June 17, 2010
Excerpt from: Herbert McLachlan, St Luke: The Man and His Work, (Manchester, 1920)
Greek NT Text: Lukan Text of PA - reconstructed by McLachlan
20a. Excursus IV (A). - The Text of the PA
1. Textual Evidence - & Von Soden's μ Groups
2. Scribal Habits - and the Western Text
3. Internal Evidence - and family 13, D, F, L
4. Other Theories - Dr. Bacon, Dr. Blass
McLachlan's Reconstructed Text of PA
[MacLachlan proposes that the PA originally came immediately after Luke 21:37, (i.e., 21:38 is supposed to be a replacement gloss). Thus he gives the text as he imagines Luke originally wrote it, sometimes using variant readings, sometimes making conjectural emendations not supported by any extant form of text.]
Luke 21:37 ην δε τας ημερας εν τω ιερω διδασκων τας δε νυκτας εξερχομενος ηυλιζετο εις το ορος το καλουμενον ελαιων
¶ Ὄρθρου βαθεως πάλιν παρεγένετο εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτὸν, καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς. 3 Ἄγουσιν δὲ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι επ' αμαρτια γυναῖκα ἐν μοιχείᾳ κατειλημμενην: καὶ στήσαντες αὐτὴν ἐν μέσῳ, 4 λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, εκπειράζοντες αὐτὸν οι αρχιεεις ἵνα ἔχωσιν κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ, Διδάσκαλε, αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ κατελήπται ἐπ' αὐτοφόρῳ μοιχευομένη. 5 Μωυσῆς δὲ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ εκελευσεν τὰς τοιαύτας λιθαζειν: σὺ δε νυν τί λέγεις; 6 [6a om.] Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς κάτακύψας, τῷ δακτύλῳ κατἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν. [om. μὴ προσποιούμενος] 7 Ὡς δὲ ἐπέμενον ἐρωτῶντες, ἀνακύψας εἶπε πρὸς αὐτούς, Ὁ ἀναμάρτητος ὑμῶν, πρῶτος ἐπ' αὐτὴν βαλέτω λίθον. 8 Καὶ πάλιν κάτακύψας ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν. 9 Οἱ δέ, ἀκούσαντες, [om. καὶ...-μενοι,] ἐξήρχοντο εἷς εκαστος, ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, καὶ κατελείφθη μόνος [ὁ Ἰησοῦς] , καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐν μέσῳ εστωσα. 10 Ἀναβλεψας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, [om. καὶ μηδένα θεασάμενος πλὴν] εἶπεν τὴς γυναικi, Ποῦ εἰσιν ἐκεῖνοι οἱ κατήγοροί σου; Οὐδείς σε κατέκρινεν; 11 Ἡ δὲ εἶπεν, Οὐδείς, κύριε. Εἶπεν δὲ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε kataκρίνω: πορεύου απο του νυν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.
[Luke 22:1 fwd would continue after this.]
A discussion of McLachlan's theory of Lukan authorship must be postponed and presented along with his large chapter on the problem, for a fair evaluation of his proposals. It may be noted that few other textual critics were convinced that Luke authored the passage, in spite of McLachlan's long and elaborate defense of this theory. He debated eloquently, but the thesis lacked a solid and convincing scientific footing.
Text of the PA
1. The Textual Evidence & Von Soden's Groups
The MSS. which contain the PA in some form are D F (partly defective)G, H, K, U, T (with a hiatus after στησαντες αυτην v. 3) ; others which mark with an asterisk or obelus are E M S Λ Π. Gaps in L Λ betray doubt on the part of the scribes.
Of minuscules more than 300 contain it. The passage is also found in the old Latin b*, c, e, ff 2 , g, j, 1 (mg.), the Vulgate, even the best codices, the Aethiopic and Syrhier. The section is also recognised by the Apostolic Constitutions, Jerome Ambrose Augustine and others.
The recovery of the original text of the pericope is not easily accomplished. Scrivener 1 remarks :
"In no portion of the NT do the variations of the MSS (of D beyond all the rest), and of other documents, bear any sort of proportion, whether in number or extent, to those in these 12 verses."
Hort 2 therefore, had good reason for feeling "by no means confident that the true text can now be recovered in more than approximate purity."
Von Soden, however, did not despair of the task. He distinguishes 3 no fewer than 7 types of the text of the PA which are indicated by the symbols μ1 μ2...μ7 (μ = μοιχαλις - "adultery").
These types are discovered by a critical examination of variants in the different MSS., the theory being that texts which exhibit the same variants are descended from a common ancestor. The most important forms current in the Middle Ages were μ5 and μ6, and a large number of witnesses betray the influence of both.
The most important and the earliest of the MSS. containing the pericope is Codex Bezae (D), the chief representative of the "Western" text. The general text of D (Von Soden's δ5) differs most from that of μ5 and μ6, but the important (11th cent.) minuscule 1 (Von Soden's δ254), which contains the PA at the end of the 4th Gospel, presents a close parallel to it, and a doublet for each has been found in the (12th cent) MS GA-1071 (Von Soden's ε1279) and in a (10th cent.) MS (Von Soden's ε1083?).
From these 2 pairs of MSS have been traced many descendants re: the PA text.
Like all other scholars Von Soden recognises a large number of singular errors in Codex D and its doublet. Where the latter does not confirm such a reading in Codex Bezae, it is attributed to the scribe of D, otherwise it is said to be inherited from their common parent.
The Ferrar group [Family 13], which give the PA at the end of Luke 21 according to Von Soden, exhibit in this section the μ4 type of text:
At most it is "only a peculiar shade of a much more widespread text, and the text in which the parent codex inserted the PA after Luke 21 is not peculiar to it." 4
In view, however, of the Lucan authorship of the passage, special attention is due to the readings of MSS. which still present it as part of the third gospel.
2. The Western Text-type and Scribal Habits
The attitude towards the "Western" text already defined 5 makes it impossible to treat it as a whole to be accepted or rejected as uniformly good or bad. The "scribes and teachers in the early days of Christianity", to whom we are indebted for so many textual variants, were men whose motives were commonly better than their methods, and their work deserves to be critically examined rather than extravagantly lauded or violently execrated.
To the early Christians the gospel was a unity, and,
"the original sense of the natural unity was not suppressed by the ecclesiastical recognition of four gospels. The gospel harmonies of Tatian and Theophilus continued the process of harmonising, and the contamination of the gospel text has made it perceptible." 6
The content of the PA together with its absence from the first and second gospels would render it peculiarly liable to the suspicion of scribes possessed by a sense of the essential unity of the gospel narrative.
Excised by early scribes in the East from the third gospel, the pericope adulterae was inserted by later scribes
(a) in the text of the fourth gospel ; in the same gospel, but
(b) partly in the margin, partly in the text,
(c) partly in the text and partly at the end,
(d) wholly at the end,
(e) earlier in the narrative of John, and
(f) in the gospel according to St. Luke, if this be nothing more than scribal insertion.
The uncertainty of the scribes as to the authority and authorship of the pericope is reflected in the positions accorded to it. Their endeavours to find room for it in the gospels must be interpreted as evidence of their sense of its value and verisimilitude.
The freedom which early scribes enjoyed in "emending" and editing the text of the MSS was not by any means confined to the more doubtful passages of scripture, but the extraordinary variations of the text of the PA in the MSS containing it are probably due to its singular history.
A word dropped here or changed there, always as it would seem for the better, would be a matter of little moment in the case of a narrative which, like Melchizedek, was cLTrdrajp "of unknown father" in the papyri meaning of the word.
Tribute must even be paid to the comparative scrupulosity, or it may be impotence, of the scribes, since, despite their best or worst efforts, the PA, in whatever manuscript it survives, preserves a predominantly Lucan character.
3. Internal Evidence, Ferrar Group, D L F
Internal Lukan Style of PA
This fact, in itself, points the way towards at least a partial solution of the problem involved in the reconstruction of its text.
The style and vocabulary of the third evangelist must avail to decide between competing readings. In other words, in addition to the criteria recognised by textual critics, must be employed the methods of the scholars who seek to separate "Q" from its form and frame in the third gospel. The context of the PA in its original home, and the possibility of its assimilation of elements from the place of its banishment in the 4th gospel, are also material considerations in the determination of its true text.
What Dr. Stanton said with regard to the principles set forth by Westcott-Hort apply mutatis mutandis to the PA:
" We must allow for a somewhat larger measure of uncertainty than they allowed for, and give way to considerations of intrinsic probability in attempting to come to a conclusion in more cases than they did."
The Ferrar Group (Family 13)
For the text of 13 69 124 & 346 [Family 13] the Collation by W. H. Ferrar / T. K. Abbott has been consulted, and also the edition of Codex Augiensis by Scrivener. In the former work, the close affinity between the four MSS is demonstrated, their peculiarities examined, and the text of the archetype, from which they are descended, is exhibited. The Codices are known by the initial letters of the cities in which they are preserved : 13 = P (Paris), 69 = L (Leicester), I24 = V (Vienna), 346 = M (Milan). The text of the archetype is called F, and for it Mr. Abbott claims "an authority second only to that of the three or four most ancient uncials." 7
On the question of the relation of the text of the Ferrar Group to that of Codex Bezae Mr. Abbott is in agreement with Scrivener.
Scrivener says, speaking of L:
"Mill, who did not particularly value it, first observed its striking affinity with Codex Bezae ; perhaps the result of my collation is to diminish that resemblance, though not materially."
Mr. Abbott, alluding to the Ferrar Group as a whole, says,
"(my analysis) overthrows the hypothesis of a very close relation to D, but it is not inconsistent to say, having regard to the character of D, that our Group approximates nearer to D than to the received text." 8
Codex D and Codex F, L
The relation of D with F is illustrated in the text of the PA. Where they differ it will be seen that D generally, but not invariably, retains a Lucan reading, a fact which, so far as it goes, confirms Von Soden's view of the Ferrar Group text, and tends to prove that in these MSS the PA is not original to the 3rd gospel, but has been inserted there by some copyist, probably under the influence of a trustworthy tradition.
In the Ferrar MSS. the PA follows the last verse of Luke 21, and the section runs (neglecting variants) :
'And every day he was teaching in the temple; and every night he went out, and lodged in the mount of Olives. And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple to hear him. (Pericope) And they went every man unto his own house, but Jesus went into the Mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him ; and he sat down and taught them.'
Obviously there is a looseness at the point of union between the PA and what precedes in Luke.
Codex L relieves the difficulty to some extent by omitting the words in John 8:2,
και πας ο λαος ηρχετο προς αυτον, και καθισας εδιδασκεν αυτους.
Both clauses are omitted by Von Soden from his reconstruction of the original text (μ) and attributed to μ2 (οχλος being read for λαος after Mark 2:13). He argues that
"the insertion comes word for word from Mark 2:13, only λαος has displaced οχλος under the influence of Luke 18:43, 19:48, 21:38, Acts 3:9,11, and καθισας has been added from Luke 5:3 or Matt. 5:1." He adds that "the insertion probably comes from the time when the verses 7:53-8:2 remained after 8:3-11 had been removed, and has for its object the introduction of the address 8:2fwd. These changes are really accommodations to the material in the context, hence their general acceptance is intelligible." 9
4. Theories of Dr. Bacon and Dr. Blass
Dr. Bacon 10 presents a different account of the relations between the PA and Luke 21:37-38 ,
" The attachment of the pericope after [Luke] 21:38 in the Ferriani [Ferrar Group] is almost certainly due to the occurrence of the story at the corresponding point of the gospel acc. to the Hebrews, which in Eusebius' time alone contained it. The two verses, Luke 21:37-38, are apparently the evangelist's substitute for the story. . . .
For obvious reasons our evangelist (Luke) might well prefer to drop the PA although his source contained it, but the story survives, as Eusebius tells us, both in Papias and in the gospel acc. to the Hebrews.
From a source of this type it was attached to a family of texts, which draw upon a Semitic gospel under the title of το Ιουδαικον, after Luke 21:37-38, thus duplicating the very passage which was written to take its place."
The relation between Papias and the Hebrews gospel and between the latter and the PA have already been examined. The evidence does not support Dr. Bacon's theory.
The two verses, 21:37-38, are not unmistakably Lucan, as has been shown above. There is no parallel in Luke's use of Mark or "Q" to the omission of such a section as the PA. But what is fatal to the theory is the Lucan character of the passage. In Dr. Bacon's words, already quoted, it "is of the very bone and flesh of Luke's unique material."
Dr. Blass' Theory
There is no MS. which points to a breaking in two of the PA, and it is improbable that the passage should have been omitted from the 3rd gospel without affecting the last verse, which Blass supposes was retained in Luke.
The παλιν of John 8:2 also loses its force unless preceded by Luke 21:37. A different account from that Of Blass seems more likely. We may strike out the whole of Luke 21:38 & Jn 7:53 as due to scribal dittography. The former verse repeats in a less original form the ideas of John 8:2; and the second half of the latter verse (John 7:53, which is alone in question) is the bare statement of the main thought of Luke 21:37b.
We can see when the pericope became detached from the Lucan narrative how easily the scribe might add a verse to what we have in the third and fourth gospels, in order to complete the one and introduce the other, finding his materials for such additions in the narrative which lay before him. The omission of the two verses mentioned gives us the following connection :
'And every day he was teaching in the temple, and every night he went out and lodged in the mount that is called the mount of Olives. And early in the morning, he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down and taught them,' etc.
Hawkins' book tells us:
"ωρθριζεν (Luke xxi. 38), a non-classical word, is not found elsewhere in Luke or Acts, and looks like a scribal variation of ορθρου παρεγενετο both of which are Lucan. Similarly το ορος το καλουμενον ελαιων (Luke 21:37) is characteristic of Luke rather than το ορος των Ελαιων (John 8:1). 11
The variants in the connecting particle of John 8:1 (δε D, και F) may witness to the break in the connection of the pericope with the third gospel. The verse should be omitted as above. But the first clause is found in Codex Bezae, the phrase πας ο λαος is characteristic of Luke, and the use of the participle in the second clause is also Lucan.
Blass 12 cancelled the introductory words,
'And every man went unto his own house',
"which are absent from the Latin Corbeiensis, and are nothing but the link of connection added to the section in order to adjust it to the place in John."
In this he was undoubtedly right, but not so clearly in his further suggestion that the "pericope should be placed two verses earlier."
On this view, the connection becomes the following:
'And Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and ajl the people came unto him,' etc. (the rest of the section, ending with Jesus' words to the woman). 'And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives. And all the people came early in the morning for to hear him.' (Luke 21:37 fwd)
Blass argues this is original for these reasons:
" There is first an account of what came to pass on the next day, and after that a general summary of what came to pass on all of these days given partly in the same words as the beginning of the special account, but a little more circumstantially, since a general custom deserved more words than the occurrence of a single day."
Finally, he adduces an account "somewhat akin to this" from the Western text of Acts, upon which little stress can be laid.
On the other hand, there are weighty arguments against this reconstruction, and considerable evidence that a more radical treatment of the text is necessary to secure a logical sequence.
1. Introduction, ii. 366.
2. Notes, p. 88.
3. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, S. 507-8.
4 Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, S. 505-6.
5. Pp. i, 2, 278-9.
6. Wendland, Die urchristlichen Liter aturformen, S. 193.
7. A Collation of Four Important MSS. of the Gospels, p. iv.
8. Ibid. p. 1.
9. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, S. 510.
10. American Journal of Theology, January 1918; Introduction to the New Testament, p. 106.
11. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 34 ; Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, i. 69, 235.
12 Philology of the Gospels, p. 157.
Counter-Analysis of von Soden's Reconstruction
John 8:2. TR Ὄρθρου δὲ πάλιν παρεγένετο εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἤρχετο: καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς.
Ὄρθρου This word occurs in Luke 14:1 and Acts 5:21 21, and nowhere else in the NT except in the PA.
U. al. plus 60 add βαθεως (pauc. ex his βαθεος). Von Soden 1 attributes it to the latest type of the text (μ7 ) and regards it as providing "the scene with an improbable time of day."
ορθρου is the morning twilight and βαθυς implies that it was more dark than light. If βαθεως stood in the original text its omission would be due to the scribal reflection that Jesus would not be in the Temple before the day had fully dawned. Its addition is improbable. ορθρου βαθεως is found only in Luke 14:1 in the NT. The phrase is classical and was probably used twice by Luke.
/TR παρεγενετο. /D παραγεινεται. /F ηλθεν.
Von Soden reads in (μ = original) παρεγενετο and regards D's reading as due to the copyist, since 1071 (ε 1279), the doublet of D, does not agree with it. The Historic Present is rare in Luke, and he frequently corrects it when using Mark. 2
Harnack 3 also finds the correction in Luke's treatment of "Q". The reading of F must also be rejected.
Luke uses παρεγενομην (12:51) for the Matthean ηλθον (10:34). It is a characteristic Lucan word (see p. 282), but, as it is common in vernacular documents, it has no such literary flavour as Harnack supposed.
F omits everything after ιερον whilst D omits και καθισας εδιδασκεν αυτους. F's omission has been already noticed. καθισας εδιδασκεν occurs in Luke 5:3, and a similar use of the participle with a finite verb in 14:28, 31, 16:6.
The TR reading of the verse (with the addition of βαθεως) should be retained.
1. Die Schriften des NTs, S. 513.
2. Moulton, Grammar of NT Greek, i. 121 ; Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 114.
3. Sayings of Jesus (Eng. Tr.), p. 45.
John 8:3. R.P. Ἄγουσιν δὲ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι πρὸς αὐτὸν γυναῖκα ἐν μοιχείᾳ καταλήφθεισαν: [TR: κατειλημμενην] καὶ στήσαντες αὐτὴν ἐν μέσῳ,
Ἄγουσιν D. προσηνεγκαν αυτω F.
αγω is characteristic of Luke (see p. 282) and has a quasi-legal sense (see p. 287). is characteristic of Matthew. 1
οἱ γραμματεῖς. Von Soden conjectures that αρχιερεις should be read in μ for γραμματεις with an Athos MS (ε 183 f). He admits that it may be a reminiscence of Matt, 27:62, John 11:47,57, 18:3, but as the usual phrase in the gospels is οι γραμματεις και οι φαρσαιοι, and αρχιερεις is found in 1071 (ε 1279), D's henchman, at verse 4, he thinks the best explanation of the facts is that αρχιερεις stood in the original text of this verse.
There are two objections to this conjecture. It is against the weight of the MS evidence, and by the removal of the scribes the scene is robbed of the climactic character which the context in Luke together with the Bezan version of verse 4 unmistakably provide (see p. 303). αρχιερεις may have crept into verse 3 from the following verse.
γυναῖκα ἐν [F: επι] μοιχείᾳ κατειλημμενην TR.
επι αμαρτια γυναῖκα ειλημμενην D.
Von Soden attributes εν to μ5 . It probably reflects the influence of επ' αυτοφωρω. επι (D, F) indicating "ground" is found in Luke 5:5, Acts 2:26.
Von Soden has the reading of F in μ(original), and esteems επι αμαρτια γυναῖκα to be a scribal error since it is not found in 1071 (ε 1279). But the faithful companion of D may occasionally have deserted their common master.
αμαρτια appears to have the support of the Gospel to the Hebrews (see p. 260), μοιχείᾳ is not found in Luke or Acts, and Luke has αμαρτιας where Matthew reads οφειληματα (Matt 6:12). μοιχείᾳ is due to a scribe who knew the nature of the offence from what follows.
κατειλημμενην is not found in the third gospel, but occurs three times in Acts. Luke has a decided preference for compound verbs. 2 The perfect passive participle of λαμβανω does not occur in the ΝΤ, and in the LXX "the form is κατειλημμενος (variously spelt)." 3 The scribe of D omitted κατ after γυναῖκα, an easy slip after the τ became obscure. For εν μεσω (TR and D) F reads εν τω μεσω.
Von Soden credits τω as an addition to μ 3 4 6. ιστημι εν μεσω is Lucan and in a special sense (see p. 283 ff.). For a parallel to the whole expression cp. Acts 4:7.
1. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 6.
2. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 175.
3. Thackeray, Grammar of the OT in Greek, i. 274.
John 8:4. R.P. λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, πειράζοντες, Διδάσκαλε, αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ κατελήφθη ἐπ' αὐτοφωρῳ μοιχευομένη.
λέγουσιν D. ειπον F.
Luke's tendency to alter Mark's Historical Present has been already noticed "probably it was too familiar for his liking." 1 Here, following άγουσιν, the present is preferable. It adds to the dramatic character of the narrative, cp. ορα Luke 16:23, λέγει Luke 16:7, 29. The Historic Present is common in Josephus and abundant in Attic writers.
Von Soden in μ (orig.), follows D and ascribes ειπον to μ3 4 6.
After αυτω D adds εκπειραζοντες αυτον οι ιερεις ινα εχωσιν κατηγοριαν αυτου and omits τουτο δε ελεγον...κατηγορειν αυτου in verse 6.
For ιερεις D's double 1071 (ε 1279) reads αρχιερεις, which, as we have seen, Von Soden accepts instead of γραμματεις in verse 3. The German scholar altogether rejects the reading of Codex Bezae here with the observation: 2
"It is very difficult to believe that a redactor would have struck out this sentence which sets the whole proceedings in the right light in order to introduce the limping substitute τουτο δε ελεγον...κατηγορειν αυτου. On the other hand, this stylistic correction corresponds to the disposition of the author of the text-type of Codex Bezae and its associates (δ 5 f), who easily assumes the role of a schoolmaster."
In view of " the carelessness of the scribe of Codex Bezae, who in Acts v. 27, xix. 14 writes ιερευς instead of αρχιερευς", the latter word which 1071 (e 1279) has preserved is accepted as the reading of the original text.
It is also in favour of αρχιερεις that in the Lucan context of the PA the chief priests are named amongst the inquisitors of Jesus (Luke 20:19,26, 22:2).
Von Soden 3 further admits the originality of εκπειραζοντες because,
"...in the gospels it is found in a similar sense only in Luke 10:25, whilst πειραζοντες is the ordinary word, and in μ2 3 4 there are many witnesses for εκπειραζοντες in verse 6."
He concludes that Codex Bezae has kept the right word in a different setting, and that other MSS. have been influenced by the μ5 = μ6 texts.
According to Codex Bezae the Scribes and Pharisees brought the woman before Jesus, and the Priests put the case of her sin and punishment. The Scribes and Chief Priests had inquired of Jesus concerning the tribute money (Luke 20:19-26), the Sadducees concerning the resurrection (20:27-33) ; now, after an interval, Scribes, Pharisees, and Priests unite in an effort to catch him in his talk.
Three facts rob the introduction of priests in the PA of the element of surprise,
(1) The scene of the interview is the Temple (John 8:2).
(2) According to Numbers 5:11-31 the trial by ordeal of a woman suspected of infidelity was effected by the priest hence the priests may be said to have had a prescriptive interest in the woman brought before Jesus.
(3) Textually it is some support of D's reading or more accurately of its comrade 1071 (ε 1279) - that in the immediate Lucan context of the PA, following upon the failure of the final attempt to "trap" Christ, we read και εζητουν οι αρχιερεις και οι γραμματεις το πως ανελωσιν αυτον (Luke 22:2).
Probably the D reading dropped out when the con- nection with Luke was broken, and only Scribes and Pharisees were named as bringing the woman's case forwarD. The addition of the clause in verse 6 followed naturally (see p. 305).
κατε[ι]λήφθη TR, κατειλήπται D. ειλήπται F. Von Soden in μ has the simple verb with F. He regards the compound as μ1.
Tischendorf & Westcott/Hort prefer κατειλήπται (for Luke's preference for compounds see p. 301).
The tendency in the Koine' for passive forms to displace the middle would make difficult a scribal correction in the opposite direction. The Perfect harmonises better than the Aorist with the context. D is therefore superior to the TR, which Von Soden calls an μ5 reading.
1. Moulton, Grammar of NT Greek, i. 121.
2. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, S. 498.
3. Ibid. S. 510.
John 8:5. R.P. εν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ Μωσῆς ἡμῖν ἐνετείλατο τὰς τοιαύτας λιθοβολεῖσθαι: σὺ οὖν τί λέγεις;
D reads Μωυσῆς εν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ εκελευσεν τὰς τοιαύτας λιθαζειν. σὺ δε νυν τί λέγεις;
F adds περι αυτης and writes Μωσῆς.
The last two readings are quickly dismissed. Von Soden 1 shows that "the older forms of the text read Μωυσῆς."
περι αυτης belongs to μ2 3 4 6:
"Its addition is due to John 9:17 τι συ λεγεις περι αυτου, and especially to the fact that τι λεγεις alone might seem to be an appeal for a judgement upon Moses and the punishment decreed by him."
For the first part of the statement "the textual tradition is extraordinarily variable."
εν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ ημων Μωσῆς ἐνετείλατο
μ5 has εν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ Μωσῆς ἡμῖν ἐνετείλατο
μ2 4 frequently has εν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ Μωσῆς .... ἐνετείλατο
Von Soden takes the reading of Codex Bezae and its relatives (δ 5 f) as the point of development and demonstrates how the variants have been evolved from it. In the neighbourhood of the PA (in John) 8:17 we read εν τω νομω δε τω υμετερω γεγραπται, cp. Luke 10:26. The text of μ2 3 4 has changed the two correlative ideas in the proximity of ἡμῖν into a reminiscence of these two passages, μ6 has connected ἡμῖν with , μ5 has placed ἡμῖν after the subject, and finally ἡμῖν was thrust behind its governing verb.
"In this wandering from place to place ἡμῖν, if original, was not infrequently lost."
From its uncertain position the inference is that it does not belong to the original text. It may have been introduced "to mark the fact that the law was intended to be a law for the Jews."
With slight alterations the text of Codex Bezae is adopted as that ofμ. Instead of εκελευσεν, διακελευει is read with 1071 (e 1279), D' s doublet, ενετειλατο being rejected as "the usual term for a statement of a legal behest" (Matt. 19:7, Mark 10:3, cp. Heb.9:20), and διακελευει is preferred to εκελευσε as "a more choice term" and one which "does not occur again in the NT hence difficult to explain if not original."
Again, συ ουν is preferred to συ δε νυν.
Against these deviations from Codex Bezae by Von Soden it may be urged that whilst εντελλεσθαι is found only once in the Lucan writings (Luke 4:10 a quotation from the LXX).
κελευειν occurs frequently in Luke and Acts, though not in the ΝΤ outside the PA used in the sense of this passage. νυν is a characteristic word of Luke, whilst ουν is characteristic of Matthew, cp. the addition of νυν to the Beatitudes.
λιθοβολεῖσθαι TR. vs. λιθαζειν D and F.
The latter occurs twice in Acts but is Johannine; the former is found once in Luke, three times in Acts, and not at all in John. λιθαζειν is original, since the Deuteronomy passage (22:24) reads λιθοβολεισθαι and the scribe would easily assimilate the verb to that of Deut.
Von Soden in μ (orig.) reads λιθαζειν, as λιθοβολεισθαι "is the usual word in the LXX for the punishment designed by the Law." 1
1. Die Schriften m des Neuen Testaments, S. 511.
1. Die Schriften des Nenen Testaments, S. 308.
John 8:6. R.P. Τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγον πειράζοντες αὐτόν, ἵνα ἔχωσιν κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ. Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς κάτω κύψας, τῷ δακτύλῳ ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν, μὴ προσποιούμενος.
Τοῦτο ... αὐτοῦ is omitted by D. Such a parenthesis is Johannine, and was inserted (originally in the margin) by a copyist under the influence of the 4th evangelist, cp. John 6:6.
ἔγραφεν TR, F. κατεγραφεν D.
Luke is fond of compounds, and the use of the imperfect is a mark of his style (see p. 288). Von Soden in μ has κατεγραφεν.
John 8:7. TR Ὡς δὲ ἐπέμενον ἐρωτῶντες αὐτόν, ἀνακύψας εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Ὁ ἀναμάρτητος ὑμῶν, πρῶτον τὸν λίθον ἐπ' αὐτὴν βαλέτω.
D omits αὐτόν, but Von Soden in μ (original) retains it. For ἐπέμενον ἐρωτῶντες cp. ἐπέμενεν κρουων Acts 12:16, ου διελιπε καταφιλουσα Luke 7:45. Radermacher 1 finds the participle with επιμενω in vulgar literature, cp. P. Oxy. 128 επιμενει λεγων.
ἀνακύψας εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς TR
ἀνακύψεν και εἶπεν αὐτοις D.
αναβλεψας ειπεν F.
Von Soden (μ) follows D, and regards ἀνακύψας and πρὸς αὐτούς as μ 5 7. But "the participle in place of the infinitive or finite verb belongs to the style of Luke", 2 and προς used in speaking to is characteristic of Luke. 3
τὸν λίθον ἐπ' αὐτὴν βαλέτω TR
ἐπ' αὐτὴν βαλέτω λίθον D.
The reading of TR Von Soden 4 reckons the latest form of the text μ7 - the scribe mediating between μ5 and μ6, τὸν λίθον βαλέτω and λίθον βαλέτω ἐπ' αὐτὴν, and construing ἐπ' with the Dat.
" 'Upon' can be rendered in Hellenistic Greek with gen. dat. or acc. with comparatively little difference of force;" 5
cp. Mark 6:39 dat., for which Matt. 14:9 substitutes the gen. but D the acc.
D's reading is classical and the emphatic word is at the end.
1. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek NT, p. 1102.
2. Harnack, Sayings of Jesus (Eng. Tr.), p. n.
3. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 21.
4. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, S. 507.
5. Moulton, Grammar of NT Greek, i. 102.
John 8:8. R.P. Καὶ πάλιν κάτω κύψας ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν.
D κάτακύψας and κατἔγραφεν (see notes on verse 6). F has text of TR Von Soden regards κάτακύψας as μ1 and as μ2 - 7. The former he believes is due to correspondence with αvακύψας in verse 10.
Neither the simple nor the compound verb occurs in Luke, but κυπτειν is found once in Mark. The use of ἔγραφεν illustrates the a classical idiom by which a preposition in a compound is omitted (without weakening the sense) when the verb is repeated, e.g. 2 Cor. 5:3, Rom. 15:4, John 1:2, Rev. 10:10.
The scribe of D has assimilated the verb of verse 8 to that of verse 6, and the TR vice versa. Perhaps also the repetition of κατα in D is due to dittography. Von Soden μ (original) reads κατἔγραφεν (v. 6) and ἔγραφεν in verse 8, which seems to be correct.
After the participle D adds τω δακτυλω. It is a scribal addition from the margin, coming in from verse 6. Von Soden omits it from μ.
John 8:9. R.P. οἱ δέ, ἀκούσαντες, καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς συνειδήσεως ἐλεγχόμενοι, ἐξήρχοντο εἷς καθ' εἷς, ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων εως των εσχατων, καὶ κατελείφθη μόνος ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐν μέσῳ εστωσα.
οἱ δέ...ἐξήρχοντο TR.
εκαστος δε των Ιουδαιων εξηρχετο D.
και εχηλθον εις καθ' εις F.
D's reading is Johannine. οἱ δέ, ἀκούσαντες Von Soden ascribes to μ 2 3 5 7, but the phrase is Lucan, cp. Acts 4:24. The imperfect ἐξήρχοντο maintains the graphic character of the narrative. Von Soden μ(original) retains it.
The phrase καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς συνειδήσεως ἐλεγχόμενοι is omitted by D and F. Von Soden 1 regards it as referring the effect which followed to so as to make the action of the woman's accusers more intelligible. It should be omitted as a scribal gloss. is a Pauline word not found in the third gospel, and only in two speeches of Paul in Acts (see p. 181). does not occur in Acts, only once in Luke, and three times in John.
εως των εσχατων TR
ωστε παντες εξελθειν D.
Both are scribal additions, the former emphasising the preceding words, the latter the following μόνος. Von Soden observes that the confirmation of the result mentioned in κατελείφθη μόνος by ωστε παντες εξελθειν is a characteristic feature of the text represented in Codex Bezae and its allies (δ 5 f).
For εκαστος δε των Ιουδαιων εξηρχετο D is read in "μ" ἐξήρχοντο εἷς εκαστος , the Bezan scribe being credited with a correction which the presence of the following ἀρξάμενοι shows to be the reverse. 2
εἷς καθ' εἷς (F) is not found in classical writers, but occurs in late Greek, e.g. Mark 14:19, cp. Rom. 12:5, 2nd Macc. 5:34.
Von Soden denominates it a reading of μ2. It may be a scribal addition.
κατελείφθη μόνος ὁ Ἰησοῦς TR, So F. D omits ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Von Soden characterises the mention of Jesus by name as a stylistic addition, but, commenting on the same words in verse 11, observes that, in order to avoid the reference to Jesus by ὁ δε, the later feeling of respect commonly prompted the addition of the name
Its omission is quite in Luke's manner (see note on 11). For μόνος cp. Luke 10:40.
καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐν μέσῳ εστωσα TR
ιστημι εν μεσω has been shown to be Lucan with a particular significance appropriate in both occurrences of the phrase in the PA. (See Excursus II. pp. 283 ff.)
Intrinsic Probability, or "the consideration of what an author is likely to have written", points to the originality of ἐν μέσῳ εστωσα as the previous discussion has demonstrated.
That Transcriptional Probability, or "the consideration of what a copyist is likely to have made an author seem to have written" supports the same words remains to be shown. In the oldest MSS words were written in capitals, without accents, breathing, or separation of words. Assuming the first reading to be correct, it would be written thus :
The stages in the change to ἐν μέσῳ ουσα are easily traced. Led astray by the ending of μέσῳ, "Τ" is omitted by a scribe and we get
The next copyist, seeing μέσῳ written twice, suspects dittography, removes these letters in the 2nd word, and substitutes ου, making the words
As Dr. Murray 3 says,
"When Intrinsic Probability and Transcriptional Probability combine in favour of any variant, their testimony is overwhelming."
We therefore read in John 8:9, ἐν μέσῳ εστωσα.
Von Soden suggests that ουσα (μ2) may be a reminiscence of γυνη ουσα Mark 5:25, and reads εστωσα as μ (original).
1. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, S. 509.
2. ibid., S. 498.
3. Dictionary of the Bible, ext. vol. p. 222 a.
John 8:10. R.P. ανακύψας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ μηδένα θεασάμενος πλὴν τὴς γυναικός, εἶπεν αὐτῇ η γυνη, ποῦ εἰσιν ἐκεῖνοι οἱ κατήγοροί σου; οὐδείς σε κατέκρινεν;
ανακύψας TR dva/cu^a?. So D.
αναβλεψας F as in verse 7.
Von Soden μ (orig.) reads . Probably D has assimilated verse 10 to verse 7 and F vice versa. αναβλεπειν is found 7 times in Luke and 5 times in Acts as against Matt. 3x, Mark 7x, John 4x.
TR καὶ μηδένα...γυναικός. D omits the clause. F reads ειδεν αυτην και ειπεν.
The latter reading is not Lucan, and θεασθαι is rather Johannine than Lucan. The clauses are explanatory scribal additions. Neither is included by Von Soden in μ.
αὐτῇ η γυνη TR. τη γυναικι που D.
Von Soden μ (orig.) follows D. He regards the variants as indications of the turn in the conversation. 1
" ποῦ εἰσιν appears to be spoken into the air, by which Jesus seems as though astonished. In μ6 it is helped out by the insertion of γυναι at the beginning of Christ's words, in μ5 by the addition of αὐτῇ to the sentence introducing these words.
Most witnesses of μ1 have taken up αὐτῇ and γυναι from μ5. δ 5 (Codex Bezae) writes τη γυναικι in place of both.
μ5 could not use τη γυναικι since it had inserted καὶ μηδένα θεασάμενος πλὴν τὴς γυναικός after ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
μ6 inserts ειδεν και between Ἰησοῦς and ειπεν, which again does not suit τη γυναικι. Ιt therefore changes it to γυναι - a reminiscence of Matt. 15:28, Luke 13:12, 22:57, John 2:4, 19:26, 20:13,15."
Later Von Soden suggests that "γυναι may be due to a recollection of the solemn γυναι in the address to Mary, John 2:4, 19:26, cp. 20:13,15."
In view of the textual history thus summarised and of the Johannine parallels to ywat, the reading of D is to be preferred.
ἐκεῖνοι οἱ κατήγοροί σου TR. F omits ἐκεῖνοι. D omits the whole phrase.
Von Soden μ (orig.) agrees with D (omits), attributing ἐκεῖνοι to μ5 7 and οἱ κατήγοροί σου to μ3 5 6 7. He suggests 2 that οἱ κατήγοροί σου comes from Acts 23:35.
κατηγορος is found five times in Acts, once in the Apocalypse, and nowhere else in the NT. The reading of F may be original, though it is not easy to account for the omission of the words. Perhaps it was due to the perception that the Scribes and Pharisees were not technically "accusers" as there was no question of the woman's guilt.
1. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, S. 511.
John 8:11. R.P. Ἡ δὲ εἶπεν, Οὐδείς, κύριε. Εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κρίνω: πορεύου καὶ μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.
Ἡ δὲ TR vs. κακεινη ειπεν αυτω D.
Ἡ δὲ is more Lucan than κακεινη and is read by Von Soden as μ (original).
Εἶπεν δὲ αυτη ὁ Ἰησοῦς TR
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν D
ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς V
καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς F
Εἶπεν δὲ is characteristic of Luke. ὁ Ἰησοῦς should be omitted (see note on verse 9, p. 308). It is deleted as superfluous by Luke from Mark 2:5 (cp. Luke 5:20) and from "Q" (Matt. 11:4 = Luke 7:22). Its addition by a scribe is more intelligible than its omission.
πορεύου TR vs. υπαγε D.
Von Soden reads πορεύου. The word is characteristic of Luke, whilst υπαγω is Matthean and Johannine. The latter never occurs in Acts, once in a saying of Jesus. Luke takes it over from Mark; he omits it once (18:22) and alters it 6 times.
μηκέτι TR. D adds απο του νυν.
Von Soden attributes the addition of D to μ 1 2 3 6 7.
"It emphasises the decisive turning-point in the life of the woman, and indicates by its connection with μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε that the adultery she has committed, notwithstanding the clemency of his treatment of it, is a sin."
He compares for the phrase Luke 1:48, 5:10, 12:22, 22:18; Acts 18:6.
It is a characteristic Lucan phrase, whilst μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε alone is found in John 5:14. Even without the words it is clear that the offence is deemed sinful. The reading of D is to be accepted.