The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 472

Moreover, the text of D bore difliirs from that group i~, with the exception of T, represen- of the later unciels in which it occurs, o.e well tative of the Syrian Recension. Some of the as from the body or cursives which contain best manuscripts of the Vulgato contain it, it. Liicke powerfully 11rgnes,from ihe silence and the .2Ethiopio and Memphitic Versions. of Chrysost.om and Origen, that they were Griesbach enumerates a hundred oursives- in positive ignor1mce of the existenoe of the Alford says three hundred-and especially in pe.ssage. The defenders of its authenticity Latin manuscripts referred to by Ambrose, allege that Origen's commentary and homi- Augustine, and Jerome. lies o.re lacking or mutilated over the fifth, 2. The supposed presence of it in the sixth, e.nd Beventh chapters. While this is 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' turns true, Origen (' Tom.,' xix.) points out the on tho sw.tement preserved by Eusebius in connection between eh. vii. 40 and viii. 12 his account of Papie.s (of which we have without me.king the faintest reference to other reasons for doubting the accuracy), this perieope. " No eaf.en2 as yet examined 'Hist. Eccl.,' iii. 40, '' He exhibits also contain notes on e.ny of these verses" (West- another history concerning e. woman (Bu1- cott and Hort). /3>o.718,l,n1s) calumniously accused before the 6. The ne.tnre of the text differs from the.t Lord of many sins, which is contained in with which it is supposed to be imbedded, the Gospel according to the Hebrews." On e.s, for instance, in the use of the pe.rticle ~~ the credit of this statement, that apocryphal in place of oli, (John's favourite pe.rticle), Gospel has been supposed to contain the e.nd of other words which a.re pecnlie.r to famons passage. The idea is thrown out itself, and certain expressions, such as that John or his earliest editors may have "Mount of Olives," "se.t and te.ught," etc., sought to find e. place for it, and imagined which are current in Luke e.nd elsewhere that the event preceded the solemn assertion (but see further for the value of this evi- of eh. viii. 15, "Ye judge after the flesh; dence). I judge no one." This ingenious supposi- 7. The Constant. lection for Whit Sunday tion tells both ways. If the passage is an consists of eh. vii. 37-52, followed imme- importation from the • Gospel according to diately by eh. viii. 12. Such an omission from the Hebrews,' Eusebius becomes e. witness John's Gospel is only noticeable elsewhere that, in his day, and by him, it was not where special reason can be assigned for it. regarded as an integral portion of John'• 8. With the exception of the '.Apostolic Gospel. The very early existence of the Constitutions,' the <keek writers e.nd com- narrative is, however, o.vouched, and the pos- mentators a.re ignorant of it, and there is no sible method suggested by which either proof of its existence in e.ny extant manu- John or the Ephesian presbyters adopted script earlier than the sixth century. it. But there is no proof that this narrative The 61llll of this is the.t the most ancient is identical with e. story no details of which known authorities are, from one ea.use or are preserved. The slanderoUB or secret other (whether necessary, accidental, or pru- e.ccnsation of a woman is not parallel .with dential), silent concerning the passage; that the autoptio, uncontradicted assertion of eh. mutilations of Scripture ce.nnot be common viii. 4, that she was "taken in the very offences, eTen though e. strong ascetic spirit a.et." Nor is the accusation of" many sins" might be tempted to refuse a public reading identical with the charge of one revolting of this paragraph, e.nd to a.beta.in from public crime. It is significant that Ruffinus, in his comment on so difficult a passage. version of Eusebius, substitutes "a woman, The ~ for the paragraph is: 1. First an adulteress," for "a woman accused of and foremost, the Codex D and the later un- many sins." This may have i>een dne to cials (E), (F), G, H, K, M, r, (S), T, U, A his e.cquaintance with Jerome's tro.nslation (hut in E, F, and S great doubts are ex- of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews.' i pressed ; F he.s a space t.o vc,r. 10 ; r euds at Moreover, on the supposition of identity,, ver. 3). D probably belongs to the filth or the story would more probably have been, lixtb century, K to the eighth or ninth, anfl found in the cognate Gospel of Matthew • the remaining uncie.ls belong to the ten1h, than in the numero1111 manuscripts of the e~venth, or twelfth oentur1, The wholfi Fourth Goepel, err, vm. 1-50.J THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN'. 346