Euthymius Zigabenus and the Pericope Adulterae
A comment on this blog led me to wonder who Euthymius Zigabenus was, and then to write a Wikipedia article on him. He was a 12th century Byzantine monk and commentator on scripture.
In the process I came across this article by Daniel B. Wallace, My favorite passage that’s not in the bible. Wallace’s argument for removing the passage in John 7 on the woman caught in adultery from the bible is somewhat confused, but this statement caught my eye:
Bruce Metzger, arguably the greatest textual critic of the twentieth century, argued that “No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it” (Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 219-221).
(Metzger reference at more length here).
As ever in such situations, I find myself wondering what this largely unpublished author actually said. Does anyone know what the reference is?
UPDATE: James Snapp notes here that Metzger’s statement is mistaken, since Didymus the Blind comments on this pericope, Jerome refers to it existing in numerous Greek mss, and so on.
UPDATE: I think I have found the reference. It’s in PG 129, in the commentary on the four gospels, col.1280 C-D. Here’s the Latin version.
Scire autem oportet, quod ea quae ab hoc loco habentur usque ad eum, quo dicitur: Iterum ergo locutus est illis Jesus dicens: Ego sum lux mundi: in exactoribus exemplaribus, aut non inveniuntur, aut obelo confossa sunt, eo quod illegitima videantur et addita. Et huius argumentum est quod eorum Chrysostomus nullam omnino fecit mentionem (f) : nobis tamen (g) animus est etiam haec declarare, quod utilitate non careant, sicut et caput de muliere in adulterio deprehensa, quod inter haec ponitur.
Rough translation, not very accurate at the end I expect:
But it is necessary to know that the things which are found from this place to that where it is said: Therefore Jesus again spoke of these things saying, I am the light of the world: in the more exact copies, these are either not found, or marked with a star, because they seem illegitimate and added. And the argument for this is because Chrysostom makes no mention anywhere of this; but for us we must also declare that this, because it is not without usefulness, is the chapter on the woman taken in adultery, which is placed between these.
I hesitate to try to transcribe the Greek from Migne, since I can hardly read it in the copy I have. Here it is (starts at second paragraph): anyone with more Greek than me care to transcribe it?
Euthymius Zigabenus on the Pericope
I did a google search on his Greek spelling and came across these interesting links:
Greek wikipedia article (contains his chapter headings)
http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%95%CF%85%CE%B8%CF%8D%C2%B5%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82_%CE%96%CE%B9%CE%B3%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%B7%CE%BD%CF%8C%CF%82
According to it Migne includes him in volumes 128-130 with spurious works in 131
He is also quoted on an Orthodox Wiki Greek article:
http://el.orthodoxwiki.org/%CE%9C%CF%85%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AE%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF_%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82_%CE%9C%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82
and another one on the comma Johaneum:
http://el.orthodoxwiki.org/%CE%99%CF%89%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%BF_%CE%BA%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%BC%CE%B1
Hope they give more data
http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ευθύµιος_Ζιγαβηνός
Greek wikipedia article (with chapter titles)
Zigabinus was published by Minge, volumes 128-130 with 131 being spurious works
el.orthodoxwiki.org/Μυστήριο_της_Μετανοίας
el.orthodoxwiki.org/Ιωάννειο_κόμμα
A couple more articles from orthodox Wiki (in Greek). The last one on the comma Johaneum is very interesting because it says what orthodox practice is in spurious parts (= The Orthodox bibles are the liturgical text, not the critical edition, if the text is proven spurious but has entered church service, we use it anyway even though it is spurious)
Thanks ikkoki. I’m having a hunt around Euthymius Zigabenus to see if I can find it.
Thanks for these!
Χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν ὅτι τὰ ἐντεῦθεν ἄχρι τοῦ, Πάλιν οὖν ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· Ἐγὼ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου· παρὰ τοῖς ἀκριβέσιν ἀκριβέσιν ἀντιγράφοις ἢ οὐχ εὕρηται ἢ ὠβέλισται. Διὸ φαίνονται παρέγγραπτα καὶ προσθήκη· καὶ τούτου τεκμήριον τὸ μηδὲ τὸν Χρυσόστομον ὅλως μνημονεῦσαί αὐτῶν. Πειρατέον δὲ ὅμως ἡμῖν καὶ ταῦτα διασαφῆσαι· οὐκ ἄμοιρον γὰρ ὠφελείας οὐδὲ τὸ ἐν τούτοις κεφάλαιον τὸ περὶ τῆς ἐπὶ μοιχείᾳ κατειλημμένης γυναικός.
Oops, dittography…
Thank you so much for doing this!
Metzger’s statement is less helpful than it may first appear. The negation is tightly controlled. “Greek father” of course does not cover Jerome, nor does “comment” refer to a discussion of it by Didymus as part of a different gospel.
Thank you for this note. Hmm, that’s really misleading then. I think most people reading that statement would understand from this that there are no ancient witnesses to it (even if that is not precisely what is said). On learning different, it would not be adequate to discover that it was couched in wording that covered the writer’s backside, but sort of failed to mention these other points. Let’s presume that it was an inadvertance.
Here’s my attempt at a translation from the Greek, using my beta translation tool and Nick Nicholas’ transcription:
The translation of the last sentence is shaky, I think.
Πειρατέον δὲ ὅμως ἡμῖν καὶ ταῦτα διασαφῆσαι· οὐκ ἄμοιρον γὰρ ὠφελείας οὐδὲ τὸ ἐν τούτοις κεφάλαιον τὸ περὶ τῆς ἐπὶ μοιχείᾳ κατειλημμένης γυναικός.
I think your tool is thrown by the lack of copulas!
But we should try to clarify these matters as well. For the passage on the woman caught in adultery, which is in there [ἐν τούτοις], is not lacking in usefulness, either [i.e. is edifying, is theologically important.]
So we should try to work out the authenticity of the passage, because the incident of the woman caught in adultery is important.
Ah, thank you Nick! I knew I was having trouble with the last bit. My knowledge of Greek is minimal and is being acquired as I work on this tool.
This may be tangential to the discussion, however, Codex Fuldensis which is positively dated to AD 546 contains the alduterae pericope. Fuldensis is in Latin. It is thought to be based on Tatian’s diatessaron which existed in several languages including Greek and originated c. AD 180.
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book II.24 refers to the passage “And when the elders had set another woman which had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and were gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of the hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being answered No, He said unto her: “Go thy way therefore, for neither do I condemn thee.”” Book II is generally dated to the late third century (Von Drey, Krabbe, Bunsen, Funk)
I don’t doubt that the pericope is ancient, and indeed apostolic, myself.