Monday, December 11, 2017

My Favorite Passage About an Adulteress in the Bible

            Dan Wallace’s research on John 7:53-8:11 is unreliable.  Let’s take a few minutes today to see where this professor at Dallas Theological Seminary has gotten things wrong about John 7:53-8:11 in his Credo Course on New Testament textual criticism, and at the wrong conclusion that his mistreatment of the evidence has led him.

Actually, we have a lot more than that:
half the majuscules of John 7-8,
and about 1,500 minuscules.
(1)  Wallace:  “We have three majuscule manuscripts, out of the 322 that we have, that actually have this passage.  That’s it.”

This statement is wrong in two ways.  First, the metric is unfair, since most of the 322 uncial manuscripts that he cited (a number which has risen slightly since then) do not have any text from the Gospel of John whatsoever.  It would be unfair to say, “The Dallas Cowboys have failed to win 308 out of 316 football games this season” if the team only played 16 football games, won seven times, and had one tie.  To include 300 games that the team could not participate in serves only one purpose:  to convey a false impression. 
            Second, more than three majuscule manuscripts have the story of the adulteress!  The uncials E, G, H, K, M, U, S, G, Ω, 047, and 0233 support the passage, and Codex F included it when the manuscript was in pristine condition.  Wallace’s statement of the number of uncials (i.e., majuscules) that contain the pericope adulterae is off by a factor of four.
            In addition, it is no secret that Codices Δ and L, while they do not contain John 7:53-8:11, contain blank space between John 7:52 and John 8:12, which is obvious testimony to their copyist’s awareness of the absent passage, and there is no good reason to neglect to mention this feature of these two manuscripts when presenting them as evidence for the non-inclusion of the passage.

The Latin chapter-titles (capitula)
and chapter-summaries (breves)
tell a different story.
(2)  Wallace:  “When the Syriac, and the Coptic, and the Latin versions, along those lines, don’t have it, when they were begun in the second and third century, their manuscripts that they used didn’t have it.”

Wallace’s statement is unobjectionable regarding the Syriac and Coptic copies – setting aside the Syriac Didascalia’s statement about Jesus’ statement, “Neither do I condemn you” in the interest of brevity, since it is not a manuscript – but the Latin evidence is quite a different story.  In an early form of the Latin chapter-divisions of John, considered to have originated in the mid-200’s or slightly thereafter (and for this reason called “Type Cy,” the “Cy” representing Cyprian and his era), the thirtieth chapter-title, or summary, begins with the phrase, “Ubi adulteram dimisit et se dixit lumen saeculi,” that is, “Wherein he dismissed the adulteress, and said that he was the light of the world.” 
            Another form of the Latin chapter-divisions in John, Type I, from the 300’s, divides the text differently; its sixteenth chapter-title, or summary, says, “Adducunt ad eum mulierem ‘in adulterio deprehensam,’” and in one form of this chapter-summary, the text continues, “in moechatione ut eam iudicaret,” and this phrase – with the loanword moechatione – is also found in another form of the Latin chapter-divisions, Type D.  All in all, twelve different forms of Latin chapter-divisions include the story of the adulteress, all in the usual location after John 7:52. 
            Among Old Latin manuscripts of John, while the early Latin support for John 7:53-8:11 is not unanimous, Jonathan Clark Borland has shown that the story of the adulteress circulated in not just one, but three localized forms within the Old Latin tradition.  Clearly, there is Dr. Wallace’s claim, and then on the other hand there is the real world.
Except 20 or so.  Obscure writers
such as Ambrose and Augustine.

(3) Wallace:  “We have a lack of patristic comments on this passage until the twelfth century.   Not until the 1100’s do you get somebody who takes any time to really comment on this text.” 

           For those who are familiar with the comments on this passage made by Pacian of Barcelona (mid-300’s – same era as Codex Sinaiticus’ copyists), Ambrose of Milan, Ambrosiaster, Jerome (whose testimony is strangely absent from the NET’s note on the passage), Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine, and others, the gracious reaction will be to assume that the speaker was rephrasing Bruce Metzger’s outdated Textual Commentary, and forgot to include the word “Greek” to describe the patristic comments to which he referred.  But this cannot be the entire explanation, because Wallace proceeded to assert that “You don’t see it in any fathers of the first millennium.” [bold print added]

(4) Wallace:  “There are several [manuscripts] that have an asterisk in the margin.” 

            The number of manuscripts with an asterisk or asterisks (or similar marks, such as a column of squiggly lines) is something more like 270, not just “several.”  But in 130 of these manuscripts, the asterisks do not accompany all of John 7:53-8:11; they only accompany John 8:3-11.  Maurice Robinson has helpfully demonstrated that in these cases, the asterisks constitute part of the lectionary-apparatus, conveying to the lector where to find the lection for Saint Pelagia’s Day (October 8) embedded within the lection for Pentecost.  Wallace, however, instead of accepting what should be obvious – for why would copyists put asterisks only by 8:3-11, and not 7:53-8:2 as well, if their intent was to mark the passage as spurious? – has insisted that these asterisks were inserted to convey scribal doubt.  
            Part of the reason why he has insisted that these asterisks convey scribal doubt, he claimed, has something to do with the presence of an asterisk in Codex Claromontanus.  If anyone can make sense of the line of reasoning Dr. Wallace has employed about this, please let me know, for it seems to me that showing that one copyist used an asterisk for one purpose does not mean that other copyists cannot use it for an entirely different purpose.

(5) Wallace:  “Codex D’s text is not at all like the Byzantine MSS’ version of the story.  Lots of corruption in this passage.  Some manuscripts tell us what He wrote.  This indicates that this was “may well be a floating oral story that got spread about in different forms for quite some time.”

            Another explanation is that, as Eusebius of Caesarea reported, there was another form of the story in the once-popular writings of Papias, and details from one form of the story were occasionally blended into the other.  Of course for students to perceive this alternative explanation, they would first have to be informed about the existence of Eusebius’ report of Papias’ form of the incident.
Diagnosis:  Metzgerius Regurgitatis.
Study the lectionary cycle, professor.

(6) Wallace:  “It is a floating text as far as the New Testament is concerned.  Let me show you some of the places this passage has shown up, and let’s wrestle with what the implications of that are.  It appears in three different places in John 7 – not just John 7:53 but a couple of places earlier.”

            Ah, the Fable of the Floating Anecdote.  Since I have already refuted, in an earlier series of posts beginning at , the theory that the dislocations of the story of the adulteress indicate that it was a freestanding narrative that floated around like a restless butterfly, I will not replow plowed ground here, except to expose how selective Dr. Wallace’s descriptions of the evidence are.

(7) Wallace:  “In some manuscripts, it appears as a separate pericope at the end of all four Gospels, just tacked on at the very end.”
Tell us, please, about the note that
accompanies it in minuscule 1582. 
The note that says it was taken from
the location after John 7:52.

As if someone took a separate composition and added it on to the Gospels.  Except when one learns – as Dr. Wallace’s students, sadly, do not learn in his classroom – that these manuscripts belong to a tightly-related group, family-1, and that the core members of this group (minuscules 1 and 1582) preface the story of the adulteress with a note which specifically says “The chapter about the adulteress:  in the Gospel according to John, this does not appear in the majority of copies; nor is it commented upon by the divine fathers whose interpretations have been preserved – specifically, by John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria; nor is it taken up by Theodore of Mopsuestia and the others.  For this reason, it was not kept in the place where it is found in a few copies, at the beginning of the 86th chapter [that is, the 86th Eusebian section], following, ‘Search and see that a prophet does not arise out of Galilee.’”
            If Dr. Wallace’s students were told about the contents of this prefatory note, they would not leave him classroom ready to confidently tell their future flocks that the story about the adulteress was “tacked on at the very end” from someplace other than from within the Gospel of John.  They would know about the note which specifically says that the story of the adulteress was transplanted to the end of John from its usual location after John 7:52.
Some?  I think you mean one.
And it's not independent. 
It's the lection for Saint Pelagia's
Day, with a heading, "From John."

(8) Wallace:  “In some manuscripts, it stands as an independent pericope between Luke and John.”

This is not the case.  The manuscript that comes the closest to fitting Dr. Wallace’s description is minuscule 1333, in which the lection for Saint Pelagia’s day (John 8:3-11) is added between the end of Luke and the beginning of John, on what had been a filler-page.  But John 8:3-11 is accompanied on this page in 1333 by headings which identify it as the lection for Saint Pelagia’s day, and as a lection from the Gospel of John.  Once again when the details of the evidence are not locked away, the same thing that was treated as evidence that the story of the adulteress was a floating text is seen to be just the opposite. 

(9) Wallace:  “What does all this tell us?  Is it stable in its place?  No; it’s not stable.  That suggests that here’s a passage that’s trying to get into the Bible, and it’s tried several different places to get in, if you can personify this.  And finally it landed on John 7:52, right after that seemed to be the most logical, the most coherent place, it seems; fits into the text pretty well, and yet there are still some real serious issues there.”

            That is the conclusion that Dr. Wallace wants his students to reach.  Throughout his lectures on this subject – not only in the Credo Course but also in other online presentations – he demonstrates an utter lack of consideration of the impact of the lection-cycle upon the text.  One is tempted to even call it a lack of awareness of the lection-cycle altogether, for as far as I can tell, he never brings up the point that the lection for Saint Pelagia was embedded within the lection for Pentecost.  Nor, as far as I can tell, does he ever indicate that he understands that copyists sometimes simplified the lector’s task on Pentecost (where the lection jumped from the end of John 7:52, leapfrogged John 7:53-8:11, and landed on 8:12) by removing the elided verses to another location.
            Rather, here is how he described the format of the passage in minuscule 115; I give an extensive quote in order to show the extent of his misunderstanding: 

(10) Wallace:  “And it also occurs, in one manuscript, after John 8:12; this is fascinating:  it’s codex 115, and it’s one that Griesbach actually was one of the very first guys to collate; I collated it several years ago, and what I noticed was – here’s a manuscript, it shears off at John 11, right in the middle of John 11 – but, the scribe copying out this manuscript gets to this pericope, and – he’s copying from another manuscript – he writes out John 7:52; then he continues copying from this other manuscript, and writes out John 8:12. 
            “The manuscript that he’s copying from . . . all of a sudden, it skips the story of the woman caught in adultery.  This scribe doesn’t catch it until he writes the verse after this pericope.  And so, he catches it:  he goes, “Oh!  Wait a minute; that’s not right.  This story is supposed to go here.”  So he goes and puts that manuscript down, picks up another one that has the story of the woman caught in adultery, and writes it out.  This is the only manuscript I know of where you have the story of the woman caught in adultery after John 8:12, and then John 8:12 is again repeated after it.  And you can see how it came about.”

            Except that’s not how it came about.  The copyist of 115 was merely trying to make the lector’s job a little easier by putting 8:12 alongside the rest of the lection for Pentecost.  Minuscule 115 is not the only manuscript like this; the same thing is found in minuscules 1050, 1349, and 2620, and in minuscule 476, John 8:12 is written in the margin alongside 7:52 for the same purpose.  Dr. Wallace guides his students to conclude that the passage is a floating text, but what the evidence that he is presenting really shows – if its details would be allowed to speak in Dr. Wallace’s classrooms – is that the copyists of these manuscripts expected John 7:37-52+8:12 to be read at Pentecost, and they also expected John 8:3-11 to be read on October 8 in honor of Saint Pelagia (or in some cases, Mary of Egypt).  In no way does these transplantations of the passage support the idea that it was moved from anywhere except from its usual location after John 7:52
            Regarding the other case of transplantation that Wallace mentioned (to the end of Luke 21), and others that he did not mention, I have elsewhere already explained how they originated because of adjustments to the lection-cycle, and do not support the idea of a “floating text,” unless one means that some copyists, in attempts to simplify the task of the lector, floated the passage from its usual location after John 7:52 to other locations that they considered more convenient.

(11) Wallace:  “I told you that some of these manuscripts have an asterisk there, and the asterisk is indicating that the text is not authentic.  Here in Codex 1424 we see asterisks in the margin down here, of this text.  So you’ve got the text actually written out, but then you’ve got the asterisks saying it’s not actually authentic, or that they have doubts about it.  This is a manuscript at the Lutheran School of Theology that we photographed a few years ago, a very important manuscript.  But, significantly, those asterisks say, the scribe is telling us he has doubts about the authenticity.”
What about the note in 1424 that
says that the entire passage is in
the ancient manuscripts and that
the church should use it?

            Let’s take a closer look at minuscule 1424’s treatment of the story of the adulteress.  Its main text does not include the passage; the account is crammed into the outer and lower margin of the page.  The readings within the passage as written in the margin of 1424 are similar to the text of the passage in Codex Λ.  In addition to the asterisks, it is accompanied by a note.  Nearly identical notes also appear in Codex Λ (as a scholium), and in minuscule 262, and in minuscule 20 (in which the passage is transplanted to the end of the Gospel of John).  Here is the note:  This is not in certain copies, and it was not in those used by Apollinaris.  In the old ones, it is all there.  And this pericope is referenced by the apostles, affirming that it is for the edification of the church.”  (The last sentence is referring to the use of the story about the adulteress in the composition known as Apostolic Constitutions, Book 2, chapter 24, which is modeled upon an older work, the Didascalia, at this point.)
The format of the text in 1349:
Red line with green arrow (twice) = 8:12
Yellow line = 7:53-8:11
Blue rectangle = heading, "The Adulteress"
Green square:  movable date for the next lection
            Thus, when closer scrutiny is applied to the margin of 1424, we do not have to resort to guesswork to see the purpose of the asterisks:  they draw attention to the passage that the note is about – a note which affirms that the passage, though not in some copies, was found in ancient manuscripts, and which appeals to Apostolic Constitutions as confirmation that it is for the edification of the church.  Not quite the same impression now, is it?

(12) Wallace:  “I really think the passage needs to be relegated to the footnotes.”

            So would I, if my grasp of the evidence were as poor as his, or if I were a student at Dallas Theological Seminary (or at the Credo Course) without the means to test the accuracy of what I was being taught on this subject.  But having taken an unfiltered look into the evidence (and there is much more I could critique, but have not, in the interest of brevity), my view is that the story about the adulteress was originally in the text of the Gospel of John, and that it was lost in an early and influential transmission-line when a copyist misunderstood marginal instructions intended for a lector as if they were meant for the copyist.  It should be revered by everyone as inspired Scripture.  
            Some might claim that my position is the effect of an attachment to tradition, or “emotional baggage.”  What could I do against such suspicions except insist that this is not the case, and that it is those who reject the pericope adulterae who are promoting an obsolete tradition – namely, the “floating anecdote” myth that is no longer sustainable.  Against all attempts at dismissal, I bask in my confidence that even those who have traveled down that dead-end road will soon learn the facts of the case, and stop spreading their inaccurate claims about the story of the adulteress.
Also available
as a download
at the
NT Textual Criticism
group on Facebook.
            I take this opportunity to remind readers that my Kindle e-book A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11 is available to purchase at Amazon for 99 cents – and readers (especially seminary professors and Bible teachers) are welcome to contact me at and request a free copy.


Ron said...

I am hopeful he replies, since you have taken on a giant (not Goliath). I am ignorant, and I am interested in a discussion on this with men of your capability.

Wayne said...

James, you did an amazing analysis of this. I want a copy of your book.

Donald Johnson said...

Thank you for your analysis.

Is there some reason Wallace might WANT John 8a to be outside the canon?

I plan to point this this article when discussing John 8a.
P.S. I think it is authentic as I see Jesus showing himself to be a Jew following Torah in his responses and showing how his challengers are not.

Daniel Buck said...

What Dr. Wallace finds "fascinating" could be better described as "fantastic." That is, he fantasized a scenario in defiance of the evidence. Following your link to 1349, one can note that indeed 7:52 is followed by 8:12, but there is a τελος lectionary symbol right there in the text between the two. The pericope then follows, with 8:12 up to λέγων, then the αρχη lectionary symbol preceding the rest of the verse.
So apparently for at least some lectors, only part of 8:12 was included in the Pentecost reading.

Jonathan Hanna said...

I emailed David Allan Black out of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary about this passage once. He seems to think it is authentic and goes back to the autograph. Then he forwarded me to this book:

Daniel Buck said...

It's also worth remembering that whenever Dr. Wallace makes a big deal of the multiple locations the pericope is found in, he undercuts the testimony of the ancient manuscripts he claims don't have it. Yes, it may be easily shown that they don't have it between John 7 and 8, but as he has so amply demonstrated, that's no proof that a manuscript doesn't have it--somewhere. In order to claim support for omission, he really needs to show that any given ms has all of the contexts in which the pericope has been found, and it is present in none of them.
No wonder he has to throw around numbers like 322 in support of omission.

James Snapp Jr said...

Daniel Buck,
I suppose one could pose that objection, but I would not do so, inasmuch as the MSS that have the PA after Luke 21 and after John 21 tend to have other features as well; that is, as you know, the family-13 MSS have other textual affinities, not just the transplantation of the PA to after Luke 21 (where it is near the lection for the previous day in the Menologion), and the family-1 MSS have other textual affinities likewise, not just the transplantation of the PA to after John 21 (where it was put after being taken from the location right after 7:52, as the note in MS 1582 specifically says). It's really the archetype of these clusters that carries the weight, rather than any one member of the group.

Still, your point is valid to an extent:
If a MS within family-1 does not have the PA after John 7:52, and is not extant for John 21, it should be regarded as a witness for complete non-inclusion very tenuously, if at all, and if a MS within family-13 is not extant for Luke 21-22, it should be regarded as a witness for complete non-inclusion very tenuously, if at all.

Jason Wharton said...

This passage is crucially important since the Gospel of John serves as a prophecy for what is to take place during the Millennium. This is teaching about the time when the Bride of Christ (Michael's Bride who gives birth to the Manchild)in the end-times falls and is overcome during her time of peril and tribulation, but she is later redeemed and forgiven of her transgression. Glad to see it getting some defense as a critically important part of holy writ.

Scorpion0308 said...

Reading this, it isn't completely obvious that it definitely was part of the autograph. You fail to mention Dr. Wallace does not discount the possibility of it being a historically accurate story, but failed to be written down by John. I don't mean this as an insult, but you seem to be proud as you say"bask in my confidence". Did you by chance take the opportunity to confront Dr. Wallace with your reasoning's or questions either during the class or outside of it? Nevertheless, I would be interested in his reply. Kudos to you on your work regarding the PA.

James Snapp Jr said...


Please note that this blog does not allow anonymous comments. (But this was, as far as I can tell, your first post, so I will assume for this one minute that you were named Scorpion0308 at birth.)

Dr. Wallace may consider *a* story about Jesus and an adulteress to be historical, but that is not the text-critical issue. He has affirmed that he would prefer the passage to be relegated to the footnotes, largely on the basis of the case that he offers in the Credo Course lecture on the subject, which is, as you can see, riddled with errors. He has acknowledged one error that I pointed out in one of his YouTube lectures some time ago (in a series of lectures, given in Brasil, which closely resemble some of the Credo Course lectures, PowerPoint slides and all). Yet he allows it to continue to circulate. I assume that this is due to carelessness, not to a desire to deliberately deceive. Unfortunately the result on the listeners is the same.

As for me seeing proud and all that, perhaps the discussion about the tone of the smoke alarm can be undertaken after the fire has been extinguished.

Daniel Buck said...

JS: "I suppose one could pose that objection, but I would not do so, inasmuch as the MSS that have the PA after Luke 21 and after John 21 tend to have other features as well . . ."

Good point. But to follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, the oldest manuscript of Mark should be mentioned in support of 16:9-20, as the other member of its textual family contains the verses. Were the last page of p45 still extant, it would probably contain the Freer logion, but almost certainly the rest of the Long Ending.

JGabriel22 said...

The amount of material you have omitted that points to the periscope being an addition to the gospel by someone other than the John's author is massive. You have chosen a lousy "scholar" who made inadequate and clearly fallacious arguments that could be easily disproven to discuss your theory on the authenticity of the periscope.

A few points:

the periscope is missing from ALL manuscripts prior to the fifth century when it is first found in the highly aberrant Codex Bezae. The same Codex Bezae that has a copy of the Acts of the Apostles 10 percent longer than the one found in every other bible.
The story then disappears in greek texts for another 4 centuries and doesn't reappear till the 9th century.

It's missing in
Codex Sinaticus
Codex Vaticanus
Codex L (Although it doesn contain a blank space as if the writer kept a space in memorial of the periscope.)
Codex Delta (same as above)
Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Ephraemi
Codex Washingtonianus
Codex Borganus

The above as you know are the earliest John texts we posses.

Shall we talk about it stylistically?
There's a reason why it is sometimes found in Luke 21:38 or 24:53, because in style and vocabulary it fits better there than in John.
We can also find it after John 7:36 or after John 21:25.

Definitively on internal grounds these verses interrupt the narrative of John’s Gospel and feature non-Johannine vocabulary and grammar.

Let's talk about what our Church Fathers thought of the periscope.

Latin church father's are the only ones who speak of the periscope before the 11th century save one Greek, Dydimus the blind.

So let's talk about the latin fathers.
Pre 5th century Besides Pacian and Ambrisiaster who allude to the story but DO NOT place it in a Johnannine Context
Ambrose does cite the passage and places it where it is found in most gospels today.
Augustine and Jerome were familiar with the periscope.
you have in the 5th century Quodvultdeus of Carthage, Peter Chrysologus, writing in Ravenna c. 450, Prosper of Aquitane and Gelasius also clearly used the passage.

As far as the Greek Fathers:
you have Papias (circa AD 110) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.
Dydymus the blind also refers to a story that sounds very much like the periscope but speaks of it being found in "other Gospels."
Let's not forget that Didymus routinely quoted from extracanonical books as if they were scripture, including the Sheperd of Hermas, the docetic tinged Acts of John as well as a number of quotes not found in our present gospels. He was eventually considered a heretic and his works were hunted down and destroyed by the Church.

The following greek fathers do not appear to know of this story in our bibles:

Origen, Chrysostom, and Nonnus (in his metrical paraphrase) dealt with the entire Gospel verse by verse and yet no mention of this periscope.
Cyril is silent.
Euthymius Zigabenus, who lived in the first part of the twelfth century, is the first Greek writer to comment on the passage, and even he declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.”

What can early translations of John in other languages tell us?

The story missing from the oldest Syriac, Coptic, and Bohairic versions of the Gospel.
It's missing from all of the Sahidic, sub-Achmimic, and Gothic manuscripts.
Important early Armenian, Old Georgian, and Old Latin copies of John’s Gospel omit the passage.
The story is absent in over one hundred of the earliest manuscripts of John.

As for me, I fully buy into Chris Keith's arguments as to the time, place and reason behind the addittion of the periscope into the 4th goespel.

His book is
The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy ofJesus

Daniel Buck said...

Gabriel, congratulations on an excellent summary of the "fraud" theory of the PA (overlooking your typos, of which we are all guilty at times). Whoever has so effectively convinced you of the truth of this theory even managed to get you to believe conflicting 'facts' about Didymus--both that he mentioned the pericope (a horrible blow to the theory) and that he merely mentioned something like it (the only salvageable response).
But the most important claim you make is of "clearly fallacious arguments that could be easily disproven." If it is as easy as you claim, I invite you to do so without consulting any of your sources again, as you are clearly already very familiar with them. And please use logic, not ad hominem.

James Snapp Jr said...


First: pericope, not periscope.

If you take in hand my book -- a free digital copy of which I will happily provide on request -- you will see that I am well aware of the external evidence that you summarized, regarding which MSS have and do not contain the passage.

<< The above as you know are the earliest John texts we posses. >>

You've not mentioned some important Latin evidence.

<< There's a reason why it is sometimes found in Luke 21:38 or 24:53, because in style and vocabulary it fits better there than in John. >>

Incorrect. Please read my book.

<< Definitively on internal grounds these verses interrupt the narrative of John’s Gospel and feature non-Johannine vocabulary and grammar. >>

On the contrary, John's narrative is *not* interrupted by the PA; just the opposite is the case: the narrative is truncated without the PA. Again, please read my book.

<< Latin church father's are the only ones who speak of the periscope before the 11th century save one Greek, Dydimus the blind. >>

Incorrect; again, please read my book.

Regarding Latin patristic writers: again, please read my book; this is covered there as well.

Regarding Greek patristic writers: again: please read my book. I cover this.

Regarding versional evidence: please read my book; I cover this too.

<< I fully buy into Chris Keith's arguments as to the time, place and reason behind the addittion of the periscope into the 4th goespel. >>

Then why are you making references about the PA being put into Luke or at the end of John for stylistic reasons? Are you sure you've read Keith carefully? For he shows a lot of the data that shows that lectionary-related adjustment are the cause of that, not some "This sounds good here" motive.


<< You have chosen a lousy "scholar" who made inadequate and clearly fallacious arguments that could be easily disproven to discuss your theory on the authenticity of the periscope. >>

Well . . . a lot of folks would disagree with the idea that Dan Wallace is a lousy scholar, and it would seem that he must have few true friends, since he has been spreading these claims at Dallas Theological Seminary for years. And of course I want to discuss my theory about the pericope; why would I *or anyone) write for no reason?? But I do not want to rewrite here in the comments what I have already written in my book, so, please, read my book.

Daniel Buck said...

"The uncials E, G, H, K, M, U, S, G, Ω, 047, and 0233 support the passage, and Codex F included it when the manuscript was in pristine condition."
Perhaps you would cover this evidence in more detail (as you do so well). To start with, D should obviously be on this list. But how about Gamma 036, listed in support at And F is witness to v. 11, but we don't know if it may, like E, also have lacked the first two verses. But if we allow E in for its inclusion of 2-11, then why not Lambda 039 and Pi 041 for 3-11?

JGabriel22 said...

Ok. It is a passionate topic for me, how those who espouse the total infallibility of the text go through hoops to call the end of mark and the stoning story as being there from the very beginning. The New Testament copies we have are a few hundred years removed from the autographs. It is clear even as late as the fifth century (codex Braze is a great example) that there were still areas within the Christian world that felt and believed the gospels the letters the acts could still be refined and shaped (added to and subtracted from) to fill the local congregation’s stylistic historical and dogmatic beliefs. I will answer you more fully after this weekend as I am spending time with my family.