Tholuck (1828) on Jn 8:1-11 - the first poison-apple
Tholuck was one of the first rejectors of these verses. He was quickly translated into English (1833) and passed around the universities and colleges of England, with disasterous results to the faith.
Here I give the first part of Tholuck's opening volley against John 8:1-11:
We here find a section from v. 53 to 8: 12 whose genuineness seems doubtful. 1
External Evidence
Manuscripts
With respect to the Codd., the passage is not found in A B C ; where, however, it is to be remarked, that from John 6:50 to 8:12 the Cod. A is defective, which is also the case with Cod. C from 7:3 to 8:34. 2
On the contrary this section is found in the superior Cod. D. 3 But its authority in the present investigation is greatly lessened from the circumstance of its containing apocryphal additions in other places, as in Matt. 28:28, Luke 6:5.
In many manuscripts the passage is marked with an obelisk or an asterisk as a mark of rejection or of suspicion 4 ; others place it at the end of the Gospel, and still others, after Luke chapt. 21. 5
To this result of the examination in regard to existing manuscripts, may be added an extract from Euthymius on the 8th chapter ;
χρη δε γινωσκειν, οτι τα εντευθεν 7.53 αχρι του 8.12. παρα τοις ακριβεσιν αντιγραφεις η ουχ ευρηται η ωβελισται. διο φαινονται παρεγγραπτα και προσθηκη
'It is necessary to know that all which is found from 7.53 to 8.12 is either left out of the most accurate manuscripts, or else it is marked with an obelisk. Wherefore those verses would seem to be surreptitious or apocryphal glosses.' 6
But on the other hand Jerome assures us, (c. Pel. 2, 17), that this section existed 'in multis et graecis et lat. Codd., "...in many Greek and Latin MSS."; 7
- and some of the scholia maintain that it was found in the αρχαιοις αντιγραφοις the "most ancient transcripts" (copies). 8 Here it must be added, however, that in this very division [passage] we find innumerable variations, which is usually the case with those passages that were interpolated by a later hand. 9
Patristic Evidence
As to the Fathers, their authority is decidedly unfavourable to the genuineness of this section, for it is wanting in Origen, Cyrill, Chrysostom, Nonnus, Theophylact, Apollinaris, Basil, Theodorus Mopsuestia. 10 These and other Fathers of the Church never once mention it, although there was good reason why they should have quoted it in their controversies about the strict exercise of the discipline of penance, in order to commend thereby the adoption of more mild principles. 11
The first traces of this section are found in the Apostolic Constitutions, (which belong to the end of the third century,) and in Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome. 12 And on the other hand these writers declare that it was found in many of the Manuscripts. (De adulterinia Conjugiis II. 7, "On Adulterous Marriages"), Augustine offers the conjecture (credo), 13 that this narrative may have been omitted lest it might give occasion to regard a violation of the marriage duties and covenant as a matter of little consequence. Ambrose had said the same before him. 14
So also in the 13th century Nicon contended that this narrative had been arbitrarily omitted by the Armenian Church lest it might be prejudicial to the interests of morality.
In the first place, however, it is to be observed that the declaration of Augustine is nothing more than a conjecture ; and secondly, that the passage in Nicon amounts to nothing else than a polemical accusation urged in the warmth of controversy. 15
This apprehension then did not exist until the time of Augustine, in the fourth century, and the narrative had then already been omitted from many Codd.; nor was it inserted until this complaint became loud, when it was retained on that account. 16
Evidence of the Versions
Finally, in respect of the translations it is to be observed, that this section is wanting in the oldest Mss. of the Syriac version, in the Coptic, in the Armenian, (where it is placed at the end of the Gospel,) and in the Gothic version. 17
Plausible Textual History Needed
Whoever undertakes to establish the genuineness of the narrative must now be able to give satisfying reasons why the oldest Mss. and witnesses do not recognize it, and why there is such a great discrepancy in the readings of the narration itself and in its location. 18
The reason which Augustine assigns is by no means satisfactory, since we see what little impression it made upon subsequent times, 19 and since that reason did not exist in the Greek Church, which is, nevertheless, very unfavourable to the genuineness of the passage. 20
And even with Augustine himself that reason was grounded upon a mere conjecture. Under these circumstances we must concede that external grounds render the genuineness of the narrative very suspicious. 21
1.Tholuck here uses 'genuineness' in the natural sense that ordinary Christian readers would assume: 'Genuine' means John the Evangelist (author of the Gospel) also wrote this passage. 'Not Genuine' would mean both foreign authorship, and that it was a later insertion into the Gospel from an outside source.
However, "genuine", "authentic", and "Johannine" in later technical literature have come to mean quite different things. For instance, 'authentic' has since been regularly applied to the passage to mean "an authentic tradition about Jesus" regardless of its original source (e.g. 'authentic story' but not by John). 'Johannine' , contrary to reader expectations, does not mean "written by John", but rather "a production of the Johannine community", which is supposed to have existed as a separate isolated pocket of Christians cut off from mainstream Christians (see for instance this usage of 'Johannine' in Raymond Brown etc.).
2. What needs to be noted regarding Codices A and C is this: On the one hand, it is true that they both seem not to have enough space to have originally included the passage, which can be conceded, the fact that the pages are missing is problematic on two counts: (1) This supports the possibility of a violent battle over the verses early on the history of transmission, which is not adequately accounted for. The knowledge of the existance of the passage by scribes and later antagonists can hardly be denied, which precludes any "accidental" processes of inclusion or omission. Every single case of omission or inclusion must have been a conscious and deliberate act, whether voluntarily, or involuntarily (as in the case of Family 13).
Scribes knowingly omitted these verses, and when they placed them at the end of John, this was either a vote in favour of authenticity, or an expression of doubt or non-commital. When the verses were inserted into Luke late in the game, this was a rebellious act, an attempt to defy orders and preserve the verses, where they would not be discovered until later. (2) The destruction of the missing pages means we can never know if there were also obelisks, asterisks, umlauts, or other diacritical markings at 7:52/8:12, a very common practice, or even a marginal note regarding MSS which contained the verses (also not improbable). This makes these MSS ambiguous and unreliable as witnesses for a simple omission of the passage.
3. It is notable that in Tholuck's time (and including Tholuck), Codex D (Codex Cantabrigensis (Bezae)) was considered as old as either Vaticanus ('B') or Sinaiticus ('Aleph').
Dating of Bezae was based on materials and handwriting (paleography) and other factors, such as marginal markings and notes. Later critics have moved the date to the late 4th century or early 5th century, but this seems to have been partly based on a certain distrust of this MS and a favouring of Aleph and B.
None of the MSS can be dated more accurately than within a fuzzy 50-100 year window, although there is additional circumstantial evidence regarding Aleph and B, which allows the date to be narrowed to the early 300's (315-325) if that evidence is accepted.
Yet there is no hard evidence to preclude Bezae being as old as any other uncial. Secondly, the text of Bezae, perhaps more to the point, is far older than the manuscript itself. It reflects a form of the Western/Old Latin text which must by the nature of the case pre-date Jerome'sLatin Vulgate (c. 384 A.D.). The text of Bezae therefore may be safely estimated to be at least mid-4th century or earlier.
4. This lumping together of all anonymous and unexplained "critical marks" as indicating 'rejection or suspicion' is unwarranted by the evidence. In many manuscripts, markings are simply indicators of "Lesson" (Lection) beginnings and endings, dividing up the text for public reading during worship services.
Very few manuscripts have actual marginal notes that remark on the omission or inclusion of the text, and of these, many suggest the opposite, that the "most ancient copies" INCLUDE the verses.
For a good discussion of the real meaning of marginal markings re: John 8:1-11, read our article here:
5.Tholuck brings up the fact that Family 1 a small group of late MSS places the passage at the end of John, in fact between the last and second-last verse (!). These copyists meant to include the passage in the copy they were amending, but had to settle for placement here. Either the original copy had omitted the passage, or else the copy they were proofreading had used an exemplar that did so.
The other group, Family 13 (the Farrar Group), all seem to have been copied from a common ancestor that had hid the verses in Luke. The obvious meaning of this anomaly of a handful of late MSS is that a single scribe disobeyed his orders to omit the verses, and inserted them in Luke to hide them. This manuscript was copied a few times, before better copies could be obtained. These texts cannot be traced back earlier than the 9th or 10th century.
Neither group of MSS has any significance for the EARLY battles over the verses, nor do they have any bearing on the authenticity or original position of the passage in John.
---------------------
peace,
Nazaroo
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 7th January 2009 at 01:50 PM.
6. This practice by Tholuck and his English translator, of providing an English translation for quotes like this, is a welcome relief and assistance to readers without mastery of foreign languages. The fact that Tholuck & co. felt compelled to do so, shows that the contrary practice of other critics who leave such difficult passages untranslated has no excuse.
It was not 'the practice of the time', but rather lack of manners, elitism, and deliberate obscurantism to prevent challenge to opinion, that led scholars of lesser integrity to boorishly exclude ordinary readers.
Gratefully, Tholuck is not such a jerk, and we may benefit from his helpful translation here (originally in German).
The reader may notice verse numbers, a serious anachronism since they did not exist in Euthymius' time! But the real Greek (not the paraphrase here) is explicit enough, quoting the starting phrase of verse 12: "Then again Jesus said to them..." (παλιν ουν αυτοις ο Ιησους...) Tholuck is not being fraudulent here, just sloppy.
7. It would have helped the reader, (but not Tholuck's case), to mention the date, significance, and importance of Jerome's quotation. Jerome wrote here circa 400 A.D., but he is referring to research he actually did years before he released his Latin NT (pre 384 A.D.). Also, Jerome discusses in detail his methods, which included avoiding all recent manuscripts and 'editions' (recensions), such as those of Lucian etc.. Jerome tells us in the preface to the Gospels, that he went back to the earliest manuscripts he could find in his day, bypassing editing of those who worked a hundred years earlier.
Jerome's explanation indicates that the MSS he must have used were at least 100 years earlier than Codex B and even Sinaiticus. Judging from the way Jerome handled so-called spurious additions like Susanna, deleting them or relegating them to the end of books, it is hard to believe that Jerome would have preferred to include John 7:53-8:11, had he found any convincing evidence for its rejection.
We must conclude then, based on Jerome's own hostility to 'additions', and his reliance only upon the most ancient and least edited copies he could find, that the Pericope de Adultera must have really been in the majority ('the many') of ancient MSS ('both Greek and Latin') available to Jerome.
8. This is important evidence that needs to be investigated in much more detail. In fact, there are numerous notes of this nature in MSS that include the verses, and mark them with an asterisk/obelisk, which clearly means the markings don't mean "doubt" or "rejection" at all in many cases, but rather are used to draw the reader's attention to the passage and inform them that it is authentic, and so INCLUDED in the copy. These notes are themselves copied from older MSS in many cases, and are not 'added later', but represent the testimony of previous copyists, preserved by peers and later generations.
9. Here Tholuck seems to be talking through his hat. Where are the examples? What passages (especially of this length) can be shown to have been interpolated by a later hand, and in those cases, where is the evidence of "innumerable variations"?
In fact, the case of the Pericope de Adultera is actually unique. There are no other examples of 'interpolation', and no examples of wild variation in the text of same.
Also of importance, the reason that many 'variants' have been noted in this passage, is that it has drawn the attention and study of textual critics, whereas other passages have simply not been collated to the same extent. Finally, the same methods of counting have not been applied either.
If the text for instance of Codex Bezae, and the text of the Lectionaries were also culled for textual variants and added to the margin of any other passage, we would probably find the same (large) number of alternate readings.
This kind of inconsistent and fuzzy characterization of the passage is unscientific and unreliable. It is not helped by fanciful guesswork and a profound lack of parallel examples.
10. This grouping of early fathers/writers as witnesses 'against the verses' by their silence is unsafe. Origen's commentary is missing for this section, but even if he, Cyrill, and Chrysostom skipped the section in their public commentaries meant for church use, this has little significance, since the passage was skipped during Lent in church reading. The commentaries could not comment on passages that were not actually read to the congregations.
Recent evidence suggests that Chrysostom also cannot be counted, since he apparently commented on the passage elsewhere:
Our knowledge of Apollinaris and Theordorus of Mops. only comes from an anonymous marginal note in one manuscript of the 12th century. Otherwise we don't know enough of their works to make a decision on their knowledge or opinion of the passage. Theophylact can hardly have not known of the passage, since in his time it would have been contained in at least four out of five copies of the Gospels.
This only leaves Nonnus the poet, who also excluded other significant parts of John. Basil's supposed silence can be accounted for in the same way as the other popular commentators.
The case of the 'silent fathers' seems to vanish into smoke.
11. The argument that "these and other fathers" had good reason to mention the verses simply doesn't apply equally to all those fathers mentioned by Tholuck.
A case has been made that a few fathers should have mentioned the passage, but for instance, Tertullian provides his own counter-evidence in recording his own prejudice against adultery and misogyny toward women in general, as well as a faulty soteriology:
12. Again the dates for these fathers would be useful in evaluating the evidence. Augustine write circa 400 A.D., although their testimony applies to the preceding 30 years at least, while Ambrose (c. 360-390 A.D.) represents the previous generation, being the predecessor of Augustine. His testimony is even more weighty.
13.Tholuck dismisses Augustine's testimony as a "conjecture", but this is not really an accurate interpretation of Augustine. Augustine spent years debating with the Montanists on these issues, and knew their cult well. His 'conjectures' are really comments on the motives of his opponents. He successfully converted many back to the catholic teachings, and must have known them well enough.
Secondly, its not Augustine's opinion of the motives of those who deleted the verses that is really important, but rather his testimony concerning the state of the manuscripts in his own time that counts. He was certainly honest about the condition of the transmission stream as he found it.
Augustine was also reliable concerning the opinion of his fellow bishops, such as Ambrose and Jerome and Pacian.
Finally, we should not expect Augustine's observations about the people in his own day, to exhaustively describe the entire history of the passage and its transmission. There will naturally have been many people and parties involved in the battle over this passage, each with their own motives and views.
Augustine's observations remain a useful contribution to the picture, and help us to reconstruct what may have happened. Even if his opinions regarding the motives of key parties are dismissed, his statements regarding the state of the MS evidence cannot be ignored.
14. Here at least Tholuck acknowledges that Ambrose's testimony is even more ancient than Augustine's. Ambrose gives the position of the previous generation.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 7th January 2009 at 01:49 PM.
15. We see from this rather vitriolic and excited remark that Tholuck, and not Hort, is the originator of this method of minimizing and dismissing the testimony of Augustine and Nicon. Hort goes further, elaborating on Nicon as 'unknown' and unreliable etc., but it all originally came from the pen of Tholuck.
16. Now Tholuck tries to account for the widespread, protest-free, universal acceptance of the passage as an authentic part of John in succeeding ages, as due to the complaints of Augustine and his supporters.
But the claim is incredible. On the contrary, in hundreds of monasteries and scriptoriums across the Empire, scribes and ministers would know for themselves whether the verses were or were not in 'ancient copies'.
Nor would Augustine's 'conjectures' be of much importance in comparison to what clergy and copyists would know from unbroken tradition and current practices in their own locality. They would have access (far more than we have) to hundreds of documents and records of homilies, apologies and sermons extending back hundreds of years.
Tholuck fails to show how (or document where and when) a mild statement by Augustine (characterized as a conjecture by Tholuck) suddenly turned into a compulsion or sanction in the (5th or 6th century) in which hundreds of parties (some not even able to read Latin, and others fiercely indepenant) all unanimously (and secretly? without a trace?) adopted the Pericope de Adultera.
And this flies in the face of the textual evidence, which shows active and conscious competition between manuscripts with and without the verses. How were all those independant voices silenced? How was all the evidence of such a late conspiracy completely erased?
17. The first thing to note is that all the 'versions' appear to be based upon Lectionary-style documents, which were pre-edited for church services and public reading. These translations were made, not with concern for the most accurate continuous text, but rather concern for the most useful and flexible tools for worship and evangelization.
The second thing with the versions to note is that the textual evidence, and the history of editing of all the versions is very complex and remains obscure because of a lack of information and evidence. Even the dates of such translations are uncertain.
The third thing to note with the versions, is that when the central church authorities made an effort to standardize the texts (as for instance was the case with Theodoret, who had hundreds of copies of the Diatessaron destroyed), they met no practical resistance whatever. Those in possession of the Old versions freely acknowledged the originality of the Greek and the priiority of the Greek and Latin Vulgate texts, and gratefully accepted new versions and assistance in translating more accurate copies of the NT. This could not have happened if they thought they had the original text already.
For more accurate details on the textual evidence for the Versions, see Sir Frederic Kenyon, etc.
18. Tholuck throws down three 'challenges' to defenders of the genuineness of the Pericope de Adultera:
(1) Account for the omissions of the older MSS.
(2) Explain the variant readings in the passage.
(3) Account for its misplacement in a handful of late MSS.
These are not serious obstacles.
If it is acknowledged that the Gospel landed in the first place on 'rocky soil', among hostile Jews, mocking Greeks, and skeptical Romans, all with their own traditions of Patriarchical Control, then Augustine's 'conjecture' regarding attitudes toward the verses is entirely plausible.
When we add the known ferocity of the Jews toward Christian texts which painted them in disparaging light before the world (and note the implied villainy of the Jewish religious authorities in this passage), we can see the angry reaction this story would generate among Jews and even Jewish (Judaising) 'Christians'.
Coupling all that with the known tendency of the early organized church to treat Adultery as a heinous sin equal to murder, and its notorious difficulty with 'forgiveness' and 'mercy', (even though centralized tenets of Jesus' original teaching), we can understand how the passage could have been deleted for a variety of reasons by the early Christian copyists, including:
(a) To avoid giving grounds for further persecution by Jewish spies and Roman investigators.
(b) To produce suitable 'safe' copies of the gospels that could be used in underground churches with non-Christians present.
(c) To avoid giving opponents and lax Christians grounds for committing adultery and other sexual sins.
(d) Because they were honestly against the example set in this passage, and believed it to be spurious or malicious, for whatever reasons, and based on whatever real or imagined 'evidences'.
(e) Confusion among copyists and others who discovered some copies without the passage as a result of previous reasons, and so perpetuated and re-introduced the omission in various locations, making it difficult to put it back.
Explaining the variant readings within the passage is actually a problem for those constructing the consequent history of transmission of the verses, and not directly relevant to the authenticity and origin of the passage at all.
The handful of late MSS which place asterisks on, misplace the passage or put it at the end of John, or insert it into Luke or some other mistaken location are self-explanatory, and merely reflect the late confusion and transmission history of the verses alongside the Lectionary tradition.
19. If by 'little impression upon subsequent times', Tholuck means Augustine made little impression, he destroys his own argument meant to explain how they were later adopted. If he means the passage had little impact in subsequent times, due to a new laxity in sexual morality, there may be some truth to that, but it still seems potentially anachronistic in a situation where more than two cultures and traditions of sexual mores were in collision, i.e., the Roman Empire.
But this cannot in any way explain how there was some kind of laxity in the careful copying and preservation of the NT text!
Whether the story or Augustine had small, large, or varying impact on people's opinions of adultery, how could that possibly translate into hundreds of independant churches and scriptoriums suddenly engaging in a lapse regarding the careful copying of their Biblical texts?
Just when was this new era in which a passage allegedly and virtually non-existant in the MS stream could just be inserted, with everybody going along for the ride, because it was suddenly 'o.k.' to add big chunks of stuff to the Gospel of John? Early commentators certainly complained of occasional lapses of copyists, but when did this particular thing happen on a massive scale between the 5th and 9th centuries?
20. Here Tholuck assumes that somehow the two halves of the church, the Latin and Greek were somehow isolated and incommunicato. But its preposterous. Jerome in making his Latin Vulgate NT actually went to Constantinople in the East to get his Greek manuscripts, from the Eastern Greek Church authorities, and he included the passage.
All the Greek bishops etc. attended all the major councils and synods, with Latins and Greeks equally represented. Just when was there a window in which the Greek church could have been so out of touch with the Latin, that they were unaware of the inclusion of John 7:53-8:11 in every Latin copy of John?
The whole idea of separation, isolation and independance of the two halves of the early European church is not only implausible, but preposterous, and was an invention of German 19th century critics meant to explain the equally implausible "silence" of the Greek fathers, as though the testimony of the Latin fathers didn't exist except in their own minds.
That the Greeks were reluctant to give sermons on John 7:53-8:11 is understandable. That even the Latins were barely competant to comment on them is not surprising. But that either of these circumstances supports the fantasy of German critics, or has anything to do with the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera, is simply nonsense.
21. We find the contrary: Under these circumstances (the quiet acceptance of the authenticity of the passage by the church), we must concede on external grounds that the genuineness of the passage is virtually certain, and that this was recognized universally from the 4th to the 9th centuries, allowing a few understandable uninformed exceptions.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 7th January 2009 at 01:54 PM.
Linear Mode
