Internal Evidence

M. Scott
on John 8:1-11 (2000)

Review of: M. Scott, On the Trail of a Good Story,
Ciphers in the Sand (2000)

Page Index

Last Updated: Feb 21, 2009

Prologue: - Introduction to M. Scott

I. Introduction: - M. Scott on John 8:1-11:
    Modern Footnotes (I) - courtesy Nazaroo

II. Interpretation: - John 8:1-11 in Johannine Context:
    The Johannine Setting - the natural context
    The Mount of Olives - purpose of the reference
    The Woman as Pawn - tragic status
    The Threat of Death - Frightening Nightmare
    Sinister Intent of Party - ugly irregularities
    Ambiguities of Circumstance - Legal Issues not the focus
    Hypocrisy, Not Adultery - the real concern of story
    Harmony with Narrative - surprising consistency with John
    Adultery as Metaphor - the Apostacy of Israel
    Sophia and the Adultress - in Wisdom Literature and John
    Jesus versus Moses - the Law versus Grace and Truth
    Roman and Jewish Codes - both are challenged
    Writing in the Earth - Jeremiah 17.13 and Exod. 23:1,7
    Divine Doodling? - failure of insight by commentators
    Various Explanations - more confidence than certainty
    Writing Issue left open... - conclusion of excerpt

Return to Index



The recent entry by M. Scott into the foray of writers attempting to explain both the content and history of the Pericope de Adultera (Jn 8:1-11) is remarkable for several reasons:

(1) Mr. Scott offers very important literary evidence for the authenticity of the passage, in the process of his analysis and interpretation of it.

(2) Mr. Scott's remarkable evidence contradicts entirely the status quo explanation of the textual evidence, which Scott himself gives at least surface assent to.

Mr. Scott's brief and inadequate review of the textual and historical evidence regarding the authenticity and origin of the passage is all but worthless, and so we have chosen to omit it and review it separately. It is most unfortunate that he has simply perpetuated common fallacies about the passage in regard to its alleged 'insertion'.

In fact, a simple 'insertion' of the type suggested by critics is ruled out entirely by independant secondary internal evidence coming from the Gospel itself. These evidences were never considered by Mr. Scott. We review that elsewhere as well.

But Mr. Scott's insight into the meaning and intent of the passage is so good, we were compelled present and treat it separately here, for the benefit of those who love this passage and believe it to be authentic. He brings to light many key points that are both solid interpretation of the passage in its context, and more importantly, yet more evidence in favour of its authenticity.

Return to Index

M. Scott on John 8:1-11

The following is exerpted for review and critique from:
Ciphers in the Sand, (2000).
by J. Martin C. Scott


J. Martin C. Scott

There are few texts that provide a better insight into the process Gospel formation than that of the story of the woman accused of adultery. 1 As we shall see, the textual evidence overwhelmingly shows that it did not belong in the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament, 2 yet later scribes chose to include it, 3 most usually at the end of John 7, but occasionally elsewhere. 4

... [Historical / Textual discussion skipped]

My purpose in this essay is to offer a narrative perspective on the text as it most commonly occurs in the Jn 7.53-8.11, to highlight the key issues which arise in the story, and to see what new insight may be gained from such consideration. 5 This will allow me then to suggest possible reasons for the story’s initial exclusion from the canonical Gospels 6 and its eventual inclusion, and specifically its insertion 7 in the Fourth Gospel.

... [Textual Evidence section skipped]

Return to Index

Modern Footnotes (I.)

Footnotes courtesy of Nazaroo:

1. This statement is remarkably true, almost prophetic. Because in many ways, the Pericope de Adultera may be the only really significant textual variant of this magnitude in the entire NT. If it can be shown to be authentic and original to John, it becomes a strong argument for the integrity of the Holy Scriptures. The corollary, that NT Textual Criticism may be redundant, is also apparent.

2. What the textual evidence really shows, is that some manuscripts omitted the passage from early times, even in the 2nd century. Before that, textual evidence is too fragmentary to be useful. It must be noted that a total of only 4 copies of John survive from the 1st 4 centuries. Two are from the early 4th century, and the other two are from the same location, a single archaeological sight deep in Egypt. They can hardly represent accurately the state of the manuscript stream of transmission for the first 200 years, which involved thousands of copies spread all across the Roman Empire. They represent the most minimal sample imaginable.

That the omission of John 7:53-8:11 is very ancient there can be no doubt. But the provenance and extent of that omission is completely unknown. The textual evidence for omission is not older than the evidence for early 'lectionary'-style practices, which may partially explain the early omission.

3. Later scribes certainly did choose to include it, but not on their own or unsupervised. It should also be noted that virtually ALL scribes were including the passage by the end of the 6th century. In almost all cases of inclusion, copyists did so knowingly and willingly, because they believed the passage was genuine. The earliest scribes were in a far better position than us to judge this question.

4. This point is misleading and irrelevant. The only place the passage is known to rest in before the 9th or 10th century is after 7:53. All other positions, such as insertions into the second last verse of John, or into Luke, occurred as part of a process of correction and replacement of older manuscripts that had previously omitted the verses.

Even the MSS which insert the passage in John incorrectly, such as after 7:38 etc. are all late copies dating from the 10th to the 15th century. Prior to the 9th century the only place the passage is ever seen is in its proper place in John.

5. This line of pursuit by Mr. Scott is in fact brilliant, and the result is spectacular. He uncovers plenty of evidence which substantiates or is completely compatible with the passage being a genuine part of John's Gospel. Perhaps just as importantly, insights into the meaning and intent of the passage are also gained.

6. It must be remembered that in spite of Mr. Scott's language here, the state of the early copying stream is unknown, and all that can be said with certainty is that the story was excluded from some "ecclesiastical" copies prepared for church use and public reading in Egypt.

A careful examination of all the early manuscripts reveals that the copyists were aware of the passage, even though they chose not to include it, and so they furnish early evidence of its existance.

Early MSS for John < - - Click here for more info.

7. The idea of a simple insertion is in fact impossible. The internal and inter-textual evidence shows that either the passage was deliberately composed FOR the Gospel of John, and that also the Gospel itself was also altered to accommodate it, or else it was always a part of the original Gospel text.

The features which show the passage as integral are also present in copies that crudely omit the text, as if those who did so had no knowledge of the structure of John, and the tell-tale evidence of its removal left behind.

Chiastic Structure of John < - - Click for more info.
Moses and John

Return to Index

John 8:1-11
in Johannine Context

A careful read will show a surprising amount of evidence in support of the genuineness of John 8:1-11, even though Mr. Scott attempts repeatedly to interpret this evidence as supporting a theory of "intelligent copyists" who cleverly added and edited the passage to make it appear "Johannine". What is this, except an admission that the passage indeed has multiple "Johannine" features, all evidence of its authenticity.

2. Reading the Text

In light of the textual tradition how do we go about reading the story of the woman accused of adultery? This of all texts has proved difficult to approach using traditional historical methodology, not least because its lack of a secure context leaves it vulnerable to a high degree of speculation.

The most widely acknowledged setting for the story is surely its position in the text of the Fourth Gospel at Jn 7.53-8.1-11. I shall therefore attempt a narrative reading of the pericope from within this commonly recognized position. The temporal setting is the end of the feast of Tabernacles and the physical setting of the main part of the text the environs of the Temple in Jerusalem. The action thus takes place at the heart of Israel’s religious and cultural life.

Although its original reference is unknown, the opening ‘each of them’ (εκαστος, 7.53) now refers to the departure of Nicodemus and the rest of the Parisees. Despite the best efforts of Nicodemus, the Pharisees’ purpose has been to find a pretext to arrest Jesus, and the failure of the Temple police to do so is a source of frustration to them.

The Purpose of the 'Mount of Olives' Reference

Jesus has escaped the grasp of his opponents once more and, for the only time in Johannine story, spends the evening on the Mount of Olives. The geographical detail (8.1) is without exception seen by commentators as a point of disjuncture, and one of the reasons for the story finding a home after Lk. 21.38, which bears a number of similarities to Jn 8.1-2.

From a narrative perspective, this misses a crucial intertextual link, which binds the story closely to Jesus prior words concerning ‘living water’ in Jn 7.37-39.

It is important to note that the Johannine account does not, in fact, use the same expression for ‘Mount of Olives’ which is found in Lk. 21.37 (το ορος το καλουμενον Ελαιων), but instead uses the form found in LXX text of Zech. 14.4: (το ορος των ελαιων).

This text in Zechariah is one of those that offer an echo of the theme of ‘living waters’ (Zech. 14.8;Jn 7.38). 7 As a prophecy of eschatological judgement, if an echo of the Zechariah text is heard in Jn 8.1, it provides both a link back to Jesus’ preceding speech (‘living water’) and a perfect backdrop for what is to follow (judgement theme) in the Johannine context.

It is from this place of judgement that Jesus returns to be tested in judgement at dawn the next day (8.2). It is to the environs of the Temple that he once more comes, alerting the reader to the potential for entrapment, given the immediately preceding plotting of his opponents and the role of the Temple police in it. As so often in the Johannine narrative, many people are present to hear Jesus’ wisdom, but crucially also to witness the events which follow in the unfolding drama.

The life-giving Word is interrupted in mid-flow by the merchants of death (8.3), who arrive abruptly on the scene, taking centre stage while the crowd appears for the moment at least to melt into the background.

The Pharisees are joined here uniquely in the Johannine narrative by the scribes. Although difficult to see from our commonly used Greek texts, it is notable that some manuscripts read ‘chief priests’ instead of ‘scribes’ here, which indicates that at least some copyists were alert to the nuances of Johannine language and sought to align it to the more familiar pattern found at Jn 7.32. 8

The Woman as Pawn in a Deadly Game

The drama really begins to unfold with the announcement of purpose of Jesus’ opponents appearance: they bring a woman with them who they claim has been caught in adultery. The description is startling as she is thrust into the centre of the picture. As Gail O’Day describes it:

‘She is an object on display, given no name, no voice, no identity apart from that for which she stands accused’ (1992: 632).

The reader here may recall an earlier story in the Fourth Gospel in which an unnamed woman is, at least implicitly, accused of sexual license (Jn 4.16-18, the Samaritan woman). There the encounter with Jesus started a process of discovery by which the Samaritan woman entered into new faith and performed the task of true discipleship by calling others of her own people to encounter with Jesus. 9

The Threat of Death

Here, however, the scene is much more threatening, since a woman’s life clearly hangs in the balance. There remains every possibility that for her the outcome will not be life but death, as she becomes the scapegoat in a male power-game.

The positioning of the woman ‘in the middle’ (εν μεσω) is reminiscent of a courtroom scene. Schottroff quotes the tragic account of the modern-day stoning of a woman in an Iranian village, describing the way in which she was buried up to her neck, a circle drawn around her head and the stoning commenced (1955: 183-84). While it is difficult to read this horrific practice directly back as a precise description of such a stoning in the Palestine of Jesus’ day, it graphically illustrates for the modern reader the significance of being placed ‘in the middle’.

The Sinister Intent Behind the 'Game'

This image also reminds us of the reality for the woman brought before Jesus: she is on trial for her life. Yet the reader becomes increasingly aware that the trial is not about any form of justice, but is a put-up job.

First, if the woman was truly guilty of adultery, as the next verse tries to confirm, what need would there be to consult Jesus, for whose judgement his opponents to this point have shown only contempt (7.12, 15, 20, 47-49)?

Second, even the most obtuse of readers recognizes that it takes more than one person to commit adultery – yet only a woman is brought to Jesus.

Third, the following verses show that Jesus is being placed in an impossible situation with regard to making a judgement, having to contradict the letter of either the Jewish or the Roman law.

The Pharisees appear to approach Jesus with a measure of respect when they address him as ‘Teacher’ (διδασκαλος, 8.4). This may be evoked by the earlier description of his position, seated on the ground in the traditional manner of a rabbi with his disciples around him (8.2).

Brown sees this as another link with Synoptic style (1966: 333), but it is in fact the most common way of addressing Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, and a title which the Johannine Jesus himself later acknowledges as an accurate description (Jn 13.13, 14) (Scott 1992: 152).

The Ambiguity of the Circumstances against the Johannine Context

A significant narrative ‘gap’ occurs at this point. We hear that the woman was caught in the very act of adultery, but we are not told whether she has already been tried and sentenced or whether Jesus is being sought out as the ‘judge’ in a highly irregular court scene.

Although Schnackenburg, after a whole page of discussion, concludes with some justification that ‘the story itself shows no interest in the question’ (1980: 164), it nonetheless remains an important interpretative crux for the narrative reader.

Is Jesus being placed in the formal position of ‘judge’ by the Pharisees, or is he being, as it were, consulted in passing as the woman is taken already to her place of execution?

The narrative setting into which the story has been placed by the copyists makes the former choice compelling, given the direct relationship which emerges on either side with Jn 7.24 and 8.15. The idea that, in addressing Jesus as ‘Teacher’, the Pharisees are ‘in effect submitting the case to him for decision’ (Schnackenburg 1980: 164), is attractive: the tone is set for what follows by alluding to Jesus as judge.

The Internal Focus of the Story is Hypocrisy, not Adultery

The designation of the crime as ‘adultery’ (μοιχεια) raises a number of issues for a narrative reading. Much of the discussion among historical critics has centered on the nature of the crime, the legality of the accusation in terms of proper witnesses and the martial status of the woman. 10 Again the text reveals nothing of any certainty here, even though the weight of argument seems to favour seeing her as a married woman.

A significant aspect of the way in which the story is told is the uncovering of the hypocrisy of the woman’s accusers, so the suggestion that she is being used as a pawn in a deadly game in which the rules are being flouted sits well with the overall aim of the account. This would suggest that, whatever the legal niceties of the case, which Derrett (1963-64) is at pains to uncover, justice under the law is neither sought nor required by the accusers.

In the light of this, the theme of adultery takes on a different aspect within the Johannine narrative as a whole. It has long been noted that irony is a common technique employed by the Fourth Evangelist (Duke 1985) and this text fits the literary pattern of the Gospel well in theis respect.

The Harmony of the Story with the Following Narrative

As George Brooke has pointed out (1988: 107), there is a strong linguistic connection in the LXX between the two terms μοιχεια and πορνεια, the latter of which is used to describe Jesus’ opponents in Jn 8.41.

Whether or not the copyist saw this connection in placing the story where it now appears in the Fourth Gospel, 11 the close conjunction of the words now offers such a literary link to be made by the reader. The irony now lies in the fact that Jesus’ opponents, who seek to condemn another of adultery, themselves come under such suspicion and innuendo within a matter of a few verses!

Adultery as Metaphor for Apostacy

Adultery is used frequently in the Hebrew scriptures, especially in the prophetic materials, 12 as a metaphor for apostasy – turning away from the true God. This is precisely what the Fourth Gospel portrays the opponents of Jesus as doing in rejecting his message of truth for their own ‘lies’ (Jn 8.55).

What irony, then, that those who seek to trap Jesus through complicity in ‘subverting’ the letter of the law on adultery, should themselves end up under accusation of the same charge. That the narrative does infer their guilt here is strengthended by another observation which Brooke makes regarding the use of language in Jn 8.44. Here the word επιθυμια appears for the only time in the Gospel. Brooke connects it to the use of the word to translate the subject of the tenth commandment (‘You shall not covet’) in both of the LXX versions of the Decalogue (Exod. 20,17; Deut. 5.21). He concludes:

"Since the first object of covetousness in the prohibition in the LXX is ‘your neighbour’s wife’, it is perhaps not surprising to find an allusion to this commandment, the tenth, as the dialogue develops from the subject of adultery" (1988: 107).

In reading the unfolding narrative of John’s Gospel, then, the insertion of the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery at the end of ch. 7 serves to underline the hypocrisy of Jesus’ opponents in the following dialogue. But it has a still wider connection to the theme of apostasy by means of yet another vital intertextual allusion: namely, to the figure of Sophia in Israel’s wisdom literature.

Sophia and the Adultress in Wisdom Literature

The comparison between the adulteress, or prostitute and Sophia is a well-worked theme in Proverbs 1-9. The whole image of God’s invitation to humanity, in the form of Sophia as the woman who invites ‘men’ to receive her gifts, functions successfully because it has a perfect foil in the image of the immoral woman who seeks to turn them away from God. This latter figure surely represents apostasy in the Wisdom tradition. Brooke also refers to the Wisdom literature, pointing to the identification of Sophia with Torah in Sir. 24.23 (1988: 107). To reject Sophia is to abandon the law, whose very purpose is to keep ‘men’ from seductive powers of the adulteress (Prov. 6.23-29).

Since the Fourth Gospel contains a sophisticated leitmotif of Jesus as the embodiment of Wisdom over against the idea that she is contained in the Torah, 13 the rejection of Jesus Sophia by his opponents in John 8 is an indication precisely of their apostasy.

The huge irony which the insertion of a story concerning adultery throws up is that their supposed defence of the Torah is calculated at the expense of the true embodiment of Wisdom, Jesus Sophia. In the Johannine terms, the attempt to entrap Jesus through Torah is the ultimate apostasy, since it puts false wisdom in the place of true Wisdom.

Jesus versus Moses

The reference to Moses (8.5) recalls the words of the Johannine Prologue (1.17), where a direct comparison is made between Jesus and the lawgiver. Since at that point the contrast is made between law on the one hand and grace and truth on the other, the reader is already prepared for the potentiality of a merciful judgement from Jesus. In the story of the quite deliberate healing of a man on the sabbath (5.1-18), the Johannine Jesus has also demonstrated before that he is more than willing to flout the letter of the law to engage in the merciful work of God.

When the story is placed into the context of John 7-8, the eventual outcome is less surprising in the light of what has gone before. Barrett notes that grammatically speaking the word ‘you’ () is placed ‘in a position of emphasis, inviting Jesus to set himself against Moses’ (1978: 591). He duly takes up the challenge!

Explicit Challenge to Both Roman and Jewish Legal Codes

Although the story seems primarily concerned with the issue of Jesus’ attitude to the Jewish law, on the level of the wider narrative a double dilemma is a set up for Jesus in this challenge. On the one hand, if he refuses to condemn the woman to death, he will be accused of rejecting the authority of Moses and the Torah.

Of course, the Johannine Jesus has already indicated his claim to superiority over Moses in a prior speech (5.46) and will do so again in the following dialogue (8.58), but the insertion of this story heightens the drama by appearing to make him explicitly override a legal prescription.

On the other hand, if he accepts the verdict and allows the woman to be stoned, he not only subverts the portrayal of his role as the very embodiment of grace and truth (1.14), but also stands in potential conflict with the authority of the Roman law.

Even if we cannot be certain whether the saying in Jn 18.31 was an accurate description of the functioning of Roman rule in Palesine at the time of Jesus, it is quite clear that on the level of a narrative reading, this conflict potentially exists for the Johannine Jesus.

The narrator interrupts the flow of the story at this point (8.6) to make explicit to the reader what has all along appeared to be the case: the woman is merely the bait in a plot to catch a bigger fish – Jesus. Although this aside does not appear in all manuscripts and is considered secondary by such a careful commentator as Becker, it fits well with Johannine style, as Johnson (1966) has pointed out. 14

The late addition of this statement 15 may again reflect the activity of knowledgeable scribes, who adjusted its style to echo Johannine usage. However much the aside now places the focus on the plot against Jesus, the reader remains conscious that it is the woman who lies in most immediate danger of death.

Writing in the Earth

Jesus responds by bending down and writing with his finger on the ground. Perhaps predictably, this mentioned of ciphers in the sand, with its twin in v.8, has been the subject of intense speculation by historical critics, who advance the claims of a variety of possible subjects.

Some commentators assume that Jesus must have written out a text, which eventually pricks the consciences of the accusers. Others think he makes a more general accusation, for example by writing down the sins of his opponents. Yet others see it more in the form of a symbolic action, perhaps evocative of a particular text like Jer. 17.13:

‘Those who have turned away from you will be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water’.

Among the texts advanced as possible subjects for Jesus’ scribbling, Derrett is confident in identifying consecutively Exod. 23.1b and 23.7. This reflects his opinion that Jesus is challenging the legality of their witness and the honesty of their motives in bringing the charge (1963-64: 16-25).

Derret goes so far as to suggest that, from his position of crouching down, Jesus could only have written some 12 Hebrew characters – which miraculously coincides with the texts he quotes! Ingenious though this is, it is completely speculative and, as Brown comments, ‘if the matter were of major importance, the content of the writing would have been reported’ (Brown 1966:334).

Divine Doodling?

Brown’s own conclusion about the action is untypically lacking in imagination. He thinks that Jesus is simply taking time out ‘doodling on the ground’ in order to contain his anger and revulsion (1966: 334). Even if this were the reason for the first such action, it does not explain the second occurrence.

Strangely, too, the exhaustive treatment of Becker is somewhat banal at this point, since he sees the action of Jesus as merely an insertion by the narrator to offer a pause in the controversy dialogue (1963: 87).

In his commentary on the text he calls it a ‘novelistic-decorative detail’ (1979: 283), rather ignoring the point, taken up by Schondorf, that the double appearance of the motif in such a short text indicates a significant emphasis on it by the writer (Schondorf 1996: 92). 16

Various Explanations of the Writing

Schondorf himself is almost triumphant in his identification of the significance of Exod. 31.18, the closing verse of the giving of the law on Siani, with its telling phrase, ‘the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God’. He concludes: ‘Jesus’ finger would be, in fact is the finger of God, which writes down the divine Law and thereby expresses his opinion regarding sin’ (1996: 92; my translation and emphasis).

As an example of intertextual echo around the word ‘finger’ this would make some sense, but as a historical judgement it could scarcely justify Schondorf’s optimism.

In his analysis of the background to the text, Manson cites yet another possible approach to defining the content of the writing. He thinks it may well reflect the practice of the Roman courts, where the judge would first of all write out the sentence before delivering it to the accused (1952-53: 255-56).

This might work with the first instance, the sentence being that announced in v. 7, but in terms of the unfolding of the narrative, the second occurrence, which would by Manson’s analysis be the words of Jesus to the woman in v. 11, already anticipates the departure of the accusers in v. 9.

Beasly-Murray also rightly cautions against reading wider Roman practice into the Palestinian context (1986: 146). 17

Luise Schottroff’s comment probably contains more insight on the realities of the situation, however, when she says:

‘I do not believe that Rome’s representatives, especially the prefect in Caesarea, would have regarded a woman’s execution by stoning as a trespass against Rome’s sole jurisdiction over capital punishment’ (1995: 184).

Schottroff rightly points to the assumption in both the narrative world of the text and the harsh world of the Pax Romana, that the woman is at best a disposable commodity.

Writing Issue is Left Open...

Given this variety of suggestions from those approaching the text from a historical perspective, it is clear that there can be no simple single solution to the riddle of either its content or symbolism. From a narrative perspective, the action of Jesus presents a whole range of imagery for the reader open to its intertextuality.

There is no question that Jer. 17.13 makes a compelling narrative link both with the internal discussion of the pericope (the apostasy theme noted above) and with the surrounding material in the text’s present location in the Fourth Gospel.

Jeremiah’s reference to the ‘spring of living water’ has often been seen as a background to Jn. 7.38. Then on the wider internal level of the Johannine narrative, the story would make a double connection to that of the Samaritan woman through the presence of a woman considered of dubious character and the identification of Jesus either verbally or symbolically as ‘living water’ (see Jn 4.12).

Original Footnotes:

7. This text in Zechariah also connects with this section of John by reference to the Feast of Tabernacles (Zech. 14:16). Jn 2.16 also alludes to Zech. 14:21, indicating the measure to which this text was known and reflected upon by early Christians.

8. Brown 1966: 333. This reading is not evident from the critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. The edition by C. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece (1869), however, lists four miniscules which contain the reading 'chief priests'. It is significant insofar as it indicates the care taken by some copyists in inserting material in a manner sensitive to context.

9. See Scott 1992: 184-98.

10. See Blinzler (1957-58: 32-47); Derrett (1963-64); Becker (1963: 165-69).

11. Brooke (1988: 107) suggests that this was the case, and I see no good reason to doubt the ability of an intelligent copyist in making this connection.

12. For details of the main texts, see Brooke (1988: 107).

13. See Scott (1992: 105-106). The comparison begins in Jn 1:17 and continues throughout the Gospel.

14. See also Trites (1974: 147-46).

15. We should note here the astonishing interpretation of Young (1995). He sees the addition of this verse to the tradition as an indicator of a quite different purpose in the original form of the story. Far from being a tale which sought to denigrate the Pharisees, he argues that the text is really about an attempt by the Pharisees to find a way to save the woman from the awful sentence of the law. In the young Rabbi Jesus they find an interpreter who enables them to achieve this end: "They wanted to saver her, and Jesus helped them' (1995: 70). Suffice it to say that only a male commentator was ever likely to think that one up!

16. Also note Schnackenburg (1980: 165-66).

17. See also Schnackenburg (1980: 165).

Return to Index