Bloomfield (1826!): a rare and masterful defence of John 8:1-11

Among the MSS which omit the passage, ought not simply to be reckoned those in which it is marked with an obelus [obelisk], which is only at most an indication of doubt (arising from variation in copies,) not of rejection.

Nor are those MSS which have it at the end of the Gospel to be numbered with those that wholly omit it; since the scribes do not deny that it belongs to the end of the seventh chapter, if it be genuine - a point on which they determine nothing.

Those MSS too which insert the story in another place (as for instance, at John 7:36) are to be referred to those who did find it in their Archetype, though at the end of the Gospel, and inserted it, though at the wrong place.

On this same principle, we may account for the insertions which are made at a wrong place, or repetitions of it, as in Codex Leicest..
As to those scribes who have left here an open space (whether large enough to contain it or not,) as in L, they thereby show that they know of it, and found it in some MSS, though they have rejected it.

Click to expand...

The early Greek Scholiasts also make mention of it , as existing in ancient copies. (See Wetstein). Now, with what probability can it be shown that all the persons here mentioned used only such MSS, as had the text of the Evangelist corrupted with later additions? Of the Fathers who are said to omit the passage, those only can be taken into account who had in their writings any occasion or need to cite or explain it; for these alone can be thought to have been ignorant of it, or rejected it as spurious.

Therefore, Tertullian, Cyprian, Juvencus, Basil are not to be reckoned.
As to the Commentary of Origen on St John, it has come down to us in a very mutilated state; and in his Commentary is wanting not only what may have been written on this passage, buton the whole of the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters, as also chapter 8, as far as the 19th verse.

Nor does it follow from the silence of Chrysostom, that the story was not contained in the Antiochiancopies, for perhaps the pious orator did not think it advisable to expound the story to a people (as we find from his homilies,) prone to adultery. Besides, Chrysostom has also passed over many other parts of the Gospel of St. John.

Finally, Nonnus, in his metrical paraphrase, does indeed omit the passage; but he also omits other passages of the sacred text, whose authenticity is indubitable.

Click to expand...

Answer: But (as Staudlin well observes,) reasons may easily be given why there should have been found some who threw out the story; but not one probable one why any should have introduced it.

They found there, it seems, many difficulties, to them almost inextricable, and fancied they saw something hardly reconcilable with the wisdom of Jesus. They, it seems, especially stumbled at this circumstance, namely that Jesus did not pass a severe condemnation on the adultress, or, at least, feared lest any, concluding from thence an impunity to the crime, should have been encouraged in its commission.

They therefore directed it not to be read to the congregations. Hence it would be omitted in the Lectionaria (Lectionaries), and finally in the MSS of the Gospel.

On the same principle the Fathers chose to pass it over in their homilies, which had led to a false suspicion that they had it not in their copies.

Click to expand...