It is difficult to exaggerate the extent of misinformation
that is circulating in various commentaries regarding the pericope adulterae, or story about the adulteress (found in John
7:53-8:11 in most English Bibles, and in most Greek manuscripts). Lately, one new bit of misinformation has
been added to the pile: the claim that in
the medieval minuscule manuscript 1333, the passage about the adulteress is
added to the end of the Gospel of Luke.
Dallas Theological Seminary professor Dr. Daniel Wallace, in a session
on New Testament Textual Criticism in the Credo Course curriculum, was
referring to minuscule 1333 when he said, as part of a lecture on the story of
the adulteress, “In some manuscripts, it stands as an independent pericope
between Luke and John.”
To get some idea of how misleading such a description is, one must first be familiar with the evidence - which consists in this case of just one manuscript, not “some manuscripts.” So let’s get a good look at the minuscule 1333, a manuscript which currently resides in Jerusalem, where it is cataloged as Hagios Sabas 243. Black and white page-views of the manuscript are available at the website of the Library of Congress.
To get some idea of how misleading such a description is, one must first be familiar with the evidence - which consists in this case of just one manuscript, not “some manuscripts.” So let’s get a good look at the minuscule 1333, a manuscript which currently resides in Jerusalem, where it is cataloged as Hagios Sabas 243. Black and white page-views of the manuscript are available at the website of the Library of Congress.
Minuscule 1333, assigned
to the 1000s, is a Gospels-manuscript. Most of the text is written in two columns per page, with 26 lines per
column. The main text is supplemented by
Eusebian canon-numbers and section-numbers in the side-margins, although the Canon-tables themselves do not appear. Chapter-numbers are also present in the
side-margins, and chapter-titles appear in the upper margins. There are a lot of short Arabic notes in the margin scattered throughout the manuscript. (Perhaps it would be a worthwhile project for
some Arabic-reader to study these notes.)
The manuscript has been prepared for liturgical use: αρχη and τελος symbols appear frequently, and
incipit-phrases are often supplied in the margins. The Heothina-readings are marked. Symbols (such as ※ and ⁘ and ⁒) of the sort which
one might initially assume would link the text to marginal corrections lead instead
to liturgical notes (most of which assign readings to specific days).
Here is a basic index; the links lead to page-views at the
website of the Library of Congress:
Damaged lectionary-tables appear before the kephalaia-list for Matthew.
Damaged lectionary-tables appear before the kephalaia-list for Matthew.
Matthew
begins below a headpiece similar to the kind often found at the beginning of lectionaries.
After the
last page of Matthew, on which three lines (from Mt. 28:20) are written
across the page, the chapter-list for Mark follows on the next page. There is no subscription.
Mark
16:9-20 is included in the text and is identified in the margin as the
third Heothinon-lection.
After
Mark 16:20, a table of lections for Saturday and Sunday appears in the next
two columns, beginning with a headpiece.
Before the
chapter-titles for Luke, there is a filler-page.
Luke
begins beneath a headpiece.
Luke
22:43-44 is included in the text.
The
last six lines of Luke are written in a vortex format, that is, the lines
are centered and become shorter as the end approaches. There is no subscription.
John
8:3-11 is written on the page between the last page of Luke and the page
which contains the chapter-titles of John.
The writing begins with a title that covers both columns: The reading for the 8th of
October, for Pelagia. Then the first
column begins with the words, εκ του κατα Ιω, that is, “From the
[Gospel] according to John,” the usual sub-title used in lectionaries to
introduce a lection from the Gospel of John.
This is followed by Τω καιρω εκεινω, that is, “At that time,” a routine
incipit-phrase used to begin readings.
The rest of the text on the page consists of John 8:3-11.
John
7:52 is followed by John 8:12 in the text.
A symbol resembling a patriarchal (two-barred) cross appears between the
two verses. Earlier in the text (on the
facing page) the beginning of the lection for Pentecost is indicated in the
text, and the lection is named in the upper margin.
The
closing lines of John 21 are formatted in a cruciform shape. Arabic notes then appear.
A
few Arabic notes and a brief Greek prayer appear near the end of the
manuscript on leftover pages.
What
should be deduced from this? A few
things:
● When 1333 was produced, it was copied from an exemplar that did not contain John 7:53-8:11.
● When 1333 was produced, it was copied from an exemplar that did not contain John 7:53-8:11.
● John
8:3-11 was added between the end of Luke and the chapter-list for John in order
to provide the otherwise absent lection for Saint Pelagia’s feast-day (October
8).
● The
titles that precede John 8:3-11 in 1333 show that this passage was not floating
or fluttering around as an independent tradition; the passage is clearly identified as a
lection from John. It is misleading to describe it as an “independent
pericope,” inasmuch as the person who wrote it had to have depended on a source
in which it was identified as a part of the Gospel of John. John 8:3-11 in 133 is not formatted in a way
that can be reasonably construed as if it were seen as part of the text of Luke,
nor is it formatted in a way that can be reasonably construed as if the scribe
obtained his text of the passage from some independent non-Biblical source.
● When
and where John 8:3-11 was added to 1333, John 8:3-11 was part of the annual cycle of readings in the Menologion.
● 1333
was initially formatted to include filler-pages; the presence of John
8:3-11 before the chapter-list of John and the presence of a lection-list
before the chapter-list of Luke are probably both the work of a later scribe who used the filler-pages as a convenient place to add materials that would render
the manuscript more useful for liturgical reading.
6 comments:
Isn't 1333 a bit of a late witness to this passage ?
Is there any earlier manuscript evidence out there ?
Celal Birader,
Certainly there is much older manuscript evidence for the story about the adulteress: Codex D (assigned to c. 400 by D. C. Parker), and the MSS used (and mentioned) by Jerome, and the Syriac Didascalia, and a form of the Old Latin chapter-summaries that appears to have originated in the 200s. Just search the blog for "John 7:53-8:11" and "pericope adulterae" and plenty of evidence regarding this passage (and critiques of misrepresentations of the evidence) should be at your fingertips. Much of the same data can also be found in my e-book, "A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11."
The text is quite different from RP. Has its textual affiliation been identified?
Daniel Buck,
Yes. Stay tuned for an update.
Daniel Buck,
Here's that update:
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/09/maurice-robinson-source-of-pericope.html
If I may ask, dear Dr. Snapp! What then is at the overleaf of the filler page that contains the pericope;is it blank or what??. And I want to thank you also, for your good work. May the Lord bless you real good. Amen
Post a Comment