Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Revision history

Nick: /* External links */

2022-10-24T10:07:22Z

External links

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:07, 24 October 2022
Line 142:		Line 142:

	==External links==		==External links==
	* [~~http~~://www.kjvtoday.~~com~~/home/should-the-~~longer~~-~~ending~~-of-~~mark~~-~~mark~~-~~169~~-20-be-in-the-~~bible~~ Should the ~~Longer Ending~~ of ~~Mark (Mark 16~~:9-~~20)~~ be in the Bible?] by [[KJV Today]]		* [https://www.kjvtoday.net/home/should-the-story-of-the-adulteress-at-john-753-811-be-in-the-biblee Should the story of the adulteress at John 7:53-8:11 be in the Bible?] by [[KJV Today]]

	* [http://fpgm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/pericope.pdf A Defense of the Pericope De Adultera - The Genuineness of St. John 7:53-8:11 and its applicability to the Christian life] by Jesse M. Boyd		* [http://fpgm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/pericope.pdf A Defense of the Pericope De Adultera - The Genuineness of St. John 7:53-8:11 and its applicability to the Christian life] by Jesse M. Boyd

	* [http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/?passage=John+7%3A53-8%3A11 Pericope Adulterae in Manuscript Comparator] — allows two or more New Testament manuscript editions' readings of the passage to be compared in side-by-side and unified views (similar to [[diff]] output)		* [http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/?passage=John+7%3A53-8%3A11 Pericope Adulterae in Manuscript Comparator] — allows two or more New Testament manuscript editions' readings of the passage to be compared in side-by-side and unified views (similar to [[diff]] output)

	*[http://adultera.awardspace.com/ The Pericope de Adultera Homepage] Links to a wide range of scholarly published material about all aspects of this text, dozens of new articles here.		*[http://adultera.awardspace.com/ The Pericope de Adultera Homepage] Links to a wide range of scholarly published material about all aspects of this text, dozens of new articles here.

	*[http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf Jesus and the Adultress], a detailed study by Wieland Willker.		*[http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf Jesus and the Adultress], a detailed study by Wieland Willker.

	* [https://youngtextlessreformed.com/2020/01/21/john-753-811-is-scripture/ John 7:53-8:11 is Scripture] Article on ''The Young, Textless, and Reformed'' blog by [[Taylor Desoto]]		* [https://youngtextlessreformed.com/2020/01/21/john-753-811-is-scripture/ John 7:53-8:11 is Scripture] Article on ''The Young, Textless, and Reformed'' blog by [[Taylor Desoto]]

	* [http://www.allbygrace.com/alexthewrechedwoman.html The Wretched Woman]		* [http://www.allbygrace.com/alexthewrechedwoman.html The Wretched Woman]

Nick: /* 1598 */

2022-08-19T12:52:53Z

1598

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:52, 19 August 2022
Line 117:		Line 117:

	Google Translate (to fix):		Google Translate (to fix):
	And he continued, καὶ ἐπορεύθη. This verse, and those that interpose from it to πάλιν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, that is to the twelfth verse of the following chapter, are not found in the Syrian interpreter, nor in Chrysostom, when he mentions his homil. in John 60, nor in Theophylact. Eusebius, too, in the last book of the third book of Historia Ecclesiasticae, openly says that this story about an adulterous woman was written in Switzerland by a certain Papias, which is found in Euágelius, which is said according to the Hebrews: but there is no mention of it in Nonnus. Finally, we witness Jerome's second dialogue with Pelagius, which is not described in some codices. Of our ancient codices, seventeen of them did not have it; in the rest it is indeed written, but in such a way that there is a wonderful variety of reading, which I have decided in good faith to annotate in its own places. As for me, I do not conceal that I deserve to be suspected of the fact that the ancients either rejected or ignored them with such agreement. Next, what he tells about Jesus being left alone with a woman in the temple, I do not know how probable it is: it is not sufficiently coherent with what follows, that is the verse. 12. It is said that the body spoke again: And what will be said, that Jesus wrote with his finger on the ground, seems to me new and unusual, and I cannot guess how it can be sufficiently conveniently explained. Finally, such a variety of readings makes one doubt the reliability of the whole narrative. But this history must be deleted, indeed I think it necessary to retain this verse with the first two chapters of the following chapter, to which the twelfth is submitted.		:And he continued, καὶ ἐπορεύθη. This verse, and those that interpose from it to πάλιν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, that is to the twelfth verse of the following chapter, are not found in the Syrian interpreter, nor in Chrysostom, when he mentions his homil. in John 60, nor in Theophylact. Eusebius, too, in the last book of the third book of Historia Ecclesiasticae, openly says that this story about an adulterous woman was written in Switzerland by a certain Papias, which is found in Euágelius, which is said according to the Hebrews: but there is no mention of it in Nonnus. Finally, we witness Jerome's second dialogue with Pelagius, which is not described in some codices. Of our ancient codices, seventeen of them did not have it; in the rest it is indeed written, but in such a way that there is a wonderful variety of reading, which I have decided in good faith to annotate in its own places. As for me, I do not conceal that I deserve to be suspected of the fact that the ancients either rejected or ignored them with such agreement. Next, what he tells about Jesus being left alone with a woman in the temple, I do not know how probable it is: it is not sufficiently coherent with what follows, that is the verse. 12. It is said that the body spoke again: And what will be said, that Jesus wrote with his finger on the ground, seems to me new and unusual, and I cannot guess how it can be sufficiently conveniently explained. Finally, such a variety of readings makes one doubt the reliability of the whole narrative. But this history must be deleted, indeed I think it necessary to retain this verse with the first two chapters of the following chapter, to which the twelfth is submitted.

	==John Calvin==		==John Calvin==

Nick: /* 1598 */

2022-08-19T12:52:38Z

1598

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:52, 19 August 2022
Line 114:		Line 114:
	[[Image:Pericope_Adulterae_1598_Annotations.JPG\|thumb\|right\|250px\|<small>The Pericope Adulterae in Beza's [[1598 AD\|1598]] [https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2025505 Latin Annotations].</small>]]		[[Image:Pericope_Adulterae_1598_Annotations.JPG\|thumb\|right\|250px\|<small>The Pericope Adulterae in Beza's [[1598 AD\|1598]] [https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2025505 Latin Annotations].</small>]]

	:Et prosectus est,~~najo polen~~. Versiculus iste,& quæ ab eo intercedunt vsque ad πάλιν ~~οι ο Ιησος~~, id est ad versum sequentis capitis duodecimum, neque apud Syrum interpretem, neque apud Chrysostomum, quanuis eius meminerit homil.in Ioannem 60, neque apud Theophylactum extant. Eusebius quoque in extremo libro tertio Historia Ecclesiasticæ apertè dicit à quodam Papia hanc historiam de muliere adultera scriptam suisse, quæ habeatur in Euágelio quod dicitur secundum Hebræos : sed & apud Nonnum nulla sit eius mentio. Testatur denique Hieronymus dialogo aduersus Pelagianos secundo, in nonnullis codicibus non suisse descriptam. Ex vetustis nostris codicibus septemdecim vaus duntaxat illam non habebat: in reliquis scripta quidem est, sed ita vt mira sit lectionis varietas, quam placuit bona fide suis locis annotare. Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi meritò suspectu esse quod veteres illi tanto consensu vel reiecerunt, vel ignorarunt. Deinde quod narrat Iesum solum suisse relictum cum muliere in templo, nescio quàm sit probabile: nec satis cohæret cum eo quod mox,id est vers. 12. dicitur cos rursum alloquutus : & quod seribit, Iesum digito scri psisse in terra,nouum mihi & insolens videtur,nec possum coniicere quomodo possit satis commodè explicari. ~~Tan ta~~ denique lectionis varietas facit vt de totius istius ~~narra tionis~~ fide dubitem. Sed fi expungenda est hæc historia, putarim quidem ego necessariò retinendum hunc ~~versi culum~~ cum sequentis cap.duobus primis, quibus ~~subiicia tur~~ duodecimus.		:Et prosectus est, καὶ ἐπορεύθη. Versiculus iste,& quæ ab eo intercedunt vsque ad πάλιν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, id est ad versum sequentis capitis duodecimum, neque apud Syrum interpretem, neque apud Chrysostomum, quanuis eius meminerit homil.in Ioannem 60, neque apud Theophylactum extant. Eusebius quoque in extremo libro tertio Historia Ecclesiasticæ apertè dicit à quodam Papia hanc historiam de muliere adultera scriptam suisse, quæ habeatur in Euágelio quod dicitur secundum Hebræos : sed & apud Nonnum nulla sit eius mentio. Testatur denique Hieronymus dialogo aduersus Pelagianos secundo, in nonnullis codicibus non suisse descriptam. Ex vetustis nostris codicibus septemdecim vaus duntaxat illam non habebat: in reliquis scripta quidem est, sed ita vt mira sit lectionis varietas, quam placuit bona fide suis locis annotare. Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi meritò suspectu esse quod veteres illi tanto consensu vel reiecerunt, vel ignorarunt. Deinde quod narrat Iesum solum suisse relictum cum muliere in templo, nescio quàm sit probabile: nec satis cohæret cum eo quod mox,id est vers. 12. dicitur cos rursum alloquutus : & quod seribit, Iesum digito scri psisse in terra,nouum mihi & insolens videtur,nec possum coniicere quomodo possit satis commodè explicari. Tanta denique lectionis varietas facit vt de totius istius narrationis fide dubitem. Sed fi expungenda est hæc historia, putarim quidem ego necessariò retinendum hunc versiculum cum sequentis cap.duobus primis, quibus subiiciatur duodecimus.

	Google Translate (to fix):		Google Translate (to fix):
	:And he continued, ~~najo polen~~. This verse, and those that interpose from it to πάλιν ~~οι ο Ιησος~~, that is to the twelfth verse of the following chapter, are not found in the Syrian interpreter, nor in Chrysostom, when he mentions his homil. in John 60, nor in ~~Theophylactus~~. Eusebius, too, in the last book of the third book of Historia Ecclesiasticae, openly says that this story about an adulterous woman was written in Switzerland by a certain Papias, which is found in Euágelius, which is said according to the Hebrews: but there is no mention of it in Nonnus. Finally, we witness Jerome's second dialogue with Pelagius, which is not described in some codices. Of our ancient codices, seventeen of them did not have it; in the rest it is indeed written, but in such a way that there is a wonderful variety of reading, which I have decided in good faith to annotate in its own places. As for me, I do not conceal that I deserve to be suspected of the fact that the ancients either rejected or ignored them with such agreement. Next, what he tells about Jesus being left alone with a woman in the temple, I do not know how probable it is: it is not sufficiently coherent with what follows, that is the verse. 12. It is said that the body spoke again: And what will be said, that Jesus wrote with his finger on the ground, seems to me new and unusual, and I cannot guess how it can be sufficiently conveniently explained. ~~In short~~, ~~the~~ variety of ~~the reading casts~~ doubt on the ~~credibility~~ of ~~this~~ whole narrative. But if this history must be deleted, I ~~would indeed~~ think it necessary to retain this verse ~~together~~ with the first two chapters of the following chapter, to which the twelfth is submitted.		And he continued, καὶ ἐπορεύθη. This verse, and those that interpose from it to πάλιν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, that is to the twelfth verse of the following chapter, are not found in the Syrian interpreter, nor in Chrysostom, when he mentions his homil. in John 60, nor in Theophylact. Eusebius, too, in the last book of the third book of Historia Ecclesiasticae, openly says that this story about an adulterous woman was written in Switzerland by a certain Papias, which is found in Euágelius, which is said according to the Hebrews: but there is no mention of it in Nonnus. Finally, we witness Jerome's second dialogue with Pelagius, which is not described in some codices. Of our ancient codices, seventeen of them did not have it; in the rest it is indeed written, but in such a way that there is a wonderful variety of reading, which I have decided in good faith to annotate in its own places. As for me, I do not conceal that I deserve to be suspected of the fact that the ancients either rejected or ignored them with such agreement. Next, what he tells about Jesus being left alone with a woman in the temple, I do not know how probable it is: it is not sufficiently coherent with what follows, that is the verse. 12. It is said that the body spoke again: And what will be said, that Jesus wrote with his finger on the ground, seems to me new and unusual, and I cannot guess how it can be sufficiently conveniently explained. Finally, such a variety of readings makes one doubt the reliability of the whole narrative. But this history must be deleted, indeed I think it necessary to retain this verse with the first two chapters of the following chapter, to which the twelfth is submitted.

	==John Calvin==		==John Calvin==

Nick: /* 1598 */

2022-08-19T12:41:58Z

1598

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:41, 19 August 2022
Line 114:		Line 114:
	[[Image:Pericope_Adulterae_1598_Annotations.JPG\|thumb\|right\|250px\|<small>The Pericope Adulterae in Beza's [[1598 AD\|1598]] [https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2025505 Latin Annotations].</small>]]		[[Image:Pericope_Adulterae_1598_Annotations.JPG\|thumb\|right\|250px\|<small>The Pericope Adulterae in Beza's [[1598 AD\|1598]] [https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2025505 Latin Annotations].</small>]]

	Et prosectus est,najo polen. Versiculus iste,& quæ ab eo intercedunt vsque ad πάλιν οι ο Ιησος, id est ad versum sequentis capitis duodecimum, neque apud Syrum interpretem, neque apud Chrysostomum, quanuis eius meminerit homil.in Ioannem 60, neque apud Theophylactum extant. Eusebius quoque in extremo libro tertio Historia Ecclesiasticæ apertè dicit à quodam Papia hanc historiam de muliere adultera scriptam suisse, quæ habeatur in Euágelio quod dicitur secundum Hebræos : sed & apud Nonnum nulla sit eius mentio. Testatur denique Hieronymus dialogo aduersus Pelagianos secundo, in nonnullis codicibus non suisse descriptam. Ex vetustis nostris codicibus septemdecim vaus duntaxat illam non habebat: in reliquis scripta quidem est, sed ita vt mira sit lectionis varietas, quam placuit bona fide suis locis annotare. Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi meritò suspectu esse quod veteres illi tanto consensu vel reiecerunt, vel ignorarunt. Deinde quod narrat Iesum solum suisse relictum cum muliere in templo, nescio quàm sit probabile: nec satis cohæret cum eo quod mox,id est vers. 12. dicitur cos rursum alloquutus : & quod seribit, Iesum digito scri psisse in terra,nouum mihi & insolens videtur,nec possum coniicere quomodo possit satis commodè explicari. Tan ta denique lectionis varietas facit vt de totius istius narra tionis fide dubitem. Sed fi expungenda est hæc historia, putarim quidem ego necessariò retinendum hunc versi culum cum sequentis cap.duobus primis, quibus subiicia tur duodecimus.		:Et prosectus est,najo polen. Versiculus iste,& quæ ab eo intercedunt vsque ad πάλιν οι ο Ιησος, id est ad versum sequentis capitis duodecimum, neque apud Syrum interpretem, neque apud Chrysostomum, quanuis eius meminerit homil.in Ioannem 60, neque apud Theophylactum extant. Eusebius quoque in extremo libro tertio Historia Ecclesiasticæ apertè dicit à quodam Papia hanc historiam de muliere adultera scriptam suisse, quæ habeatur in Euágelio quod dicitur secundum Hebræos : sed & apud Nonnum nulla sit eius mentio. Testatur denique Hieronymus dialogo aduersus Pelagianos secundo, in nonnullis codicibus non suisse descriptam. Ex vetustis nostris codicibus septemdecim vaus duntaxat illam non habebat: in reliquis scripta quidem est, sed ita vt mira sit lectionis varietas, quam placuit bona fide suis locis annotare. Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi meritò suspectu esse quod veteres illi tanto consensu vel reiecerunt, vel ignorarunt. Deinde quod narrat Iesum solum suisse relictum cum muliere in templo, nescio quàm sit probabile: nec satis cohæret cum eo quod mox,id est vers. 12. dicitur cos rursum alloquutus : & quod seribit, Iesum digito scri psisse in terra,nouum mihi & insolens videtur,nec possum coniicere quomodo possit satis commodè explicari. Tan ta denique lectionis varietas facit vt de totius istius narra tionis fide dubitem. Sed fi expungenda est hæc historia, putarim quidem ego necessariò retinendum hunc versi culum cum sequentis cap.duobus primis, quibus subiicia tur duodecimus.

			Google Translate (to fix):
			:And he continued, najo polen. This verse, and those that interpose from it to πάλιν οι ο Ιησος, that is to the twelfth verse of the following chapter, are not found in the Syrian interpreter, nor in Chrysostom, when he mentions his homil. in John 60, nor in Theophylactus. Eusebius, too, in the last book of the third book of Historia Ecclesiasticae, openly says that this story about an adulterous woman was written in Switzerland by a certain Papias, which is found in Euágelius, which is said according to the Hebrews: but there is no mention of it in Nonnus. Finally, we witness Jerome's second dialogue with Pelagius, which is not described in some codices. Of our ancient codices, seventeen of them did not have it; in the rest it is indeed written, but in such a way that there is a wonderful variety of reading, which I have decided in good faith to annotate in its own places. As for me, I do not conceal that I deserve to be suspected of the fact that the ancients either rejected or ignored them with such agreement. Next, what he tells about Jesus being left alone with a woman in the temple, I do not know how probable it is: it is not sufficiently coherent with what follows, that is the verse. 12. It is said that the body spoke again: And what will be said, that Jesus wrote with his finger on the ground, seems to me new and unusual, and I cannot guess how it can be sufficiently conveniently explained. In short, the variety of the reading casts doubt on the credibility of this whole narrative. But if this history must be deleted, I would indeed think it necessary to retain this verse together with the first two chapters of the following chapter, to which the twelfth is submitted.

	==John Calvin==		==John Calvin==

Nick: /* 1598 */

2022-08-19T12:37:25Z

1598

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:37, 19 August 2022
Line 114:		Line 114:
	[[Image:Pericope_Adulterae_1598_Annotations.JPG\|thumb\|right\|250px\|<small>The Pericope Adulterae in Beza's [[1598 AD\|1598]] [https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2025505 Latin Annotations].</small>]]		[[Image:Pericope_Adulterae_1598_Annotations.JPG\|thumb\|right\|250px\|<small>The Pericope Adulterae in Beza's [[1598 AD\|1598]] [https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2025505 Latin Annotations].</small>]]

	reliquis scripta quidem est, sed ita vt mira sit lectionis varietas, quam placuit bona fide suis locis annotare. Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi meritò suspectu esse quod veteres illi tanto consensu vel reiecerunt, vel ignorarunt. Deinde quod narrat Iesum solum suisse relictum cum muliere in templo, nescio quàm ~~fit~~ probabile: nec satis cohæret cum eo quod mox,id est vers. 12. dicitur cos rursum alloquutus : & quod seribit, ~~Iefum~~ digito scri psisse in terra, nouum mihi & insolens videtur,nec possum coniicere quomodo possit satis commodè explicari. ~~Tanta~~ denique lectionis varietas ~~sacit~~ vt de totius istius ~~narrationis~~ fide dubitem. Sed si expungenda est hæc historia, putarim quidem ego necessariò retinendum hunc ~~versiculum~~ cum sequentis cap.duobus primis, quibus subiicia tur duodecimus.		Et prosectus est,najo polen. Versiculus iste,& quæ ab eo intercedunt vsque ad πάλιν οι ο Ιησος, id est ad versum sequentis capitis duodecimum, neque apud Syrum interpretem, neque apud Chrysostomum, quanuis eius meminerit homil.in Ioannem 60, neque apud Theophylactum extant. Eusebius quoque in extremo libro tertio Historia Ecclesiasticæ apertè dicit à quodam Papia hanc historiam de muliere adultera scriptam suisse, quæ habeatur in Euágelio quod dicitur secundum Hebræos : sed & apud Nonnum nulla sit eius mentio. Testatur denique Hieronymus dialogo aduersus Pelagianos secundo, in nonnullis codicibus non suisse descriptam. Ex vetustis nostris codicibus septemdecim vaus duntaxat illam non habebat: in reliquis scripta quidem est, sed ita vt mira sit lectionis varietas, quam placuit bona fide suis locis annotare. Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi meritò suspectu esse quod veteres illi tanto consensu vel reiecerunt, vel ignorarunt. Deinde quod narrat Iesum solum suisse relictum cum muliere in templo, nescio quàm sit probabile: nec satis cohæret cum eo quod mox,id est vers. 12. dicitur cos rursum alloquutus : & quod seribit, Iesum digito scri psisse in terra,nouum mihi & insolens videtur,nec possum coniicere quomodo possit satis commodè explicari. Tan ta denique lectionis varietas facit vt de totius istius narra tionis fide dubitem. Sed fi expungenda est hæc historia, putarim quidem ego necessariò retinendum hunc versi culum cum sequentis cap.duobus primis, quibus subiicia tur duodecimus.

	==John Calvin==		==John Calvin==

Nick: /* 1598 */

2022-08-19T11:55:03Z

1598

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:55, 19 August 2022
Line 114:		Line 114:
	[[Image:Pericope_Adulterae_1598_Annotations.JPG\|thumb\|right\|250px\|<small>The Pericope Adulterae in Beza's [[1598 AD\|1598]] [https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2025505 Latin Annotations].</small>]]		[[Image:Pericope_Adulterae_1598_Annotations.JPG\|thumb\|right\|250px\|<small>The Pericope Adulterae in Beza's [[1598 AD\|1598]] [https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2025505 Latin Annotations].</small>]]

	reliquis scripta quidem est, sed ita vt mira sit lectionis varietas, quam placuit bona fide suis locis annotare. Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi meritò suspectu esse quod veteres illi tanto consensu vel reiecerunt, vel ignorarunt.		reliquis scripta quidem est, sed ita vt mira sit lectionis varietas, quam placuit bona fide suis locis annotare. Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi meritò suspectu esse quod veteres illi tanto consensu vel reiecerunt, vel ignorarunt. Deinde quod narrat Iesum solum suisse relictum cum muliere in templo, nescio quàm fit probabile: nec satis cohæret cum eo quod mox,id est vers. 12. dicitur cos rursum alloquutus : & quod seribit, Iefum digito scri psisse in terra, nouum mihi & insolens videtur,nec possum coniicere quomodo possit satis commodè explicari. Tanta denique lectionis varietas sacit vt de totius istius narrationis fide dubitem. Sed si expungenda est hæc historia, putarim quidem ego necessariò retinendum hunc versiculum cum sequentis cap.duobus primis, quibus subiicia tur duodecimus.

	==John Calvin==		==John Calvin==

Nick: /* Theodore Beza */

2022-08-19T11:42:17Z

Theodore Beza

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 19 August 2022
Line 113:		Line 113:
	===1598===		===1598===
	[[Image:Pericope_Adulterae_1598_Annotations.JPG\|thumb\|right\|250px\|<small>The Pericope Adulterae in Beza's [[1598 AD\|1598]] [https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2025505 Latin Annotations].</small>]]		[[Image:Pericope_Adulterae_1598_Annotations.JPG\|thumb\|right\|250px\|<small>The Pericope Adulterae in Beza's [[1598 AD\|1598]] [https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2025505 Latin Annotations].</small>]]

			reliquis scripta quidem est, sed ita vt mira sit lectionis varietas, quam placuit bona fide suis locis annotare. Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi meritò suspectu esse quod veteres illi tanto consensu vel reiecerunt, vel ignorarunt.

	==John Calvin==		==John Calvin==

Nick: /* Erasmus */

2022-08-17T09:06:49Z

Erasmus

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:06, 17 August 2022
Line 74:		Line 74:
	#'''Question pericope'''. Marked with asterisks (*) or [[obeli]] (÷). [[Codex Vaticanus 354]] (S) and the Minuscules [[Minuscule 4\|4]], [[Minuscule 8\|8]], [[Minuscule 35\|35]], [[Minuscule 83\|83]], [[Minuscule 161\|161]], [[Minuscule 164\|164]], [[Minuscule 165\|165]], [[Minuscule 166\|166]], [[Minuscule 167\|167]], [[Minuscule 168\|168]], [[Minuscule 200\|200]], [[Minuscule 202\|202]], [[Minuscule 285\|285]], [[Minuscule 338\|338]], [[Minuscule 348\|348]], [[Minuscule 363\|363]], [[Minuscule 367\|367]], [[Minuscule 376\|376]], [[Minuscule 386\|386]], [[Minuscule 407\|407]], [[Minuscule 443\|443]], 478, 532, 547, 553, 656, 662, 757, 758, 769, 781, 797, 801, 824, 825, 829, 844, 845, 873, 897, 922, 1073, 1077, 1092, 1099, 1187, 1189, 1443 and 1445 include entire pericope from 7:53; the [[menologion]] of Lectionary 185 includes 8:1ff; [[Codex Basilensis]] (E) includes 8:2ff; [[Codex Tischendorfianus III]] (Λ) and [[Codex Petropolitanus (New Testament)\|Petropolitanus (П)]] also the menologia of Lectionaries [[Lectionary 86\|'''ℓ''' ''86'']], '''ℓ''' ''211'', '''ℓ''' ''1579'' and '''ℓ''' ''1761'' include 8:3ff. Minuscule 807 is a manuscript with a Catena, but only in John 7:53-8:11 without catena.		#'''Question pericope'''. Marked with asterisks (*) or [[obeli]] (÷). [[Codex Vaticanus 354]] (S) and the Minuscules [[Minuscule 4\|4]], [[Minuscule 8\|8]], [[Minuscule 35\|35]], [[Minuscule 83\|83]], [[Minuscule 161\|161]], [[Minuscule 164\|164]], [[Minuscule 165\|165]], [[Minuscule 166\|166]], [[Minuscule 167\|167]], [[Minuscule 168\|168]], [[Minuscule 200\|200]], [[Minuscule 202\|202]], [[Minuscule 285\|285]], [[Minuscule 338\|338]], [[Minuscule 348\|348]], [[Minuscule 363\|363]], [[Minuscule 367\|367]], [[Minuscule 376\|376]], [[Minuscule 386\|386]], [[Minuscule 407\|407]], [[Minuscule 443\|443]], 478, 532, 547, 553, 656, 662, 757, 758, 769, 781, 797, 801, 824, 825, 829, 844, 845, 873, 897, 922, 1073, 1077, 1092, 1099, 1187, 1189, 1443 and 1445 include entire pericope from 7:53; the [[menologion]] of Lectionary 185 includes 8:1ff; [[Codex Basilensis]] (E) includes 8:2ff; [[Codex Tischendorfianus III]] (Λ) and [[Codex Petropolitanus (New Testament)\|Petropolitanus (П)]] also the menologia of Lectionaries [[Lectionary 86\|'''ℓ''' ''86'']], '''ℓ''' ''211'', '''ℓ''' ''1579'' and '''ℓ''' ''1761'' include 8:3ff. Minuscule 807 is a manuscript with a Catena, but only in John 7:53-8:11 without catena.
	#'''Relocate pericope'''. [[Family 1]], minuscules [[Minuscule 20\|20]], [[Minuscule 135\|135]], [[Minuscule 207\|207]], [[Minuscule 301\|301]], [[Minuscule 347\|347]], and nearly all Armenian translations place the pericope after [[John 21:25]]; [[Family 13]] place it after [[Luke 24:53]]; a corrector to Minuscule 1333 added 8:3–11 after [[Luke 24:53]]; and [[Minuscule 225]] includes the pericope after [[John 7:36]]. [[Minuscule 129]], [[Minuscule 259\|259]], 470, 564, 831, and 1356 place [[John 8]]:3-11 after John 21:25. Minuscule 826 placed pericope after [[Luke 21:38]]		#'''Relocate pericope'''. [[Family 1]], minuscules [[Minuscule 20\|20]], [[Minuscule 135\|135]], [[Minuscule 207\|207]], [[Minuscule 301\|301]], [[Minuscule 347\|347]], and nearly all Armenian translations place the pericope after [[John 21:25]]; [[Family 13]] place it after [[Luke 24:53]]; a corrector to Minuscule 1333 added 8:3–11 after [[Luke 24:53]]; and [[Minuscule 225]] includes the pericope after [[John 7:36]]. [[Minuscule 129]], [[Minuscule 259\|259]], 470, 564, 831, and 1356 place [[John 8]]:3-11 after John 21:25. Minuscule 826 placed pericope after [[Luke 21:38]]

			==Complutensian Polyglot==
			[[Image:Pericope_Adulterae_1514_Complutensian_Polyglot.JPG\|thumb\|right\|250px\|<small>The Pericope Adulterae the [[1514 AD\|1514]] Complutensian Polyglot [https://archive.org/details/ComplutensianPolyglotBibleOldTestamentNewTestament/02.ComplutensianPolyglot.NT.1520./page/n86/mode/1up Complutensian Polyglot].</small>]]

	==Erasmus==		==Erasmus==

Nick: /* 1598 */

2022-08-17T08:57:43Z

1598

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:57, 17 August 2022
Line 109:		Line 109:

	===1598===		===1598===
			[[Image:Pericope_Adulterae_1598_Annotations.JPG\|thumb\|right\|250px\|<small>The Pericope Adulterae in Beza's [[1598 AD\|1598]] [https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2025505 Latin Annotations].</small>]]

	==John Calvin==		==John Calvin==

Nick: /* Theodore Beza */

2022-08-17T08:51:33Z

Theodore Beza

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:51, 17 August 2022
Line 89:		Line 89:
	:So with the informers sent away and each one's crimes revealed to him and the sinning woman let go, Jesus used this incident to develop the conversation he had begun earlier." Sins are darkness. Those who are true and simple and are eager to appear as exactly what they are draw near to the light and are freed from the darkness, as the sinning woman approached (continues....)		:So with the informers sent away and each one's crimes revealed to him and the sinning woman let go, Jesus used this incident to develop the conversation he had begun earlier." Sins are darkness. Those who are true and simple and are eager to appear as exactly what they are draw near to the light and are freed from the darkness, as the sinning woman approached (continues....)

	==Theodore Beza==		==[[Theodore Beza]]==
	Beza's remark that only one out of Stephanus seventeen manuscripts omits the pericope adulterae (Beyond What is Written, Jan Krans)		Beza's remark that only one out of Stephanus seventeen manuscripts omits the pericope adulterae (Beyond What is Written, [[Jan Krans]])

	Jan Krans points out the lack of precision of referring to the 17 Stephanus manuscripts since only about 10 had the section, but this does not fundamentally alter the overwhelming evidence and the reference.		[[Jan Krans]] points out the lack of precision of referring to the 17 Stephanus manuscripts since only about 10 had the section, but this does not fundamentally alter the overwhelming evidence and the reference.

	Beza also expressed doubt, Tregelles gives this extract:		Beza also expressed doubt, Tregelles gives this extract:

	:"As far as I am concerned, I do not conceal that I justly regard as suspected what the ancients with such consent either rejected or did not know of. Also such a variety in the reading causes me to doubt the fidelity of the whole of that narration."		:"As far as I am concerned, I do not conceal that I justly regard as suspected what the ancients with such consent either rejected or did not know of. Also such a variety in the reading causes me to doubt the fidelity of the whole of that narration."

			Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi merito suspectum esse quod veteres illi tanto consensu vel rejecerunt vel ignorarunt. . . . Tanta denique lectionis varietas facit ut de totius istius narrationis fide dubitem.

			===1556===

			===1565===

			===1581===

			===1589===

			===1598===

	==John Calvin==		==John Calvin==