APPENDIX I.

[495]Προς τοις δοκησει τον Χριστον πεφηνεναι λεγοντας.

[496]Το δε παιδιον ηυξανε, και εκραταιουτο πνευματι.

[497]It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first Dialogus of pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. vi. 17, 20).

[498]Opp. iii. 953, 954,—with suspicious emphasis.

[499]Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. i. 700).

[500]When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. vi. 568),—"Το δε παιδιον ηυξανε και εκραταιουτο ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙ, πληρουμενον ΣΟΦΙΑ και ΧΑΡΙΤΙ." καιτοι κατα φυσιν παντελειος εστιν 'ως Θεος και εξ ιδιον πληρωματος διανεμει τοις αγιοις τα ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΑ, και αυτος εστιν η ΣΟΦΙΑ, και της ΧΑΡΙΤΟς 'ο δοτηρ,—it is clear that πνευματι must have stood in Cyril's text. The same is the reading of Cyril's Treatise, De Incarnatione (Mai, ii. 57): and of his Commentary on St. Luke (ibid. p. 136). One is surprised at Tischendorf's perverse inference concerning the last-named place. Cyril had begun by quoting the whole of ver. 40 in exact conformity with the traditional text (Mai, ii. 136). At the close of some remarks (found both in Mai and in Cramer's Catena), Cyril proceeds as follows, according to the latter:—'ο Ευαγγελιστης εψη "ηυξανε και εκραταιουτο" ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΕΞΗΣ. Surely this constitutes no ground for supposing that he did not recognize the word πνευματι, but rather that he did. On the other hand, it is undeniable that in V. P. ii. 138 and 139 (= Concilia iii. 241 d, 244 a), from Pusey's account of what he found in the MSS. (vii. P. i. 277-8), the word πνευματι must be suspected of being an unauthorized addition to the text of Cyril's treatise, De Rectâ fide ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam.

[501]ii. 152: iv. 112: v. 120, 121 (four times).

[502]Ει τελειος εστι Θεος 'ο Χριστος, πως 'ο ευαγγελιστης λεγει, το δε παιδιον Ιησους ηυξανε και εκραταιουτο πνευματι;—S. Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 (ap.Galland. vi. 17 c). And see Quaest. 30.

[503]ii. 36 d.

[504]Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. Sachau, p. 53.—The only other Greek Fathers who quote the place are Euthymius and Theophylact.

[505]'ην ηκουσα παρα του Θεου. Epiph. i. 463.

[506]Instead of παρα του Θεου.

[507]i. 410: iv. 294, 534. Elsewhere he defends and employs it.

[508]i. 260, 463: ii. 49.

[509]i. 705.

[510]viii. 365.

[511](Glaph.) i. 18.

[512]iv. 83, 430. But both Origen (i. 705: iv. 320, 402) and Cyril (iv. 554: v. 758) quote the traditional reading; and Cyril (iv. 549) distinctly says that the latter is right, and παρα του πατρος wrong.

[513]Excerpt. Theod. 968.—Heracleon's name is also connected by Origen with this text. Valentinus (ap. Iren. 100) says, ον δη και υιον Μονογενη και Θεον κεκληκεν.

[514]Pp. 627, 630, 466.

[515]P. 956.

[516]'Deum nemo vidit umquam: nisi unicus filius solus, sinum patris ipse enarravit.'—(Comp. Tertullian:—'Solus filius patrem novit et sinum patris ipse exposuit' (Prax. c. 8. Cp. c. 21): but he elsewhere (ibid. c. 15) exhibits the passage in the usual way.) Clemens writes,—τοτε εποπτευσεις τον κολπον του Πατρυς, 'ον 'ο μονοογενης 'υιος Θεος μονος εξηγησατο (956), and in the Excerpt. Theod. we find ουτος τον κολπον τον Πατρος εξηγησατο 'ο Σωτηρ (969). But this is unintelligible until it is remembered that ourLordis often spoken of by the Fathers as 'η δεξια του 'υψιστου ... κολπος δε της δεξιας 'ο Πατηρ. (Greg. Nyss. i. 192.)

[517]Ps. 440 (—'ο): Marcell. 165, 179, 273.

[518]Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14.

[519]Marcell. 132. Read on to p. 134.

[520]Opp. ii. 466.

[521]Opp. iii. 23, 358.

[522]Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 (Θεος παντως 'ο μονογενης, 'ο εν τοις κολποις ων του Πατρος, ουτως ειποντος του Ιωαννου). Also ii. 432, 447, 450, 470, 506: always εν τοις κολποις. Basil, Opp. iii. 12.

[523]Basil, Opp. iii. 14, 16, 117: and so Eunomius (ibid. i. 623).

[524]Contra Eunom.I have notedninety-eight places.

[525]Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St. John i. 18 thus:—αυτος γαρ Θεος ων 'ο μονογενης, εν κολποις ων του θεου και πατρος, ταυτην προς 'ημας εποιησατο την εξηγησιν. Presently (p. 105), he says that St. John και "μονογενη θεον" αποκαλει τον 'υιον, και "εν κολποισ" ειναι φησι του πατρος. But on p. 107 he speaks quite plainly: "'ο μονογενης," φησι, "Θεος, 'ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος, εκεινος εξηγησατο." επειδη γαρ εφη "μονογενη" και "Θεον," τιθησιν ευθυς, "'ο ων εν τοις κολποις του πατρος."—So v. 137, 768. And yet he reads 'υιος in v. 365, 437: vi. 90.

[526]He uses it seventeen times in his Comm. on Isaiah (ii. 4, 35, 122, &c.), and actually so reads St. John i. 18 in one place (Opp. vi. 187). Theodoret once adopts the phrase (Opp. v. 4).

[527]De Trin. 76, 140, 37a:—27.

[528]P. 117.

[529]Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given.

[530]Who quoted Arius' words:—'Subsistit ante tempora et aeonesplenus Deus, unigenitus,et immutabilis.' But I cannot yet find Tischendorf's reference.

[531]The reading 'υιος is established by unanswerable evidence.

[532]The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus were the direct precursors of Apolonius, Photinus, Nestorius, &c., in assailing the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. Their heresy must have been actively at work when St. John wrote his first (iv. 1, 2, 3) and second (ver. 7) Epistles.

[533]Rev. xxii. 19.

[534]Επιπηδωσιν 'ημιν 'οι 'αιρετικοι λεγοντες; ιδου ουκ ανελαβε σαρκα 'ο Χριστος; 'ο δευτ. γαρ φησιν ανθρ. 'ο κ. εξ ουρανου. Chrys. iii. 114 b.

[535]Την γαρ κατα σαρκα γηννησιν του Χριστου ανελειν βουλομενοι, ενηλλαξαν το, 'ο δευτερος ανθρωπος; και εποιησαν, 'ο δευτερος Κυριος. Dial. [ap.Orig.] i. 868.—Marcion had in fact already substituted Κυριος for ανθρωπος in ver. 45: ('the last Lordbecame a quickening spirit':) [Tertull. ii. 304]—a fabricated reading which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion's followers:—'ο εσχατος Κυριος εις πν. ζω. Dial.ubi supra. εδει γαρ αυτους, ει γε τα ευανγελια ετιμων, μη περιτεμνειν τα ευαγγελια, μη μερη των ευαγγελιων εξυφελειν, μη 'ετερα προσθηναι, μητε λογω, μητε ιδια γνωμη τα ευαγγελια προσγραφειν.... προσγεγραφηκασι γουν 'οσα βεβουληνται, και εξυφειλαντο 'οσα κεκρικασι. Titus of Bostra c. Manichaeos (Galland. v. 328).

[536]Tertull. ii. 304, (Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus de Caelo).

[537]Dial [Orig. i.] 868, ('ο δευτερος Κυριος εξ ουρανου).

[538]Το δε παντων χαλεπωτατον εν ταις εκκλησιαστικαις συμφοραις, 'η των 'Απολιναριστων εστι παρρησια. Greg. Naz. ii. 167.

[539]ii. 168,—a very interesting place. See also p. 87.

[540]i. 831.

[541]ii. 443, 531.

[542]Pp. 180, 209, 260, 289, 307 (primus homo de terrae limo, &c.).

[543]iii. 40.

[544]iii. 114 four times: x. 394, 395. Once (xi. 374) he has 'ο δευτ. ανθρ. ουρανιος εξ ουρανου.

[545]iv. 1051.

[546]Ap.Thdt. v. 1135.

[547]Ap.Galland. viii. 626, 627.

[548]i. 222 (where for ανθρ. he reads Αδαμ), 563. Also ii. 120, 346.

[549]'Adversus Manichaeos,'—ap.Mai, iv. 68, 69.

[550]ii. 228:—ουχ 'οτι 'ο ανθρωπος, ητοι το ανθρωπινον προσλημμα, εξ ουρανου ην, 'ως 'ο αφρων Απολιναριος εληρει.

[551]Naz. ii. 87 (=Thdt. iv. 62), 168.—Nyss. ii. 11.

[552]Ap.Epiphan. i. 830.

[553]559 (with the Text. Recept.): iv. 302 not.

[554]Hippolytus may not be cited in evidence, being read both ways. (Cp. ed. Fabr. ii. 30:—ed. Lagarde, 138. 15:—ed. Galland. ii. 483.)—Neither may the expression του δευτερου εξ ουρανου ανθρωπου in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 48) be safely pressed.

[555]Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelo caelestis.—i. 1168, 1363: ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. ii. 166, 437.

[556]ii. 298: iv. 930: vii. 296.

[557]The places are given by Sabatierin loc.

[558]Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, does this reading appear in Orig.interp. ii. 84, 85: iii. 951: iv. 546.

[559]As Philastrius (ap.Galland. vii. 492, 516).—Pacianus (ib. 275).—Marius Mercator (ib. viii. 664).—Capreolus (ib. ix. 493). But see the end of the next ensuing note.

[560]Vol. i. p. 1275,—'ο δευτερος ανθρ. 'ο Κυριος εξ ουρανου ουρανιος:—on which he remarks, (if indeed it be he), ιδου γαρ αμφοτερωθεν ουρανιος ανθρωπος ονομαζεται. And lower down,—Κυριος, δια την μιαν 'υποστασιν; δευτ. μεν ανθρ., κατα την 'ενωμενην ανθρωποτητα. εξ ουρανου δε, κατα την θεοτητα.—P. 448,—'ο δευτερος ανθρ. εξ ουρανου επουρανιος.—Ap.Montf. ii. 13 (= Galland. v. 167),—'ο δευτ. ανθρ. εξ ουρανου.—Note that Maximinus, an Arian bishop,A.D.427-8 (ap.Augustin. viii. 663) is found to have possessed a text identical with the first of the preceding:—'Ait ipse Paulus,Primus homo Adam de terra terrenus, secundus homo Dominus de Caelo caelestisadvenit.'

[561]See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5: and The Traditional Text, p. 114.

[562]This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877, and is therefore earlier than the Dean's later series.

[563]Proleg. 418.

[564]The text of St. Luke ix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril's fifty-sixth Sermon (p. 353) is the text of B and [Symbol: Aleph],—an important testimony to what I suppose may be regarded as the AlexandrineTextus Receptusof this place in the fifth century. But then no one supposes that Cyril is individually responsible for the headings of his Sermons. We therefore refer to the body of his discourse; and discover that the Syriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. He has omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly stood in the original text:—ειδεναι γαρ χρη, 'οτι 'ως μηπω της νεας κεκρατηκοτες χαριτος, αλλ' ετι της προτερας εχομενοι συνηθειας, τουτο ειπον, προς Ηλιαν αφορωντες τον πυρι καταφλεξαντα δις τους πεντηκοντα και τους ηγουμενους αυτων, (Cramer's Cat. ii. p. 81. Cf. Corderii, Cat. p. 263. Also Matthaei. N. T.in loc., pp. 333-4.) Now the man who wrotethat, must surely have read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 as we do.

[565]See the fragment (and Potter's note), Opp. p. 1019: also Galland. ii. 157. First in Hippolyt., Opp. ed. Fabric, ii. 71.

[566]In St. Matt. xviii. 11, the words ζητησαι και do not occur.

[567]Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 468. 'Agnosco iudicis severitatem. E contrario Christi in eandem animadversionem destinantes discipulos super ilium viculum Samaritarum.' Marc. iv. 23 (see ii. p. 221). He adds,—'Let Marcion also confess that by the same terribly severe judge Christ's leniency was foretold;' and he cites in proof Is. xlii. 2 and 1 Kings xix. 12 ('sed inspiritumiti').

[568]Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him. And he discusses St. Luke ix. 54-5 on p. 139.Addas Adimantus (a disciple of Manes) was the author of a work of the same kind. Augustine (viii. 606 c) says of it,—'ubi de utroque Testamento velut inter se contraria testimonia proferuntur versipelli dolositate, velut inde ostendatur utrumque ab uno Deo esse non posse, sed alterum ab altero.' Cerdon was the first to promulgate this pestilential tenet (605 a). Then Marcion his pupil, then Apelles, and then Patricius.

[568]Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him. And he discusses St. Luke ix. 54-5 on p. 139.

Addas Adimantus (a disciple of Manes) was the author of a work of the same kind. Augustine (viii. 606 c) says of it,—'ubi de utroque Testamento velut inter se contraria testimonia proferuntur versipelli dolositate, velut inde ostendatur utrumque ab uno Deo esse non posse, sed alterum ab altero.' Cerdon was the first to promulgate this pestilential tenet (605 a). Then Marcion his pupil, then Apelles, and then Patricius.

[569]Titus Bostr. adv. Manichaeos (ap.Galland. v. 329 b), leaving others to note the correspondences between the New and the Old Testament, proposes to handle the 'Contrasts': προς αυτας τας αντιθεσεις των λογιων χωρησωμεν. At pp. 339 e, 340 a, b, he confirms what Tertullian says about the calling down of fire from heaven.

[570]Verba 'ως και Η. εποιησε cur quis addiderit, planum. Eidem interpolatori debentur quae verba στρ. δε επετι. αυτοις excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod testium additamentum 'ο γαρ 'υιος, &c. ab eadem manu derivandum est, nec per se solum pro spurio haberi potest; cohaeret enim cum argumento tum auctoritate arctissime cum prioribus. (N. T. ed. 1869, p. 544.)

[571]Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio circumferri consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid.)

[572]The following are the references left by the Dean. I have not had time or strength to search out those which are left unspecified in this MS. and the last.Jerome.—Apostoli in Lege versati ... ulcisci nituntur iniuriam,et imitari Eliam, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandumvenerat, sedad salvandum, &c. ... increpat eosquod non meminerint doctrinae suae et bonitatis Evangelicae, &c. (i. 857 b, c, d.)Cyprian, Synodical Epistle.—'Filius hominis non venit animas hominum perdere, sed salvare.' p. 98.A.D.253.Tatian.—Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Carn. c. 12 et 10: and Anim. c. 13.)Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the words twice,—x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a.Και 'ο Κυριος προς τους αποστολους ειποντας εν πυρι κολασαι τους μη δεξαμενους αυτους κατα τον Ηλιαν; Ουκ οιδατε φησι ποιου πνευματος εστε. (p. 1019.)Theodoret, iii. 1119. (ποιου.)Epiph. ii. 31. ('οιου.)Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place.Augustine.—Respondit eis Dominus, dicens eos nescire cuius spiritus filii essent, et quod ipse liberare venisset, non perdere. viii. 139 b. Cp. iii. (2), 194 b.Cyril Al.—Μηπω της νεας κεκρατηκοτες χαριτος ... τουτο ειπον, τον Ηλιαν αφορωντες τον πυρι κ.τ.λ. Cord. Cat. 263 = Cram. Cat. 81. Also iv. 1017.—By a strange slip of memory, Cyril sets down a reproof found in St. Matthew: but this is enough to shew that he admits thatsomereproof finds record in the Gospel.Chrys. vii. 567 e: x. 305 d: vii. 346 a: ix. 677 c.Opus Imp. ap. Chrys. vi. 211, 219.Didymus.—Ουκ οιδατε οιου πνευματος εστιν 'ο 'υιος του ανθρωπου. De Trin. p. 188.

[572]The following are the references left by the Dean. I have not had time or strength to search out those which are left unspecified in this MS. and the last.

Jerome.—Apostoli in Lege versati ... ulcisci nituntur iniuriam,et imitari Eliam, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandumvenerat, sedad salvandum, &c. ... increpat eosquod non meminerint doctrinae suae et bonitatis Evangelicae, &c. (i. 857 b, c, d.)

Cyprian, Synodical Epistle.—'Filius hominis non venit animas hominum perdere, sed salvare.' p. 98.A.D.253.

Tatian.—Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Carn. c. 12 et 10: and Anim. c. 13.)

Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the words twice,—x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a.

Και 'ο Κυριος προς τους αποστολους ειποντας εν πυρι κολασαι τους μη δεξαμενους αυτους κατα τον Ηλιαν; Ουκ οιδατε φησι ποιου πνευματος εστε. (p. 1019.)

Theodoret, iii. 1119. (ποιου.)

Epiph. ii. 31. ('οιου.)

Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place.

Augustine.—Respondit eis Dominus, dicens eos nescire cuius spiritus filii essent, et quod ipse liberare venisset, non perdere. viii. 139 b. Cp. iii. (2), 194 b.

Cyril Al.—Μηπω της νεας κεκρατηκοτες χαριτος ... τουτο ειπον, τον Ηλιαν αφορωντες τον πυρι κ.τ.λ. Cord. Cat. 263 = Cram. Cat. 81. Also iv. 1017.—By a strange slip of memory, Cyril sets down a reproof found in St. Matthew: but this is enough to shew that he admits thatsomereproof finds record in the Gospel.

Chrys. vii. 567 e: x. 305 d: vii. 346 a: ix. 677 c.

Opus Imp. ap. Chrys. vi. 211, 219.

Didymus.—Ουκ οιδατε οιου πνευματος εστιν 'ο 'υιος του ανθρωπου. De Trin. p. 188.

[573]Evst. 48 (Matthaei's c): Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598).

[574]See Matthaei, N.T. 1786, vol. ii. p. 17.

[575][I have been unable to discover this Lection.]

I have purposely reserved for the last the most difficult problem of all: viz. those twelve famous verses of St. John's Gospel (chap. vii. 53 to viii. 11) which contain the history of 'the woman taken in adultery,'—thepericope de adultera, as it is called. Altogether indispensable is it that the reader should approach this portion of the Gospel with the greatest amount of experience and the largest preparation. Convenient would it be, no doubt, if he could further divest himself of prejudice; but that is perhaps impossible. Let him at least endeavour to weigh the evidence which shall now be laid before him in impartial scales. He must do so perforce, if he would judge rightly: for the matter to be discussed is confessedly very peculiar: in some respects, even unique. Let me convince him at once of the truth of what has been so far spoken.

It is a singular circumstance that at the end of eighteen centuries two instances, and but two, should exist of a considerable portion of Scripture left to the mercy, so to speak, of 'Textual Criticism.' Twelve consecutive Verses in the second Gospel—as many consecutive Verses in the fourth—are in this predicament. It is singular, I say, that the Providence which has watched so marvellously over the fortunes of the Deposit,—the Divine Wisdomwhich has made such ample provision for its security all down the ages, should have so ordered the matter, that these two co-extensive problems have survived to our times to be tests of human sagacity,—trials of human faithfulness and skill. They present some striking features of correspondence, but far more of contrast,—as will presently appear. And yet the most important circumstance of all cannot be too soon mentioned: viz. that both alike have experienced the same calamitous treatment at the hands of some critics. By common consent the most recent editors deny that either set of Verses can have formed part of the Gospel as it proceeded from the hands of its inspired author. How mistaken is this opinion of theirs in respect of the 'Last twelve verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark,' has been already demonstrated in a separate treatise. I must be content in this place to deal in a far less ceremonious manner with the hostile verdict of many critics concerning St. John vii. 53-viii. 11. That I shall be able to satisfy those persons who profess themselves unconvinced by what was offered concerning St. Mark's last twelve verses, I am not so simple as to expect. But I trust that I shall have with me all candid readers who are capable of weighing evidence impartially, and understanding the nature of logical proof, when it is fully drawn out before them,—which indeed is the very qualification that I require of them.

And first, the case of thepericope de adulterarequires to be placed before the reader in its true bearings. For those who have hitherto discussed it are observed to have ignored certain preliminary considerations which, once clearly apprehended, are all but decisive of the point at issue. There is a fundamental obstacle, I mean, in the way of any attempt to dislodge this portion of the sacred narrative from the context in which it stands, which they seem to have overlooked. I proceed to explain.

Sufficient prominence has never yet been given to the fact that in the present discussion the burden of proof rests entirely with those who challenge the genuineness of the Pericope under review. In other words, the question before us is not by any means,—Shall these Twelve Verses be admitted—or, Must they be refused admission—into the Sacred Text? That point has been settled long, long ago. St. John's Twelve verses are in possession. Let those eject them who can. They are known to have occupied their present position for full seventeen hundred years. There never was a time—as far as is known—- when they were notwhere,—and to all intents and purposeswhat—they now are. Is it not evident, that no merely ordinary method of proof,—no merely common argument,—will avail to dislodge Twelve such Verses as these?

'Twelve such Verses,' I say. For it is the extent of the subject-matter which makes the case so formidable. We have here to do with no dubious clause, concerning which ancient testimony is divided; no seeming gloss, which is suspected to have overstepped its proper limits, and to have crept in as from the margin; no importation from another Gospel; no verse of Scripture which has lost its way; no weak amplification of the Evangelical meaning; no tasteless appendix, which encumbers the narrative and almost condemns itself. Nothing of the sort. If it were some inconsiderable portion of Scripture which it was proposed to get rid of by shewing that it is disallowed by a vast amount of ancient evidence, the proceeding would be intelligible. But I take leave to point out that a highly complex and very important incident—as related in twelve consecutive verses of the Gospel—cannot be so dealt with. Squatters on the waste are liable at any moment to be served with a notice of ejectment: but the owner of a mansion surrounded by broad acres which his ancestors are known to have owned before the Heptarchy,may on no account be dispossessed by any such summary process. This—to speak without a figure—is a connected and very striking portion of the sacred narrative:—the description of a considerable incident, complete in itself, full of serious teaching, and of a kind which no one would have ever dared to invent. Those who would assail it successfully must come forward with weapons of a very different kind from those usually employed in textual warfare.

It shall be presently shewn that these Twelve Verses hold their actual place by a more extraordinary right of tenure than any other twelve verses which can be named in the Gospel: but it would be premature to enter upon the proof of that circumstance now. I prefer to invite the reader's attention, next to the actual texture of thepericope de adultera, by which name (as already explained) the last verse of St. John vii. together with verses 1-11 of ch. viii. are familiarly designated. Although external testimony supplies the sole proof of genuineness, it is nevertheless reasonable to inquire what the verses in question may have to say for themselves. Do they carry on their front the tokens of that baseness of origin which their impugners so confidently seek to fasten upon them? Or do they, on the contrary, unmistakably bear the impress of Truth?

The first thing which strikes me in them is that the actual narrative concerning 'the woman taken in adultery' is entirely contained in the last nine of these verses: being preceded by two short paragraphs of an entirely different character and complexion. Let these be first produced and studied:

'and every man went to his own house: butJesuswent to the Mount of Olives.' 'And again, very early in the morning, He presented Himself in the Temple; and all the people came unto Him: and He sat down and taught them.'

Now as every one must see, the former of these two paragraphs is unmistakably not the beginning but the endof a narrative. It purports to be the conclusion of something which went before, not to introduce something which comes after. Without any sort of doubt, it is St. John's account of what occurred at the close of the debate between certain members of the Sanhedrin which terminates his history of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The verse in question marks the conclusion of the Feast,—implies in short that all is already finished. Remove it, and the antecedent narrative ends abruptly. Retain it, and all proceeds methodically; while an affecting contrast is established, which is recognized to be strictly in the manner of Scripture[576]. Each one had gone to his home: but the homeless One had repaired to the Mount of Olives. In other words, the paragraph under discussion is found to be an integral part of the immediately antecedent narrative: proves to be a fragment of what is universally admitted to be genuine Scripture. By consequence, itself must needs be genuine also[577].

It is vain for any one to remind us that these two verses are in the same predicament as those which follow: are as ill supported by MS. evidence as the other ten: and must therefore share the same fate as the rest. The statement is incorrect, to begin with; as shall presently be shewn. But, what is even better deserving of attention, since confessedly these twelve verses are either to stand or else to fall together, it must be candidly admitted that whatever begets a suspicion that certain of them, at all events, mustneeds be genuine, throws real doubt on the justice of the sentence of condemnation which has been passed in a lump upon all the rest.

I proceed to call attention to another inconvenient circumstance which some Critics in their eagerness have overlooked.

The reader will bear in mind that—contending, as I do, that the entire Pericope under discussion is genuine Scripture which has been forcibly wrenched away from its lawful context,—I began by examining the upper extremity, with a view to ascertaining whether it bore any traces of being a fractured edge. The result is just what might have been anticipated. The first two of the verses which it is the fashion to brand with ignominy were found to carry on their front clear evidence that they are genuine Scripture. How then about the other extremity?

Note, that in the oracular Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] immediate transition is made from the words 'out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,' in ch. vii. 5a, to the words 'Again thereforeJesusspake unto them, saying,' in ch. viii. 12. And we are invited by all the adverse Critics alike to believe that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist.

But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch. vii. 37 and 5a, and note—(a) That two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (ver. 40-42): (b) That some were for laying violent hands on ourLord(ver. 44): (c) That the Sanhedrin, being assembled in debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Him prisoner, and disputing one against another[578](ver. 45-52). How can the Evangelist have proceeded,—'AgainthereforeJesusspake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world'? What is it supposed then that St. John meant when he wrote such words?

But on the contrary, survey the context in any ordinary copy of the New Testament, and his meaning is perfectly clear. The last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles is ended. It is the morrow and 'very early in the morning.' The Holy One has 'again presented Himself in the Temple' where on the previous night He so narrowly escaped violence at the hands of His enemies, and He teaches the people. While thus engaged,—the time, the place, His own occupation suggesting thoughts of peace and holiness and love,—a rabble rout, headed by the Scribes and Pharisees, enter on the foulest of errands; and we all remember with how little success. Such an interruption need not have occupied much time. The Woman's accusers having departed, ourSaviourresumes His discourse which had been broken off. 'Again therefore' it is said in ver. 12, with clear and frequent reference to what had preceded in ver. 2—'Jesusspake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world.' And had not that saying of His reference as well to the thick cloud of moral darkness which His words, a few moments before, had succeeded in dispelling, as to the orb of glory which already flooded the Temple Court with the effulgence of its rising,—His own visible emblem and image in the Heavens?... I protest that with the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery,'—so introduced, so dismissed,—all is lucid and coherent: without those connecting links, the story is scarcely intelligible. These twelve disputed verses, so far from 'fatally interrupting the course of St. John's Gospel, if retained in the text[579],' prove to be even necessary for thelogical coherency of the entire context in which they stand.

But even that is not all. On close and careful inspection, the mysterious texture of the narrative, no less than its 'edifying and eminently Christian' character, vindicates for thePericope de adulteraa right to its place in the Gospel. Let me endeavour to explain what seems to be its spiritual significancy: in other words, to interpret the transaction.

The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to ourSaviouron a charge of adultery. The sin prevailed to such an extent among the Jews that the Divine enactments concerning one so accused had long since fallen into practical oblivion. On the present occasion ourLordis observed to revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion. The trial by the bitter water, or water of conviction[580], was a species of ordeal, intended for the vindication of innocence, the conviction of guilt. But according to the traditional belief the test proved inefficacious, unless the husband was himself innocent of the crime whereof he accused his wife.

Let the provisions of the law, contained in Num. v. 16 to 24, be now considered. The accused Woman having been brought near, and set before theLord, the priest took 'holy water in an earthen vessel,' and put 'of the dust of the floor of the tabernacle into the water.' Then, with the bitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he charged the woman by an oath. Next, he wrote the curses in a book and blotted them out with the bitter water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell under a terrible penalty,—her body testifying visibly to her sin. If she was innocent, nothing followed.

And now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with His hypocritical assailants, as if they had been the accused parties? Into the presence of incarnateJehovahverily they had been brought: and perhaps when He stooped down and wrote upon the ground, it was a bitter sentence against the adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We have but to assume some connexion between the curse which He thus traced 'in the dust of the floor of the tabernacle' and the words which He uttered with His lips, and He may with truth be declared to have 'taken of the dust and put in on the water,' and 'caused them to drink of the bitter water which causeth the curse.' For when, by His Holy Spirit, our great High Priest in His human flesh addressed these adulterers,—what did He but present them with living water[581]'in an earthen vessel[582]'? Did He not further charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, 'If ye have not gone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from this bitter water: but if ye be defiled'—On being presented with which alternative, did they not, self-convicted, go out one by one? And what else was this but their own acquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation they shewed themselves so impatient? Surely it was 'the water of conviction' (το 'υδωρ του ελεγμου) as it is six times called, whichtheyhad been compelled to drink; whereupon, 'convicted (ελεγχομενοι) by their own conscience,' as St. John relates, they had pronounced the other's acquittal. Finally, note that by Himself declining to 'condemn' the accused woman, ourLordalso did in effect blot out those curses which He had already written against her in the dust,—when He made the floor of the sanctuary His 'book.'

Whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition—and I am not concerned to defend it in every detail,—onturning to the opposite contention, we are struck with the slender amount of actual proof with which the assailants of this passage seem to be furnished. Their evidence is mostly negative—a proceeding which is constantly observed to attend a bad cause: and they are prone to make up for the feebleness of their facts by the strength of their assertions. But my experience, as one who has given a considerable amount of attention to such subjects, tells me that the narrative before us carries on its front the impress of Divine origin. I venture to think that it vindicates for itself a high, unearthly meaning. It seems to me that it cannot be the work of a fabricator. The more I study it, the more I am impressed with its Divinity. And in what goes before I have been trying to make the reader a partaker of my own conviction.

To come now to particulars, we may readily see from its very texture that it must needs have been woven in a heavenly loom. Only too obvious is the remark that the very subject-matter of the chief transaction recorded in these twelve verses, would be sufficient in and by itself to preclude the suspicion that these twelve verses are a spurious addition to the genuine Gospel. And then we note how entirely in St. John's manner is the little explanatory clause in ver. 6,—'This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him[583].' We are struck besides by the prominence given in verses 6 and 8 to the act of writing,—allusions to which, are met with in every work of the last Evangelist[584]. It does not of course escape us how utterly beyond the reach of a Western interpolator would have been the insertion of the article so faithfullyretained to this hour before λιθον in ver. 7. On completing our survey, as to the assertions that thepericope de adultera'has no right to a place in the text of the four Gospels,'—is 'clearly a Western interpolation, though not Western of the earliest type[585],' (whateverthatmay mean), and so forth,—we can but suspect that the authors very imperfectly realize the difficulty of the problem with which they have to deal. Dr. Hort finally assures us that 'no accompanying marks would prevent' this portion of Scripture 'from fatally interrupting the course of St. John's Gospel if retained in the text': and when they relegate it accordingly to a blank page at the end of the Gospels within 'double brackets,' in order 'to shew its inferior authority';—we can but read and wonder at the want of perception, not to speak of the coolness, which they display.Quousque tandem?

But it is time to turn from such considerations as the foregoing, and to inquire for the direct testimony, which is assumed by recent Editors and Critics to be fatal to these twelve verses. Tischendorf pronounces it 'absolutely certain that this narrative was not written by St. John[586].' One, vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener) declares that 'on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, the passage must needs be abandoned[587].' Tregelles is 'fully satisfied that this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel[588].' Alford shuts it up in brackets, and like Tregelles puts it into his footnotes. Westcott and Hort, harsher than any of their predecessors, will not, as we have seen, allow it to appear even at the foot of the page. To reproduce all that has been written in disparagement of this precious portion ofGod'swritten Word would be a joyless and an unprofitable task. According to Green, 'thegenuineness of the passage cannot be maintained[589].' Hammond is of opinion that 'it would be more satisfactory to separate it from its present context, and place it by itself as an appendix to the Gospel[590].' A yet more recent critic 'sums up,' that 'the external evidence must be held fatal to the genuineness of the passage[591].' The opinions of Bishops Wordsworth, Ellicott, and Lightfoot, shall be respectfully commented upon by-and-by. In the meantime, I venture to join issue with every one of these learned persons. I contend that on all intelligent principles of sound Criticism the passage before us must be maintained to be genuine Scripture; and that without a particle of doubt I cannot even admit that 'it has been transmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those connected with any other passage of Scripture whatever[592].' I contend that it has been transmitted in precisely the same way as all the rest of Scripture, and therefore exhibits the same notes of genuineness as any other twelve verses of the same Gospel which can be named: but—like countless other places—it is found for whatever reason to have given offence in certain quarters: and in consequence has experienced very ill usage at the hands of the ancients and of the moderns also:—but especially of the latter. In other words, these twelve verses exhibit the required notes of genuinenessless conspicuouslythan any other twelve consecutive verses in the same Gospel. But that is all. The one only question to be decided is the following:—On a review of the whole of the evidence,—is it more reasonable to stigmatize these twelve verses as a spurious accretion to the Gospel? Or to admit that they must needs be accounted to be genuine?... I shall shew that they are at this hour supported by a weight of testimony which isabsolutely overwhelming. I read with satisfaction that my own convictions were shared by Mill, Matthaei, Adler, Scholz, Vercellone. I have also the learned Ceriani on my side. I should have been just as confident had I stood alone:—such is the imperative strength of the evidence.

To begin then. Tischendorf—(who may be taken as a fair sample of the assailants of this passage)—commences by stating roundly that the Pericope is omitted by [Symbol: Aleph]ABCLTXΔ, and about seventy cursives. I will say at once, that no sincere inquirer after truth could so state the evidence. It is in fact not a true statement. A and C are hereabout defective. No longer possible therefore is it to know with certainty what they either did, or did not, contain. But this is not merely all. I proceed to offer a few words concerning Cod. A.

Woide, the learned and accurate[593]editor of the Codex Alexandrinus, remarked (in 1785)—'Historia adulteraevideturin hoc codice defuisse.' But this modest inference of his, subsequent Critics have represented as an ascertained fact, Tischendorf announces it as 'certissimum.' Let me be allowed to investigate the problem for myself. Woide's calculation,—(which has passed unchallenged for nearly a hundred years, and on the strength of which it is now-a-days assumed that Cod. A must have exactly resembled Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B inomittingthepericope de adultera,)—was far too roughly made to be of any critical use[594].

Two leaves of Cod. A have been here lost: viz. from the word καταβαινων in vi. 50 to the word λεγεις in viii. 52: alacuna(as I find by counting the letters in a copy ofthe ordinary text) of as nearly as possible 8,805 letters,—allowing for contractions, and of course not reckoning St. John vii. 53 to viii. 11. Now, in order to estimate fairly how many letters the two lost leaves actually contained, I have inquired for the sums of the letters on the leaf immediately preceding, and also on the leaf immediately succeeding the hiatus; and I find them to be respectively 4,337 and 4,303: together, 8,640 letters. But this, it will be seen, is insufficient by 165 letters, or eight lines, for the assumed contents of these two missing leaves. Are we then to suppose that one leaf exhibited somewhere a blank space equivalent to eight lines? Impossible, I answer. There existed, on the contrary, a considerable redundancy of matter in at least the second of those two lost leaves. This is proved by the circumstance that the first column on the next ensuing leaf exhibits the unique phenomenon of being encumbered, at its summit, by two very long lines (containing together fifty-eight letters), for which evidently no room could be found on the page which immediately preceded. But why should there have been any redundancy of matter at all? Something extraordinary must have produced it. What if thePericope de adultera, without being actually inserted in full, was recognized by Cod. A? What if the scribe had proceeded as far as the fourth word of St. John viii. 3, and then had suddenly checked himself? We cannot tell what appearance St. John vii. 53-viii. 11 presented in Codex A, simply because the entire leaf which should have contained it is lost. Enough however has been said already to prove that it is incorrect and unfair to throw [Symbol: Aleph]AB into one and the same category,—with a 'certissimum,'—as Tischendorf does.

As for L and Δ, they exhibit a vacant space after St. John vii. 52,—which testifies to the consciousness of the copyists that they were leaving out something. These are therefore witnessesfor,—not witnessesagainst,—thepassage under discussion.—X being a Commentary on the Gospel as it was read in Church, of course leaves the passage out.—The only uncial MSS. therefore whichsimplyleave out the pericope, are the three following—[Symbol: Aleph]BT: and the degree of attention to which such an amount of evidence is entitled, has been already proved to be wondrous small. We cannot forget moreover that the two former of these copies enjoy the unenviable distinction of standing alone on a memorable occasion:—theyaloneexhibit St. Mark's Gospel mutilated in respect of its twelve concluding verses.

But I shall be reminded that about seventy MSS. of later date are without thepericope de adultera: that the first Greek Father who quotes the pericope is Euthymius in the twelfth century: that Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Nonnus, Cosmas, Theophylact, knew nothing of it: and that it is not contained in the Syriac, the Gothic, or the Egyptian versions. Concerning every one of which statements I remark over again that no sincere lover of Truth, supposing him to understand the matter about which he is disputing, could so exhibit the evidence for this particular problem. First, because so to state it is to misrepresent the entire case. Next, because some of the articles of indictment are only half true:—in fact areuntrue. But chiefly, because in the foregoing enumeration certain considerations are actually suppressed which, had they been fairly stated, would have been found to reverse the issue. Let me now be permitted to conduct this inquiry in my own way.

The first thing to be done is to enable the reader clearly to understand what the problem before him actually is. Twelve verses then, which, as a matter of fact, are found dovetailed into a certain context of St. John's Gospel, the Critics insist must now be dislodged. But do the Critics in question prove that they must? For unless they do, there is no help for it but thepericope de adulteramust beleft where it is. I proceed to shew first, that it is impossible, on any rational principle to dislodge these twelve verses from their actual context.—Next, I shall point out that the facts adduced in evidence and relied on by the assailants of the passage, do not by any means prove the point they are intended to prove; but admit of a sufficient and satisfactory explanation.—Thirdly, it shall be shewn that the said explanation carries with it, and implies, a weight of testimony in support of the twelve verses in dispute, which is absolutely overwhelming.—Lastly, the positive evidence in favour of these twelve verses shall be proved to outweigh largely the negative evidence, which is relied upon by those who contend for their removal. To some people I may seem to express myself with too much confidence. Let it then be said once for all, that my confidence is inspired by the strength of the arguments which are now to be unfolded. When the Author of Holy Scripture supplies such proofs of His intentions, I cannot do otherwise than rest implicit confidence in them.

Now I begin by establishing as my first proposition that,

(1)These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they now occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the Gospels reaches.

And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently established by reference to the ancient Latin version of St. John's Gospel. We are thus carried back to the second century of our era: beyond which, testimony does not reach. The pericope is observed to standin situin Codd. b c e ff2g h j. Jerome (A.D.385), after a careful survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it in the Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by himself[595]in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotesit at least nine times[596]; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as often[597]. It is quoted besides by Pacian[598], in the north of Spain (370),—by Faustus[599]the African (400),—by Rufinus[600]at Aquileia (400),—by Chrysologus[601]at Ravenna (433),—by Sedulius[602]a Scot (434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises[603]written at the same period, largely quote this portion of the narrative. It is referred to by Victorius or Victorinus (457),—by Vigilius of Tapsus[604](484) in North Africa,—by Gelasius[605], bp. of Rome (492),—by Cassiodorus[606]in Southern Italy,—by Gregory the Great[607], and by other Fathers of the Western Church.

To this it is idle to object that the authors cited all wrote in Latin. For the purpose in hand their evidence is every bit as conclusive as if they had written in Greek,—from which language no one doubts that they derivedtheir knowledge, through a translation. But in fact we are not left to Latin authorities. [Out of thirty-eight copies of the Bohairic version thepericope de adulterais read in fifteen, but in three forms which will be printed in the Oxford edition. In the remaining twenty-three, it is left out.] How is it intelligible that this passage is thus found in nearly half the copies—except on the hypothesis that they formed an integral part of the Memphitic version? They might have been easily omitted: but how could they have been inserted?

Once more. The Ethiopic version (fifth century),—the Palestinian Syriac (which is referred to the fifth century),—the Georgian (probably fifth or sixth century),—to say nothing of the Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions, which are of later date,—all contain the portion of narrative in dispute. The Armenian version also (fourth-fifth century) originally contained it; though it survives at present in only a few copies. Add that it is found in Cod. D, and it will be seen that in all parts of ancient Christendom this portion of Scripture was familiarly known in early times.

But even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with Greek MSS. (and who handled none of later date than B and [Symbol: Aleph]), expressly relates (380) that thepericope de adultera'is found in many copies both Greek and Latin[608].' He calls attention to the fact that what is rendered 'sine peccato' is αναμαρτητος in the Greek: and lets fall an exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with copies which exhibited (in ver. 8) εγραφαν ενος εκαστου αυτων τας αμαρτιας,—a reading which survives to this day in one uncial (U) and at least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth Gospel[609]. Whence is it—let me ask in passing—that somany Critics fail to see thatpositivetestimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adversenegativetestimony of [Symbol: Aleph]BT,—aye, and of AC to boot if they were producible on this point? How comes it to pass that the two Codexes, [Symbol: Aleph] and B, have obtained such a mastery—rather exercise such a tyranny—over the imagination of many Critics as quite to overpower their practical judgement? We have at all events established our first proposition: viz. that from the earliest period to which testimony reaches, the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery' occupied its present place in St. John's Gospel. The Critics eagerly remind us that in four cursive copies (13, 69, 124, 346), the verses in question are found tacked on to the end of St. Luke xxi. But have they then forgotten that 'these four Codexes are derived from a common archetype,' and therefore represent one and the same ancient and, I may add, corrupt copy? The same Critics are reminded that in the same four Codexes [commonly called the Ferrar Group] 'the agony and bloody sweat' (St. Luke xxii. 43, 44) is found thrust into St. Matthew's Gospel between ch. xxvi. 39 and 40. Such licentiousness on the part of a solitary exemplar of the Gospels no more affects the proper place of these or of those verses than the superfluous digits of a certain man of Gath avail to disturb the induction that to either hand of a human being appertain but five fingers, and to either foot but five toes.

It must be admitted then that as far back as testimony reaches the passage under discussion stood where it now stands in St. John's Gospel. And this is my first position. But indeed, to be candid, hardly any one has seriously called that fact in question. No, nor do any (except Dr. Hort[610]) doubt that the passage is also of the remotest antiquity. Adverse Critics do but insist that however ancient, it must needs be of spurious origin: or else thatit is an afterthought of the Evangelist:—concerning both which imaginations we shall have a few words to offer by-and-by.

It clearly follows,—indeed it may be said with truth that it only remains,—to inquire what may have led to its so frequent exclusion from the sacred Text? For really the difficulty has already resolved itself into that.

And on this head, it is idle to affect perplexity. In the earliest age of all,—the age which was familiar with the universal decay of heathen virtue, but which had not yet witnessed the power of the Gospel to fashion society afresh, and to build up domestic life on a new and more enduring basis;—at a time when the greatest laxity of morals prevailed, and the enemies of the Gospel were known to be on the look out for grounds of cavil against Christianity and its Author;—what wonder if some were found to remove thepericope de adulterafrom their copies, lest it should be pleaded in extenuation of breaches of the seventh commandment? The very subject-matter, I say, of St. John viii. 3-11 would sufficiently account for the occasional omission of those nine verses. Moral considerations abundantly explain what is found to have here and there happened. But in fact this is not a mere conjecture of my own. It is the reason assigned by Augustine for the erasure of these twelve verses from many copies of the Gospel[611]. Ambrose, a quarter of a century earlier, had clearly intimated that danger was popularly apprehendedfrom this quarter[612]: while Nicon, five centuries later, states plainly that the mischievous tendency of the narrative was the cause why it had been expunged from the Armenian version[613]. Accordingly, just a few Greek copies are still to be found mutilated in respect of those nine verses only. But in fact the indications are not a few that all the twelve verses under discussion did not by any means labour under the same degree of disrepute. The first three (as I shewed at the outset) clearly belong to a different category from the last nine,—a circumstance which has been too much overlooked.

Back to Index Next