The Pericope Adulterae:

An Intermediate Look into the Non-Originality of a Favorite Passage

Daniel Wilson

NT 855: New Testament Textual Criticism

December 2015

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

External Evidence 2

Introduction 2

Witnesses by Date 2

Witnesses by Text-Type 18

The Likelihood of Later Insertion 19

Conclusion 22

Internal Evidence 23

Introduction 23

Transcriptional Probabilities 23

Intrinsic Probabilities 23

Conclusion 30

Conclusion 31

Bibliography 32

1

INTRODUCTION

The Pericope Adulterae, or the paragraph regarding the adulteress (John 7:53–8:11), has

posed a tricky and involved textual problem for centuries. None of the earliest Greek

manuscripts contain this popular pericope, although other evidence points to the circulation of

similar stories even in the 2nd century. The internal evidence can be used to support either the

inclusion or exclusion of PA based on Johannine style. This paper will take a reasoned eclectic

approach to the problem, weighing the more objective external evidence more heavily than the

internal evidence. While far from being exhaustive in any portion, the aim is to provide at least

an overview to nearly every area of argument given.

2

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

Introduction

The most important step in solving a textual difficulty is to look at the actual manuscript

evidence. Early versions give supporting data, although the importance of these witnesses is

more difficult to assess. Church fathers often have something to say about a given passage,

which also sheds light on the topic. Finally, the inclusion or exclusion of a passage by the

church readings (lections) may hint at whether the church found the text important for public

reading. All of these factors, in addition to the date and text-type of the witnesses, will be

discussed below in order to determine whether or not the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11)

was an original part of the Gospel of John.

Witnesses by Date

The chart on the next page presents the witnesses cited in the 5th edition of the UBS text

(UBS5)1 by century. In order to keep types of witnesses differentiated, manuscripts are in black;

versions are in red; and fathers are in blue.

1 Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds.,

The Greek New Testament, 5th rev. ed. (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014); henceforth referred

to as UBS5.

3

Evidence for and Against Including the Pericope Adulterae (UBS Apparatus)

Century Exclude Include Include with

Variation or Notes

I ?? ??

II Diatessaron2 (Papias?)3

III 𝔓39vid (III)

𝔓66 (ca. 200)

𝔓75 (early III)

Origen

Tertullian

Mss of Cyprian (according to

Augustine)

None

IV ℵ B

Lect4

Coptic5 (Sahidic, Proto-

Bohairic, Part of Bohairic,

Sub-Achmimic)

Syriac (Curetonian, Sinaitic,

Peshitta, Harclean)

Chrysostom

Cyril of Alexandria

Vulgate

Bohairic Coptic

Apostolic Constitutionsvid

Ambrosiaster

Ambrose

Pacian

Faustus-Milevis

Mss (according to

Didymus)

2 The Diatessaron is included as a version here rather than as a patristic witness. While this may be

splitting hairs, there are several reasons for this. First, it is plausible that it was first composed in Syriac, due to

stylistic Semitisms in its witnesses (see Petersen, “Diatessaron,” 2:190). Second, it was more than a simple citation

of biblical stories or texts; it was almost a re-writing of the Gospels, which contrasts with the other patristic

witnesses. Third, the complications in reconstructing the Gospel harmony are greater than those of reconstructing

the text of a patristic witness. Finally, the version seemed to influence other versions more than later church fathers

could influence the text (cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, “Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament,” in The

Principles and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays of G. D. Kilpatrick, edited by J. K.

Elliot [Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990], 21–22).

3 Papias was not mentioned in the UBS apparatus, but some would use Eusebius’ citation of him as

evidence of the early inclusion of the PA. The parentheses and question mark reflect the questionable nature of the

evidence. See discussion below.

4 I prefer to put witnesses in the earliest possible cell. The majority of lectionary manuscripts are from the

2nd millennium, and the main lectionary system was establish in the 8th century, but the beginnings of lections were

seen in the days of Cyril and Chrysostom; see Carroll D. Osburn, “The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament,”

in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman

and Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1995), 63. The fact that the 4 th-century lectionaries

indicate a different system from the later, standard, Byzantine lectionaries, argued so strictly in Kurt and Barbara

Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of

Modern Textual Criticism, 2nd ed., trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1985), 166–71,

does not seem entirely relevant to the issue of what content was included.

5 The Coptic Scripture tradition appears to have begun by the 3rd century and come together by the 4th and

5th centuries, although manuscripts of each dialect are not necessarily extant until a few centuries later. See Aland

and Aland, Text, 201, 204, and Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its

Transmission, Corruptions, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 110–15.

4

V Avid

Cvid

T

W

Armenian

Georgian (or 10th)

D

Palestinian Syriac

Rufinus

Jerome

Augustine

itff2

VI N itj

VII itaur

itrl

VIII L

IX Δ

Θ

Ψ

33

565

1424

Slavonic

Byz (Fe [gap 7:28–8:10];

G, He, M)

892

Slavic mss (margin)

Λ (8:3–11 only;

asterisk),

1424 (margin)

X 0141 S (Asterisk/Obeli);

𝑙 5146

XI 1333* 1006

1243

38 (asterisk/obeli);

1333c (after Luke

24:53), 124 (F13)7,

𝑙 387, 𝑙 751, 𝑙 773

XII 157

1241

1010

1071

1505

itc

1 (after 21:25, with

note), 225 (after 7:36),

346 (F13), 𝑙 211, 𝑙 1780

XIII 579

1292

1342

13 (F13)

XIV 𝑙 184

XV 69 (F13), 𝑙 890

6 All of the cited lectionaries (𝑙; to be distinguished from Lect) include only 8:3–11.

7 The entire Family 13 (F13) includes the PA after Luke 21:38.

5

Other Placements of PA

The above chart is a representation of the UBS apparatus at this verse, separated by

century.8 The critical text offers several variations on the placement of PA, most notably

including Family 13’s placement of the passage after Luke 21:38. However, a total of 12 places

for PA have been counted:9

Placement of Pericope Adulterae

By Date of Witness(es) By Canonical Order

After John 7:52 After Luke 21:38

End of GJohn (21:25) Between Luke and John

After John 7:44 After John 7:36

After John 8:12 After John 7:44

Between Luke and John After John 7:52

After Luke 21:38 After John 8:12a

After John 8:12a After John 8:12

After John 7:36 After John 8:13

After John 10:36 After John 8:14a

After John 8:20 After John 8:20

After John 8:13 After John 10:36

After John 8:14a After John 21:25 (end of GJohn)

The chart above suggests an enormous amount of textual variation. However, the vast

majority of the Greek manuscripts (1370 of 1428, or about 95.9%) include the PA at the

traditional location (after John 7:52).10 Many of the alternative locations may be explained by

lectionary influence.11

8 The insertion of potential evidence of inclusion from Papias is the only addition made. The information

of dates is found in the introduction to UBS4.

9 Chris Keith, The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus, ed. Bart D. Ehrman

and Eldon J. Epp (Boston: Brill, 2009), 120–21, lists the locations for the PA according to their date, alongside the

manuscript and versional testimony (omitted here).

10 Ibid., 121. In 1979 Hodges wrote that there were probably not more than a couple dozen Greek

manuscripts to have the PA in locations other than after John 7, but information used by Keith (30 years later) puts

the number at 58. See Zane C. Hodges, “The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53–8:11): The Text,” BibSac 136,

no. 544 (October–December 1979): 325.

11 Keith, Pericope Adulterae, 135–39.

6

Manuscripts:

The mention of Byz, referring to the vast majority of Byzantine readings, especially after

the 1st millennium,12 should not be missed. However, the emphasis on dates after the 10th

century, along with the notable lack of specific Byzantine manuscripts mentioned from the 1st

millennium, strongly suggests that most Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine textform which

have the PA are quite late. Overall, there are probably over 100 manuscripts which omit the

pericope.13

Papyri

The 3 papyrus manuscripts which can be said to support either omission or inclusion of

PA all exclude it. 𝔓75, which includes several sections of John, including 7:46–9:2, clearly omits

the PA. 𝔓66, which includes a larger section around PA (6:35–14:26) also omits the passage in

question. This is the earliest extant reading of any manuscript of John 7–8 (ca. 200). 𝔓39

requires more effort to place it on one side of the evidence or the other, as only John 8:14–22 are

extant in that manuscript. Comfort has explained how this manuscript may be counted as

omitting the PA,14 and a summary of arguments will be given. The fragment of 𝔓39 is a double-

sided sheet, and the top and bottom of the text on the sheet are intact. The papyrus even includes

a page number (οδ=74), which allows the paleographer to follow the extant pattern of 25 lines

per page back to the beginning of John. When the scholar assumes for argument that 𝔓39 has the

same number of words in John as Codex Bezae does, the papyrus manuscript is shown to need,

12 Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, Allen Wikgren, Barbara Aland, and

Johannes Karavidopoulos, The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with Apparatus) (Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 2000; hereafter UBS4), 19*.

13 Hodges, “Woman Taken in Adultery,” 322.

14 Philip W. Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography &

Textual Criticism (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 353–54.

7

on average, 26 lines per page in order to include the whole text, minus the PA. If complete

consistency is expected, it is difficult to see how an extra line per page would fit. However,

adding the PA would add still one more line per page, which is an almost insuperable difference

given the consistency shown on the 2 extant pages. Thus, it is quite unlikely that 𝔓39 included

PA.

In sum, the only 3 papyri with any bearing on the PA, including the earliest extant

witness to the broader passage within John, support the early omission of the text.

Non-Papyri Majuscules

It is telling that only one codex includes the PA before the 9th century—5th-century

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D). PA is hardly the only reading found 1st in D. Bezae is the

only extant manuscript with story of Jesus speaking to a man who was working on the Sabbath

after Luke 6:4 (28 words long);15 adds the specific number of steps which Peter walked on the

street when an angel released him from prison (Acts 12:10), and it is the 1st manuscript to contain

the longer ending of Mark (16:9–20).16 This tendency to add will be discussed somewhat more

under “The Likelihood of Later Insertion” (p. 19). The general tendency in Bezae to add

material does not support the veracity and canonicity of its additional material after John 7 very

heartily.17

15 Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis: Greek Transcriptions (International Greek New Testament Project, 2012),

transcribes the following after Luke 6:4: τη αυτη ημερα θεασαμενος τινα εργαζομενον τω σαββατω ειπεν αυτω

ανθρωπε ει μεν οιδας τι ποιεις μακαριος ει ει δε μη οιδας επικαταρατος και παραβατης ει του νομου. The NET

Bible translates, “On the same day, as he saw someone working on the Sabbath he said, ‘Man, if you know what you

are doing, you are blessed, but if you do not know, you are cursed and a violator of the law.’ ”

16 Although only vv. 9–15 are extant of the original manuscript. See David Parker, “Codex Bezae (MS

Nn.2.41),” University of Cambridge Digital Library, last modified March, 2012, accessed December 30, 2015,

http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/1. Parker adds that D reverses the order of Jesus’ genealogy in

Luke 3, but this is not supported by the codex transcription referenced above, so images of the codex must be

studied to determine whether his is true.

8

The 5 majuscules which pre-date D and exclude the PA are generally of the Alexandrian

text-type, including the potentially critical texts ℵ and B, as well as likely support from A and C.

(The situation with A and C are similar to the situation with 𝔓39, pertaining to spacing.18) The

majuscules from the 9th century and on which include the text are typically Byzantine.

Minuscules

The minuscule script was likely first used in the 8th century, but the oldest NT minuscules

are from the 9th century. It is assumed that the majority of minuscules of John are subsumed

under the Byz notation, which is a substantial witness to the inclusion of the PA. The number of

minuscules to contain the PA without asterisks or obeli has been estimated to be around 450.19

Of those minuscules cited in the UBS apparatus, 5 support the exclusion of the PA; 9

support its inclusion in the traditional place, while 8 support the inclusion either in a different

place or of a different length (and 1 additional manuscript was “corrected” to include the PA).

Thus, miniscule manuscripts generally include PA at some point, but the differing lengths (7:53–

8:11 vs. 8:3–11) and places (after John 7:52, or after 21:25, or after Luke 21:38, or in a margin

near John 8), as well as notations questioning whether the text isn’t spurious (i.e., obeli,

asterisks, and other marginal notes) highly recommend that the critic question whether the text

belongs in the Bible at all.

17 There is also a horizontal mark in D in the margin next to John 7:53, but the date and nature of this mark

would need to be researched more fully for any argument to be made from it.

18 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: United

Bible Societies, 1994), 187.

19 Hodges, “The Woman Taken in Adultery,” 325.

9

It is also interesting that the earliest dated miniscule manuscript, MS 461 (835), which is

not usually included in critical apparati,20 did not originally include PA. It had to wait for a

much later corrector to add the text to the margin,21 similar to 11th-century MS 1333.

The testimony from the group of miniscule manuscripts generally support the inclusion of

the PA in the 9th century on, but variations to the text do not vote wholeheartedly to the

originality of the pericope.

Lectionaries

The date of the lectionary system is a somewhat complicated question. There is evidence

that such 4th-century preachers as Chrysostom, Epiphanus, and Cyril of Alexandria would

occasionally state they were following the day’s lesson in the homily.22 However, lectionary

manuscripts before the 8th century have a very different division from the later pattern followed

by the Byzantine lectionary system, at least partly due to the fact that the Byzantine calendar was

not settled till the 7th or 8th centuries. So while church liturgy attached particular readings to

particular days of the church calendar, these dates were modified around the 8th century. (This,

of course, does not cover the lections of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Egypt, but few of these

lectionaries have survived.)23

The text-type of Lect is also important. Due to the geographical location of the

lectionaries in the Byzantine church, these church documents largely follow the standard

20 Aland and Aland, Text, 133; NA28 excludes it from the list of manuscripts used (NA28, 812).

21 Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Paleography (New York:

Oxford University Press, 1981), 102–03 (plate 26).

22 Osburn, “Greek Lectionaries,” 63.

23 Aland and Aland, Text, 167–69.

10

Byzantine text.24 A study done on the lectionaries in Chicago in the 1930s found a remarkable

degree of homogeneity among the documents, as well as some influence from the Caesarean

text-type.25 This amounts to a somewhat late harmonization with Alexandrian and Western

readings.26

A weakness of using lectionary evidence of omission of a passage of Scripture is that

lectionary system does not promise to read every pericope which the church considers canonical.

The Byzantine lectionary did not cover Revelation, for example, and the 375 extant lectionaries

on Acts (“Apostolos”) show that only 647 of the 1,006 verses of Acts were systematically

incorporated into the church services.27 The mention of a relatively scant number of lectionaries

in the current eclectic texts,28 together with the vague description of which passages are included,

does not clarify which passages of which NT books are normally cited in the lectionary system.

It is important in more minor cases of textual variation to know that lectionaries could

influence the Greek text. A plain example of this is MSS 69 and 522 adding the subject, οι

αποστολοι, to Acts 5:21. The context of the passage makes an explicit subject unnecessary, but

the church benefitted from having a reading, such as the one begun at 5:21, begin with an

explicit subject.29 However, it is unlikely that the absence of the PA in the lectionaries could

have contributed to scribes skipping such a long passage in the continuous-text manuscripts.

24 Ibid., 169.

25 Osburn, “Greek Lectionaries,” 67.

26 Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, eds., The New Testament in the Original Greek:

Byzantine Textform 2005 (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005), iv–v; Metzger and Ehrman, Text,

310–12.

27 Osburn, “Greek Lectionaries,” 69.

28 NA28, 814, cites only 5 individual lectionaries with descriptions such as “sel” (selected readings). The

UBS4 (pp. 906–07) cites 69 lectionaries, but only gives the general section of the NT included (Gospels or Acts).

11

The noting of 8 lectionary manuscripts from the 10th–15th centuries as including John

8:3–11 may suggest that the churches desired to incorporate a favorite story from the life of

Christ but did not feel that the introductory 3 verses dealing with logistics were beneficial to the

particular pericope. It is also possible that they found the logistics difficult, considering that

Jesus wrote on the ground and the Pharisees left one of their favorite places to get away from

Jesus. See “internal evidence” below.

Regardless of the date of the lectionary system, it is striking to note that the church

services in the Byzantine Empire skipped the PA. If the basic character of the lectionary system

is dated to the 4th century, it is possible to conclude that the Byzantine Christians felt that the PA

was not an original text of the NT before it was included in the continuous-text manuscripts

nearly universally. If the public reading plan of the church is understood as reflecting 8th-century

developments, it is still striking that the lectionaries would omit the pericope once the majority of

manuscripts contained it. Although certainty is difficult in understanding the reasons for

lectionary omission, the discord between the Byzantine lectionaries and the majority of the

manuscripts gives Lect a much greater weight than usual in deciding a textual problem.

Patristic Evidence

Comments from Church Fathers

More fathers are cited for the inclusion of the narrative (7 fathers and 1 patristic

document) than for excluding it (5 fathers). However, the witness of the fathers rejecting the

pericope begin in the preceding century (2 clear witnesses in the 3rd century, plus 1 witness

29 Osburn, “Greek Lectionaries,” 70. Aland and Aland, Text, 170, provide other stock phrases added, such

as ειπεν ο κυριος, τω καιρω εκεινω, and εν ταις ημεραις εκειναις.

12

counted due to Augustine’s citation of him in the 5th century). No extant Greek father as much

as mentions it before the 12th century.30

The church fathers did not necessarily comment on every single passage of Scripture and

couldn’t be expected to know whether people from centuries after them would want them to

comment on a given passage. However, the lack of mention of the PA by Tertullian (flourished

late 2nd century–early or mid-3rd century) is striking in light of his treatise De Pudicitia (On

Modesty).31 An entire treatise on adultery and fornication would certainly have needed to

discuss PA, and the absence suggests that Tertullian in 3rd century Carthage was not aware of the

narrative.32 This is supported by the nearly universal omission of the passage in the Coptic

versions.

Some understand Papias to have referenced the PA as a biblical story, albeit from a

different book of the NT. Eusebius writes that Papias “relates another story of a woman, who

was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the

Hebrews.”33 It is possible that this was an early reference to the PA, but its vagueness, as well as

the difference in details (adultery vs. “many sins”) and biblical placement (Gospel according to

the Hebrews or according to John) cannot lead one to be certain that the two stories are

30 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 188.

31 Tertullian, “On Modesty,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix;

Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe,

trans. S. Thelwall, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 9 vols. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 4:74–101.

32 András Handl, “Tertullian on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7,53-8,11)” (abstract to lecture, XVII.

International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford, August 10–14, 2015).

33 Eusebius of Caesarea, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of

Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur

Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second

Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 173 (3.39.16). Footnote 6 on the same page argues that it

is the same story as the PA.

13

connected. The variant “sin” (αμαρτια) instead of “adultery” (μοιχεια) of Codex Bezae and

1071 may have been affected by Papias’ reference.34

Jerome seemed to generally assume it was a canonical story, but doubts remain. He

included the pericope in the Vulgate and referenced John 8:3 along with other NT passages in a

treatise against the Pelagians,35 but his statement that “many” Greek manuscripts have the

pericope36 suggest that he knows of some which omit the narrative.

Augustine’s feelings toward those who did not accept the passage were made clear in the

early 5th century: “[C]ertain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I

suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts

the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said ‘sin no more’ had

granted permission to sin.”37 Contrary to much of the foregoing evidence, this quotation of

Augustine suggests that the autograph had the PA and some deleted it for reasons related to the

sexual habits of loved ones. However, this testimony cannot be weighed very heavily because of

its later date compared to the earliest manuscripts and versions.

Hodges suggests that a lectionary system from about the 4th century may have contributed

to the sparseness of patristic citations of the text. The lection in question had a section which

read from John 7:52 to 8:12, skipping PA altogether. The potentially scandalous nature of the

passage, together with the precedent of skipping the text in expositions, may have encouraged

34 Keith, Pericope Adulterae, 164. Or, perhaps Papias knew of some manuscripts which read αμαρτια.

35 Jerome, “Against the Pelagians,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry

Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene

Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 6:469 (2.17).

36 Keith, Pericope Adulterae, 131.

37 Augustine, “Adulterous Marriages,” trans. Charles T. Huegelmeyer, in Saint Augustine: Treatises on

Marriage and Other Subjects (New York: Catholic University of America, 1955), 107 (§2.7), quoted in Hodges,

“Woman Taken in Adultery,” 330–31.

14

pastors to move to a different text.38 But while this explanation works with the lack of patristic

citations, it does not explain the lack of early manuscript inclusion.

Diatessaron

Perhaps the earliest witness to the exclusion of the PE from the Gospels is the

Diatessaron (ca. 17039) of Tatian. Writing in either Greek or Syriac, Tatian produced the

Diatessaron to weave the Gospels into a single narrative. As it was cheaper to transport and copy

than four separate Gospels, the harmony was widely circulated for several centuries, especially

in Syria. It is difficult to piece the Diatessaron back together and be confident about each

individual reading, due to the other textual influences which the translators had in different areas.

However, if it is true that scribes would rather include everything than leave out a piece of

Scripture, as most reasoned eclectics assume,40 it is telling that most of the Syriac versions,

which were influenced by the Diatessaron, support the Diatessaronic omission of PA. (The

Curetonian, Sinaitic, Peshitta, and Harclean editions of the Syriac version omit; only the

Palestinian Syriac includes PA.) This is even more striking when it is considered that pieces of

the Diatessaron included non-biblical material. Even after many non-canonical instances of the

life of Christ are recorded, there was still no place for PA in the Diatessaron.41

38 Hodges, “Woman Taken in Adultery,” 329.

39 William L Petersen, “Diatessaron,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York:

Doubleday, 1992), 2:189.

40 Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, “Mark 16:8 as the Original Ending of Mark,” in Perspectives on the Ending of

Mark: 4 Views, ed. David Alan Black (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008), 27.

41 Petersen, “Diatessaron,” in ABD, 2:190.

15

Didascalia Apostolorum and Apostolic Constitutions

One of the earliest patristic witnesses which appears to support (cf. vid) the veracity and

ancient nature of the tradition of the PA is the Apostolic Constitutions (ca. AD 38042). This is a

“church manual of liturgical and ecclesiastical regulations,” of Syrian provenance, and has been

preserved in Greek, Latin, and Coptic. The first 6 of the 8 books of the Apostolic Constitutions

(AC), or Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, are closely related to the 3rd-century Didascalia

Apostolorum (DA).43 Both AC and DA contain a reference to a story which is at least very

similar to the PA in contexts of exhorting bishops to forgive generously, just like Christ. The

Codex Sangerman of DA offers the story after giving the example of King Manasseh, who

sinned, confessed, and was forgiven.44 AC exhorts the bishops to receive those saints which

sinned and repent, just as Christ received Matthew, the tax collector (Matt 9:9); Peter, who

denied him 3 times (John 18:15–17, 25–27; 21:15–23); Paul, who persecuted the church (Acts

8:1–3; 9:1–6); the woman, who was a sinner, yet anointed Jesus’ feet (Luke 7:47); and another

woman who sinned, whom Jesus didn’t condemn (cf. John 8:11).45

The text of the reference to the PA is translated as follows from the Codex Sangerman of

DA:46

For if thou receive not him who repents, because thou art merciless, thou sinnest

against the Lord God, because thou dost not obey our Lord and God in acting as

42 UBS4, 32*, supported by Clayton N. Jefford, “Apostolic Constitutions and Canons,” in ABD, 1:312.

43 Jefford, “Apostolic Constitutions,” 1:312.

44 Margaret Dunlop Gibson, trans., The Didascalia Apostolorum in English (London: Cambridge

University Press, 1903), 38–40, cf. viii.

45 Apostolic Constitutions, 2:24, “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,” in Fathers of the Third and Fourth

Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily,

and Liturgies, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. James Donaldson, vol. 7,

The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 408.

46 The larger work AC, as expressed in the multi-volume classic on the Ante-Nicene Fathers is simply more

paraphrased than in this edition of DA.

16

He acted; for even He to that woman who had sinned, her whom the elders placed

before him and left it to judgment at His hands, and went away; He then who

searcheth the hearts, asked her and said to her, “Have the Elders condemned thee,

my daughter? She saith to him, No, Lord. And our Saviour said, Go, and return no

more to do this, neither do I condemn thee.”47

The similarities between the DA’s reference and PA are evident; yet there remain some

differences, as shown in the chart below.

Comparison between PA and its Potential Reference in DA

Pericope Adulterae (8:3–11 only) Didascalia Apostolorum

Scribes and Pharisees Elders

Woman caught in adultery Woman who sinned

The elders remind Jesus of Mosaic law

The men put Jesus in the position of judge Jesus is the judge

Explanation: they wanted to test Jesus

Jesus writes on the ground

They continue to ask Jesus

Jesus tells them to analyze their own lives

Jesus writes on the ground again

Scribes and Pharisees leave, one by one, starting

with the old ones

Elders leave

Jesus asks where the men are and if anyone has

condemned her

Jesus asked the woman if the elders

condemned her

Negative answer with vocative “Lord” Negative answer with vocative “Lord”

Jesus does not condemn the woman Jesus tells her to go and not sin in that way

Jesus tells the woman to go and no longer sin Jesus does not condemn either

A comparison of the PA to the reference in the DA may confirm that the PA, as presented

in the majority of Byzantine witnesses, was most likely in mind of the author of this segment of

the DA. There are holes in the story as presented in the DA, and the last two lines of the story are

reversed; but the abbreviated form has a close relative in any summary given by a modern person

when he or she has a certain point to make. Preachers today often make the same point from this

story as did the writer of the DA—that Jesus is forgiving.48

47 Gibson, “Didascalia Apostolorum,” 39–40. 48 Cf. the conclusion that there is not much unique doctrinal material in PA in Armin D. Baum, “Does the

Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) Have Canonical Authority? An Interconfessional Approach,” Bulletin for

Biblical Research 24, no. 2 (2014), 163, 177–78.

17

The context of the citation of PA is also supports the idea that the writer was citing what

he thought was a biblical account. Apostolic Constitutions 2:24 begins with a reference to

unrepentant King Amon, who perished, but contrasts him with the forgiveness offered to

Matthew, Peter, Paul, the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet, and the next woman. It is interesting

that the specific offenses of the women are not stated, contrasting with the mention of the

specific sins of the men. This could be due to (1) the unknown status of the sins; (2) the taboo

nature of the sins; or (3) the simple desire to give the main thrust of a well-known story without

speaking of all the particulars.

The conclusion made about the reference to the narrative of Jesus and the adulteress in

the 3rd-century Didascalia Apostolorum, as well as in the larger 4th-century Apostolic Canons, is

that the writer reflects knowledge at least of a similar story to the PA, and treats it as a well-

known piece of Scripture, even if that is not made explicit. Thus, the Apostolic Canons should

be counted as a witness to the PA, even if some details of John 7:53–8:11 are missing from the

witness.

Evidence from Versions

The versions do not give a clear picture of the early textual situation, since both the

inclusion and exclusion are carried from the earliest versional witnesses.49 However, the early

omission by the Diatessaron leans (if ever so slightly) to the earlier omission of the passage.

49 Cf. Hodges, “Woman Taken,” 328, which concludes that the versions support nothing but the early

omission and inclusion of the PA.

18

Witnesses by Text-Type

Another look at the witness supporting the omission or inclusion of PA by type of text

may show whether the readings were in one part of the world or more widespread, and may

suggest the historical movement of each reading.

First, the evidence for omission.

Omit 7:53–8:11

Witnesses Text-Types

Byzantine50 Alexandrian Western

Papyri 𝔓75, 𝔓66, 𝔓39vid

Majuscules N, Δ, Θ, Cvid, Ψ, 0141 ℵ, Avid, B, W51, L, T

Minuscules 565, 1424*, 157, 1241, 1333 33

Lectionaries Lect

Versions Diatessaron

Georgian

Slavonic

Coptic (Sahidic, Proto-Bohairic

[part], Sub-Achmimic)

Syriac (Curetonian, Sinaitic,

Peshitta, Harclean), Armenian

Church

Fathers

Tatian’s Diatessaron, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Tertullian,

Cyprian mss (according to Augustine)

The above chart listing the witnesses which did not include PA by text-type shows that

the 2 main text-types, the Byzantine and Alexandrian, as well as the Western/D-text, all have

representatives omitting the pericope. Thus, the omission seems fairly widespread across the

text-types but is especially noticed among the main Alexandrian witnesses.

Next, the evidence for inclusion of PA is given by text-types.

50 This Byzantine category may include those witnesses sometimes described as Caesarean.

51 According to Metzger and Ehrman, Text, 80, John 5:12–21:25 is Alexandrian in text-type.

19

Include 7:53–8:11

Witnesses Text-Types

Byzantine Alexandrian Western

Papyri (none)

Majuscules Byz52 (G, He, M) 579, 892 D

Minuscules 180, 205, 597, 700, 1424, 1006,

1010, 1071, 1243, 1292, 1342, 1505

Lectionaries

Versions Palestinian Syriac,

Slavonic mss (margin)

Vulgate Latin (aur, c, ff2, j, r1);

Bohairic Coptic (part)

Church

Fathers

Didascalia Apostolorum, Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, Pacian, Rufinus, Greek and

Latin mss (according to Jerome), Jerome, Faustus-Milevis, Augustine

The chart above shows that the witnesses which omit the PA are largely Byzantine. The

obvious lack of Alexandrian witnesses, as well as a substantial portion of the Western witnesses,

shows that the PA was not included in Scripture from the early times. Only those who hold to

the priority of the overall majority of manuscripts, or hold that the Byzantine text is the only

canonical text, could confidently hold to the textual certainty of the PA based on this evidence.

The Likelihood of Later Insertion

The external manuscript evidence is clear that PA was probably not in the earliest

editions of John’s Gospel. But how late could the pericope have appeared? Kilpatrick has said

that far more changes in the text were made before AD 200 than after, and that it was nearly

impossible to change the text after that point.53 This piece of information would lead one to

believe that no new passages of Scripture would have been added after the 2nd century.54

However, Wisse has countered that the number of interpolations actually increased after AD

52 UBS4, 19*, describes Byz as “The reading of the Byzantine witnesses, i.e., the text of the great majority

of all Greek manuscripts, especially of the second millennium.”

53 Kilpatrick, “Atticism,” 131.

54 Hodges argues this in “Woman Taken in Adultery,” 321.

20

200.55 The sheer number of copies being made prevented the church leadership from controlling

the written tradition. Many scribes mainly copied what in front of them, but other scribes added

other information they regarded as important.56

Scribes were often the same men who read Scripture in the churches. These scribes

would then “adjust” the text for the sake of the congregation.57 Before the NT canon had been

fully recognized, oral tradition had a similarly high value in the church, and some of these oral

traditions appear to have been included in the text some centuries after the autographs were

composed. For example, the strong textual evidence for the absence of Luke 22:43–44, together

with the controversy among church fathers as to its originality, at least suggests that the 2 verses

were a later addition to the Gospel of Luke.58

Comfort suggests that PA was another example of oral tradition added to Codex Bezae

and later to the Vulgate and other Greek manuscripts.59 The scribe of Bezae (D) had a tendency

to enlarge texts, especially in areas where he thought there were gaps, as shown by the 10%

greater length to Acts compared to the Alexandrian text.60 Even though PA disrupts the narrative

of Succoth (John 7–8), there are many connections between PA and its surrounding context, such

55 Frekerik Wisse, “Redactional Changes in Early Christian Texts,” in Gospel Traditions in the Second

Century, ed. William J. Peterson (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 44–45, quoted in Comfort,

Encountering, 261–62.

56 Comfort, Encountering, 262.

57 Ibid., 287.

58 Ibid., 288; cf. Bart D. Ehrman and Mark A. Plunkett, “The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem

of Luke 22:43-44,” CBQ 45, no. 3 (July 1983): 416. A similar situation is the ending of Mark, where it appears that

the 1st manuscripts did not have the long ending (Mark 16:9–20). This longer ending was probably added by scribes

who wanted the text to have proper closure. See Comfort, Encountering, 287, and Wallace, “Mark 16:8,” 14.

59 Comfort, Encountering, 288.

60 Idem., New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the

Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL:

Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 286. Comfort views the D-text editor as beginning with an Alexandrian text

(Comfort, Encountering, 273).

21

as the themes of law vs. grace, judgment,61 and Jesus’ literacy.62 The clause which introduces

PA (Καὶ επορευθησαν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οικον αὐτοῦ; 7:53), may even be a tip-off that it was D

which was first to include the narrative, as a similar clause appears in Bezae’s Acts 5:18 (καὶ

επορευθη εις ἕκαστος εἰς τα ιδια).63

To counter this, Hodges presents the possibility that the exemplar(s) of the early

Alexandrian manuscripts simply lacked the pericope, and the 4–5 manuscripts which lack the

pericope from before the 5th century are early anomalies.64 The fact that all of the manuscripts

which lack the PA are characterized by an Alexandrian text suggests a close interrelationship

between them, as do studies comparing the manuscripts individually.65 If, for the sake of

argument, 80% of the Greek manuscripts of John contained PA in the earliest decades of

transmission, it is plausible that the texts unearthed in the last several centuries were only

anomalies.66 A mere 5 copied out of the thousands in existence before the 5th century hardly

present a statistically valid sample size.

The critic of the text of the New Testament must rely on what facts there are. The facts

are that there are 4–5 extant Greek manuscripts of John before the 5th century which do not

include PA where later Greek manuscripts do. There is only 1 Greek manuscript before the 9th

century to include the PA at all, when a total of 7–11 extant Greek manuscripts of John do not. It

61 Comfort, NTTTC, 286

62 Keith, Pericope Adulterae, 117.

63 Comfort, NTTTC, 286; NA28 apparatus under Acts 5:18.

64 Hodges, “Woman Taken in Adultery,” 324.

65 See, for example, Calvin L. Porter, “Papyrus Bodmer XV (P75) and the Text of Codex Vaticanus,” in

JBL 81, no. 4 (December, 1962): 363–76, who explains that “the texts of P75 and Codex Vaticanus are essentially

the same text” (367).

66 Suggested in Hodges, “Woman Taken in Adultery,” 326.

22

is admitted that a mere 12 manuscripts before the 9th century is not much to go on and cannot

give a full picture of the textual situation. However, the fact that the pre-9th century evidence for

the PA rests on a single 5th-century manuscript, which is known to expand and fill in gaps, when

several manuscripts preceding it by 100–200 years lack the pericope, requires text critics to

consider this favorite passage as a (much) later addition to the NT text. Strong statements to the

contrary by 5th-century church fathers does not change this.

Conclusion

The external evidence is clear that the Pericope Adulterae did not exist in the Gospel of

John in the earliest centuries of circulation. There is patristic evidence that the story circulated

by itself or in other writings in the first several centuries, but not in John. The earliest

manuscripts and versions to include the narrative are generally of the Western/D-text (beginning

with Bezae), and the Byzantine manuscripts included them centuries later. That leads the critic

to ask how it could have been added, which leads to internal evidence.

23

INTERNAL EVIDENCE

Introduction

The internal evidence for and against the Johannine authorship of PA is more difficult to

assess than the external evidence. Many errors which scribes are known to make do not play into

the discussion of whether the entire pericope was included in the original edition of John’s

Gospel, and the linguistic and contextual criteria present somewhat mixed data. The internal

evidence allows for both options, although, in this critic’s view, it leans toward the original

exclusion of PA.

Transcriptional Probabilities

Transcriptional probabilities hardly account for the omission or addition of an entire 12-

verse, 169-word67 section. One of the 1st options for scribal omission is to look for words which

begin or end similarly (homoioarchton and homoioteleuton). A check for this in John 7:52 and

8:12 does not produce anything of the sort, and this is not argued as a reason some scribes either

omitted or included the section.

The issue of harmony with parallel passages does not arise in this textual problem,

because this is the only form of the story in Scripture.

Intrinsic Probabilities

Linguistic Habit

The vocabulary of PA suggests that the pericope is not Johannine. There are at least 13

words in the PA which occur nowhere else in the Gospel of John,68 and 4 which are NT hapax

67 Based on the text of NA28.

68 Γραμματευς, ορθος, μοιχεια, αὐτοφωνος, μοιχευω, κυπτω, καταγραφω, επιμενω, ανακυπτω [2x],

αναμαρτητος, καταλειπω, and κατακρινω.

24

legomena.69 It may be argued in response that the subject matter dictated a change in

vocabulary; after all, this story occurs nowhere else in the Bible. However, it is especially

notable that only the PA includes the word γραμματευς (scribe) in GJohn. In John 7, it is the

Jews (7:1, 11, 13, 15, 35), crowd(s) (7;12, 20, 40), the officers/servants (7:32, 45), chief priests

(7:32, 45), and especially the Pharisees (7:32, 45, 47, 48) who opposed Jesus,70 so the addition of

the “scribes” in 8:3 appears to be out of place in the context both of John and the more specific

context of John 7.

Γραμματευς: A Synoptic Word

Gospel Uses of γραμματευς Matt 22

Mark 21

Luke 14

John 0 (+1, PA)

The use of λαος in 8:2 also does not support Johannine authorship. Οχλος is far more

common in John, and especially in John 7 (vv. 12, 20, 31, 32, 40, 43, 49).

Occurrences of λαος and οχλος in the Gospels λαος ο χλος Matt 14 49

Mark 2 38

Luke 36 42

John 2 (+1 in PA) 21 (none in PA)

Brown classifies over a dozen words as being characteristically used by John.71 A search

through NA28 of these words, in all forms (αγαπη, αγαπαν, φιλειν; αληθεια, αληθης, αληθινος;

βλεπειν, θεασθαι, θεωρειν, ἰδειν, οραν; δοξα; εντολη; ζωη; κοσμος; μενειν; πιστευειν [cf.

69 Αὐτοφωνος, καταγραφω, αναμαρτητος, and κατακυπτω.

70 Cf. Keith, Pericope Adulterae, 117.

71 Raymond E. Brown, “Appendix I: Johannine Vocabulary,” in The Gospel According to John (i–xii):

Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1966), 497.

25

εἰδεναι, γινωκειν]; φως; ωρα), demonstrates that PA does not have a single characteristically

Johannine word. Even adding other important words to the search bar, such as οι Ἰουδαιοι (τοις

Ἰουδαιοις, οι δὲ Ἰουδαιοι, των Ἰουδαιων); εγω εἰμι; σημειον, σημαινω; λογος, and εξουσια

only lead to highlighted words in nearly paragraph—but not 7:53–8:11.72

Johnson rightly compares the degree of Johannine vocabulary in PA with that of the

another strange text in GJohn, 2:13–17. The numbers below73 show that 2:13–17 could be

argued to be less Johannine than PA!74

PA Vocabulary Compared to an Undisputed Passage in GJohn

7:53–8:11 2:13–17

Total Words 168 73

Total Vocab 81 47

Total Hapax in John 13 (16%) 14 (30%)

Total Hapax in Synoptics 1 (1%) 3 (6%)

Total Hapax in NT 4 (5%) 4 (9%)

Hapax in Greek Bible 2 (2%) 4 (9%)

Lukan Preferred Words 4 (5%) 2 (4%)

Johannine Preferred Words 14 (17%) 4 (9%)

The point taken is that PA cannot be said to be non-Johannine on the basis of vocabulary

alone, due to the brevity of a passage (169 words) and the relatively small corpus of Johannine

72 The trial and crucifixion of Jesus (John 18:1–32; 19:1–42) are also low on Johannine words, but the

words are sparse rather than non-existent.

73 Information reproduced from Johnson, “A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope

Adulterae?,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 9, no. 2 (Spring 1996): 94. The data were gathered

from Von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Gottingen: Vondenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1911), 1:486–524

for PA, and NA24 (1961) for 2:13–17. The suggestion that Τοῦτο + δὲ + λεγειν (cf. 8:6) is a Johannine stylistic trait

has some merit, as Johnson says it is absent from the Synoptics but occurs 10x in GJohn (6:6, 71; 7:39; 11:13, 51;

12:6, 33; 13:11, 28; 21:19), and it hardly seems like readers would have picked up on it (see Johnson, “Stylistic

Trait,” 95). However, the non-Johannine nature of the rest of the PA fights against giving this argument much

weight.

74 John 2:13–17 is helped to look Johannine, however, by 2 factors. First is the occurrence of “the Jews”

(των Ἰουδαιων) in 2:13. Second is the continuation of the pericope by 2:18–22, which again has “the Jews” (οι Ἰουδαιοι) and “sign” (σημειον) in v. 18.

26

literature for comparison.75 However, no one would use the general vocabulary and style of

either of these passages to support Johannine authorship. Further, the brevity of the temple-

cleansing passage (see numbers above) may allow for a larger divergence from the Johannine

norm as far as percentage goes (but the sheer number of non-Johannine words in such a short

passage is striking). Thus, the odd style of PA may support the early external evidence in an

argument against non-Johannine authorship.76

Potential Areas of Modified Orthodoxy

One may wonder about the historical context of the insertion of PA into John or the

deletion of PA from John. Ambrose (late 4th century) seems to be the first to speak about PA

being in some manuscripts but not from others. Both Ambrose and Augustine regarded what

they viewed as the wrongful deletion of the pericope to be due to the sexual content; Ambrose

found that some were ashamed to read the passage in public, while Augustine held that some

deleted the passage in order to allow their wives to use their sexuality more freely.77 Both of

these options are conceivable reasons for some to remove it from the Gospel, but the seeming

widespread absence of the passage from the earliest times would argue against this.

75 G. Udny Yule argued in The Statistical Study of Literary Vocabulary (Hammden, CT: Archon Books,

1969), that it takes about 10,000 words to have a corpus large enough to determine authorship based on style. The

general writing style of the Apostle John, for example, is easily understood, due to the ca. 29,000 words in GJohn,

1–3 John, and Revelation (NA28 has 29,065 words, including verse numbers, for all of these; 16,545 for GJohn,

2736 for 1–3 John, and 9784 for Revelation). But the authorship of individual passages is more difficult to

determine on style alone, due to the varying subjects and genres of the texts, as well as the mood of the writer.

76 More on this may be found in William Ortiz, “An Analysis of the Pericope Adulterae in the Byzantine

Text with Emphasis on Johannine Style” (ThM thesis, Capital Bible Seminary, 2010), 49, which concludes that

many stylistic similarities do exist between PA and GJohn. However, this may be tampered with the assumption

that, since the pericope was set in John, it was meant to sound somewhat like that apostle.

77 Hodges, “Woman Taken in Adultery,” 330–31.

27

Assuming the 3rd and 4th centuries as the era of the insertion, Keith has argued for the

reason for insertion being the attack of Christianity as being a religion of the uneducated.78 If he

is correct, PA was added to the NT to show that Jesus, the Founder of the faith, was the

“paradigm of a literate teacher/leader” of the church (cf. Luke 2:45–50; 4:16–22; and the sending

of letters in Rev 1–3),79 and that Christianity was thus compatible with literacy, to say the least.

This is possible, but much study is needed to have more certainty.

Two other suggestions may be given for the insertion of PA into the NT. The stark

contrast between Jesus’ ease of forgiveness, seemingly presented in PA, and the more legalistic

attitude of even Christians, has been claimed to only have been accepted once penance was

common.80 Another discussion on the historical backdrop of the insertion of PA pertains to the

controversy over unforgivable sins in Rome and Carthage in the 3rd century, perhaps to say that

Jesus did not consider adultery to be one of them.81

None of the suggested theological reasons for removing or inserting the text are entirely

convincing, but Keith’s comes closest. The idea of a (very) literate Leader may have been a

large need in the 3rd century, and the PA was fulfilled this teaching, among other doctrines.

Contextual Cohesion

The cohesion of PA to John 7 and 8 is a complicated subject. PA has definite thematic

similarities to John 7–8, and yet it still seems to break up the narrative unnaturally. Both sides of

the argument will be given somewhat briefly.

78 Keith, “The Historical Context for the Insertion of the Pericope Adulterae into the Gospel of John: A

Proposal,” in Pericope Adulterae, 203–56.

79 Keith, Pericope Adulterae, 232.

80 Brown, Gospel According to John, 335.

81 Handl, “Tertullian on the Pericope Adulterae.”

28

Those who support the placement of PA after John 7 have several arguments, mainly

related to the theme of judgment. The theme of judgment is found in John 7, PA, and John 8. In

John 7:24, Jesus tells the spiritual leaders to judge with right judgment, as opposed to judgment

which they misunderstand from Moses. In John 8:15–16, Jesus says that he does not judge

anyone, but judges in line with the Father. PA may be understood as giving an example of Jesus’

non-judgment as opposed to the scribes’ and Pharisees’ zeal for the Law, which seems to get in

the way of righteousness (cf. 7:51–52).

Interrelated with the theme of judgment is the testimony of Jesus and his related identity

with the Father. In 7:16–18, Jesus responds to the Jews’ amazement at his teaching due to his

lack of “learning” (v. 15) by subtly saying that his testimony is true because he seeks the glory of

the One who sent him. In the future, he will go back to the One who sent him (vv. 33–34). In

John 8, Jesus reiterates that he is from “the Father,” and that his mutual testimony with the

Father makes his testimony trustworthy (vv. 13–33). It has been argued thoroughly82 that in the

PA, Jesus is shown to have Divine learning, as he can write (8:6, 8), just as the scribes (8:3). His

ability to write in a Jewish context points to a thorough relationship with the Torah, and Jesus is

able to interpret the Scriptures better than the scribal experts.83 Actually, this may exalt Jesus to

the level of God, who is both greater than Moses and is the Divine Writer of the Torah.84

82 Keith, Pericope Adulterae, 152–60.

83 Ibid., 117.

84 Ibid., 191, 196. Keith argues that Jesus shows that he is the standard for judgment, as he suggests that

the executioners of an adulteress must meet the same standard as those of idolaters (cf. Deut 13:9; 17:7; 22:21).

Further, the fact that the woman was left before only Jesus may suggest that the only proper courtroom has the same

setting. See Ibid., 170–71.

Baylis has an interesting look at the PA with an emphasis on Jesus as the greater Prophet, who provided the

judgment on the woman and the requirements for the witnesses, and had the final say before the nation. However,

this also does not seem to fit the immediate context as well as one would hope. See Charles P. Baylis, “The Woman

Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet,” BibSac 146, no. 582 (April–June, 1989): 171–84.

29

However, there remains an important reason to believe that PA does not belong in the

context of John 7–8. It seems to disrupt the logic of the section of John. In John 7:37–39, Jesus

refers to the water pouring ceremony at Succoth, analogizing it with the universal need to believe

in him for the water (of the Holy Spirit) which will flow from those who do (vv. 37–39). In

8:12, Jesus again refers to a great ceremony at the Feast of Booths, this time to the lamp lighting

ceremony, to say that he is the Light of the world. This 2nd reference seems to make more sense

directly after Jesus’ reference to the water ceremony.85 Further, the claim to be the Light of the

world may be an indirect response to the demand that no prophet come from Galilee in the

previous verse (7:52; cf. Isa 9:1–2).86

It seems more probable that PA was a later insertion into John 7–8 than the argument that

it actually fits the context. While it fits to a degree, it is certainly possible that this context was

found suitable for an ancient tradition to be added.

Theological Cohesion

Outside of the theological themes of judgment and Jesus’ identity discussed in the

preceding section, PA generally fits the theology of John and the rest of the NT authors.

Towards the end of his earthly ministry, Jesus was often set up by the scribes and Pharisees to

trap him. Jesus is in character in PA in the sense that he puts the pressure back on those who

would trap him to consider deeper issues of the Law, true righteousness, and his crucial identity,

while forgiving an ostracized sinner.87

85 B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix

(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882), 87–88, with similar remarks made throughout expositional and text-

critical commentaries.

86 E.g., John MacArthur, John 1–11 (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2006), 322. See more at Comfort,

NTTTC, 287–88.

30

One may wonder why a text about Jesus and a woman was not placed in the Gospel of

Luke, as women are discussed there more than in the other Gospels, especially those who are

particularly helpless (e.g., the widow of Nain, Jairus’ daughter, a woman who had a disabling

spirit for 18 years, and the widow’s offering, and the parable of the persistent widow). On the

other hand, John does record a story of an unknown woman characterized by sexual sin (John 4),

so the placement of this kind of story in John does fit. There remain unanswered questions in

PA, but the general theology appears to be acceptable to the apostles, including John’s theme of

(divine) judgment.

Conclusion

No aspect of PA is intrinsically foreign to the NT or to the Gospel of John in particular.

Issues of style and vocabulary are explainable; yet PA may be shown to be near, if not at, the

bottom of the class in Johannine style. The general message of the passage has enough

compatibility to John’s Gospel to include it, and many arguments can be given in favor of its

inclusion between John 7 and 8. However, it is found more probable that an interpolator found

the “perfect” canonical place for a favorite story of the Savior-Leader, than for such a narrative

be found in the middle of the Succoth discourse. The internal evidence thus supports the

external evidence to exclude John 7:53–8:11 from the text of the inspired New Testament.

87 Cf. William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, 2 vols.

(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1953–2001), 2:34.

31

CONCLUSION

The information regarding the originality of Pericope Adulterae has been given and

analyzed on an intermediate, yet thorough, level. The majority of witnesses do support its

inclusion, yet only a single manuscript before the 9th century has been shown to have the 12-

verse section. The contrast to the 11 other manuscripts before the 9th century which clearly did

not include the pericope, or can be argued to not have included it, is plain. The passage does not

fit Johannine style as well as most passages of the Gospel, although the presence of certain

Johannine elements might be expected in a passage placed in John specifically. It appears that a

favorite story of the church was placed between John 7 and 8 centuries after John’s earthly life in

order to meet the needs of the time. It is hoped that more versions and critical texts will more

clearly show that this passage, although likely based on a true story, is better reserved for a

clearly designated apocryphal or pseudepigraphal section of religious texts than on the same

page as the inspired word of God.

32

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M.

Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament. 5th rev. ed. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 2014.

Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical

Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 2nd ed.

Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1985.

Aland, Kurt, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, Allen Wikgren, Barbara

Aland, and Johannes Karavidopoulos. The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised

Edition (with Apparatus). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2000.

Augustine. Saint Augustine: Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects, translated by Charles T.

Huegelmeyer. Fathers of the Church. New York: Catholic University of America, 1955.

Baum, Armin D. “Does the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) Have Canonical Authority?

An Interconfessional Approach.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24, no. 2 (2014): 163–

78.

Baylis, Charles P. “The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet.”

Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no. 582 (April–June, 1989): 171–84.

Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John (i–xii): Introduction, Translation, and

Notes. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966.

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis: Greek Transcriptions. International Greek New Testament Project

(IGNTP), 2012.

Comfort, Philip. Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament

Paleography & Textual Criticism. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005.

Comfort, Philip W. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the

Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the

Major English Translations. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008.

Comfort, Philip Wesley. A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament.

Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2015.

“Constitutions of the Holy Apostles.” In Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius,

Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions,

Homily, and Liturgies, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland

Coxe, translated by James Donaldson, 387–508. Vol. 7, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 9

vols. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886.

33

Edwards, Jr., O. C. “Tatian.” In Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman,

6:335–36. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Ehrman, Bart D., and Mark A. Plunkett. “The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of

Luke 22:43-44.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45, no. 3 (July 1983): 401–16.

Eusebius of Caesarea. “The Church History of Eusebius.” In Eusebius: Church History, Life of

Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, edited by Philip Schaff and

Henry Wace, translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Vol. 1, A Select Library of the

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series. 14 vols. New

York: Christian Literature Company, 1890.

Gibson, Margaret Dunlop, trans. The Didascalia Apostolorum in English. Horae Semiticae.

London: Cambridge University Press, 1903.

Handl, András. “Tertullian on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7,53-8,11).” Lecture, XVII.

International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford, August 10–14, 2015.

Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. Exposition of the Gospel According to John. 2

Vols. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1953–2001.

Hodges, Zane C. “The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11): The Text.” Bibliotheca

Sacra 136, no. 544 (October–December 1979): 318–32.

Jefford, Clayton N. “Apostolic Constitutions and Canons.” In Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary,

edited by David Noel Freedman, 1:312–13. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Jerome. “Against the Pelagians.” In St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, edited by Philip

Schaff and Henry Wace, translated by W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley,

6:447–83. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian

Church. Second Series. 14 vols. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893.

Johnson, Alan F. “A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae?” In Bulletin

of the Evangelical Theological Society 9, no. 2 (Spring 1966): 91–96.

Keith, Chris. The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus. Volume

38, New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents, edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Eldon

J. Epp. Boston: Brill, 2009.

Kilpatrick, G. D. “Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament.” In The Principles and

Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays of G. D. Kilpatrick,

edited by J. K. Elliott, 15–32. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium.

Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990.

MacArthur, John. John 1–11. MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody

Publishers, 2006.

34

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New York:

United Bible Societies, 1994.

———. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Paleography. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1981.

———, and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and

Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ortiz, William. “An Analysis of the Pericope Adulterae in the Byzantine Text with Emphasis on

Johannine Style.” ThM thesis, The Capital Bible Seminary, 2010.

Osburn, Carroll D. “The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament.” In The Text of the New

Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, edited by Bart

D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, 61–74. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1995.

Parker, David. “Codex Bezae (MS Nn.2.41).” University of Cambridge Digital Library. Last

modified March, 2012. Accessed December 30, 2015.

http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/1.

Petersen, William L. “Diatessaron.” In Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel

Freedman, 2:189–91. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Porter, Calvin L. “Papyrus Bodmer XV (P75) and the Text of Codex Vaticanus.” In Journal of

Biblical Literature, 81, no. 4 (December, 1962): 363–76.

Robinson, Maurice A., and William G. Pierpont, eds. The New Testament in the Original Greek:

Byzantine Textform 2005. Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005.

Tertullian. “On Modesty.” In Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius

Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, edited by Alexander Roberts, James

Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, translated by S. Thelwall, 4:74–101. The Ante-

Nicene Fathers. 9 Vols. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Wallace, Daniel B. “Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel.” In Perspectives on the

Ending of Mark: Four Views, edited by David Alan Black, 1–39. Nashville: Broadman

& Holman, 2008.

Westcott, B. F., and F. J. A. Hort. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek:

Appendix. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882.

Wisse, Frederik. “Redactional Changes in Early Christian Texts.” In Gospel Traditions in the

Early Second Century, edited by William J. Peterson, 39–54. Notre Dame: University of

Notre Dame Press, 1989.

35

Yule, G. Udny. The Statistical Study of Literary Vocabulary. Hammden, CT: Archon Books,

1969.