John 8:0 - Exposition

(8) The pericope adulterae. (a) Excursus on the genuineness of Jn 7:53-8:11. It is our duty to examine the various grounds on which this passage has been almost universally concluded to have formed no portion of the original Fourth Gospel; and then the internal grounds on which it has been rejected, and some of the speculations as to its origin and value.

Doubts have beset the authenticity of the passage from the fourth and fifth centuries in the Eastern Church, both on external and internal grounds. The authority and practice of Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome gave it a secure resting place till the criticism of Erasmus re-awakened doubt. Calvin expressed a more favourable opinion concerning it. Jansenius rejected it. Grotius considered it as an addition to John's Gospel from the hand of Papias or one of his friends and fellow disciples of John. Wettstein, Semler, Griesbach, and Wegscheider seemed to leave for it no place in Scripture. Lachmann omitted it from his text. It has been condemned as spurious by the great bulk of modern critics, even of different schools and on somewhat different grounds. Some have rejected it as a spurious forgery (see Hengstenberg, in loc .); Keim derives much the same conclusion from its supposed teaching; others have admitted that, though it is not without a powerful apostolic ring about it, yet its proper place was probably at the close of Luke 21:1-38 ., where it is found in cursive 69 and three other cursives. Others (Scrivener) that, from its interruption of the narrative, it has no place here, but may be possibly regarded as an appendix to John's Gospel, or a part of the later edition of that Gospel which contained John 21:1-25 . There is no sufficient ground on which to build this hypothesis of two editions (cf. notes on John 21:1 ). There are, however, manuscripts which preserve the paragraph in this position, viz. the cursive 1, and the majority of the Armenian manuscripts. A very damaging note accompanies it in 1 (see Tregelles, who gives it at length). The following critical editors have either displaced it or entirely rejected it from this place in John's Gospel, though many among them admit its virtual authenticity as a record of a genuine occurrence in the life of our Lord: Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Lucke, Meyer, Godet, Milligan, Scrivener, Moulton, Westcott and Hort, the Revised Text, and even Weiss and Wordsworth. On the other hand, it has been defended by Mill, Lampe, Michaelis, by Bengel, Scholz, Wieseler, Ebrard, Lange, Stier, M'Clellan, and by some of the Tubingen school like Hilgenfeld, who, attaching it to the Gospel, have made use of it to destroy the historic character of the Gospel itself. Griesbach retains it with double marks of doubt. Farrar, summarizing Lucke's discussion of the evidence, inclines rather in its favour, and thinks it may have been early admitted into the Fourth Gospel from that according to the Hebrews, or from some Ur-marcus (Holtzmann). M'Clellan and Stier vehemently maintain it on both internal and external grounds. Edersheim says that it presents "insuperable difficulties in the 'un-Jewish' account given of the accusers, the witnesses, the public examination, the bringing of the woman to Jesus, and the punishment claimed." Renan, 'Ecce Homo,' and Farrar have made very powerful biographic use of the narrative.

The evidence against it is:

1. That א , (A), B, (C), (L), X, ( δ ), 33, 131, and 157 omit it. A and C are here defective, but they leave no sufficient space for its insertion; L and δ leave gaps, to notify some omission, which the copyist for some reason did not or dared not fill. Though found in D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, V, T, δ, λ, π , and numerous cursives, it is nevertheless obelized in some of the former as doubtful.

The first Greek writer in the twelfth century (Euthymius Zygadenus) who in this portion of the Gospel refers to the passage distinctly says that from John 7:53 to John 8:11 the passage was not found, or it was obelized in the most accurate copies ; wherefore, he adds, it was first a gloss, and then an appendix ( παρέγραπτα , "written alongside of," καὶ προσθήκη , "added to"), and "a token of this is seen in the fact that Chrysostom had made no mention of it."

2. It was found in different places, even in several of the manuscripts which contain it (see above).

3. Ancient versions, such as some of the Italic, AE gyptian, Old Syriac, Gothic, early manuscripts of the Peschito and Armenian versions, omit it.

4. It was not read by Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Theodore of Mopsuesfia, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theophylact, where it might have been expected.

5. Though found in D (Codex Bezae), yet this testimony, without confirmation, throws doubt over it, by its adoption of the paragraph. D has given us several other additions (such as Matthew 20:28 ; Luke 6:5 ), which have never passed into authentic Scripture. Moreover, the text of D here differs from that of the later uncials in which it occurs, as well as from the body of cursives which contain it. Lucke powerfully argues, from the silence of Chrysostom and Origen, that they were in positive ignorance of the existence of the passage. The defenders of its authenticity allege that Origen's commentary and homilies are lacking or mutilated over the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters. While this is true, Origen ('Tom.,' 19.) points out the connection between John 7:40 and John 8:12 without making the faintest reference to this pericope. "No catenae as yet examined contain notes on any of these verses" (Westcott and Hort).

6. The nature of the text differs from that with which it is supposed to be imbedded, as, for instance, in the use of the particle δὲ in place of οὖν (John's favourite particle), and of other words which are peculiar to itself, and certain expressions, such as "Mount of Olives," "sat and taught," etc., which are current in Luke and elsewhere (but see further for the value of this evidence).

7. The Constant. lection for Whit Sunday consists of John 7:37-52 , followed immediately by John 8:12 . Such an omission from John's Gospel is only noticeable elsewhere where special reason can be assigned for it.

8. With the exception of the 'Apostolic Constitutions,' the Greek writers and commentators are ignorant of it, and there is no proof of its existence in any extant manuscript earlier than the sixth century.

The sum of this is that the most ancient known authorities are, from one cause or other (whether necessary, accidental, or prudential), silent concerning the passage; that mutilations of Scripture cannot be common offences, even though a strong ascetic spirit might be tempted to refuse a public reading of this paragraph, and to abstain from public comment on so difficult a passage.

The evidence for the paragraph is:

1. First and foremost, the Codex D and the later uncials (E), (F), G, H, K, M, γ , (S), T, U, λ (but in E, F, and S great doubts are expressed; F has a space to verse 10; γ ends at verse 3). D probably belongs to the fifth or sixth century, K to the eighth or ninth, and the remaining uncials belong to the tenth, eleventh, or twelfth century. The whole group is, with the exception of T, representative of the Syrian Recension. Some of the best manuscripts of the vulgate contain it, and the AE thiopic and Memphitic versions. Griesbach enumerates a hundred cursives—Alford says three hundred—and especially in Latin manuscripts referred to by Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome.

2. The supposed presence of it in the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' turns on the statement preserved by Eusebius in his account of Papias (of which we have other reasons for doubting the accuracy), 'Hist. Eccl.,' 3.40, "He exhibits also another history concerning a woman ( διαβληθείσης ) calumniously accused before the Lord of many sins, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." On the credit of this statement, that apocryphal Gospel has been supposed to contain the famous passage. The idea is thrown out that John or his earliest editors may have sought to find a place for it, and imagined that the event preceded the solemn assertion of John 8:15 , "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no one." This ingenious supposition tells both ways. If the passage is an importation from the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' Eusebius becomes a witness that, in his day, and by him, it was not regarded as an integral portion of John ' s Gospel. The very early existence of the narrative is, however, avouched, and the possible method suggested by which either John or the Ephesian presbyters adopted it. But there is no proof that this narrative is identical with a story no details of which are preserved. The slanderous or secret accusation of a woman is not parallel with the antoptic, uncontradicted assertion of John 8:4 , that she was "taken in the very act." Nor is the accusation of "many sins" identical with the charge of one revolting crime. It is significant that Ruffinus, in his version of Eusebius, substitutes "a woman, an adulteress," for "a woman accused of many sins." This may have been due to his acquaintance with Jerome's translation of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews.' Moreover, on the supposition of identity, the story would more probably have been found in the cognate Gospel of Matthew than in the numerous manuscripts of the Fourth Gospel.

3. The testimony of ancient writers can be set over against the silence of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, etc. Thus, 'Apost. Const.,' 2.24, refers to the narrative, in vindication of the true reception of penitents. After referring to Luke 7:1-50 ., the writers say, "Another woman who had sinned, the elders placed before him, and left the judgment in his hands, and went out; but the Lord, who knoweth the hearts, having inquired of her whether the elders had condemned her, and she having said 'No,' said, 'Go, then; neither do I condemn thee.'" This testimony cannot be positively made to show that the passage was in any Greek text earlier than the third century, and no reference occurs in it to the Gospel of John. The reference is valuable for the antiquity of the Gospel, if other reasons establish this passage as an integral portion of that Gospel.

4. The passage was undoubtedly admitted as part of the Gospel by both Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose, and many later Fathers of the Western Church. Jerome did not discard it from the vulgate version, and distinctly says that it was found "in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus," and that it was read on the Feast of St. Pelagia. Ambrose quoted from it ('De Spir. Sancto' 3.2, 15), and reproached those who made a bad use of it. Augustine ('Adv. Pelag.,' 2.17) admits that some were afraid of the passage, lest it should lead to laxity of morals, and so had erased it ( auferrent ) from their codices. Augustine comments on it verse by verse, and preached from several texts found in it.

5. The internal evidence in favour is the weakness of the objections which are said to arise:

Our conclusion is that the passage, whether written as it stands by John or not, was introduced, in very early times, into the Western text as a gloss on John 8:15 ); that the external evidence is extremely unsatisfactory and conflicting; yet it must be admitted that the silence of the great Greek Fathers concerning it is accountable without disbelieving in its existence. While Chrysostom ignores it, Ambrose insists upon its teaching, and Jerome does not see sufficient reason to expunge it. The profound originality of the lessons it conveys, and the difficulty involved in a careless reading, may account for the non-appearance of it in the curliest manuscripts, and make the motive which could have maliciously devised or imagined such a scene inconceivable. Lucke, in his elaborate treatment, Tregelles, and Alford, Godet, in loco, Lightfoot ( Contemporary Review, vol. 26.), Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, declare against it in the most positive way. Meyer urges that it is not to be for a moment referred to an oral Johannine source, while it is in keeping, he says, with the tone of the synoptic Gospels. This is open to criticism. Scathing denunciations of every kind of corruption are far more frequent in the synoptic Gospels (cf. Matthew 5-7, Matthew 23:1-39 , etc.) than in the Fourth Gospel.

The most formidable objection is the state of the text, which, in addition to its deficiency of first-class testimony, is unusually discrepant in the authorities which preserve it. Thus there is the abridged form of the narrative in Codex Bezae (D) and the text of T.R., which rests on a large number of later uncials and cursives; and a third text, which seems like a mixture or conflation of the two texts. Lucke and Godet have suggested that the passage contains an extra-scriptural fact preserved by oral tradition that was first placed at the end of the Gospels, and therefore at the end of John's Gospel, and was by some editors and copyists inserted in this particular connection, and by others in Luke 21:8 , in the midst of the testing to which the Sanhedrin and the sectional parties submitted our Lord during the last week of his life. Bishop Lightfoot ( Contemporary Review, vol. 26:847) thinks it may have been one of the illustrative anecdotes in the Collectanea of Papias. The only other illustration to which he refers is the supposed saying of our Lord preserved in Eusebius's account of Papias, with reference to the extraordinary fertility of the vine in the latter days—a passage which Lightfoot thinks may have been originally attached to Matthew 26:29 . That such an event did happen, and that we have here an authentic record of what occurred, is accepted by the great bulk of critics, who, nevertheless, expunge it from the text of John, on the combined ground of its internal difficulty and deficiency of external attestation. The difficulty, however, is one indication of the surpassing originality of the narrative. It is hard to imagine the motive which should induce any of the followers of Christ or of John to have invented it, while there are reasons, drawn from the ascetic tendencies mightily at work in certain sections of the Church, for its omission or the silence of homilists.

Though the spirit, atmosphere, and phrase suggest the synoptic tradition rather than the Johannine, yet it must not be forgotten that there are many synoptic passages in John's Gospel, and Johannine phrases in the synoptists. The criticism proceeding from moral timidity has failed to recognize the grandeur of the entire proceeding. It contains no palliation of incontinence, but; a simple refusal of Jesus to assume the position of a civil Judge or Executor of the law in face of the established political supremacy of Rome; while the Lord made a demand for personal holiness, and an appeal to conscience so pungent that, in lieu of condemning to death a sinful woman, he judged a whole crowd of men, convincing them of sin, while he gave the overt transgressor time for repentance and holier living.

Verses 7:53-8:11

(b) The plot against the honour or loyalty of the Lord Jesus foiled.

John 7:53

And everyone went £ to his own house. If the plural be here taken, it more obviously refers to the breaking up of the assembly, of the divided groups, as well as of the angry Sanhedrin for the day now drawing to its close. The strong opponents of the passage see in the clause the mark of an interpolator who makes use of a phrase strictly applicable from its presumed place to the Sanhedrin, but intended clumsily to refer to the crowds who had been taking part in the dramatic scene. There would, however, be no impropriety in the reference to the cessation of an extraordinary session or committee of the Sanhedrin, when the officers had returned without their prize.