Introduction
One of the best known stories about Jesus is His encounter with an adulteress whom He refused to condemn. The story, known in academic circles as the Pericope Adulterae, or Pericope de Adultera (“the extract about the adulteress”), is found in the Gospel According to John 7:53-8:11. Many Christians are not aware of the fact that most Bible scholars believe that this story is not authentic i.e. it was not part of the original Gospel book written by John, but was added into the book long after the original publication.
One of the arguments in support of this contention is that the words and expressions in the Pericope Adulterae have more in common with those in Luke’s writings than with those in the rest of the Gospel According to John. For example, evangelical scholars Carson, Moo, and Morris assert that,
it would be very difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine: it includes numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in John but that are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular.
Carson, Moo, and Morris did not originate this idea. Henry Cadbury actually advanced it way back in 1917, and scholars, including professing evangelicals, have been passing it on ever since. It is needful, however, to trouble oneself actually to examine the evidence adduced for this claim rather than simply to pass it on. That is what we shall now do.
The Argument from Vocabulary
By way of evidence, Cadbury first offered a list of ten words or phrases in the Pericope Adulterae that are used in the Gospel According to Luke or Acts, but not in the other Gospel books: ἀνακύπτω (“straighten up, raise oneself up”); ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν (“from now on”); εἷς ἕκαστος (“each one”); ἐπιμένω (“remain”); ἐκπειράζω (“put to the test”); κατήγορος (“accusation”); ; ὄρθρος (“early morning”); προσποιέομαι (“act as if”); σὺ οὖν (“you therefore”); συνείδησις (“conscience”).
Now, before we look at these specific examples, let us first note that vocabulary cannot be used to establish the authenticity of a passage. Even if a word that appears in a particular passage is found nowhere else in the book containing that passage, it proves nothing, inasmuch as every single book in the New Testament has hapax legomena (i.e. a word that appears only once), as well as every one of Shakespeare’s plays and all writings of any size. Even 2 John, the shortest NT book, has forty-eight hapax legomena among its total ninety-seven words! So a word that appears only once in a passage is simply one occurrence of this common phenomenon.
Furthermore, if that word appears elsewhere in the book, even if only once, it proves that the writer knew and used that word, and any attempt to use it to dispute the authenticity of the passage on the basis of frequency of usage is null and void.
With that in mind, we turn our attention to the ten words or phrases adduced by Cadbury, and we soon see that this “evidence” can only be described as bizarre:
Three of the ten words (εἷς ἕκαστος; ἐκπειράζω; and συνείδησις) do not even appear in the Pericope Adulterae!
προσποιέομαι appears only once in Luke and not at all in Acts, and once here in John, so it is every bit as much “Johannine” as “Lukan” – though a single appearance cannot, of course, characterize it as either.
ἀνακύπτω and σὺ οὖν each appear only twice in Luke and not at all in Acts (and once each here in John), so they can by no means be considered “Lukan,” as anyone with even a passing acquaintance with statistical analysis would know.
ὄρθρος appears only once in Luke and once here in John. Cadbury tries to pad the statistics by appealing to the related verb (ὀρθρίζω) and adjective (ὀρθρινός). Even if this is accepted, they occur only once each, for a combined total of only three, and so this word cannot be considered “Lukan.”
ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν appears only five times in Luke and once in Acts (which is not nearly enough to declare it “Lukan”) and one time here in John. However, νῦν appears twenty-nine times in John (compared to fourteen in Luke, four in Matthew, and three in Mark), so it is not surprising that it may appear once with ἀπὸ τοῦ. Furthermore, as we’ve indicated, there are quite a number of words that appear only once in Luke, but we do not deny Lukan authorship of those passages on that basis.
ἐπιμένω and κατήγορος appear once each here in John. ἐπιμένω appears six times in Acts but never in Luke, and κατήγορος appears four times in Acts but never in Luke. By Cadbury’s logic, this data should compel us to conclude that Luke didn’t write the Gospel According to Luke, since the “Lukan” words ἐπιμένω and κατήγορος are nowhere found therein! And since John is the only other writer who uses both of these words, we could suggest that John wrote the Gospel According to Luke! (Yes, this is reductio ad absurdum.) Or we could face the reality that this sort of argument is complete nonsense.
Cadbury’s further appeals to vocabulary are equally risible. For example, he finds,
more striking still … words found in the pericope, which though not limited to Luke are more abundant in his work than in the other Gospels.
Yet what could be considered striking about the use of, say, ἄγω (“lead”), which appears thirteen times in Luke and thirteen times in John (including John 8:3) or about νῦν (“now”), which appears more than twice as often in John than in Luke (twenty-nine times, including John 8:11) is difficult to see. What is “more striking still” about the appearance of ἐρωτάω (“ask”) in the Pericope Adulterae, given that the word is used twenty-seven times elsewhere in John and only fifteen times in Luke? In fact, none of the words Cadbury lists here can in any way make a case against the authenticity of the Pericope Adulterae.
Cadbury then appeals to liberal scholar Dr. Adolf von Harnack, saying,
According to Harnack we are justified in marking as Lukan” εἰς τὸν οἶκον (“into the house”), ἐν μέσῳ (“in the middle, in the midst”), πορεύομαι (“go”), αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ (“this woman”) and ὡς δὲ (“and when”).
Yet εἰς τὸν οἶκον appears five times in John (including 7:53); ἐν μέσῳ is found at least twice in every Gospel book, and four times in John (including 8:3 and 8:9); αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ does not appear in the Pericope Adulterae and so is irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and it only appears once in Luke!); ὡς δὲ appears six times in John (including 8:7); and πορεύομαι appears sixteen times in John (including 7:53, 8:1, and 8:11). Contra Harnack, then, we are certainly not “justified in marking as Lukan” these words and phrases. How Harnack got away with such claims is difficult to see – unless, of course, it was the usual “I have a Ph.D and I’m a scholar, so just accept what I say.”
There is no point in looking at the few other words Cadbury proffers, inasmuch as it is already perfectly clear that arguments based on vocabulary cannot disprove the authenticity of the Pericope Adulterae. Let us move on to Cadbury’s second line of evidence, the supposed parallels between the Pericope Adulterae and Luke’s writings.
The Argument from Parallels
Cadbury also appeals to supposed parallels between the Pericope Adulterae and passages from Luke’s writings to support the possibility that Luke wrote the Pericope Adulterae, or at least to show that the contents of this passage are more Lukan than Johannine. He adduces the following:
Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν (John 8:1) But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
Καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἐπορεύθη κατὰ τὸ ἔθος εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν (Luke 22:39a) And coming out, as He was accustomed, He went to the Mount of Olives.
Ὄρθρου δὲ πάλιν παρεγένετο εἰς τὸ ἱερόν καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτόν καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς (John 8:2a) Now early in the morning again He came into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them.
καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ὤρθριζεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ (Luke 21:38) Then all the people were rising very early to Him in the temple to hear Him.
καὶ στήσαντες αὐτὴν ἐν μέσῳ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ (John 8:3b-4a) And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him
καὶ στήσαντες αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ μέσῳ ἐπυνθάνοντο (Acts 4:7a) And when they had set them in the midst, they asked
ταύτην εὕρομεν ἐπ᾽ αυτοφώρῳ μοιχευομένη (John 8:4b) “We found this woman in the very act, committing adultery.”
Τοῦτον εὕρομεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος (Luke 23:2b) “We found this man perverting the nation.”
ἵνα ἔχωσιν κατηγορίαν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ (John 8:6b) That they might have an accusation against Him.
ἵνα εὕρωσιν κατηγορίαν αὐτοῦ (Luke 6:7b) That they might find an accusation against Him.
ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ (Luke 11:54b) That they might accuse Him.
ἔχων τι κατηγορῆσαι (Acts 28:19b) “Having anything of which to accuse”
ὄρθρου δὲ πάλιν παρεγένετο (John 8:2a) Now early in the morning He came again
ὄρθρου βαθέος ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα (Luke 24:1b) Very early in the morning, they came to the tomb
καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς (John 8:2b) And sitting down He taught them.
καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου τοὺς ὄχλους (Luke 5:3b) And sitting down He taught the multitudes from the boat.
Let us consider each of these in turn:
Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν (John 8:1) Καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἐπορεύθη κατὰ τὸ ἔθος εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν (Luke 22:39)
To offer this as evidence for Cadbury’s thesis is ridiculous. If one wishes to write “He went to the Mount of Olives” in Greek, this is how it is done. Of course, one can choose πορεύω or ἐξέρχομαι for “went.” Matthew and Mark, who also use this expression once each, chose ἐξέρχομαι:
Καὶ ὑμνήσαντες ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν (Matthew 26:30) Καὶ ὑμνήσαντες ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν (Mark 14:26)
John chooses πορεύω and Luke, since he uses both, is sure to match them all! But it is all irrelevant; this expression occurs exactly once in each of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, so how could it possibly be deemed “Lukan”?
Ὄρθρου δὲ πάλιν παρεγένετο εἰς τὸ ἱερόν καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτόν καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς (John 8:2a) καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ὤρθριζεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ (Luke 21:38)
Only a few common words are in both verses, and even the connecting verb is different. There is nothing distinctive about this phraseology; it is what the situation calls for in each case. Clearly Luke likes the word λαὸς more than John does; he uses it a combined 84 times in Luke and Acts, whereas John uses it only three times. However, the fact that John does use this word in John 11:50 and 18:24 shows that John knew and used this word, so its appearance in 8:2 should not be seen as problematic.
Furthermore, John uses πᾶς ὁ λαὸς once, which means he uses πᾶς with ὁ λαὸς in 33% of the places in which he uses λαὸς. Luke uses πᾶς with ὁ λαὸς sixteen times, which is only 19% of the places in which he uses λαὸς. Finally, we note that πᾶς ὁ λαὸς appears six times in Luke 1-9 and four times in Luke 18-24, but not at all in the middle section, Luke 10-17. By Cadbury’s twisted logic, we should conclude that the middle section of the Gospel According to Luke was written by a different author. In addition, the six appearances in Acts are found in Acts 1-13; by Cadbury’s reasoning, we should conclude that Acts 14-28 was written by a different author. It should be clear by now how absurd this sort of reasoning is.
καὶ στήσαντες αὐτὴν ἐν μέσῳ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ (John 8:3b-4a) καὶ στήσαντες αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ μέσῳ ἐπυνθάνοντο (Acts 4:7a)
μέσος appears seven times in Matthew (three times in the phrase ἐν μέσῳ); five times in Mark (twice in the phrase ἐν μέσῳ); fourteen times in Luke (seven times in the phrase ἐν μέσῳ) and ten times in Acts (four times in the phrase ἐν μέσῳ); and six times in John (twice here in the phrase ἐν μέσῳ). Luke uses the phrase more often than the other Gospel writers, but statistically not enough to make it “Lukan,” and it is certainly used by the others. John’s usage is similar to Matthew’s and Mark’s of this typical Greek expression. With the verb ἵστημι, which is what we have here, Luke uses it only once, as does John in this passage.
ταύτην εὕρομεν ἐπ᾽ αυτοφώρῳ μοιχευομένη (John 8:4b) Τοῦτον εὕρομεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος (Luke 23:2b)
Since this clause occurs only once each in John and in Luke and Acts combined, it is every bit as much “Johannine” as “Lukan” – though of course it is neither; a sample of one cannot establish a clause as characteristic of a writer, and the belief that it can requires not just a profound ignorance of statistical analysis but a lack of common sense.
ἵνα ἔχωσιν κατηγορίαν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ (John 8:6b) ἵνα εὕρωσιν κατηγορίαν αὐτοῦ (Luke 6:7b) ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ (Luke 11:54b) ἔχων τι κατηγορῆσαι (Acts 28:19b)
Actually, the noun form κατηγορία appears twice in John (here and in 18:29), but only once in Luke and never in Acts, so it is actually more “Johannine” than “Lukan” – though of course it is neither, for, as we have said, a sample of one cannot establish an expression as characteristic of a writer. The last two examples Cadbury adduces are of the verb form, and that is also found elsewhere in John (twice in John 5:45). And for those who believe the Nestle-Aland/UBS critical text is the correct one, the noun form doesn’t even appear in Luke 6:7b (the verb form appears there) – and the entire phrase in Luke 11:54b is absent! This would mean that there are actually no parallels to John 8:6b in Luke’s writings at all. Either way, words that appear a total of three times in John (15,635 words) and three times in Luke’s writings (combined total of 37,933 words) cannot be considered more Lukan than Johannine.
ὄρθρου δὲ πάλιν παρεγένετο (John 8:2a) ὄρθρου βαθέος ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα (Luke 24:1b)
As we have already mentioned, the noun ὄρθρος appears only once in Luke (and once here in John), so there is no legitimate way to deem it “Lukan.”
καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς (John 8:2b) καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου τοὺς ὄχλους (Luke 5:3b)
Since these are the only two places in the entire New Testament in which this clause is found, it certainly cannot be deemed “Lukan.”
And so we reach the end of our examination of Cadbury’s putative parallels between the Pericope Adulterae and Luke’s writings, and we must conclude that there is not even one genuine parallel that could support the idea that the Pericope Adulterae was not written by John, let alone that it was written by Luke.
The Argument from “Unquestioned” Words
Liberal scholar Cadbury may, in fact, have realized the weakness of his claims. He admits that,
It is necessary to acknowledge that there are many limitations to the force of the examples given … many of them are not very unusual phrases in Greek literature. That no other New Testament writer uses a word is often an accident.
He tries to salvage his case by arguing that,
if N.T. standards are to be applied, there are a few unquestioned words that are really characteristic of Luke, as ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν (“from now on”), ἄρχομαι ἀπό (“beginning from”), ἐπιμένω (“remain”), εἶπεν δὲ (“and he said”, “but he said”), ὡς (“when”, “as”).
It is not clear what Cadbury thinks are the “N.T. standards [that] are to be applied,” but there are no such standards. It is statistical analysis that must be applied, and we have already seen what that shows regarding ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν and ἐπιμένω. The claims regarding the other three expressions are equally ludicrous, as we shall see.
ἄρχομαι ἀπό appears four times in the Gospel According to Luke (14:18, 23:5, 24:27, 24:47) and three times in Acts (1:22, 8:35, 10:37), which accounts for seven of its ten total appearances in the New Testament. As with λαὸς, it is clear that Luke likes the word ἄρχομαι more than John does, as it appears a combined 41 times in Luke and Acts, and only twice in John. However, its appearance in John 13:5, which is unquestionably authentic, proves that John knew and used this word. There is nothing suspicious in the fact that he combines ἄρχομαι with ἀπό in 8:9 (which represents 50% of the occurrences of ἄρχομαι), as the context calls for it. So the appearance of this expression in the Pericope Adulterae in no way mitigates against its authenticity; the fact that Luke used the phrase more often than John is irrelevant.
The same obtains with εἶπεν δὲ. Luke certainly favours this construction, using it fifty-nine times in his Gospel book alone (against 181 times that he uses εἶπεν without a following δὲ), which is far more than any other Gospel writer. In fact, Matthew uses it only once (12:47) and Mark not at all. It appears in John 8:9, but it also appears in two other places in the Gospel According to John, in 12:6 and 21:23, which unquestionably proves that John knew and used the construction, so its appearance in the Pericope Adulterae can in no way be used to suggest that the passage is not Johannine. Here, too, the fact that Luke used the construction far more often than John did is irrelevant.
That brings us to Cadbury’s final offering, ὡς. Now, one must acknowledge a breathtaking chutzpah in claiming that this word is “unquestioned” as “really characteristic of Luke” in light of the fact that it appears 504 times in the New Testament, that it appears in every single book but 3 John, and that it appears more times in Revelation (71 times) than in either the Gospel According to Luke (51 times) or Acts (63 times), even though each of these books is almost twice as long as Revelation. I wonder that Cadbury can say this with a straight face. If he means ὡς used temporally (“when, while”), as in John 8:7, it is used that way in sixteen other passages in the Gospel According to John!
In sum, then, of the five words that Cadbury claims are “unquestioned words that are really characteristic of Luke,” not one actually is. Even those that are used more often by Luke are nevertheless known and used by John, and so cannot be used as evidence for Lukan authorship of the Pericope Adulterae or to challenge Johannine authorship of it.
Finally, to underscore the crass inanity of this sort of argument, note that Chris Keith of the University of Edinburgh writes that “PA’s language is closer to Synoptic material than Johannine, particularly Lukan material” but later in the very same article he writes, “PA demonstrates as strong linguistic connections with Johannine material as it does with Synoptic material.” So the language is “closer to Synoptic material” while at the same time the “linguistic connections with Johannine material” is “as strong … [as] with Synoptic material.” We will leave it to the scholars to explain how the language of the Pericope Adulterae can simultaneously be more Synoptic and as strongly Johannine!
The Argument from Subject Matter
Finally, Cadbury suggests that “Against the theory of Lukan authorship the subject-matter and method of treatment offer no objection, but rather a confirmation. The third evangelist shows throughout a sympathy with women and with sinners that is congenial to this passage” and asserts that “No further example is needed than the story of Simon and the sinner woman in Luke 7 36-50.”
On the contrary, no further example would help Cadbury’s case. It is certainly true that in the Gospel According to Luke, Jesus (and not, as Cadbury puts it, the “third evangelist”) shows “a sympathy with women and with sinners,” but that is because that is what Jesus did, as we see in all of the Gospel books e.g. Matthew 9:20-22/Mark 5:25-34, Matthew 26:6-13/Mark 14:3-9 (which are the parallels to Luke 7:36-50); John 4:4-27; John 11; John 12:1-8. The idea, then, that the Pericope Adulterae is more Lukan than Johannine because of the subject matter, let alone that the subject matter offers a “confirmation” of this, is ludicrous on the face of it. Cadbury’s last gambit to convince us that this passage is Lukan is an utter failure.
The Significance of the Matter
Now, some might wonder what the point is of this lengthy discussion. It may be interesting, but it is not really important, is it? Is it not rather like the debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
That supposition is wrong. Liberal scholars never argue a matter simply for its own sake; there is always an agenda at play. Sometimes it is obvious, as in the case of their attempt to deny the authenticity of the last twelve verses of the Gospel According to Mark, and sometimes it is more subtle. But it is always there. In this case, Cadbury finally tells us.
According to Cadbury, “the best Greek MSS. omit the passage entirely” and “Nearly all the authorities that contain or refer to it put it in chapter eight or at the end of the Gospel of John. The only exception is the Ferrar group which places it after Luke 21 38.” Based on this, he makes the completely asinine statement that,
There is therefore little textual reason to assign it to any of the canonical Gospels, and less for Luke than for John.
And this, he says, brings us to a “dilemma.”
Cadbury sees only two solutions to the dilemma he has conjured up:
either (1) the pericope adulterae is an original part of Luke’s Gospel and was omitted without leaving any appreciable trace in the MS. tradition of that Gospel, or (2) it is written by another than the third evangelist in a style that completely matches his own.
And what would that mean, Cadbury? He tells us:
If the first solution is the correct one, then we must believe that in spite of their age, multiplicity, and agreement, our authorities for the N.T. text do not preclude such radical divergence from the autographs as the complete omission of a considerable section from one of the four Gospels. If this is possible, then certainly many of the most radical theories of interpolation and the most unsupported textual conjectures are also possible … so our confidence in the transcriptional accuracy and in the doctrinal primitiveness of the earliest available text of the N.T. would be considerably shaken.
If, on the other hand, the passage is not from the pen of the auctor ad Theophilum, then some one, whether another author, a translator, or a scribe, intentionally or unintentionally, wrote a style that is indistinguishable from the most distinctive of New Testament styles. In this case style proves to be a most unreliable criterion, and all critical arguments drawn from identity of style – such as the common authorship of John and 1 John, of Luke and Acts, of the Pauline letters, and even of the separate parts of a single work – lose some of their weight. Especially such an argument as that often made concerning the Lukan style of the ‘we’ passages must be re-examined in the light of this evidence. For if in the pericope adulterae identity of style does not even prove final Lukan editing, it certainly cannot be used to prove in the ‘we’ passages original Lukan authorship without sources.
My, my, what a bang for a liberal buck! On the basis of nothing more than the supposed Lukan style of the Pericope Adulterae, Cadbury offers us quite the Hobson’s choice. If we accept his first choice, we must (a) abandon our trust in the “transcriptional accuracy and in the doctrinal primitiveness of the earliest available text of the N.T.” – in other words, we must admit that we do not know what Jesus actually did or said, for there is no way to know whether even our best manuscripts were changed in such a way that no indication was left of the change and no trace of the original can be found – and (b) we must give credence to “the most radical theories of interpolation and the most unsupported textual conjectures” – in other words, we must agree to turn the NT into the liberal scholars’ plaything, in which they invent just about anything conceivable about who Jesus was and what He did out of their own imagination and we must consider it “possible.”
If, on the other hand, we accept Cabury’s second choice, we must admit that we do not know who wrote the NT books or whether they were even complete documents written by one author – since a later forger could have imitated the original writer’s style perfectly and introduced changes and additions. And, of course, we must forsake the idea that the author of Luke and Acts was a traveling companion of Paul and certainly that he was an eyewitness, since the style indicators of these facts could have been forged by a later writer. Either way, the case for Christianity is severely undercut. And so the agenda of liberal scholarship, which is always and only to undermine the Bible, finally rears its ugly head even in this matter which seemed to be so innocuous.
However, we need not make the Hobson’s choice Cadbury offers us. His attempt to show that the style of the Pericope Adulterae is more Lukan than Johannine has been shown to be a non-starter. It can seem plausible only to those who are ignorant of statistical analysis and who do not bother to check the facts carefully. And Cadbury’s statement that “There is therefore little textual reason to assign it to any of the canonical Gospels,” based on a passing appeal to external evidence, is nothing short of delusional. It is indeed a shame that so many evangelical scholars have blithely accepted and perpetuated Cadbury’s empty claims.
Sources
1. Carson, D.A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, p. 173
2. Cadbury, Henry J. “A Possible Case of Lukan Authorship (John 7 53-8 11).” HTR 10:3 (1917), pp. 237-244. The idea was floated earlier by Herbert McLachlan, in St. Luke: Evangelist and Historian. London: Sherratt and Hughes, 1912.
3. “For large corpora, typically 40% to 60% of all word types appear only once.” Kornai, András. Mathematical Linguistics. London: Springer Science & Business Media, 2008, p. 72
4. To drive this point home, note that there are 962 hapax legomena in the Gospel According to Luke, which means that that book could be divided into 962 passages, each with a word found nowhere else in that book.
5. It should be noted that εἷς ἕκαστος appears only once in Acts and not at all in Luke, ἐκπειράζω only twice in Luke and not at all in Acts; and συνείδησις twice in Acts and not at all in Luke (out of a combined total of 37,933 words in these two books), so how they possibly be considered “Lukan”? Furthermore, by this sort of lunatic reasoning, since these words words/expressions appear only in Luke or in Acts but not both, we should conclude that these two books were written by different authors!
6. Cadbury dragoons any word for the Pericope Adulterae if it is found in any manuscript, but since the question is about the original authorship, all that matters is what was originally written, not what mistakes and changes may be found in some manuscripts. That is all that should be looked at, and it is all we will consider.
7. Cadbury, op. cit., p. 239, 240-241
8. ibid., p. 240
9. ibid., pp. 240-241. Red is used to indicate the words that are in common.
10. This phrase is absent from the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies critical Greek NT text.
11. Luke 2:10, 2:31, 3:21, 7:29, 8:47, 9:13, 18:43, 20:45, 21:38, 24:19; Acts 3:9, 3:11, 4:10, 5:34, 10:41, 13:24
12. ibid., p. 242
13. ibid. I have added the bracketed definitions.
14. Do remember that even if the word did not appear anywhere else in The Gospel According to John, it would prove nothing in light of the large number of hapax legomena used by all NT writers.
15. Matthew uses the phrase once, in 20:8, and Mark not at all.
16. Liberal scholars may claim (wrongly) that Chapter 21 of the Gospel According to John was not written by the author of the rest of the book, but no one challenges the authenticity of Chapter 12.
17. As seems to be the case, based on his indicator near the top of p. 240 of Cadbury, op. cit.
18. 2:9, 2:23; 4:1, 4:40, 6:12, 6:16, 7:10, 11:6, 11:20, 11:29, 11:32, 11:33, 18:6, 19:33, 20:11, and 21:9
19. Keith, Chris. “Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7.53-8.11).” Currents in Biblical Research 6:3 (2008), pp. 379-380. “PA” stands, of course, for “Pericope Adulterae.”
20. ibid., p. 382
21. Cadbury, op. cit., p. 242
22. ibid., p. 243
23. ibid. On the contrary, there are at least 1,389 “textual reasons” to see the Pericope Adulterae as being authentic exactly where it is, following John 7:52. See our article: Tors, John. “A Call for Serious Evangelical Apologetics: The Authenticity of John 7:53-8:11 as a Case Study” at https://truthinmydays.com/a-call-for-serious-evangelical-apologetics-the-authenticity-of-john-753-811-as-a-case-study/.
24. ibid., pp. 243-244
25. Tors, “A Call for Serious Evangelical Apologetics,” op.cit.
Comments