericope is historically inauthentic. My purpose here was to challenge this position. I am content that you have made the distinction between "interpolated into John" and "historically inauthentic". I ask no more.