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

The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage: Part 2 of 3

Relevant Scriptures continued:

4. Matthew 5:31-32. This is a portion of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, in the context of “preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (4:23), wherein Jesus opposes the lax attitudes of the Jewish scribes and Pharisees toward the divine will (5:20).¹ The Lord’s contrasting statement in 5:32 is in response to what had been “said” (and heard) about divorce among these Jews. While it was not the time to teach exclusively Christian doctrine or set aside the Mosaic Law (5:17-29; 7:12), it was necessary to address the fallacies of their hypocritical leaders (5:20; 6:2, 5, 16; 7:15-20, 29) and prepare the way for the coming kingdom (cf. 6:10, 33; 7:21). Jesus is contrasting the traditional misinterpretations of the Law vs. the loftier conduct expected in God’s kingdom. The Law did not justify unrighteous anger, or lust, or divorce for any or no reason, or questionable oaths, or senseless retribution, or hatred, irrespective of what others had “said” to the contrary. The current Jewish attitude toward divorce (succinctly stated in 5:31) had apparently become as lax as their attitude toward other moral issues discussed in this chapter. Jesus affirms that adultery (illegitimate sex) is committed in a second marriage following a divorce for any reason other than sexual infidelity. Divorce and subsequent marriage is implicitly allowed to the one betrayed by the other who violates the very heart of marriage (cf. Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-9).

5. Matthew 19:1-10; Mark 10:1-10 [parallel accounts]. The Lord’s directives were prompted by hostile questions within the circle of Judaism. Matthew’s Gospel was written with a Jewish audience in mind,² whereas Mark’s account was recorded for a Roman audience,³ which helps explain why Mark incorporates into his record certain parts of the Lord’s discourse that are omitted in Matthew, and vice versa.⁴ Jesus affirms that while it is sinful for a man to divorce his wife, it is not adultery; the sin of adultery is added to the sin of divorce if the man goes on to marry someone else (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11). The words "except for sexual immorality [fornication]" in Matthew’s account (19:9; cf. 5:32) are absent from Mark. The exceptive phrase would have had greater significance to Matthew’s audience, seeing that in Judaism infidelity warranted the death penalty (cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) and had become a cruel weapon of ruthless men in their mistreatment of women (cf. John 8:3-5). Among the Romans this was already understood as sufficient grounds for divorce.

     Mark’s inclusion of the phrase “against her” (10:11b) is intriguing. Both the Jews and the Romans understood adultery as sexual intercourse with a married woman. Accordingly, when a woman committed adultery it was against her own husband, and when a man committed adultery it was against the woman’s husband. Jesus, however, informs his Jewish listeners, and Mark in turn informs his Roman readers, that from the divine perspective adultery is also committed against the innocent wife.

     Matthew omits the following words that Mark has recorded in 10:12, “and if she, having divorced her husband, marries another, she is committing adultery.” Within the context of Judaism, since only the husband could initiate a divorce and not the wife, the applicability of this statement would have been lost among Matthew’s readers. On the other hand, under Roman law the marriage could be terminated by either party, so Mark’s inclusion of the statement is most relevant.

     Adultery (moichaō) involves voluntary sex between a married person and someone other than his/her lawful spouse. The two verbs “divorces” (apolusē) and “marries” (gamēsē) are in the AORIST tense and therefore naturally describe punctiliar (completed) action. In contrast, the verbal tense is changed to the PRESENT when “commits adultery” is mentioned, suggesting a different (incomplete/ongoing) time reference. As long as sexual activity continues in the second relationship, the adultery continues.

6. Mark 6:17-19. Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4 BC to AD 39). John the baptizer had confronted the tetrarch about his unlawful marriage to Herodias, resulting in John’s execution (Matt. 14:3-12; cf. Luke 3:19-20; 9:9). Antipas had divorced his wife Phasaelis, the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas IV, in order to marry Herodias, who had previously been married to his half-brother Philip I (see Josephus, Ant. 18.5.1, 4).⁵ When Jesus is later asked whether it is “lawful” for a man to divorce his wife, he is “across the Jordan” in the region governed by Herod Antipas (Matt. 19:1; Mark 10:1), i.e., a divorced man married to a divorced woman, a union deemed “unlawful” by John.

7. Luke 16:18. Jesus is speaking to antagonistic Pharisees, and his directives are in opposition to their lax attitudes toward the divine will (vv. 14-15; cf. Matt. 5:20, 31-32; 15:1-3). Once again Jesus affirms that adultery is committed in the second marriage following a divorce. The “except for fornication” phrase (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) is omitted here, probably because those to whom Jesus was speaking on this occasion were teaching, condoning, or practicing divorce for other reasons.

8. Romans 7:2-3. To the saints at Rome Paul affirms that marriage is for life, whereas the marriage bond is broken when a spouse dies. If a woman marries another man while her husband is still living, “she will be called an adulteress.” But if her husband is dead, adultery is not committed in a second marriage.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Jesus is not taking issue with or negating the Mosaic Law but rather opposing wrongful interpretations of it. Note, “You have heard that it was said ...” (vv. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43), NOT “It is written …” For example, the Law never states, “… hate your enemy” (v. 43b), but apparently that’s what these Jews had heard from their teachers (cf. 15:1-3).

     ² See K. L. Moore, Matthew's Audience.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, Mark's Audience.

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage.

     ⁵ Josephus: “Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas; and had lived with her a great while …. However he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod’s [Philip’s] wife …. One article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas’s daughter…. But Herodias, their [Aristobulus & Agrippa’s] sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great …. Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced her self from her husband, while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husband’s brother by the father’s side. He was tetrarch of Galilee” (Ant. 18.5.1, 4). 

Related Posts: Divorce & Remarriage Part 1, Part 3,  Preventing Divorce, Why was Herod's marriage unlawful?

Image credit: http://jmmwealthmanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Divorce-Planning_services-2.jpg

The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage: Part 1 of 3

Definition and Clarification of Terms:

1. Marriage is the lawful union of a husband and wife (1 Cor. 7:2), ordained by God (Matt. 19:4-6) and consummated according to the legal system to which the couple is amenable, as long as it does not conflict with the divine will (Rom. 13:1-5; cf. Acts 5:29). However, not all “marriages” are sanctioned by God even if recognized by civil law (e.g. Mark 6:17-18; 10:11-12).

2. Divorce is the dissolution of marriage. The NT Greek verb apolúō (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9) means to “let go, send away, dismiss … divorce” (BAGD 96). The verb chōrízō (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9; 1 Cor. 7:10, 11a, 15, 16) means “to sever, disunite … to dissociate one’s self, to part” (H. K. Moulton, Lexicon 441); “act. divide, separate … pass. separate (oneself), be separated [of divorce]” (BAGD 890). This particular Greek term may simply refer to a separation, or it could be synonymous with divorce, as the separated state is described as “unmarried” (1 Cor. 7:11b) and is parallel to aphíēmi (v. 11c). However, “abandon” is also a plausible nuance (cf. Mark 14:50). The verb aphíēmi (1 Cor. 7:11c, 12, 13) means to “let go, send away … divorce … abandon” (BAGD 125-26). As with marriage (above), a divinely authorized divorce would have a fundamentally different meaning than a divorce God does not approve (e.g. Matt. 5:31-32).

3. Adultery involves voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his/her lawful spouse. The noun moicheía (John 8:3), the verb moichaō (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12), and the verb moicheúō (Matt. 5:27; 19:18; Rom. 2:22) are all related. The secondary sense, used figuratively of spiritual adultery, is applied to the relationship between God and his erring people (cf. Jer. 3:6-9; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 3:1; 4:12; Jas. 4:4), but when used with reference to a man and a woman, it refers to illegitimate sexual intercourse (cf. Lev. 20:10; 18:20; Deut. 22:22; Prov. 6:32; Matt. 5:28; John 8:3; Heb. 13:4).

4. Fornication or Sexual Immorality (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) is translated from the Greek noun porneia, used generally “of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse” (BAGD 693). In its singular form it refers to the specific sex act, whether with a woman, man, child, horse, etc. Under this broad umbrella term would be specific types of porneia, such as adultery, incest, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. The bottom line is that porneia is any kind of sexual intercourse that is not within the context of marriage as defined above. While the English word “pornography” is derived from the Greek porneia, viewing pornographic images does not constitute the sexual intercourse that is required for porneia to have occurred.¹

Relevant Scriptures:

1. Genesis 1:27; 2:24. These are the passages Jesus quotes in Matt. 19:4-5, demonstrating God’s design for marriage from the beginning involving the joining together of a man and woman for life in a monogamous relationship. Becoming “one flesh” indicates a sexual union that establishes an intimate connection between two previously unrelated individuals. This “one flesh” bonding is the basis of God’s categorical denunciation of all other types of sexual activity (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16-18; 7:2).

2. Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This is an example of casuistic or case law (“if … then”): the case is presented in vv. 1-3, and the ruling is given in v. 4. This passage assumes the prevalence of divorce among the Israelites at the time of writing (cf. 22:19, 29; Lev. 21:7, 13, 14), and only the husband could initiate the divorce. However, the provision of divorce was not a divine injunction but a concession due to “obstinacy” or “hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8; Mark 10:5). The certificate of divorce served to protect women from unscrupulous husbands and the precarious charge of adultery, but it went far beyond God’s intended purpose (cf. Gen. 2:24; Mal. 2:16). Centuries later the rabbis debated the meaning of the expressions “no favor” and “some indecency” in Deut. 24:1; the school of Shammai insisted that sexual impurity was the necessary prerequisite for divorce, while the school of Hillel maintained that any trivial offense was sufficient grounds. Jewish opinion was heavily divided in the days of Jesus, prompting the question in Matt. 19:3. Nevertheless, they were focusing on and debating what Jewish men of the past were doing rather than the stated will of God.

3. Malachi 2:11-17. Between the first return from Babylonian exile (538 BC) and the second return (458 BC), Israelite men (including priests) had married local pagan women and were then compelled to put them away with what appears to have been divine approval (Ezra 9–10; cf. Neh. 13:23-30). But the background is that they had divorced their lawful wives to marry these pagan women (Mal. 2:10-17). From Malachi 2 we learn that God “hates divorce”² (v. 16) because it (a) is contrary to his original plan (v. 15); (b) results from profane desires and weakens a nation (v. 11); (c) breaks covenant vows (v. 14); (d) involves betraying the innocent spouse (v. 14); (e) causes separation from God (vv. 12, 13); and (f) accompanies spiritual self-deception (v. 17). 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
     ¹ Although pornography is not “fornication,” it is still sinful, not only because of its addictiveness and the other immoral thoughts and behavior it inevitably leads to (Rom. 6:19; Jas. 1:14-15; 2 Pet. 2:18-19), but its inherently selfish, lustful, lewd, objectifying nature is utterly contrary to the mental and moral purity that God expects of his children (Matt. 5:28; Gal. 5:16-17; Eph. 4:17-20; 1 Thess. 5:22; 2 Tim. 2:19-22; 1 John 2:15-17).
     ² This reading is based on the Masoretic Hebrew Text (cf. ISV, N/ASV, N/KJV, N/RSV), whereas the LXX, Targum, Arabic versions, and Latin Vulgate read, “but if he should hate [and] send her away” (cf. ESV, HCSB, NIV). 

Related Posts: Divorce & Remarriage Part 2, Part 3, Premarital Decisions, Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage, Delusion of Gay Marriage, If God hates divorce, what about Ezra 9-10?

Related articles: Wes McAdams' Moving in Together

Image credit: http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-460/h--/q-95/sys-images/Money/Pix/pictures/2008/07/10/divorce460.jpg