The Pericope Adulterae belongs in Luke (John 7:53-John 8:12)

[Dizerner]

This section is only in one early edition of John (codex D).

Some later manuscripts place it John 7:36, 7:44, or at the end of the work.

Origen and Tertullian skip over it in context, and it's first mentioned by Jerome.

Four distinct later manuscripts place it after Luke 21:38.

It clearly breaks the flow of discourse and narrative in John at the place it was inserted:

https://caffeinatedtheologian.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/on-the-inspiration-of-the-pericope-adulterae/ writes:

The problem with the placement of the text has led some theologians to believe that the periscope adulterae could be of Lucan origin.

Henry Cadbury, an advocate of the Lucan authorship of the periscope adulterae, concluded that the vocabulary and style employed by the periscope is more characteristic of Luke than John.[4] Cadbury identifies vocabulary used in the periscope adulterae that occurs in Luke and Acts but no other New Testament work.[5] Fausto Salvoni highlights the fact that the same author would not likely have used these two distinct writing styles.[6] Salvoni identifies several reasons why the periscope adulterae could possibly be Lucan in origin, and not original to the Gospel of John.

Within his writing, Luke had a tendency to emphasize the individual. He consistently focused on women, social outcasts, children and the poor. Furthermore, Luke emphasized the role of women in Jesus’ ministry significantly more than any other gospel writer. Several stories involving women are found solely in the gospel of Luke including the women who followed Jesus (8:1-3), the resurrection of the son of the widow (7:11-17) and the sinner woman whom Jesus forgave (7:36-50).[7] Finally, in John’s gospel, he consistently takes time to discuss the theological impact of Jesus’ actions, which the author of the pericope adulterae does not take time to do. In his work, Behind the Third Gospel, Vincent Taylor argues for “Proto-Luke” writings. He supposes that Luke’s career as a historian led him to collect oral material and eye-witness accounts, especially those that focused on women, that he would later use in his writings.[8] According to Taylor, there must have been some material that remained unused in the composition of the books of Luke and Acts. Therefore, the Gospel writers and church patriarchs would have had this “Proto-Luke” collection of writings to draw from. The story of the adulterous woman could have been a well-known passage in the early church, written by Luke, and later inserted into the Gospel of John. Though the idea of Lucan authorship is solely a supposition, it supplies a solid argument for the origin of the pericope adulterae.

[4]Cadbury, Henry. “A Possible Case of Lucan Authorship (John 7:53-8:11).” The Harvard Theological Review (Cambridge University Press) 10, no. 3 (July 1927): 237-244.

[5]Ibid., 239.

[6]McMillan, Textual Authority, 18.

[7]Ibid., 20.

[8]Taylor, Vincent. Behind the Third Gospel: A Study of the Proto-Luke Hypothesis. Clarendon Press, 1926.

I would add also, that the Synoptics record the cycle of attacks by the Pharisees where they are specifically looking to trap Jesus in his words, which story perfectly fits this later theme, and where there is the specific mention of Jesus coming in the mornings near the temple area that is not mentioned in John (Mat. 21:18; Mark 11:20; Luke 21:38).

I think all of this evidence is very strong.

 

[Complete]

Hello @Discerner,

I gleaned a lot of information concerning this passage from referring to my Bible marginal notes, and thought you would not mind my referring to them here. I use my own wording for the most part:-

'And the scribes and Pharisees
brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery;
and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto Him,
"Master, (i.e., Teacher)
this woman was taken in adultery,
in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us,
that such should be stoned:
but what sayest thou?"

* Moses is referred to 13 times in John's gospel, this being the 11th, The first being in 1:17 - ''For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ' . The law referred to here referred only to a, 'betrothed damsel' (Deut.22:24); and to show that the Lord knew their thoughts, and knew also that this was another man's, 'wife'. He complied with the law prescribed in 'such' a case (Num. 5:11-31), and stooped down and wrote the curses (as required in v.23) on the ground.

'This they said, tempting (i.e., testing) Him, that they might have to accuse Him. '

* The test was in relation to the word, ' such', for they mentioned the punishment without defining which of two possible cases it was for. For the one in Deut. 22:23-24 (a virgin) the death was stoning; but in the case of a 'wife' the punishment was not stoning, but required a special procedure (Num. 5:11-31) which left the punishment with God.

'... But Jesus stooped down,
and with His finger wrote on the ground,
as though He heard them not.'

* The Lord Jesus did not stoop down and write on the ground out of inattention, but to call their attention to the fact that the case was 'such' as required the fulfilment of Num.5 and not Deut.22. (a reading of which will be explanation enough).

'... So when they continued asking Him,
He lifted up Himself, and said unto them,
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

* He continued to write the curses required in such a case as testified in Num.5.

'...And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience,
went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last:

* They were convicted by the manifestation of the Lord's obvious knowledge of what was in their hearts and of what they were concealing for the purpose of tempting Him.
* It is interesting that the words 'without sin' (sinless = Gr. anamartetos) occurs nowhere else in the N.T. It's definition being:-
'a sin, whether by omission or commission, in thought, word, or deed.' This is so apt in this case, (how wonderfully precise the word of God is, isn't it?

'... and Jesus was left alone,
and the woman standing in the midst.'
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?"
She said, "No man, Lord."
And Jesus said unto her,
"Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
(Joh 8:3-11)

* In saying, 'neither do I condemn thee', instead of referring to her sin, He speaks judicially, for there was now no evidence presented before Him, no witnesses to condemn her.

* I believe that this passage of Scripture, as with all Scripture is there for a reason, is of God and should not be tampered with. There is a structure underlying all Scripture and this portion is in the section concerning the King and the Kingdom and it's rejection, and is therefore in keeping with the whole, as it stands.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

* Ref. to Moses in John's Gospel:- 1:17, 45; 3:14; 5:45-46; 6:32; 7:19, 22, 22-23; 8:5; 9:28-29.

 

[Dizerner]

Hello @Discerner,

I gleaned a lot of information concerning this passage from referring to my Bible marginal noted, and thought you would not mind my referring to them here.

Of course you are welcome to. Very interesting idea here, I've not really heard it before. Did you get this from a particular Study Bible.

I, too, am completely convinced this story is original and inspired and very important to us.

 

[Complete]

Of course you are welcome to. Very interesting idea here, I've not really heard it before. Did you get this from a particular Study Bible.

I, too, am completely convinced this story is original and inspired and very important to us.

Hello there, @Dizerner,

I use, 'The Companion Bible', which has marginal notes and an appendix which is very informative, but like with all of man's writings related to Scripture must be measured accordingly, including concordance and dictionary definitions. The only true guide is the comparison of Scripture with Scripture, for then it is the use that the Holy Spirit has made of the words that defines it in accord with His will and purpose, and not that of man.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Dizerner]

The law referred to here referred only to a, 'betrothed damsel' (Deut.22:24); and to show that the Lord knew their thoughts, and knew also that this was another man's, 'wife'.

No, Scripture was clear that adultery was to be put to death.

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."

He complied with the law prescribed in 'such' a case (Num. 5:11-31), and stooped down and wrote the curses (as required in v.23) on the ground.

This was for a suspicion of adultery only, that is, an unproven accusation, which does not apply here.

or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he becomes jealous of his wife, although she has not defiled herself-- (Num. 5:14 NKJ)

It says they were caught in the very act.

they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. (Jn. 8:4 NKJ)


I think the theory he was writing their personal sins holds a lot of merit, because it would explain why they went away one by one.

 

[TheLayman]

This section is only in one early edition of John (codex D).

Some later manuscripts place it John 7:36, 7:44, or at the end of the work.

Origen and Tertullian skip over it in context, and it's first mentioned by Jerome.

Four distinct later manuscripts place it after Luke 21:38.

It clearly breaks the flow of discourse and narrative in John at the place it was inserted:

https://caffeinatedtheologian.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/on-the-inspiration-of-the-pericope-adulterae/ writes:




I would add also, that the Synoptics record the cycle of attacks by the Pharisees where they are specifically looking to trap Jesus in his words, which story perfectly fits this later theme, and where there is the specific mention of Jesus coming in the mornings near the temple area that is not mentioned in John (Mat. 21:18; Mark 11:20; Luke 21:38).

I think all of this evidence is very strong.

Just adding a little more info:

7:53–8 :11​

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as 66, 75 ℵ B L N T W X Y Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. 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 and the older Bohairic manuscripts. 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.

When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.

At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. 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 Γ Π 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7:36 (ms. 225) or after 7:44 (several Georgian mss) or after 21:25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after Lk 21:38 (f13). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses that contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials.

Sometimes it is stated that the pericope was deliberately expunged from the Fourth Gospel because Jesus’ words at the close were liable to be understood in a sense too indulgent to adultery. But, apart from the absence of any instance elsewhere of scribal excision of an extensive passage because of moral prudence, this theory fails “to explain why the three preliminary verses (vii 53; viii 1–2), so important as apparently descriptive of the time and place at which all the discourses of c. viii were spoken, should have been omitted with the rest” (Hort, “Notes on Select Readings,” pp. 86 f.).

Although the Committee was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following Jn 7:52.

Inasmuch as the passage is absent from the earlier and better manuscripts that normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make a decision among alternative readings. In any case it will be understood that the level of certainty ({A}) is within the framework of the initial decision relating to the passage as a whole.

8:6​

A few manuscripts omit the first nine words of this verse, preferring to introduce the statement either after ver. 4 (D 1071) or after ver. 11 (M).

8:7​

A few witnesses omit οὐτὸν as superfluous, while others replace αὐτοῖς with the prepositional phrase πρὸς αὐτούς. Neither reading commended itself to the Committee.

8:8​

In order to satisfy pious curiosity concerning what it was that Jesus wrote upon the ground, after γῆν several witnesses (U Π 73 331 364 700 782 1592 armmss) add the words ἕνος ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας (“the sins of every one of them”).

8:9​

The basic text of the pericope continued to be amplified by the addition of explanatory glosses. The Textus Receptus adds the statement that the woman’s accusers were themselves “reproved by their conscience” (ὑπὸ τῆς συνειδήσεως ἐλεγχόμενοι).

8:9​

The reading πρεσβυτέρων was enhanced by adding a clause (in one form or another) indicating that all of the woman’s accusers went away.

8:10​

The text was elaborated by adding (in one form or another) a clause referring to Jesus’ looking at the woman.

8:10​

The Textus Receptus, following E F G K 1079 al, adds ἐκεῖνοι οἱ κατήγοροί σου (“those accusers of yours”).

Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, A.

 

[Dizerner]

Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, A.

Always a terrific resource.

 

[Dizerner]

8:8​

In order to satisfy pious curiosity concerning what it was that Jesus wrote upon the ground, after γῆν several witnesses (U Π 73 331 364 700 782 1592 armmss) add the words ἕνος ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας (“the sins of every one of them”).

8:9​

The basic text of the pericope continued to be amplified by the addition of explanatory glosses. The Textus Receptus adds the statement that the woman’s accusers were themselves “reproved by their conscience” (ὑπὸ τῆς συνειδήσεως ἐλεγχόμενοι).

It's always tempting to assume the motives of a scribe, but it must be pointed out we cannot know with certainty.

A thing like this could conceivably be added from oral tradition passed down, and I think it deserves more credence.

 

[Love Fountain]

Dear All,

John 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

In the above verse, they have the bridegroom standing before them and are supposed to be his bride, yet they reject him for another, elsewhere they are shown in scripture to be adulterers and harlots themselves, they become convicted of themselves and their own hypocrisy through a simple question of conscience, seemingly as if shown themselves in a mirrored reflection.

Is it funny the original post quoted and provided a link to a website article by someone calling themselves the “caffeinatedtheologian” and in the conclusion of the article he/she calls the pericope adulterae a “periscope” adulterae.

“A study of early manuscripts of the New Testament evidences that the periscope adulterae is not original to the gospel of John.

Therefore, though the periscope adulterae is not original to the Gospel of John, it is divinely inspired and useful for teaching, rebuking and instructing in righteousness.” – caffeinatedtheologian article conclusion

This is great, a “periscope” because that is exactly what’s needed to see “around and through” all the false doctrines and false opinions that are in the way of people hearing and understanding the simplicity of the word of God in regards to John 7:53-8:11.

What is a periscope?

“A periscope is an instrument for observation over, around or through an object, obstacle or condition that prevents direct line-of-sight observation from an observer's current position.

In its simplest form, it consists of an outer case with mirrors at each end set parallel to each other at a 45° angle.” – quoted from internet

Periscope down!

Let’s look at those “mirrors at each end set parallel to each other” in regards to John 7:53-8:11 starting very slowly with John 7:53, 8:1 which is a mirror/parallel to John 7:44 as evidenced in the below parallel subject outline.

John 7:44 in the outline below, parallel's or mirrors, John 7:53, 8:1 in subject matter.




So when we look through our periscope at the two mirrors parallel above, John 7:44 and John 7:53, 8:1, that are parallel to each other and take one mirror away what happens? Chaos happens! Disorder, confusion, etc....

The symmetry, harmony and flow of the text is broken and a loose end is left in it’s place. The periscope doesn’t work with only one mirror!

Now here’s one of the objects they incorrectly place in the way of the ignorance they spoon feed the masses of people now that needs the help of the periscope with two parallel mirrors to aid in sight to see correctly.

“It clearly breaks the flow of discourse and narrative in John at the place it was inserted:” Original post quote

Their objective that they assert regarding the location of John 7:53-8:11 as the breaking of “the flow of discourse and narrative in John” is however, just like the hypocritical Pharisees who accused the adulterer of what they themselves are, this false assertion is actually doing exactly what is accused, by removing John 7:53, 8:1 from exactly where it’s correctly connected and placed at John 7:52 is the actual breaking “of the flow of discourse and narrative in John”.

Periscope up!

Blessings,
Love Fountain