1 Sam. xxii. 1,2.ADULTERESS. The story of the Woman taken in Adultery, and presented 2 Sam. xxiii. 14. Joh. viii. 3.to Jesus Christ, which is related in the Gospel of St. John, is not to be met with in many Greek Copies of this Evangelist. S. Jerom observes1, that so long ago as his time there was nothing of it in many Books, as well Greek as Latin. The generality of the Greek Fathers never read it. Of three and twenty Commentators in the Greek Catena on St. John, not one has explained it; which induces us to think that it was not inserted in their Books. Maldonat assures us, that of all the Greek Copies consulted by him, he found it but in one; viz. in that which contains Leontius’s Comment on St. John; nor does Leontius say one word of it in his Comment; and in the Greek Text which is joined with it, this story is marked with Obelisks, to shew that it was added to the Text. Dr. Mill cites many other Greek Manuscripts, wherein it is not to be seen. Neither Origen, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, nor Nonnus, had any knowledge of it. Nor can Eusebius2 be said to have read it, since he takes notice that it was contained in the Hebrew Copy of St. Matthew which the Nazarenes made use of. It is true, some assert that Eusebius has acknowledged this story in his Canons, or in his Harmony of the Gospel; but others3 maintain that he had a regard, not to the History of the Adulteress, but to the verses which precede it.
To all this they add, that the Armenians have suppressed this passage in their Bible, that neither the Syriac printed in the Polyglots of Paris and London, nor the old Gothic Version by Ulphilas read it. The Manuscripts wherein it is to be met with vary extremely; some have it inserted only at the end of St. John’s Gospel, others at the end of the XXI Chapter of St. Luke; others in the margin of the VIII Chapter of S. John; others again mark it with Obelisks, to denote that it is dubious. Euthymius, who mentions it in his Comment, confesses that it is not in the best Manuscripts. Thus you have the full force almost of what is said against this Story.
What is produced in favour of it shall now follow. All the Copies made use of by Robert Stephens, to the number of 16, and those consulted by Theodorus Beza, which amounted to 17, one only Manuscript excepted, which is cited by him, read this Story. Those likewise which Dr. Mill had recourse to, for the most part do acknowledge it. Tatian, who lived in the year 160, and Ammonius, who lived in 220, have owned it to be canonical, and placed it in their Harmonies of the Gospel. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions4, and the Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius, have it; S. Jerom, S. Austin, Ambrose, and the other Latin Fathers, have made no scruple of receiving it, tho’ they were not unacquainted with the differences of the Greek Copies. S. Austin5 conjectures, that some of the faithful of too little judgment, or even some who were Enemies to the true Faith, expunged this Story out of the Copies of S. John, lest our Saviour should be thought to authorize the disorder, by forgiving it so easily. Many Syriac Manuscripts of good antiquity read it; and we meet with it in all the printed Copies, both Greek and Latin; it should be admitted therefore without any difficulty. You may consult, if you please, the Commentators on the VIII Chapter of S. John, Dr. Mill’s Annotations on the New Testament, M. Fabricius’s Cod. Apocr. N. Test. Tom. 1. p. 355, &c. and the Authors by him cited.
Read this article in its place on the printed pages