The Last Chapter of Romans: Benediction and Doxology (Romans 16:24-27)

“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen” (Romans 16:24, NKJV). 

The Western text omits the grace benediction in v. 20 and has an almost identical formula here in v. 24, affecting how many times and in what location(s) the prayer-wish occurs in the final chapter. The earliest extant witnesses omit v. 24.¹ It is plausible that the grace benediction was moved from v. 20 to the end of corrupted, shorter-ending manuscripts, resulting in conflation in later copies.² The heretic Marcion of Sinope (ca. 85-160), traditionally believed to be the son of Philologus (v. 15), cut out the last two chapters of Romans in his abbreviated NT canon,³ allowing for the production of defective manuscripts thereafter.

“Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen” (Romans 16:25-27, ESV). 

These verses are missing or occur at different places in a handful of manuscripts,⁴ probably due to the defective copies noted above. While some argue that a better placement is immediately after 14:23⁵ or 15:33⁶ or suspect altogether,⁷ there is no conclusive or convincing reason to dismiss the text and its present location as the apostle’s own ending to an otherwise incomplete letter.⁸ Although Pauline doxologies are typically briefer (1:25; 9:5; 11:36),⁹ Romans begins with an unusually lengthy opening address and concludes similarly, reaffirming the main ideas developed throughout.

The unidentified one who “is able” [δυναμένῳ] “to strengthen” or “to establish”¹⁰ [στηρίζω] is already understood as God (cf. vv. 20, 26, 27), who “is able” [δυνατέω] (14:4) by his divine “power” [δύναμις] (1:4, 20; 9:17; 15:13, 19),¹¹ manifested via the gospel (1:16) and the spiritual gift Paul hopes to impart “to strengthen [στηρίζω] you” or “that you may be established”¹² (1:11). Once again this is “according to” [κατά]¹³ “my gospel” [τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου] (cf. 1:9, 16; 2:16)—the message Paul consistently teaches (1:15; 15:16, 19, 20)—and “the preaching” [τὸ κήρυγμα] (cf. the verbal form 10:8, 14, 15) “of Jesus Christ [Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ],” the gospel’s main subject (1:4, 6, 7, 8).¹⁴

Providing an inspired commentary on the more enigmatic 11:25-32, spiritual formation is “according to” [κατά] the “revelation” [ἀποκάλυψις] (cf. 2:5; 8:19; verbal, 1:18; 8:18) of the “mystery” [μυστήριον], something once hidden but now revealed.¹⁵ What Paul proclaims is not humanly devised or discovered but divinely “disclosed” [φανερόω] (cf. 1:19; 3:21). The extended period during which the previously unknown mystery gradually unfolded—the “long ages” or “times of the ages” [χρόνοις αἰωνίοις]—reinforces the unbounded eternality of God and his purpose (cf. 2:7; 5:21; 6:22, 23; 16:25, 26); “now” [νῦν] is presently in the current age (cf. 3:26; 5:9, 11; 6:19, 21; 8:1, 18, 22; 11:5, 30, 31; 13:11).¹⁶

In addition to oral preaching,¹⁷ God’s revelation has come “through” [διά] “prophetic writings” [γραφῶν προφητικῶν]. The adj. “prophetic” [προφητικός]¹⁸ refers to what has been transmitted by a “prophet” [προφήτης] (cf. 1:2; 3:21; 11:3),¹⁹ a spokesperson for God, one through whom a “prophecy” [προφητεία] (cf. 12:6) has been communicated,²⁰ whether forthtelling a currently applicable message or predictive foretelling beyond the present. 

The focus here concerns what has been conveyed by way of “writings” [γραφῶν] or “scriptures”²¹ (cf. 1:2; 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4). These most certainly involve the sacred writings of the OT (quoted approx. sixty-eight times in Romans, with many more allusions and verbal parallels),²² which continue to be historically, prophetically, and instructionally useful (cf. 15:4). 

Further, Paul himself has been producing inspired documents (with more to come) that are later said to be among “the rest of the scriptures” [τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς] (2 Pet. 3:15-16).²³ And in Paul’s final apostolic manuscript, Timothy is reminded of “the sacred writings” [τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα] he has known from childhood, then the apostle speaks of “all scripture” [πᾶσα γραφή] having been “God-breathed” [θεόπνευστος] (2 Tim. 3:14-16).²⁴ It is significant that in the previous correspondence to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:18), Paul has quoted as “scripture” both Deuteronomy 24:4 and Luke 10:7, not reciting spoken words or oral tradition but what has been put into written form [ἡ γραφή]. The NT canon was obviously forming much earlier than many critical scholars seem willing to concede.

Through these prophetic writings the gospel message “has been made known” [γνωρισθέντος – aorist participle – simple statement of fact] (cf. 9:22, 23), both in the OT (1:3; 3:21b)²⁵ and continuing in the NT (15:15),²⁶ “to all nations” [εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη] (cf. 1:1-5; 4:16-18). This is “according to the command [ἐπιταγὴν]²⁷ of the eternal [αἰωνίου]²⁸ God” (cf. 1:1-17), an apparent allusion to the Great Commission.²⁹ The divine purpose is “unto” or “for” [εἰς]—“to bring about”—the “obedience of faith” [ὑπακοὴν πίστεως], drawing the letter to a close with the opposite end of the inclusio with which it opened (1:5), providing bookends that define “faith” throughout the letter as a demonstrably active faith that obeys.³⁰

This closing doxology, which starts by affirming God’s power, ends with lauding his wisdom (cf. 11:33). The Christian’s monotheistic faith (cf. 3:30)³¹ acknowledges “the only wise God,” with access to him and his wisdom (v. 19), power (v. 25), and saving grace (v. 20) “through” [διά] the mediatorial work of “Jesus Christ” (cf. 1:8; 2:16; 3:24; 5:1, 11, 17, 21; 7:4, 25). An irrepressible outburst of adulation is therefore elicited, ascribing to the heavenly throne “glory” [ἡ δόξα] (cf. 11:36; 15:6-7), a term the apostle uses primarily of God in the highest sense of honor and praise.³²

With unending veneration, the expression “forevermore” [εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας] (cf. 1:5; 9:5; 11:36) is an attempt to convey eternality, without end.³³ “And while [Paul] praises the might and wisdom of God, he knows, with heartfelt approbation, that the song of praise will go up for ever.”³⁴ The final “Amen” [ἀμήν] (cf. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 15:33)³⁵ is an affirmation of truth, signifying “truly” or “so be it.” With this concluding thought, what has been described as “the most profound work in existence”³⁶ comes to an end.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See C. K. Barrett, Romans 281 n.1, 286; C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans 2:808; J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 2:901; F. Godet, Romans 501; B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary (2nd ed.) 476.

     ² W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 431.

     ³ Origen, Commentary on Romans 10.43, trans. Rufinus.

     ⁴ Missing from Greek-Latin F and G (9th cent.), 629 (14th cent.), and Latin Hier (late 5th cent.); located immediately after 14:23 in Ψ, 0209 and a few minuscules, after 15:33 in P⁴⁶and 1506, or both places in others. For more discussion, see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary (2nd ed.) 470-73, 476-77; cf. also NET footnote.

     ⁵ C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans 2:808-13; J. Denney, “Romans” 2:723-24.

     ⁶ P. W. Comfort, A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the NT 312-16.

     ⁷ C. K. Barrett, Romans 10-13; C. H. Dodd, Romans xiv-xxiv; J. A. T. Robinson, Wrestling with Romans 2-5, 147.

     ⁸ Supported by the weight of manuscript evidence and the striking parallels to the rest of the letter. “But could he, having reached the close of such a writing, fail once more to lift his eye upward and invoke on this work, the gravity of which he knew, and on the church for which it was intended, the blessing of Him who alone truly builds up and strengthens? …. In the somewhat exceptional presence of a doxology at the end of this letter, there is therefore nothing which of itself can inspire the least suspicion” (F. Godet, Romans 502). See also F. F. Bruce, Romans 23-30; D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 398-401; D. J. Moo, Romans 5-9, 936-37; J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans 44-65; H. Gamble, Textual History 96-142; “Redaction” 403-18; J. Murray, Romans 2:262-68; C. J. Roetzel, Letters 103-104. The NA²⁸/UBS⁵ text includes these verses in square brackets. 

     ⁹ Note also Gal. 1:5; Phil. 4:20. The comparability to Eph. 3:20-21; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15-16; 2 Tim. 4:18b (cf. Heb. 13:20-21; Jude 24-25) has prompted liberal critics to question Pauline authorship. But note also Rom. 11:25-29; 1 Cor. 2:6-9; 15:51.

     ¹⁰ ASV, Darby, Douay-Rheims, LSV, MEV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, WEB. “The particle δέ, now, serves here to form the transition from the weak man who has just been writing, to the Almighty God, who can act” (F. Godet, Romans 502). 

     ¹¹ Note also the adj. δυνατός (“strong,” “able,” “powerful”) with reference to God (Rom. 4:21; 9:22; 11:23) and his faithful ones (12:18; 15:1).

     ¹² ASV, Darby, LSV, NASB, NKJV, WEB.

     ¹³ M. J. Harris observes that a repeated preposition sometimes expresses more than one sense in the same sentence or series of statements with the same case. He notes that in vv. 25-27 there seems to be three uses of κατά, conveying conformity, cause, and instrumentality, along with two uses of διά (instrumentality, agency) and three uses of εἰς (purpose, reference, goal) (Prepositions and Theology 41-42).

     ¹⁴ The double moniker “Jesus Christ,” without the added title “Lord,” occurs in Rom. 1:6, 8; 3:22; 5:15, 17; 16:25-27.

     ¹⁵ Cf. 1 Cor. 2:1, 7; 4:1; Eph. 3:3-9; Col. 1:26.

     ¹⁶ “The µυστήριον here referred to is God’s world-embracing purpose of redemption, as it has been set out conspicuously in this epistle…. The Gospel as Paul understood it was a µυστήριον, because it could never have been known except through Divine revelation” (J. Denney, “Romans” 724).

     ¹⁷ The particle τε (“and” or “also”), when use by Paul, is mostly in Romans (eighteen times); only three in 1 Corinthians, twice in 2 Corinthians, and once each in Ephesians and Philippians.

     ¹⁸ The only other occurrence of this adj. in the NT is 2 Pet. 1:19 with reference to “the prophetic word” [τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον] taught by the apostles and confirmed by “prophecy of scripture” [πρῶτον γινώσκοντες] (vv. 20-21).

     ¹⁹ In addition to the OT prophets, there were also prophets of God during the NT era (1 Cor. 12:28-29; 14:29-32; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11-16; Rev. 18:20; 22:8). Note involvement in writing (Eph. 3:3-6).

     ²⁰ Cf. 1 Cor. 12:10; 14:6, 22; 1 Thess. 5:20; 1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14; 2 Pet. 1:20-21; Rev. 1:3; 19:10; 22:10, 18, 19. Note explicit conveyance in writing (2 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 1:3; 22:10-19).

     ²¹ ASV, CSB, NASB, NET, N/KJV, WEB. The English word “scripture” is a transliteration of the Latin scriptura with reference to “a writing” or “something written.” Note throughout Romans Paul’s use of the perfect passive indicative formula, “it is written” [γέγραπται] (1:17; 2:24; 3:4, 10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13, 33; 10:15; 11:8, 26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3, 9, 21).

     ²² E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the OT 150-85; C. G. Kruse, “Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans,” in Paul and Scripture 10:77-92. J. Denney observes that for Paul the collection of OT writings “was essentially a Christian book. His gospel was witnessed to by the law and the prophets … and in that sense the mystery was made known through them. But their significance only came out for one—who had the Christian key to them—the knowledge of Christ which revelation had given to Paul” (“Romans” 724).

     ²³ Note also what was already established in the Petrine letters concerning divinely inspired writings (1 Pet. 1:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:1-2).

     ²⁴ On the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, see K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the NT 177-80.

     ²⁵ Cf. Matt. 1:22-23; Luke 24:27, 44-48; John 5:46; Acts 8:30-35; 10:43; 13:22-41; 15:14-18; 17:2-3, 10-12; 18:28; 24:14; 26:22-23; 28:23; 1 Cor. 10:11.

     ²⁶ See comments v. 26; cf. John 20:30-31; 21:24; 1 Cor. 4:6, 14; 5:9, 11; 14:37; 2 Cor. 1:13; Eph. 2:19–3:11; Phil. 3:1; 2 Thess. 3:17; 1 Tim. 3:14-16; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:1, 15-16; 1 John 1:4; 2:1, 7-26; 5:13; Jude 3; Rev. 1:3, 11, 19. The messianic prophecies and promises of the OT are in the NT “revealed in fulfilment and operation” (J. Murray, Romans 2:242).

     ²⁷ The noun ἐπιταγή refers to an authoritative command, mandate, injunction (cf. 1 Cor. 7:6, 25; 2 Cor. 8:8; 1 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:3; 2:15).

     ²⁸ On the adj. αἰώνιος (“age-lasting” or “eternal”), see comments v. 25. The expression “eternal God” conveys a common OT concept (cf. Gen. 21:33; Deut. 33:27; Psa. 90:2; Isa. 9:6; 26:4; 40:28; Jer. 10:10; Hab. 1:12) but Paul’s use here is the only occurrence in the NT.

     ²⁹ Cf. Matt. 13:11, 17, 35; 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:45-48; Acts 1:1-8; 10:42; 15:17-18; Eph. 3:1-12; Col. 1:23-29; Tit. 1:1-3; 1 Pet. 1:10-12.

     ³⁰ This is in stark contrast to the stubborn resistance described in Rom. 2:5-8; 10:3, 16.

     ³¹ Mark 12:29, 32; John 5:44; Acts 7:35; 17:23; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19.

     ³² BDAG 257-58; cf. Rom. 1:23; 3:7, 23; 4:20; 5:2; 6:4; 9:23a; 11:36; 15:7; 16:27. When used of Christ, the focus is either the final glory or the manifestation of God’s glory (1 Cor. 2:8; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4; 8:19, 23; 2 Thess. 2:14; Tit. 2:13). See J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle 259 n.134.

     ³³ The added τῶν αἰώνων in a number of manuscripts, expressing “an interminable accumulation of endless ‘ages’ (αἰῶνες)” (M. J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology 95; citing H. Sasse, TDNT 1:199), is probably due to the common extended formula in other doxologies (Gal. 1:5; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 4:11; 5:11; plus thirteen in Revelation), so the addition in Romans “was as natural for scribes as it would have been unusual for them to delete the words had they been original” (B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 477).

     ³⁴ J. A. Beet, Romans 379.

     ³⁵ With textual variation, note also Rom. 16:20, 24 (LSV, N/KJV, WBT, YLT).

     ³⁶ S. T. Coleridge, Table Talk. 2nd ed. (London: John Murray, 1836): 237.

Related Post: Greetings from Christian Friends (Rom 16:21-23): Part 2

 

Image credit: https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2017/05/10/how-were-the-scribes-who-copied-the-new-testament-in-antiquity-and-what-were-their-tools-and-materials/

The Damascus Road Conversation in Acts 9:5-6?

In the first recorded account of the events leading to Saul’s conversion, the text of Acts 9:5b-6a reads in the NKJV: “‘It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ So he, trembling and astonished, said, ‘Lord, what do You want me to do?’ Then the Lord said to him…” (also KJV, MEV, JUB, YLT). 

In almost all other English versions these words are omitted in this section of Acts. However, the textual variation does not challenge the historicity of the statements, seeing that Saul’s conversion story is also recounted in chaps. 22 and 26 where the disputed words are included in all versions (22:10a; 26:14b). 

 

The only question is whether Luke recorded the statements once or twice. When all the information is gathered and harmonized from the three accounts, nothing is lost or gained either way. The full story of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (a.k.a. the apostle Paul) has been faithfully preserved in Acts 9, 22, and 26. When Saul learned the gospel through Ananias’ teaching, as a penitent baptized believer his sins were washed away (Acts 9:6-18; 22:10-16) by the grace and mercy of God (Eph. 3:7-8; 1 Tim. 1:15-16).

 

--Kevin L. Moore

 

Related Posts: The Ethiopian's Confession in Acts 8:37?

 

Image credit: Adapted from https://www.preceden.com/timelines/254573-churches-history

Textual Variation: An Angel Stirring the Water (John 5:3b-4)

A textual variant is found among the extant Greek manuscripts of John’s Gospel at 5:3b-4, where the NKJV reads: “…waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had” (also ASV, HCSB, ISV, JUB, KJV; bracketed in NASB). But these words are omitted in other versions. Most NT scholars consider this text a gloss (inserted by a later copyist) because (a) it is absent from the earliest and what many regard the better manuscripts; (b) in more than twenty manuscripts the words are marked as spurious by asterisks or obeli; (c) the occurrence of non-Johannine expressions; and (d) the wide variety of variant forms.¹ On the other hand, Zane Hodges observes that the absence of the text is essentially limited to the minority of manuscripts representing the Alexandrian text form (the superiority of which is not universally conceded), while the alleged non-Johannine vocabulary is disputable, v. 7 demands its inclusion, and its excision from some witnesses is due to theological aversion.²

Gordon Fee offers a full assessment of the textual data, as well as intrinsic probability and external evidence.³ His study concludes that the weight of evidence shows the disputed text was not in John’s original, and its depiction of a clear advantage of the least disabled over those who needed healing the most seems at variance with divine grace affirmed elsewhere in scripture. The text is most likely an explanatory note, whether inserted by John or a later copyist, to clarify the sick man’s superstitious thinking and otherwise obscure statement in v. 7.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Commentary (2nd ed.) 179.

     ² Zane C. Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda—John 5.4,” BibSac 136 (1979): 25-39.

     ³ Gordon D. Fee, “On the Inauthenticity of John 5:3b-4,” EQ 54:4 (1982): 207-18.

Related Posts: Pericopae Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)

Related articles: Dave Miller, Stirring of the Water

Image credit: https://www.entrustedtoteach.org/2015/08/14/when-jesus-hangs-out-by-the-pool

The Pericopae Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11)

Peter Paul Rubens 1577-1640

Textual Concerns

     The paragraph known as the Pericopae Adulterae in the NT, concerning a woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11), is not included in the earliest extant manuscripts and versions of John’s Gospel and is displaced in others. Note, however, in some manuscripts (e.g. Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi) the leaves that originally contained the section in question are missing. The text is not found in the 3rd-century papyri P66 and P75, or the 4th-century Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, or Boharic Bodmer Papyrus III, although Vaticanus has an umlaut (¨) marking the place where the passage is disputed and reserves an empty space. In some manuscripts (E, M, S, L, P, W, 1424^mg, pm²⁷⁰) it is marked with obeli (÷) as to indicate its authenticity was questioned at the time the copy was made. In some manuscripts it is located at the end of the Gospel, and in one manuscript family (f13) it appears after Luke 21:38.

     The text also contains a disproportionately large number of variants. Some argue that the narrative disrupts the textual flow, as 8:12 follows naturally after 7:52. On the other hand, while 7:53–8:11 might be regarded as textually disruptive, it is not necessarily theologically disruptive (cf. 8:16) and may be viewed as a brief digression. Ecclesiastical writers, such as Chrysostom, Origen, and Cyril, do not discuss this passage in their commentaries on John. Tertullian, Cyprian, and Irenaeus do not mention the story in their writings. 
     B. F. Westcott concludes: “the only natural explanation of the unquestioned facts is that the narrative was current in the third century in a Greek but not in a Latin text, though over a narrow range; that towards the end of the fourth century it was introduced in various places, but particularly where it now stands, and was thence taken into the Latin texts; that from the sixth century onwards it was found more and more frequently in the Constantinopolitan texts and all but universally in the Latin texts, and in the course of time was partially introduced into other versions” (The Gospel According to St. John 142; see also D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 273-74).

Textual Support

     The pericope is included in the 5th/6th-century Codex Bezae (D), a few later uncial manuscripts, and a large number of minuscules. Virtually no Alexandrian manuscripts contain the Pericopae Adulterae, while most Western and Byzantine manuscripts do (although the evidence is divided). See Text of the NT Part 1 and Part 2. For a comprehensive list of the manuscript evidence, see W. Willker, Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels 4b:4-7, 24-26.

     Papias (ca. 60-140?), who according to Irenaeus was a contemporary of the apostle John (Adv. Haer. 5.33.4) and according to Eusebius was “a man well-skilled in all manner of learning and well-acquainted with the scriptures” (Eccl. Hist. 3.36.2), appears to have been familiar with the story. Eusebius says of Papias: “He also gave another history of a woman who had been accused of many sins before the Lord, which was also contained in the gospel according to the Hebrews” (Eccl. Hist. 3.39.17). Although Eusebius reports that the account of Papias involved a woman “accused of many sins,” Tyrannius Rufinus (340-410), who translated Eusebius’ work into Latin, labels the woman an “adulteress.” It is uncertain whether “the gospel according to the Hebrews” is an obscure reference to John’s Gospel or, more likely, to a document that is no longer extant containing a version of the story comparable to the account in John (see Original Form of Matthew).

     The early 3rd-century Syrian manual of discipline Didascalia Apostolorum refers to the account. It is translated from Syriac in Codex Sangermanensis (MS Syr 62): “do as he also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed. But he, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her: ‘Have the elders condemned you, my daughter?’ She says to him: ‘Nay, Lord.’ And he said to her: ‘Go your way: neither do I condemn you.’” A similar version was conveyed by the 4th-century Alexandrian Didymus the Blind (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress” 24-44; A. Criddle, “Origins of the Pericope Adulterae”).

     The account is particularly mentioned by patristic writers from the time of Ambrose (ca. 374), Ambrosiaster (366-384),¹ Pacian of Barcelona (370-390), Jerome (346-420) and Augustine (354-430). Jerome reports that it was found in many Greek and Latin manuscripts of his time (adv. Pelag. 2.17), which, incidentally, were earlier than the oldest manuscripts available today.

     Augustine refers to the pericope at least ten times, and he suggests that it was removed from the Latin text by some who were hostile to the true faith in order to avoid scandal,² although his explanation is disputed by modern critics. A number of marginal notes in various texts mention that it was present in ancient copies. It is found in most Latin copies, the Jerusalem Syriac, the Ethiopic, and some later versions.

Responding to Objections

     The fact that Chrysostom, Origen, and Cyril do not mention this passage in their commentaries is not a definitive argument. The extant copies of the commentaries of Cyril and Origen are fragmentary, and the sections that address John 8 are missing. Chrysostom’s commentary only deals with specific passages and is not a verse-by-verse analysis of John’s Gospel. As noted above, other patristic writers testify to the genuineness of the text, including Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Pacian, Jerome, and Augustine.

     The silence of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Irenaeus is inconclusive. Even though Tertullian examines the issue of adultery in a number of long treatises, it is presumptuous to assume that an account containing what appears to be only a mild rebuke would necessarily be pertinent to his discussion. In fact, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen considered sexual sins to be particularly heinous.

     The textual peculiarities of the passage may very well be related to lectionary usage, as W. Willker notes: “Of course it is very probable that the insertion points before 7:37 or after 8:12 and also possibly at the end of John originate from lectionary usage. It is also probable that the markings with asterisks and obeli are the result of this lectionary usage” (Textual Commentary 15). This would also be a viable explanation for the obscure placement of the pericope after Luke 21:38 in f13. There is a close resemblance between Luke 21:37-38 and John 7:53; 8:1-2. The lectionary reading for 7th October was Luke 21:12-19 and for 8th October it was often the Pericopae Adulterae. “That a single MS (the exemplar of f13), and a very unreliable [one] at that, preserves the true place of the PA is very improbable. Note also that f13 also transposes the ‘agony, bloody sweat’ incident from Lk 22:43, 44 to after Mt 26:39” (W. Willker, Textual Commentary 17).

     An evaluation of internal features, i.e., contextual and stylistic matters, is disputable, since a case can be made both for and against the veracity of the text.³ M. C. Tenney observes: “To say that the passage is not an integral part of John does not dismiss it, however. It is still necessary to account for its presence. Even those who exclude it from the body of John on textual grounds admit that its tenor is wholly in keeping with the character and ministry of Jesus, and that it doubtless constitutes a genuine account of an episode of His career, though it may be misplaced” (John: the Gospel of Belief 138).

Conclusion

     It is plausible that John 7:53–8:11 embodies one of the “many other things that Jesus did” that had previously been unrecorded (John 20:30; 21:25) but eventually made its way into the text. It has been suggested that Papias, a contemporary of the apostle John, may have been responsible for preserving the account (B. F. Wescott, The Gospel According to St. John 125). B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman comment that the pericope “has many earmarks of historical veracity; no ascetically minded monk would have invented a narrative that closes with what seems to be only a mild rebuke on Jesus’ part” (The Text of the NT 319).⁴ S. J. Kaczorowski calls it “an inspired text inserted into an inspired text” (“The Pericope of the Woman,” JETS 61/2 [2018]: 321-37). 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The anonymous work, Quaestiones ex Utroque Mixtim 102: Contra Novatianum (PL Migne Vol. 35, 2303), was earlier assigned to Augustine but now is considered to be from Ambrosiaster.

     ² “Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin” (De Conj. Adult. 2.6-7).

     ³ For: E. A. Abbott, Johannne Vocabulary 353-54; R. C. Foster, Studies in the Life of Christ 798. Against: B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John 142-43; W. Willker, Textual Commentary 20-22.

     ⁴ See also J. H. Bernard and A. H. McNeile, John 716; F. F. Bruce, Gospel of John 413; D. A. Carson, Gospel according to John 333; L. Morris, John 779; Z. Hodges, “The Woman Taken in Adultery” (1979) 318-72; (1980): 41-53; C. A. Louviere, “The Pericope De Adultera” 1-39.

Related Posts: Comma Johanneum, Angel Stirring the Water (John 5:3-4)

Image credit: http://www.artnet.com/artists/peter-paul-rubens/christ-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultery-f2nwKMlBBXeyVPcBKyfxmw2