Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New TestamentNestle, Eberhard
Religion
Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament
Nestle, Eberhard
Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, Textual
With respect to the pericope adulteræ, on the other hand, we may be
quite certain that it did not originally stand in the position it now
occupies (vii. 53-viii. 11), nor indeed in John’s Gospel at all,
although the decision of the Holy Office of the 13th February 1897,
which was confirmed by the Pope two days later, obliges Catholic
exegetes to hold it as genuine. It is omitted in a great many
manuscripts and versions—_e.g._ in א B L T. A and C are defective here,
but the amount of space shows that they could not have contained it. It
is omitted in the Syriac and Egyptian versions, in the Armenian and the
Gothic, in some Old Latin codices, and in the earliest of the Greek and
Latin Fathers. On the other hand it is found in all the manuscripts of
Jerome and in Codex D, which is the only one of the earlier Greek
manuscripts to contain it. In some minuscules and later Armenian
manuscripts it stands at the end of the fourth Gospel, where now
Westcott and Hort put it. In minuscule 225, written in the year 1192, it
follows vii. 36; in the Georgian version it comes after vii. 44; while
in the Ferrar Group—_i.e._ in minuscules 13, 69, 124, 346, 556—it is
inserted after Luke xxi. 38. Its insertion after vii. 36 is probably the
result of an accidental error. In the Greek Lectionaries the liturgy for
Whitsunday begins at verse 37 and extends to verse 52, followed by viii.
12, so that the pericope was, by mistake, inserted before instead of
after this lection. Its position in the Georgian version is the more
remarkable, seeing that in the Old Latin Codex b, which contained the
pericope by the first hand, the entire passage from vii. 44-viii. 12 has
been _erased_. As a probable explanation of its position in the Ferrar
Group after Luke xxi. 38, it has been suggested that the scribe inserted
it there owing to the resemblance between Luke xxi. 37 and John viii. 1,
and also between Luke xxi. 38 (ὤρθριζε) and John viii. 2 (ὄρθρου).
Harris thinks that its proper place is in John between chapters v. and
vi., because reference is made in v. 45, 46 to the Mosaic Law, which is
also mentioned in viii. 5.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account