Followers

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

John 7:53-8:11: Why It Was Moved – Part 1

          John 7:53-8:11 (a passage known as the pericope adulterae – the section about the adulteress) is in 1,495 Greek manuscripts, in whole or in part.  The inclusion of the passage is also supported by 495 lectionaries (books containing Scripture-selections for annual worship services).  In 1982 when the New King James Version was made, its footnote about these 12 verses stated, “They are present in over 900 manuscripts.”  One would think that the footnote-writers would have written “over 1,400 manuscripts” or “almost 1,500 manuscripts” if they had been fully informed about the evidence.  That suggests that even scholars in the upper echelons of academia do not possess adequate information about the pericope adulterae
          As I write this, the Holman Christian Standard Bible is in the final stages of a revision; it is about to be re-issued, with many textual changes, as the Christian Standard Bible.  A new footnote about John 7:53-8:11 in the CSB says, “Other mss include all or some of the passage after Jn 7:36,44,52; 21:25; or Lk 21:38.” 
          When I read that, it provoked a question in my mind:  How did the footnote-writers keep Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary opened to page 221 as they wrote?  The reason why I wonder is that Metzger wrote, “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).” 
          But for most readers, such a footnote elicits a different question:  “Why was this passage moved around?”
          A popular answer among commentators goes something like this:  John 7:53-8:11 was originally not part of the Gospel of John.  It was a brief composition – probably recording an authentic historical event, but not one that John included in his Gospel-account – that was a “floating anecdote,” and it was so popular that copyists eventually inserted it into the Gospel of John, or into the Gospel of Luke.  Sometimes – the theory goes – the copyists inserted it at one place, and sometimes the copyists inserted it in a different place.  The appearance of the passage in several locations – it is said – is proof that it is an addition to the text.
            That is precisely the sort of conclusion, for instance, that James White wants his listeners and readers to arrive at:  “Such moving about by a body of text is plain evidence of its later origin and the attempt on the part of scribes to find a place where it “fits.””  D. A. Carson, likewise:  “The diversity of placement confirms the inauthenticity of the verses.”  Daniel Wallace has written, “The pericope adulterae has all the earmarks of a pericope that was looking for a home,” and recently proposed that because it is a “floating” text it is probably inauthentic.  Such claims are descended from Metzger’s confidently worded claim in his obsolete handbook, The Text of the New Testament:  “The pericope is obviously a piece of floating tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western Church.  It was subsequently inserted into various manuscripts at various places.”  (Metzger never explained why this supposedly freestanding account begins with the words, “And everyone went to his own house.”)    
MS 2404 (The Barnabas Gospels) -
At the beginning of John 7:37,
the red lectionary-notes convey that this
is where the lection for the Sunday
after Pentecost begins.  (The section-number
is also written in the margin.)
            However, that is far from the truth.  Chris Keith’s insightful 2009 essay The Initial Location of the Pericope Adulterae in Fourfold Tradition describes some of the evidence for the following points which other researchers have deduced: 
            ● The pericope adulterae’s position between John 7:52 and 8:12 was well-established when the Old Latin version spread throughout Western Christendom.
            ● The transplantation of the passage to other locations was a secondary development, and
            ● The movement of the passage to other locations was mainly an effect of how it was treated in lection-cycles and in lectionaries.    

            The CSB’s footnote unfortunately does not share the answer to the questions which it seems designed to elicit:  why is the pericope adulterae found in some manuscripts after John 7:36?  Why is it found in some witnesses after John 7:44?  Why is it found in some manuscripts after John 21:25?  And why is it found in some manuscripts after Luke 21:38? 
MS 2404 - After John 7:52 is the red "Skip forward"
symbol.  In the lower margin the chapter-title is written,
"About the Adulteress."  Four dots beside John 8:3
signify the beginning of the chapter.
           Today I will only answer one of those questions:  why was the pericope adulterae moved to a position between John 7:36 and 7:37 in some manuscripts?
            (First, let’s clear up the vagueness which is characteristic of every textual footnote in the CSB New Testament.  The number of known Greek manuscripts in which the pericope adulterae is found between John 7:36 and 7:37 is exactly two.)
            Readers who take the time to familiarize themselves with how the Byzantine lectionary arranged the text that was to be read annually on Pentecost will be well on their way to answering that question.  The Pentecost-lection consisted of John 7:37-52 combined with John 8:12.  Numerous medieval manuscripts of the Gospels were prepared to be read in churches, and in their margins are the names of various lections, and the assigned days on which they were to be read.  Typically, within the text itself, or in the adjacent margins, symbols represent the words αρχη and τελος, that is, “begin” and “stop,” signifying where the lector was to start reading the day’s lection, and where the lection stopped.  Sometimes a lection was not one continuous block of text; in that case, the symbols for υπερβαλε and αρξου were also added – the equivalent of “skip forward” and “resume here.” 
          As a lector read the Pentecost-lection from a manuscript of the Gospels, when he came to the end of John 7:52, he needed to jump ahead to 8:12 in order to finish the lection.  As a practical means of simplifying the lector’s task, two copyists moved John 7:53-8:11 backward in the text, so that it would precede the Pentecost-lection.  That is why, in minuscules 225 and 1128, we find these 12 verses between John 7:36 and 7:37, that is, immediately before the beginning of the Pentecost lection.  The text in these two manuscripts was adjusted to make the lector’s job on Pentecost a little easier, by turning the Pentecost-lection into one uninterrupted block of text.  
MS 2404 - After John 8:11, the red lectionary notes
convey that the lector should resume reading here
on Pentecost.  (The section-number is also
written in the left margin.)
          In minuscule 225, John 13:3-17 – the lection for the Foot-washing in Holy-Week – also receives special treatment:  besides appearing in its usual place in John, it pops up in the text of Matthew 26, and the reason is obvious:  to make things easier for the lector on Maundy Thursday, when Matthew 26:1-20 was followed in the liturgy by John 13:3-17.  We do not therefore question the authenticity of John 13:3-17 or suggest that it was a “floating tradition.”  Nor should we infer, from the presence of John 7:53-8:11 before the beginning of John 7:37 (where the Pentecost-lection begins) in two medieval manuscripts that this remotely suggests that the passage is inauthentic.
          I will continue to explain why copyists moved the pericope adulterae in Part 2.


3 comments:

Unknown said...

Informative! Thanks for sharing.

thomas said...

Dear Sirs,

I would like your opionion on a certain line of reasoning. That relates to two particular and controversial Bible passages due to modern translation textual criticism mindsets:

I look forward to your response. Here is my position, do you feel it is flawed or accurate? PS--feel free to edit this little argument, so that it actually reaches the reader more effectively, if you see the value in it.

The quote BELOW made by Rationalistic, Naturalistic, Modern Trained, Higher Textual Critics of the Bible is self refuting:
(NIV) [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses Mark 16:9–20.]

Let us investigate why, and answer the question: is there undeniable and irrefutable evidence that contradicts the above statement?

Please make your decision based on the evidence below:

CHECK OUT #4 FROM CV omissions,
AND #2 FROM CS additions.

4. John 7:53-8:11: CV omits the pericope adulterae (story of the adulterous woman). HERE IS THE PROOF, NOT EVEN THE TWO MAIN CODEX USED TO TRANSLATE THE MODERN BIBLES AGREE. Codex Sinaiticus: OMITS IT. [John 7:53-8:11] Codex Vaticanus: DOES NOT OMIT IT. THESE TWO SUPPOSEDLY MORE ANCIENT DOCUMENTS, AND MORE RELIABLE, ARE NEITHER. AND THEY DON'T EVEN AGREE WITH THEMSELVES!!!

2. Mark 16:9-20: CS includes the longer ending of Mark 16:9–20.
Now, can you see how fraudulent the statement of the NIV and other modern translations is? IF THE TWO MAIN MANUSCRIPTS USED TO CREATE THE MODERN TRANSLATIONS, DON'T EVEN AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER, on these two major portions of scripture-----HOW CAN YOU CALL THEM MORE RELIABLE? THE TRUTH IS YOU ABSOLUTELY CANNOT. UNLESS YOU can put your entire trust and faith in the TEXTUAL CRITICS TO MAKE THE CHOICES FOR YOU AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT TO YOU TO YOUR FACE: by putting out faults and misleading, textual notes as so-called scholarly footnotes inserted into the text of your Bible, that cast out on the very scriptures themselves they are interested in translating for you into a language you can understand from the original Greek, that most of us cannot read, nor interpret on our own, we are completely at the mercy of those who do the translating for us. But are they trustworthy? Will they tell us the truth? Do they have a solid track record of openness, transparency, truthfulness, and trustworthiness, and also do they hold a faithful view of the Bible, the scriptures, the gospel, and the message of salvation itself?

IF THE MEN WHO ARE TRANSLATING THE SCRIPTURES FOR YOU (namely Wescott and Hort), DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE IN THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES THAT THEY ARE TRANSLATING, HOW CAN YOU TRUST THEIR TEXTUAL CRITICISM, AND THEIR NATURALISTIC INTERPRETATIONS, AND THEIR RATIONALISTIC MINDSET THAT WILL PRODUCE FOR YOU THE END PRODUCT OF A CORRUPTED BIBLICAL TEXT?

Now, why don't the modern Bible publication companies come forth, and be transparent about the infidelity, and unbelief, and OCCULTIC AND DEMONIC practices, of those whom they have proclaimed as BRILLIANT, GROUND BREAKING BIBLE SCHOLARS?

Can you give an exhausted list of the omissions and additions compared in the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus? [Source OF INFORMATION: https://www.meta.ai/ ] I can't provide an exhaustive list of omissions and additions between Codex Sinaiticus (CS) and Codex Vaticanus (CV) due to the vast number of variations. However, here are some notable examples:

thomas said...

part 2

Omissions in Codex Sinaiticus:
1. Matthew 12:47: CS omits the verse. 2. Mark 15:28: CS omits the verse. 3. Luke 22:43-44: CS omits the passage. 4. John 5:4: CS omits the verse. 5. Acts 8:37: CS omits the eunuch's confession of faith. 6. Romans 16:24: CS omits the verse.

Additions in Codex Sinaiticus:
1. Matthew 27:49: CS adds "And another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood."

Here is the incriminating evidence:
2. Mark 16:9-20: CS includes the longer ending of Mark.
You just read the incriminating evidence.


3. Luke 22:19-20: CS includes the words "new testament" in the institution of the Lord's Supper.

Omissions in Codex Vaticanus:
1. Matthew 17:21: CV omits the verse. 2. Mark 11:26: CV omits the verse.
3. Luke 23:34: CV omits Jesus' prayer for forgiveness.

4. John 7:53-8:11: CV omits the pericope adulterae (story of the adulterous woman).
HERE IS THE PROOF, NOT EVEN THE TWO MAIN CODEX USED TO TRANSLATE THE MODERN BIBLES AGREE.


5. Acts 28:29: CV omits the verse.

Additions in Codex Vaticanus:
1. Luke 22:19-20: CV includes the words "new covenant" in the institution of the Lord's Supper. 2. John 1:18: CV adds "only-begotten Son" instead of "only-begotten God" (CS). Please note that these examples are not exhaustive, and there are many more omissions and additions in both codices. For a comprehensive analysis, consult scholarly resources and critical editions of the Greek New Testament. Source OF INFORMATION: https://www.meta.ai/