Steven Avery
Administrator
To Cast the First Stone
Wasserman
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q5mzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32
He defended the authenticity of the Longer Ending, which he printed in full, and, building on Burgon's arguments, he suggested that perhaps the evangelist himself had inserted the pericope adulterae at some later stage.60
60. F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed. (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), 2:337-44, 2:353-56, 2:361-63. In his Plain Introduction, he argues that the pericope adulterae was a later addition that may have been made by the evangelist himself (364-68).
Plain Introduction
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=7H0PEMjlcPAC&pg=PA364
If ch. xx. 30, 31 show signs of having been the original end of this Gospel, and ch. xxi be a later supplement by the Apostle’s own
hand, which I think with Dean Alford is evidently the case, why should not St. John have inserted in this second edition both the amplification in ch. v. 3, 4, and this most edifying and eminently Christian narrative ? The appended chapter (xxi) would thus be added at once to all copies of the Gospels then in circulation, though a portion of them might well overlook the minuter change in ch. v. 3, 4, or, from obvious though mistaken motives, might hesitate to receive for general use or public reading the history of the woman taken in adultery.
It must be in this way, if at all, that we can assign to the Evangelist chh. vii. 53—viii. 11 ; on all intelligent principles of mere criticism the passage must needs be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by all the critical editors.
Causes of the Corruption
Burgon
Wasserman
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q5mzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32
He defended the authenticity of the Longer Ending, which he printed in full, and, building on Burgon's arguments, he suggested that perhaps the evangelist himself had inserted the pericope adulterae at some later stage.60
60. F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed. (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), 2:337-44, 2:353-56, 2:361-63. In his Plain Introduction, he argues that the pericope adulterae was a later addition that may have been made by the evangelist himself (364-68).
Plain Introduction
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=7H0PEMjlcPAC&pg=PA364
If ch. xx. 30, 31 show signs of having been the original end of this Gospel, and ch. xxi be a later supplement by the Apostle’s own
hand, which I think with Dean Alford is evidently the case, why should not St. John have inserted in this second edition both the amplification in ch. v. 3, 4, and this most edifying and eminently Christian narrative ? The appended chapter (xxi) would thus be added at once to all copies of the Gospels then in circulation, though a portion of them might well overlook the minuter change in ch. v. 3, 4, or, from obvious though mistaken motives, might hesitate to receive for general use or public reading the history of the woman taken in adultery.
It must be in this way, if at all, that we can assign to the Evangelist chh. vii. 53—viii. 11 ; on all intelligent principles of mere criticism the passage must needs be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by all the critical editors.
Causes of the Corruption
Burgon
Last edited: