John 8 and P66 and p75

Michael Huffman said:

Question for consideration with the study of p66 and p75; is there enough histrorical evidence to conclude that the content of the woman taken in adultry was part of the original text. Being that p66 nor p75 do not include it. If you do a version comparison with your earliest Greek manuscripts with NA27 and UBS4, you will find that it is a 100% variant. Metzger is a good source for this. Also check our Waegner in "The Students Guide to Textaul Criticism" also available in Logos.

This has had more than one location in the Gospel of John and has even appeared in Luke.  The older manuscripts do not have it either so it appears to have been inserted from elsewhere.  It does, however seem to be quite old since Papias seems to be aware of it though he doesn't say where it was located.  I have a suspicion that it came from one of the old lost gospels such as the Gospel of the Hebrews.  It's a nice story though and may even reflect an historical event.

The NET Bible contains notes that relate to the textual apparatus. Note 139 on Jn 7:53 begins like this:

This entire section, 7:53–8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53–8:11: P^{66, 75} א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53–8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53–8:11 are D M lat. In addition E S Λ 1424^mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, f¹ places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, f¹³ after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,”

George Somsel said:

I have a suspicion that it came from one of the old lost gospels such as the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Do we know George if there is any quotation of that particular pericope from the Gospel of the Hebrews, in Papias, or others? I know I had somewere a list of all quotations from that Gospel. I forgot where I have seen it. It would be very interesting situation.

In WBC there is a mention of that:

Eusebius states that Papias, writing in the mid-second century, “told another story about a woman who was accused of many sins in the presence of the Lord, a story which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (HE 3.39.17); this could relate to the same episode as that in John 7:53–8:11, but of that we cannot be sure (see Vielhauer in Hennecke’s New Testament Apocrypha 1 [Tr. R. McL. Wilson. London: Lutterworth, 1963] 121–22).

My view is that only what the author wrote is scripture and that was the original reason for Textual Criticism, to get back to what the author wrote. I like what Dan Wallace said concerning the woman caught in adultery. He said something like “This is one of my favorite stories in the Bible that isn’t Bible”. Something like that. If I find the quote I can post it. I remember in an interview Wallace said that they decided to put the passage in a smaller font so it couldn’t be read from the pulpit (NET Bible). Anyway I know others will disagree and I am not here to attack anyone just want to make sure we are honest with the people we teach.

JamesChaisson said:

My view is that only what the author wrote is scripture and that was the original reason for Textual Criticism, to get back to what the author wrote. I like what Dan Wallace said concerning the woman caught in adultery. He said something like “This is one of my favorite stories in the Bible that isn’t Bible”. Something like that. If I find the quote I can post it. I remember in an interview Wallace said that they decided to put the passage in a smaller font so it couldn’t be read from the pulpit (NET Bible). Anyway I know others will disagree and I am not here to attack anyone just want to make sure we are honest with the people we teach.

I've had ambivalent feelings about this.  At times I reject it for precisely the reasons you state.  Other times, however, I begin to think that it seems totally consonant with other stories regarding Jesus and his attitude toward "sinners."  He could excoriate the religious leadership for their hypocracy, but when do you hear him upbraiding the common people who did all sorts of untoward things?  About the nearest you might come to that is when Peter tells him that he doesn't have to go to Jerusalem to suffer and die then Jesus calls him "Satan."  Even here one might contend that Peter is part of the religious establishment since he is one of the twelve.  The Pericope Adultera certainly stands in the tradition of Jesus' compassion for the sinner.  The problem for most conservatives is that it creates problems for their theology of conversion -- "Neither do I condemn you.  Go and don't sin anymore."  WOW !  No "Lord be merciful to me", no confession of sin.  What do most conservative churches do?  They talk of confessing that one is a sinner.  They tell a person to have faith in Christ (Though sometimes what is meant by this isn't clear).  They encourage a person to ask Jesus to come into their heart.  The problem for the conservative theology of conversion isn't solved by excising this pericope.  What about the story of the paralytic brought to Jesus on a pallet by four friends and let down to Jesus through a hole they excavate in the roof?  Jesus forgives his sin.  The problem for the conservative theology of conversion and forgiveness is that Jesus forgives the man's sins BECAUSE OF THE FRIENDS' FAITH !  Again, WOW ! 

And, did I mention?  It's a ripping good story!

We have -- rather I should say I have problems with Re 16:15.  Here he's giving the vision of the Bowls of Wrath when all of a sudden -- BANG ! -- "See, I am coming like a thief . . ."  Huh?  What's that doing there?  I'd love to be able to say that it was a gloss which had slipped into the text since it seems so totally out of place, but no manuscript evidence supports that.  All the manuscripts have this so I suppose I must accept it though it seems it shouldn't be there. 

I'm going to have to side with James on this one. Even if this is a "good story" or that it exhibits "Jesus like" qualities and we can certainly see Jesus doing this; the fact that it is inserted makes it "not part of the word of God"

I'm sure that there are a lot of things that are nice and would even be "good for us" but we have what God intended and as John said; our aim is to get to that as much as possible.

I don't preach, but if it was me, I would no more preach this than last weeks grocery list or the Gospel of Thomas.

Just my uninformed .02 cents.

Robert Pavich said:

I don't preach, but if it was me, I would no more preach this than last weeks grocery list

A worthy topic for next Sunday!  [6]