Introduction
While certain passages of the Bible have been scrutinized for scribal tampering, none of these passages, with the exception of one, are as large or as loved as the passage of the adulterous woman.[1] If that is the case, how then should one handle this passage? Should it be studied, should it even be included in present and future translations of the Bible? Several scholars, past and present, argue that this passage should be removed, and have treated it as such by moving the section to an excursus chapter at the end of the book. However, there are a few ancient and modern scholars who argue that this passage should be kept in its present place. This paper will provide an overview of the internal and external factors concerning this passage, examine the literary setting, as well as conduct an exegetical analysis, and provide a contemporary application. Whether or not one agrees on the historicity, this story demonstrates Christ’s fulfillment of the law, as well as His rule over the law; whereas the Pharisees, in an attempt to trap Jesus, have completely dismissed the law in their own selfish plans.
Internal/External Analysis
There are two main arguments against this passage as being original to the gospel and authorship of John. The first argument is the lack of external support. Current existing manuscript evidence does not favor this passage as original to the book of John. Metzger succinctly provides a list:
It is absent from P66, 75, a B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. […]. 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. Some Armenian manuscripts and the Old Georgian version 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.[2]
These codices, MSS, texts, and minuscules move from 7:52 to 8:12.[3] The majority of ancient commentaries that date before the end of the first millennium do not discuss this section.[4] Keith, counting the known manuscripts at the time of his work (2009) noted that there were 1428 total MSS that included this specific passage.[5] This number would be considered vast, except the total number of NT variants is somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000![6] Several commentators and journal writers follow this assessment and deem the passage as extra-canonical.[7]
The second argument is based on the lack of internal support. “Fourteen out of eighty-two words used in this pericope (or 17 percent) are unique to John . . . virtually every verse from 8:1-11 (the sole exception being 8:5) contains words found nowhere else in the Gospel. Moreover, several other words occur only once or twice elsewhere in the Gospel. To this should be added the conspicuous nonoccurrence of standard Johannine vocabulary.”[8] Borchert sees the terms “grammatei/j,” “Dida,skalh,” and “ ;Oroj tw/n Elaiw/n” as non-Johannine and leans toward a Lukan influence.[9]
However, there is a group of ancient and modern authors who believe and argue sufficiently, that this passage is original to the text of John, and that John himself penned the original passage for a number of reasons.[10] Concerning textual variance and lack of support, Hodge’s logical treatment of this passage warrants observation. “It is clear . . . that the evidence for omission is both considerable and very old. On the other hand it should not be inferred that any of these witnesses predate the appearance of the pericope in John’s Gospel.”[11] This is directly based on two suppositions- first, following Scrivener’s assessment, the issue with the pericope predates circa 300AD; and second, the oldest manuscripts P66, 75, a, and B are based on an earlier single copy.[12] Discussing the Syriac version, Hodge points out that while these texts did not include this passage, several of them lacked II Peter, II & III John, Jude, and/or Revelation, including the original Peshitta.[13]
Metzger states, “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 G P 28 700 892 al).”[14] The earliest one in this section is D, also known as Codex Bezae, dates to the fifth century. But, Jerome, translating the Vulgate as early as 389AD included this passage stating, “The account of the woman caught in adultery is included in many of the Greek as well as Latin copies.”[15] Augustine (fifth century) explains that many early scribes removed this passage because it may have driven some, in weaker faith or misunderstanding, to encourage or commit adultery.[16] While this deletion cannot account for every missing section, it can account for a number of MSS and other writings from later periods that do not have this passage.
Johnson addresses the argument based on lack of Johannine words by demonstrating that Morgenthaler’s assessment is flawed. The issue with this statistical analysis by Morgenthaler is that he tabulates a number of words and participles that he feels are necessary in order for this passage to be Johannine and are absent from this passage.[17] Johnson directly challenges Morgenthaler’s statistical method applied to this passage by applying the same principles to another passage, John 2:13-17. By applying Morgenthaler’s method, John 2:13-17 contains even fewer Johannine words than John 7:53-8:11 (4% vs. 17%).[18] Johnson concludes that the numerical count and percentage of Johannine vs. non-Johannine words is skewed and insufficient in regards to discrediting 7:53-8:11.[19]
In conclusion, a few things can be stated concerning the internal and external evidence of this passage. While lacking early Eastern evidence, Burge interestingly points out that this passage, by the fifth century, became the Gospel text for the majority of Western lectionaries on St. Pelagia’s Day (October 8) and was used to honor a variety of women martyrs who preserved their virginity or repented and led chaste lives.[20] The issue is that there are few early survivors containing this passage; however, that does not mean that they did not exist. Second, grammatical usage in this text is specific to this story. Nowhere else in the gospel of John does Jesus deal with an adulterous woman. Fourth, as Metzger states, “the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity.”[21] Ultimately, as Hendricksen rightly states, “though it cannot now be proved that this story formed an integral part of the Fourth Gospel, neither is it possible to establish the opposite with any degree of finality. Hence, instead of removing this section from the Bible it should be retained and used for our benefit.”[22]
Literary Setting
This passage is presently located solely in the non-synoptic gospel of John.[23] The gospel of John was written sometime between AD 85 – 90 in Ephesus.[24] While the writer of John remains anonymous, some clues give testimony to who he was. Frist, the author is a Palestinian Jew- he knows details about Jacob’s Well (4:11), there is a descent from Cana to the Sea of Galilee (2:12), Bethsaida and Bethany are homes of friends (1:44; 12:21; 11:1), there are two towns named Bethany (1:28; 11:18), he knows about the city of Ephraim (11:54) and of Aenon (3:23), and Mt. Gerizim (4:20).[25] Fourth, the author grasps the finer elements of Jewish legal interpretation, which would have been missed by one who was not Jewish.[26]
The writer of John provides many details that only an eyewitness can provide. John 19:35 is an explanation of eyewitness testimony concerning the spear in Christ’s side. The writer is the only one that identifies Malchus- the man whose ear was cut off by Peter. The writer provides valuable insight into the trial of Jesus (18:15).[27] The eyewitness accounts provide an accurate defense against controversies that did not exist outside of the apostolic era. The controversies dealt with in the book of John existed prior to the second century, when the Jews were still looking for a Deliverer from Rome (6:15; 11:47-50; 19:12) as well as violation of Sabbath laws (5:9-11; 9:14-16).[28]
The identification of John the Apostle is based on several points, which will be summarized. First, John was an eyewitness to several of the events besides the crucifixion account (1:14; 19:35; 21:24; cf. 1 John 1:1). John was one of the three members of the inner circle. James was killed long before the writing of the gospel (Acts 12:2), and Peter is identified as a separate person (e. g. 1:41-42; 13:6-8). The phrase “whom Jesus loved” in 13:23 is used to identify the author in several other passages (19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). Fourth, external authors identify John as the writer of this gospel. Three of the earliest in this list include Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Papias.[29]
Few things are analogous between John and the Synoptic gospels; however, there are some cohesive topics and settings that provide a compatibly thematic approach. Concerning themes, each of the gospels present the life of Christ as an ancient biography, and the key to understanding the biography is the subject, Jesus of Nazareth.[30] The conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees (cf. 8:31-59, 10:19-39) is another common theme. “Each gospel was written not only to record the history of Jesus, but also to address particular circumstances in the life of its first readers. […]. John buttresses Christian claims against Jewish unbelief. The historic fact of Jewish unbelief in Jesus’ day is joined with Jewish opposition in John’s day.”[31]
Like the other gospels, John’s gospel can be broken down into thematic sections. While the names of the sections may change according to author, the overall consensus follows: prologue (1:1-18), public ministry (1:19-12:50), private ministry to the disciples (chapters 13-17), and Jesus’ passion and triumph (chapters 18-21).[32] John 7:53-8:11 is during Jesus’ public ministry, specifically during the Feast of Tabernacles.
John’s gospel has several unique characteristics: (1) he deals primarily with Jesus’ early Judean ministry (2:13; 6:4; 13:1; 18:28), (2) six of the eight recorded miracles in John are not recorded in the synoptic gospels, (3) there are no parables found in John’s gospel.[33] Also unique to John’s gospel is the mode of presentation of the gospel, particularly ancient dramatic tragedy, one of which is the stress on the stupendousness of Jesus’ miracles and other actions in the story.[34] It is in this regard that one finds the present passage.
Exegesis
This passage, while one paragraph in Koine, can be broken down into five subsections for ease of understanding. John 7:53-8:1 concludes the previous section and allows for transition into this story. John 8:2 provides the introductory setting and the protagonist. John 8:3-6a presents the antagonists and an illegal trial. John 6b-8 is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees. John 8:9-11 is Jesus’ response to the woman.
John 7:53-8:1
The previous section (7:37-52) contains the last day of the Feast of Tabernacle. This is a feast following the observance of Lev. 23:34, “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD. On the final day, Jesus moves into public view and makes an amazing statement, “If any man is thirsty, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” (7:37-38). While the second part of this statement is not a direct quote of one verse, John gives the explanation in that it refers to the Holy Spirit who is yet to come and at will fulfill the symbolism of the feast taking place.
This announcement splits the audience into three groups: 1) those who identify Jesus as “the prophet” (o` proqh,thj); 2) those who identify him as “the Christ” (o` Cristo,j); and 3) there were those who did not believe (ἄλλοι δὲ ἔλεγον Μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὁ Χριστὸς ἔρχεται). Verse 42 is the reasoning that the unbelievers held, and had these unbelievers truly searched Jesus’ heritage, they would have learned that Jesus was from Bethlehem and fulfilled this as. Burge continues, “The complete frustration of the Sanhedrin and the erosion of opposition becomes clear in 7:45-52. Even the temple police are impressed with Jesus (7:46) – to such a degree that they fail in their assignment to arrest him.”[35] John continues to stress the negative relationship that has dissolved between Jesus and the Jewish political and religious leaders. Nicodemus spoke up reminding these leaders that before one is judged, his words and actions must have witnesses against him. Their response to Nicodemus is one of derision, because these leaders have also assumed that Jesus was born in Galilee, “for out of Galilee arises no prophet.”
It is at the end of this statement that our passage begins. John 7:53-8:1 states that every man went unto his own house, while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. The statement “every man” (ἕκαστος) refers to those not with Jesus. Luke 21:37 tells us that while Jesus taught in the temple during the day, he would go unto the Mount of Olives at night to rest. Several passages also record that Jesus taught his disciples while on the Mount of Olives (Matt. 5-7, 24:3; Mk. 13:3). Burge explains that the city of Bethany is located on the east slope of the Mount of Olives; this is likely Jesus’ destination.[36]
John 8:2
This verse introduces the specific setting. Jesus has come down during the early morning (Ὄρθρου δὲ) and has entered the temple (πάλιν παρεγένετο εἰς τὸ ἱερόν). Upon his entering into the temple, the people came unto him (πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτόν) and he sat down and taught them (καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς). Again, Luke records a very similar passage, “And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him” (21:38).
John 8:3-6a
(3) And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Jesus a woman taken in adultery; and when they put her in the midst, (4) they said unto Jesus, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. (5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what do you say? (6a) This they said, tempting him that they might have to accuse him.
Verse 3 introduces a group of people that is unique to this passage and is found nowhere else in John’s gospel; however, the usage is quite common in the synoptic gospels. While Pharisees (Φαρισαῖοι in this verse) are normal antagonists in John’s gospel, the term for scribes (γραμματεῖς) is not. The scribes are “specialists in the Law of Moses: experts and scholars in the law, who together with the high priests along with the elders consist of the makeup of the Sanhedrin.”[37]
The scribes and the Pharisees have brought (ἄγουσιν) a woman (γυναῖκα) to Jesus who was caught in the very act (ἐπαυτοφώρῳ) of adultery (μοιχευομένη). This whole scene plays out in front of the people Jesus was teaching just moments ago. Since the scribes were a part of the Sanhedrin, they should have ensured a proper trial; however, that is not the case. In fact, there are several things wrong in this mockery of a trial.
First, the question must be asked, if they have caught the woman in the very act, where is the man? The story mentions nothing of him. Burge alone gives an answer, “If they were caught in the act, he was caught too. The accusers have permitted him to get away clean.”[38] The Greek word, κατειλημμένην, means to come upon someone with intent to catch or surprise.[39] These men have made a legal claim, which requires two witnesses to see the act.[40] They have set a snare for this to take place.[41]
The Greek word μοιχευομένη, from μοιχεύω is none other than sexual intercourse[42]; this is the term the translators of the LXX for the Hebrew word נְאָֽף (Ex. 20:14; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 5:18; Jer. 29:23; Eze. 16:32; etc.). While the marital status of a man was not defined in the OT, adultery was defined in three ways: 1) man with a married woman (Lev. 18:20; 20:10), 2) a man with a betrothed girl (Deut. 22:23-27); and 3) a married woman with a man (Eze. 16:32; Hos. 4:13).[43] This term is not used to refer to a woman that is not betrothed, and the law states that he would have to marry her or pay the father her dowry’s price (שָׁכַב; Ex. 22:16). This means then that the woman brought before Jesus was either married or engaged. Stoning was the punishment listed for betrothed women (Deut. 22:23-24); however, stoning was not listed in the Law concerning married women, just that they were to be put to death (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). The specific passage does not say whether or not she was married, just that she was caught in the act.
Second, this woman should have been taken before the Sanhedrin. Her crime demanded that she be tried, and if found guilty, by casuistic law, be put to death. However, Derrett explains, “She was not being taken for a regular trial, because the only court which had jurisdiction to try her by Jewish Law seems to have been deprived of jurisdiction in capital cases not long before.”[44] Another biblical example comes to mind: when Jesus was brought before the High Priest, they could not actually kill him; therefore, they sent Jesus to Pilate in order for the execution to take place. Burge mentions that the scribes and Pharisees are looking to conduct a lynching.[45] However, vs. 6 shows that they have an alternate plan. That means that the scribes and Pharisees were using this woman, in her shame and humiliation, in order to arrive at some premeditated goal. Witherington explains, “Jesus is being invited to set himself against Moses, or against the Roman law which prohibited Jews from exercising capital punishment.”[46] If Jesus sets himself against Moses, his authority as a teacher is greatly questioned; however, if he questions Roman authority, he could be arrested for inciting violence or blaspheming Rome. “There is no question of their seeking his advice; they simply wish to discredit him publicly. If he upholds the Law, he contradicts his way of life and his preaching; if he maintains his outlook and preaching regarding sinners and denies Moses, he shows himself a lawless person and perverter of the people who must be brought to justice.”[47]
John 8:6b-8
(6b) But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. (7) So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, he that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her. (8) And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
The scribes and Pharisees have caught a woman, dragged her through the streets to the temple, have interrupted Jesus’ teaching, and have placed this shameful woman in front of them for all to see and hear what she has done. They have presented Jesus the crime and the Law, and they expect an answer. The audience, the scribes and Pharisees, and the woman are waiting to hear the response, but Jesus instead stoops down and begins to write on the ground with his finger. What Jesus wrote was not recorded by John, but modern scholars have offered opinions. Burge thinks that Jesus wrote something alluding to the law and demonstrated his displeasure at this social faux pas.[48] Others think that Jesus, being seated, was limited in what he wrote and scribbled either Ex. 23:1b or 23:7, or perhaps a visible reference to Jer. 17:13.[49] Regardless of what may have been written, this action has not deterred the accusers. They continue to ask Jesus.
James discusses the integrity of the witnesses in this case and four factors that could be used to challenge the witnesses: 1) failure to warn the woman concerning her crime; 2) a conspiracy between the woman’s husband or fiancé and the witnesses to catch her and have her executed; 3) failure to obey the Scriptural procedure for trying a case of adultery in that both guilty persons should be tried and executed; and 4) the malevolent desire to trap Jesus.[50] Instead, Jesus lifted himself up (ἀνάκυψας), which means that Jesus stood up in order to address the accusers.[51] His statement does two things. First, it points out that those who witnessed the crime must be the first to stone them; and second, it causes the accusers to conduct self-examinations.[52] Hendricksen rightly states, “Jesus’ statement showed them that they were not fit to execute the very law which ostensibly they were so eager to carry out! […] These scribes and Pharisees were acting in the capacity of witnesses and accusers. Yet the sin of the accused was as nothing in comparison with their perverseness.”[53] Once Jesus finished this statement, he simply sat back down and wrote in the dirt. Again, John does not describe what Jesus wrote in the dirt, the focus is Jesus’ shocking statement.
John 8:9-11
(9) And they which heard it, [being convicted by their own conscience], went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and he was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. (10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? (11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Verse 9 demonstrates the power of Jesus’ words upon the accusers. The phrase bracketed in verse 9 “ὑπὸ τῆς συνειδήσεως” is not found in many of the texts containing this passage.[54] Regardless of this phrase, the accusers begin to walk away. Burge points out that John’s use of ἐλεγχόμενοι is imperfect in tense, “to build a picture of one teacher departing, who is then followed by a succession of people eventually walking away, so that the accusers arrayed against the woman crumble bit by bit.”[55] The phrase “Jesus was left alone” does not indicate that Jesus was completely alone with her; it is quite probable that the audience remained behind to see what Jesus might say to the woman still standing in the middle.
Jesus then stands, and looking around, sees none of the accusers. He then addresses the accused. The term “woman” (γυνή) is not to be understood as Jesus being rude, but rather as a sign of respect and is used elsewhere in like manner (John 4:21 – Samaritan woman; 2:4, 19:26 – his mother).[56] His question is two-fold. The first question prompts her to look around and draws her focus to him. The second question asks her if she has been legally (κατέκρινεν) condemned to die.[57] The word κατακρίνω means to pronounce a sentence after determination of guilt.[58] Her simple response, Οὐδείς, κύριε, is one of humility and respect. Jesus responds using the same legal verbiage, “Neither do I condemn you [Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω], go and sin no more.” Jesus’ statement does not condone her actions. Jesus gave this command once before in the book of John. In similar fashion, the paralytic is instructed μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε in John 5:14. Concerning the woman, Baylis points out that while Christ, as God, could have judged her apart from the Law; that was not Christ’s intent for Christ had come to save (John 3:17) and the day of judgment would come, but it was not at that time (John 5:27-29).[59] “His implied judgment on her accusers and his mercy mixed with exhortation sets her free in a manner she never expected.”[60]
Conclusion
This paper has reviewed the external and internal evidence for this passage in regards to the gospel of John. While, it can neither be confirmed, nor denied, a part in John’s gospel, this passage does present an accurate representation of Christ’s actions. The scribes and Pharisees, in an attempt to trap Jesus, not only misuse the Law, but do so at the cost of severe shame upon a sinner. The fact that the woman was clearly in the act of adultery does not matter to Jesus because sin is equal in His eyes. Believers today would take great strides if they learn from these religious leaders on what not to do.
The overzealous, legalistic application of the law made them just as sinful as the woman standing in the midst. And while, just as Jesus did not condone her actions, He did not judge her rashly either. “Jesus exhibited a strict compliance with the letter and spirit of the Mosaic law (1) by testing the integrity of the witnesses and, in the absence of credible witnesses, (2) by dismissing the charges against the woman. Thus Jesus affirmed the authority of the Mosaic Law.”[61] Whether or not one agrees on the historicity of this account, this story demonstrates Christ’s fulfillment of the law, as well as His rule over the law; whereas the Pharisees, in an attempt to trap Jesus, have completely dismissed the law in their own selfish plans.
Bibliography
Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M Martini, and Bruce M Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th edition. Nordlingen: C.H. Beck, 1993.
________. The Greek New Testament. 4th edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche-Bibelgesellschaft, 2010.
Baylis, C. P. "The Woman Caught in Adultery : A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet." Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no. 582 (1989): 171-184. http://web.ebscohost.com. ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=17&sid=e813e141-1bdf-40a1-8495-99cab10db737%40sessionmgr10
Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Vol. 36 of Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000.
Borchet, Gerald L. John 1 – 11. Vol. 25a of New American Commentary. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996.
Bruce. F. F. The Gospel and Epistles of John. 1983. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n. d.
Burge, G. M. "A Specific Problem in the New Testament Text and Canon : The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 2 (1984): 141-148. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer /pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=17&sid=e813e141-1bdf-40a1-849599cab10db737%40 sessionmgr10
________. John. Vol. 4 of The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
Danker, Frederick William. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Derrett, J. Duncan M. Law in the New Testament. 1970. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005: 156-188.
Elowsky, Joel C. ed. John 1 – 10. Vol. 4a of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament. Edited by Thomas C. Oden. Downer's Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
Hall, Gary H. “@an” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, Vol. 3. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1997.
Hendricksen, William. The Gospel According to John. Vol. 2. 1954. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972.
Hodges, Zane C. and Arthur L. Farstad, eds. The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.
Hodges, Zane Clark. "The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11): The Text." Bibliotheca Sacra 136, no. 544 (OCT – DEC 1979): 318-332.
________. "The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11): Exposition." Bibliotheca Sacra 137, no. 545 (January 1, 1980): 41-53.
James, Stephen A. "The Adulteress and the Death Penalty." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 22, no. 1 (March 1, 1979): 45-53.
Johnson, Alan F. "A stylistic trait of the Fourth Gospel in the pericope adulterae." Bulletin Of The Evangelical Theological Society 9, no. 2 (March 1, 1966): 91-96.
Keith, Chris. "The Initial Location of the Pericope Adulterae in Fourfold Tradition." Novum Testamentum 51, no. 3 (2009): 209-231.
Kostenberger, Andreas K. John. Vol. 5 of Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche-Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.
McMillan, Earle. "Textual authority for John 7:53-8:11." Restoration Quarterly 3, no. 1 (January 1, 1959): 18-22.
Salvoni, Fausto. "Textual authority for John 7:53-8:11." Restoration Quarterly 4, no. 1 (January 1, 1960): 11-15.
Schilling, Frederick A. "The Story of Jesus and the Adulteress." Anglican Theological Review 5, no. 2 (Apr 1955): 91-106.
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on the Gospel of John. Vol. 4 of Ancient Christian Texts. Translated by Marco Conti. Edited by Joel C. Elowsky. Downer's Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2010.
Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Peabody: Hendricksen, 2002.
Wallace, Daniel B., ed. Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011.
Witherington, III, Ben. John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995.
[1] Wallace, Daniel B., ed. Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011), 21; a sampling of the passages are: Mark 16:9-20, I John 5:7, and Mark 1:41. Common scholarly titles for this passage include: pericope adulterae, and pericope de adultera.
[2] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., (Stuttgart: Deutsche-Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), 187-188, 347. The term “al” means there are other sources not listed, but could be added.
[3] There are some MSS, minuscules, etc. that place the text in Luke, or in a different section of John, but this placement in these locations will not be dealt with in this paper.
[4] Cf. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Vol. 4 of Ancient Christian Texts, trans. Marco Conti, ed. Joel C. Elowsky (Downer's Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2010) 76n52.
[5] Chris Keith, "The Initial Location of the Pericope Adulterae in Fourfold Tradition," Novum Testamentum 51, no. 3 (2009): 214.
[6] Wallace, Revisiting, 20.
[7] The ones this author knows of firsthand are: Gary M. Burge, John. Vol. 4 of The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 238-241 [referred to hereafter as NIVAC]; George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Vol. 36 of Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 143-147; Ben Witherington, III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 362-366; Gary M. Burge, "A Specific Problem in the New Testament Text and Canon : The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)," Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 2 (1984): 141-148; Chris Keith, "The Initial Location of the Pericope Adulterae in Fourfold Tradition," Novum Testamentum 51, no. 3 (2009): 209-231; Fausto Salvoni, "Textual authority for John 7:53-8:11," Restoration Quarterly 4, no. 1 (January 1, 1960): 11-15; Frederick A. Schilling, "The Story of Jesus and the Adulteress," Anglican Theological Review 5, no. 2 (Apr 1955): 91-106; Andreas J. Kostenberger, John, vol. 5 of Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004) 245-249; F. F. Bruce, The Gospel and Epistles of John, 1983, Reprint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, date unknown) 413-418. Bruce mentions the lack of textual support but makes no clear statement that this passage is or is not Johannine.
[8] Robert Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes, (Zurich: Gotthelf, 1958): 61-62, quoted in Kostenberger, John, 245.
[9] Borchert, John 1-11, 370; spelling from UBS4 text.
[10] William Hendricksen, The Gospel According to John, vol. 2 (1954; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 33-40; Zane Clark Hodges, "The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11): The Text," Bibliotheca Sacra 136, no. 544 (OCT – DEC 1979): 318-332; Zane Hodges, "The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11): Exposition," Bibliotheca Sacra 137, no. 545 (January 1, 1980): 41-53; Alan F. Johnson, "A stylistic trait of the Fourth Gospel in the pericope adulterae." Bulletin Of The Evangelical Theological Society 9, no. 2 (March 1, 1966): 91-96. Johnson’s article is the current position of Moody Bible Institute and Seminary. Jerome, Bede, and Augustine all make comments on this passage and will be addressed later in this section. Gerald L. Borchert, John 1 – 11, Vol. 25a of New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996) 369-376; Borchert states that this section is an inspired text merely looking for a home (376).
[11] Hodges, The Text, 318-322.
[12] Ibid., 318-324.
[13] Ibid., 327.
[14] Metzger, TextCom, 188 (cf. apparatus in UBS4, pg. 347; NA27, pg. 273).
[15] Joel C. Elowsky, ed., John 1 – 10, in vol. 4a of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downer's Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2006) 272.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Johnson, Stylistic Trait, 93; cf. 94n19 and Kostenberger, John, 249, the list is: alla, oida, ou, ean, ean mh, egw, ei, ei mh, ek, hmhn, eimi, hmeis, ina, ina mh, maqhthj, oj, oti, ou, umaj, and umeij.
[18] Ibid., 93-94.
[19] Ibid., 92-95; cf. Kostenberger who states, “word statistics should not be accorded definitive status in the present argument” (John, 246).
[20] Burge, John, NIVAC, 241.
[21] Metzger, TextCom, 188.
[22] Hendricksen, John, 35.
[23] A discussion on identification of gospel-genre literature will not be included in this paper, but one should consider Witherington’s work, John’s Wisdom, for an excellent explanation (pp. 2-4).
[24] Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Peabody: Hendricksen, 2002): 173.
[25] Ibid., Introduction, 168.
[26] Bruce, Gospel and Epistles, 1.
[27] Ibid., 3.
[28] Thiessen, Introduction, 168-169.
[29] Bruce, Gospel and Epistles, 6-12; cf. Thiessen, Introduction, 170.
[30] Witherington, John’s Gospel, 3-4.
[31] Burge, John, NIVAC, 30.
[32] Witherington, John’s Gospel, 43; cf. Bruce, Gospel and Epistles, 24-25 and Bulge, John, NIVAC, 41-42.
[33] Thiessen, Introduction, 175.
[34] Witherington, John’s Gospel, 4-5.
[35] Burge, John, NIVAC, 229-230.
[36] Ibid., 241.
[37] Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) 206.
[38] Burge, John, NIVAC, 242.
[39] Danker, BDAG, 519-520.
[40] Derrett, Law, 160.
[41] J. Duncan M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament (1970. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005), 161-162; cf. Burge, John, NIVAC, 242.
[42] Danker, BDAG, 656-657.
[43] Gary H. Hall, “@an” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, Vol. 3, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1997) 2-5.
[44] Derrett, Law, 166.
[45] Burge, John, NIVAC, 242.
[46] Witherington, John’s Gospel, 364.
[47] Beasley-Murray, John, 146.
[48] Burge, John, NIVAC, 243.
[49] Beasley-Murray, John, 146; cf. Derrett, Law, 175-182.
[50] Stephen A. James, “The Adulteress and the Death Penalty,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22, no 1 (March 1979): 51.
[51] Danker, BDAG, 66
[52] Burge, John, NIVAC, 243.
[53] Hendricksen, John, 38.
[54] Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, eds., The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985): xxiii-xxxii; cf. Metzger, TextCom, 190. Common sense and logic would argue that conviction was the reason since no other possibility exists for them to depart from such an occasion.
[55] Burge, John, NIVAC, 243.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Borchert, John 1-11, 375.
[58] Danker, BDAG, 519.
[59] Charles P. Baylis, “The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet,” Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no. 582 (1989): 183.
[60] Burge, John, NIVAC, 245.
[61] James, The Adulteress, 53.
No comments:
Post a Comment