In Layman’s Terms: the pericope adulterae

The term “pericope adulterae” may be unfamiliar to some, but it’s simply a traditional way of referring to the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). This brief story (or “pericope”) has a unique and complex history shrouded in a fair amount of mystery – as far as biblical studies go, it’s a real puzzle. As almost every Bible translation notes before or after John 7:53-8:11, “our earliest and best manuscripts do not contain John 7:53-8:11.” Indeed, Codex Bezae (5th c.) is the first manuscript of John’s Gospel to contain this story, which the majority of copies of John’s Gospels have followed, to this day. To complicate matters, other, later manuscripts place the pericope after John 7:36, John 21:25, and Luke 21:38. The only comparable textual problem of this magnitude in the NT is the so-called “longer ending(s) of Mark” (16:9-20). So what do we make of this?

Almost all scholars agree that John 7:53-8:11 is not original to John’s Gospel: apart from the manuscript evidence, the story interrupts John’s narrative and features lots of non-Johannine language. Yet many scholars believe that the story does represent a (more or less) real event in the life of the historical Jesus. The story does exist in different forms prior to the fifth century. More than 20 years ago, Bart Ehrman’s article “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 (1988): 24–44 argued that the form of the story that ended up in Codex Bezae was in fact a conflation of two earlier stories involving Jesus and a sinful woman. These earlier forms were likely in touch with an early tradition – but how much earlier? My article argues that the most important of these earlier forms can in fact be traced back to the first century, significantly increasing the odds that the majority of the pericope adulterae goes back to early oral tradition.

Why, though, was this story eventually placed after John 7:52? In a recent book (The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus, NTTSD 38; Leiden: Brill, 2009), Chris Keith has argued that this story, perhaps the only one in the Jesus tradition that shows Jesus writing (on the ground), was included in the Gospels to counter the claims of critics who charged that Jesus was illiterate and therefore unworthy of honor or worship. The pericope’s subsequent dislocation to other places in the Gospels can reasonably be explained by the influence of the lectionary system in combination with the confusion resulting from the story’s late addition to the Gospel of John. It’s impossible to say, but it seems to me that Keith’s explanation is the best advanced thus far.

Advertisements

About krhughes14

Smyrna, Georgia
This entry was posted in New Testament and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to In Layman’s Terms: the pericope adulterae

  1. Clint says:

    Heard of your paper from an interview of Dr. Wallace. You might interested in this related issue of Luke’s reason for writing. If his thesis is correct (as well as a German scholar he mentions in his list at the end of the book of scholars’ theses put forward on the topic), then I think the case is strengthened for Luke being behind PA, ultimately.

    Luke was the necessary background to the defense brief of Acts, written for Theophilus, the Roman official responsible for pre-trial investigation for Paul’s trial in Rome. Therefore, Luke is portraying Jesus as unwilling to break Roman law, i.e. interfering with their prerogative on meting out capital punishment, as the Jewish leaders were challenging him to do.

    “John Mauck, Paul on Trial

    It is not often that a non-specialist gets some special insight, but here we have one example. Mauck, an attorney, looks at Acts (and Luke) through his attorney’s eyes and comes away (informed by much, but slightly not enough yet not contrary, Biblical scholarship) with the idea that this book was written as a sort of evidentiary document to defend Paul in his trial at Rome.

    This has important implications for proving several traditional arguments (the early date of Luke-Acts), affirms the argument that Rome did indeed take a major interest in Christianity (to the point of doing a special investigation), explains why Luke wrote some things that others did not, and in ways they did not (including why he did not mention Paul’s letters — they would have been legally useless, partly because they amounted to self-declarations of the accused), and adds a few surprises that make sense (Theophilus was NOT a Christian, but a Roman investigator).

    Mauck ties in other points neatly (such as the character of Nero, and of his aides Seneca and Burrus) that glue the puzzle together in a way that is astounding. Most of the book goes through Acts section by section, showing how what Luke reported defended Paul from the indicated charges (preaching an illicit religion, stirring up riots). This is a very clever thesis, one critics will be hard-pressed to countermand, and the average reader will appreciate Mauck’s understandable prose. We recommend Paul of Trial as a highly readable apologetic resource.”
    -http://www.tektonics.org/books/ntintbooks.php

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s