Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:07:37.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Earth Accuses Earth: Tracing What Jesus Wrote on the Ground

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2010

Jennifer Knust  and
Tommy Wasserman
Jennifer Knust
Affiliation:
Boston University
Tommy Wasserman
Affiliation:
àrebro Theological Seminary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53–8:11) has a long, complex history. Well-known in the Latin West, the story was neglected but not forgotten in the East. Incorporated within Late Antique and Early Medieval Gospel manuscripts, depicted in Christian art, East and West, and included within the developing liturgies of Rome and Constantinople, the passage has fascinated interpreters for centuries despite irregularities in its transmission.1 Throughout this long history, one narrative detail has been of particular interest: the content and significance of Jesus— writing. Discussed in sermons, elaborated in manuscripts, and depicted in magnificent illuminations, Jesus— writing has inspired interpreters at least since the fourth century, when Ambrose of Milan first mentioned it. Offering his opinion on the propriety of capital punishment, the bishop turned to the pericope in order to argue that Christians do well to advocate on behalf of the condemned since, by doing so, they imitate the mercy of Christ. Nevertheless, he averred, the imposition of capital punishment remains an option for Christian rulers and judges. After all, God also judges and condemns, as Christ showed when, responding to the men questioning him and accusing the adulteress, he wrote twice on the ground. Demonstrating that “the Jews were condemned by both testaments,” Christ bent over and wrote “with the finger with which he had written the law,” or so the bishop claimed.2 Ambrose offered a further conjecture in a subsequent letter: Jesus wrote “earth, earth, write that these men have been disowned,” a saying he attributes to Jeremiah (compare Jer 22:29),3. As Jeremiah also explains, “Those who have been disowned by their Father are written on the ground,” but the names of Christians are written in heaven.4

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 103 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 407 - 446
Copyright
President and Fellows of Harvard College 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In general there are relatively few examples of major redactional additions to the text of the New Testament. Besides the story of the woman taken in adultery, the other obvious example is the so-called Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:19–20). The unstable transmission history of both of these pericopes show that the transmission of the Gospels was not easily controlled by the church, even in Late Antiquity. See Wisse, Frederik, “The Nature and Purpose of Redactional Changes in Early Christian Texts,” in Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission (ed. Petersen, William L.; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989) 47–48Google Scholar.

2 Epistle 68.14: “Scribebat autem in terra digito quo legem scripserat … Secundo autem scripsit, ut gemino testamento Iudaeos scias esse damnatos” (trans. Mary Melchior Beyenka; CSEL 82:175; FC 26:472).

3 Epistle 50.4: “Quid scribebat nisi illud propheticum: Terra terra scribe hos viros abdicatos, quod de Iechonia lectum est in Hieremia propheta?” (trans. Beyenka; CSEL 82:57–58; FC 26:493; quotations of scripture are italicized in the critical editions).

4 Epistle 50.5, 7: “Cum Iudaei interpellant, in terra scribuntur nomina Iudaeorum, cum adeunt Christiani, non scribuntur in terra fidelium nomina, sed in caelo. In terra autem scribuntur abdicati a patre proprio, qui patrem temptant et contumelius irrogant auctori salutis” (trans. Beyenka; CSEL 82:58; FC 26:493). Compare Jeremiah 17:13: “Omnes qui te dereliquerunt confundentur recedentes in terra scribentur.”

5 For further discussion of the forms of this variant in later MSS, see Wasserman, Tommy, “The Patmos Family of New Testament MSS and Its Allies in the Pericope of the Adulteress and Beyond,” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 7 (2002)Google Scholar. Online: http://purl.org/TC/vol07/Wasserman2002/Wasserman2002.html.

6 Trier. Codex Egberti, Reichenau MS 24, fol. 46v.

7 Darmstadt. Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, MS 1640, fol. 171r. For discussion and plates, see Kraus, Jeremia, Worauf gründet unser Glaube? Jesus von Nazaret im Spiegel des Hitda-Evangeliars (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005)Google Scholar.

8 Sankt Gallen Stiftsbibliothek (SB) 292, fol. 135; see also Karlsruhe. BLB, St. Peter perg. 88 and 109. We would like to thank Anina Baumann for her assistance with Cod. Sang. 292.

9 Preaching on Psalm 2:10, the bishop of Hippo also invoked Jesus— writing, this time to remind kings that, when they judge people of the earth, “earth itself is judging the earth” (quia terra iudicat terram). As mere mortals, kings too will be judged (Serm. 13.4–6; CCSL 41.11.1:179–80). Franz Ronig and Paul Bloch identify this sermon as the likely source of the gloss; Ronig, Franz, Codex Egberti. Das Perikopenbuch des Erzbischofs Egbert von Trier (977–993) (Treveris Sacra 1; Trier: Spee-Verlag, 1977) 76Google Scholar and Bloch, Paul, “Ehebrecherin,” Lexikon der Christlichen Ikonographie (ed. Kirschbaum, Engelbert et al.; 8 vols.; Freiberg im Breisgau: Herder, 1968–1976Google Scholar) 1:581–83. Bruce M. Metzger disagreed, however, noting that there is no word-for-word correspondence between Augustine's sermon and the phrase as found in Egberti and Hitda's Gospel Book. Review of Lexikon der Christlichen Ikonographie in Church History 45 (1976) 5–15, at 8.

10 This term is borrowed from Gérard Genette, who defines “paratext” as those elements that accompany and “presentify” texts, guiding readers to particular understandings of the text in question. Genette, Gérard, Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation (trans. Jane E. Lewin; Cambridge. U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1977)Google Scholar. See also Anderson, Graham, Intertextuality (The New Critical Idiom; New York: Routledge, 2000) 103–7Google Scholar.

11 Derrett, J. Duncan, “Law in the New Testament: The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery,” NTS 19 (1963–1964) 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 9, 23. Exodus 23 continues to be cited in scholarly literature as probable, though, as also often noted, Derrett's reconstruction is pure conjecture. See, for example, Gench, Frances Taylor, Back to the Well: Women's Encounters with Jesus in the Gospels (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2004) 138Google Scholar; C. Scott, J. Martin, “On the Trail of a Good Story: John 7.53–8.11 in the Gospel Tradition,” in Ciphers in the Sand: Interpretations of the Woman Taken in Adultery (ed. Kreitzer, Larry J. and Rooke, Deborah W.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000) 63Google Scholar; Keith, Chris, The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus (New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 38; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Foster, Paul, “Educating Jesus: The Search for a Plausible Context,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4 (2006) 7–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 20–21.

13 Brown, Raymond, The Gospel according to John I–XII: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 29; New York: Doubleday, 1966) 334Google Scholar.

14 Brown, Gospel according to John I–XII, 334. O—Day adds: “[T]he shape of the story makes clear that Jesus— conversation partners, both the scribes and the Pharisees and the woman, respond to what they hear Jesus say, not what he writes. Attempts to find the interpretive key to John 7:53–8:11 in something outside the given story reveal a dissatisfaction with and distrust of the story as it is written.” O—Day, Gail, “John 5:53–8:11: A Study in Misreading,” JBL 111 (1992) 631–40Google Scholar, at 636.

15 Schöndorf, Harald, “Jesus schreibt mit dem Finger auf die Erde,” BZ 49 (1996) 91–93Google Scholar, at 92. See also Hodges, Zane C., “The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53–8:11): Exposition,” Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (1980) 41–53Google Scholar, at 46, and Keith, Pericope Adulterae, 175–81, 189–90. Scott, “On the Trail,” 63–64, is not persuaded by this argument.

16 Sanders, James, “‘Nor Do I …—: A Canonical Reading of the Challenge to Jesus in John 8,” in The Conversation Continues: Studies in John and Paul (ed. Fortna, Robert T. and Gaventa, Beverly R.; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1990) 337–47Google Scholar. Interestingly, Bede made this same connection in the eighth century in Homily on John 1.75–80.

17 Scott suggests a connection with Daniel 5:5, 24–28. See also Keith, Pericope Adulterae, 176–77, who notes that both Exodus 31:18 and Deuteronomy 9:10 specify that God wrote the law with the divine finger. As we have already observed, Ambrose also made this connection, though he did not explicitly cite Exodus.

18 Osborne, Robert E., “Pericope Adulterae,” CJT 12 (1966) 281–83Google Scholar. Of course Jesus himself cannot have written Daniel (Theodotion) 13:5, “Iniquity came forth from Babylon, from elders who were judges, who were supposed to govern the people,” since the story of Susanna survives only in Greek and is unlikely to have had a Hebrew original. On the place of the pericope in the Roman stational liturgy, see Frere, Walter H., Studies in Early Roman Liturgy (3 vols.; Alcuin Club Collections 30; London: Oxford University Press, 1934) 2:iii–iv, 8, 81Google Scholar; Klauser, Theodoor, Das Römische Capitulare Evangeliorum. Texte und Untersuchungen zu seiner àltesten Geschichte (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 28; Münster: Aschendorff, 1972) xi–xxviiiGoogle Scholar. On the possible association of this pericope and the story of Susanna, see also Scott, “On the Trail,” 69–72; Knust, Jennifer Wright, “Early Christian Re-Writing and the History of the Pericope Adulterae,” JECS 14 (2006) 497Google Scholar. For a skeptical view, see Keith, J. Chris, “Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7.53–8.11),” Currents in Biblical Research 6 (2008) 377–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A connection between the pericope and Susanna is also made in an illuminated medieval Bible moralisée (Austrian NB 11794, fol. 174) and in the Concordantia Caritatis; for discussion, see Schmid, Alfred A., “Concordantia caritatis,” Reallexikon zur deutsche Kunstgeschichte, ed. Schmitt, Otto (11 vols.; Stuttgart: Alfred Druckmüller, 1954) 3:833–53Google Scholar, at 842.

19 Aichele, George, “Reading Jesus Writing,” Biblical Interpretation 12 (2004) 353–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 359.

20 Keith, Pericope Adulterae, esp. 203–4, 223–32, 249–56; see also Goodspeed, Edgar J., A History of Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942) 70Google Scholar, cited by Keith, Pericope Adulterae, 141–4ll.

21 McGann, Jerome, A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983)Google Scholar; idem, “Interpretation as a Game that Must Be Lost,” in The Scholars Art: Literary Studies in a Managed World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Foucault, Michel, “Nietzche, Genealogy, History,” in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice (ed. Bonchard, D. F.; Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977) 51–52Google Scholar; Chartier, Roger, On the Edge of the Cliff: History, Language and Practices (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997) 81–89Google Scholar; Jauss, Hans Robert, Toward a History of Aesthetic Reception (trans. Timothy Bahti; Theory and History of Literature 2; Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1982)Google Scholar esp. 14–15, 20–32.

22 For a study of textual criticism and reader reception theory, see Philip W. Comfort, “The Scribe as Interpreter: A New Look at New Testament Textual Criticism according to Reader Reception Theory,” (Ph.D. diss., University of South Africa, 1996). Epp, Eldon J., “Anti-Judaic Tendencies in the D-Text of Acts: Forty Years of Conversation,” in The Book of Acts as Church History (ed. Nicklas, Tobias and Tilly, Michael; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 144–46Google Scholar. Epp has proposed another approach, that of “narrative textual criticism.” Here the focus is on the history of textual transmission, with textual variants in their multiplicity allowed to tell their own stories, alerting us to the concerns in the faith and practice of the church through history.

23 Scott, Joan Wallach, “The Evidence of Experience,” Critical Inquiry 17 (1991) 773–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Scott, , “Fantasy Echo: History and the Construction of Identity,” Critical Inquiry 27 (2001) 284–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 For an overview of the problem, see Becker, Ulrich, Jesus und die Ehebrecherin. Untersuchungen zur Text- und Überlieferungsgeschichte von Joh. 7:53–8:11 (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1963) 8–43Google Scholar.

25 In his work Against the Pelagians, Jerome observes that the story is found “in many of both the Greek as well as the Latin copies” (in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus) of the Gospel of John (Pelag. 2.17; CCSL 80:75–78; trans. John N. Hritzu: FC 53:321).

26 [Zacharias Rhetor], Chronicle 8.7. Pseudo-Zacharias observed that the story could be found in only one MS, a personal copy of John possessed by Bishop Moro.

27 In his Commentary on John, Euthymius Zigabenus states: “In the accurate manuscripts [the passage] is either not found or it is obelized” (ἀκριβέσιν ἀντιγράφοιϛ ἢ οὐκ ∊ὗρηται ἢ ὠβέλισται, translation our own; PG 129:1280d).

28 For examples of anonymous scholia questioning the origin and integrity of the passage, see Becker, Jesus und die Ehebrecherin, 11.

29 Becker, Jesus und die Ehebrecherin, 8–14; Robinson, Maurice A., “Preliminary Observations Regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of Nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts Containing the Passage,” FilNeot 13 (2000) 4–12Google Scholar.

30 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.17; SC 31:157.

31 Greek text edited by de Strycker, Émile, La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques. Recherches sur le papyrus Bodmer 5 avec une édition critique du texte grec et une traduction annotée (Subsidia hagiographica 33; Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1961)Google Scholar; English translation by Elliott, James Keith, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M. R. James (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) 48–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the date of the work, see van Stempvoort, Pieter A., “The Protevangelium Jacobi, the Sources of Its Theme and Style and Their Bearing on Its Date,” in Studia Evangelica Volumes II–III. Papers Presented to the Second International Conference on New Testament Studies Held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1961 (ed. Cross, Frank Leslie; Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur 88; Berlin: Akademie, 1964) 3:410–26Google Scholar; Cothenet, Edouard, “Le Protévangile de Jacques. Origine, genre et signification d—un premier midrash Chrétien sur la Nativité de Marie,” ANRW 2.25:4252–69Google Scholar. On the pericope adulterae, the Gospel of John and the Proto-Gospel of James, see Petersen, William L., “ΟΥΔΕ ΕΓW ΣΕ [κΑτΑ]κRIΝW: John 8:11, the Protevangelium Iacobi, and the History of the Pericope Adulterae,” in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical: Essays in Honor of Tjitze Baarda (ed. Petersen, William L., Vos, Johan S., and de Jonge, Henk Jen; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 191–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Didascalia Apostolorum 7; CSCO 175:92–93; English translation CSCO 176:89.

33 Compare U (030) 188 700 pc, which reads ταυτην ∊υρομ∊ν at John 8:4.

34 Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah 19.15: Μοιχὸϛ ∊ἰ τότ∊ γ∊γένηται ἢ μοιχαλίϛ, ἡ ἀπ∊ιλὴ οὐ γέ∊ννα, οὐ πῦρ αἰώνιον, ἀλλά· λίθοιϛ λιθοβοληθήσ∊ται· <<Λιθοβολ∊ίτω αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ συναγωγή.>> ’Ερ∊ῖ ἀπ∊λθὼν ὁ ἐν τούτοιϛ ∊ὑρ∊θ∊ὶϛ μοιχόϛ, ἡ ἐν τούτοιϛ ∊ὑρ∊θ∊ῖσα μοιχαλίϛ· ∊ἴθ∊ καὶ ἐπ’ ἐμοῦ ὁ λόγοϛ ἐρ∊ῖ, ὁ λαὸϛ λίθοιϛ μ∊ ἔβαλλ∊ και μὴ τ∊τηρημένοϛ ἤμην ∊ἰϛ τὸ αἰώνιον πῦρ (SC 238:244). Though not widely accepted, Ulrich Becker suggested that Origen knew the pericope adulterae on the basis of this passage and also his comment that the law of Israel “cannot stone the adulteress” (nec adulteram lapidare) since the Roman authorities avenge themselves on these things (Comm. Rom. 6.7.11). See Becker, Jesus und die Ehebrecherin, 119–24.

35 Edited with German translation in Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura-Papyrus). Teil IV. Komm. Zu Eccl. Kap. 7–8,8 (ed. Kramer, Johannes and Krebber, Bärbel; Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 16; Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1972) 88Google Scholar (fol. 223, lines 7–13). For further discussion of Didymus's interpretation, see Knust, “Early Christian Re-Writing,” 499–502.

36 Kramer and Krebber interpret Didymus's comment that the story is found “in certain gospels” (ἔν τισιν ∊ὐαγγ∊λίοιϛ) as a reference to “certain manuscripts of John” (Didymos der Blinde, 89). Ehrman, Bart, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 (1988) 24–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 26–27, 30. Ehrman suggests that Didymus knew the story from John and from another, noncanonical gospel, probably the Gospel of the Hebrews. Lührmann, Dieter, “Die Geschichte von einer Sünderin und andere apokryphe Jesusüberlieferungen bei Didymos von Alexandrien,” NovT 34 (1990) 289–316Google Scholar, at 304–7. Lührmann, on the other hand, is convinced that Didymus did not know the Johannine version of the story; rather, Didymus is here citing a story known exclusively from an apocryphal gospel, probably the Gospel of the Hebrews.

37 Questiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti 127.12.1; CSEL 50:403–4. For further discussion of the history of this document, see Bussières, Marie-Pierre, “Introduction to Ambrosiaster,” in Contre les Païens (Question sur l—Ancien et le Nouveau Testament 114) et Sur le Destin (Question sur l—Ancien et le Nouveau Testament 115) (SC 512; Paris: Cerf, 2007) 31–40Google Scholar.

38 Pacian of Barcelona, Against the Novatians 20.2 (Letter 3.2): “Nolite in Euangelio legere quod pepercerit Dominus etiam adulterae confitenti, quam nemo damnarat” (SC 410:254).

39 Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Psalm 118 8.13–16; SC 341:269.

40 Draguet Fragment 1, Pachomian Koinonia (ed. and trans. Veilliux, Armand; 3 vols.; Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian, 1981) 2:111Google Scholar. For discussion of this source, see Rousseau, Philip, Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth-Century Egypt (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1984) 37–38Google Scholar.

41 Epistle 68.14 (trans. Beyenka; CSEL 82:175; FC 26:472).

42 “Bowing down, Jesus wrote with his finger” (at Iesus inclinus digito scribebat in terra; Pelag. 2.17.20; CCSL 80.3.2:76).

43 Epistle 50.4.

44 Ambrose appears to be paraphrasing. The Vulgate text reads: “Terra terra terra audi sermonem Domini haec dicit Dominus scribe virum istum sterilem virum qui in diebus suis non prosperabitur” (Earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord: Thus the Lord says, “Write this man sterile, a man who shall not prosper”).

45 Epistle 50.4–5.

46 Epistle 50.5. “Cum Iudaei interpellant, in terra scribuntur nomina Iudaeorum, cum adeunt Christiani, non scribuntur in terra fidelium nomina, sed in caelo. In terra autem scribuntur abdicati a patre proprio, qui patrem temptant et contumelias irrogant auctori salutis. Cum interpellant Iudae, inclinat caput Iesus et quia non habet ubi reclinet caput suum, iterum erigit quasi diturus sententiam et ait: Qui sine peccato est, prior lapidet eam. Et iterum inclinato capite scribebat in terra (trans. Beyenka; CSEL 82:58; FC 26:493).

47 At Iesus inclinus digito scribebat in terra: eorum uidelicet qui accusabant, et omnium peccata mortalium, secundum quod scriptum est in Propheta: Reliquentes autem te, super terram scribantur (CCSL 80.3.2:76).

48 Sermon 115.3 (trans. Gnass; CCSL 24a:700; FC 102:191).

49 Sermon 115.2, 4.

50 With Bezae as our only witness, this conclusion cannot be certain when it comes to the Greek. For further discussion, see Lührmann, “Die Geschichte von einer Sünderin”; Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress”; Petersen, “ΟΥΔΕ ΕΓW ΣΕ [κΑτΑ]κRIΝW.”

51 c: Paris. Bibliothèque nationale lat. 254. Critical edition by Vogels, Heinrich Josef, Evangelium Colbertinum. Codex lat. 254 der Bibliothèque nationale zu Paris (2 vols.; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1953)Google Scholar; for a full discussion of the pericope adulterae as it appears in this MS, see 2:32–34.

e: Trento, Museo Nazionale (Castello del Buon Consiglio s.n.).

ff 2: Paris. Bibliothèque nationale lat. 17225. Critical edition by Edgar S. Buchanan, The Four Gospels from the Codex Corbeiensis Together with Fragments of the Catholic Epistles, of the Acts and of the Apocalypse from the Fleury Palimpsest (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) 30–31; with introduction by Edgar S. Buchanan, “The Codex Corbeiensis,” Journal of Theological Studies 7 (1905–1906) 99–121.

52 Houghton, Hugh A. G., Augustine's Text of John: Patristic Citations and Latin Gospel Manuscripts (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) 258–59, 346–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar. We would like to offer our sincerest thanks to Hugh Houghton of the ITSEE for his valuable assistance with Augustine's citations of the passage and also with the Old Latin versions of John.

53 As O—Loughlin observes: “Ambrose sees Jesus— action of inclining ‘his head— (an implication of his having to look up at the woman in v. 10) as sacramental of his attitude to sinners: ‘when Jesus inclines his head he does so that he might raise up those who have been fallen— (Epist. 50.7).” See O—Loughlin, Thomas, “A Woman's Plight and the Western Fathers,” in Ciphers in the Sand: Interpretations of the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7.53–8.11) (ed. Kreitzer, Larry J. and Rooke, Deborah W.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000) 83–104Google Scholar, at 88. O—Loughlin, however, does not note the possible connection to John 19:30.

54 Fulda. Landesbibliothek, MS Bonif. 1. Critical edition of Codex Fuldensis by Ernst Ranke, Codex Fuldensis. Novum Temstamentum Latine Interprete Herironymo. Ex manuscripto Victoris Capuani (Marburg: Sumtibus N. G. Elwerti Bibliopolae Academici, 1868) 25 [capitula], 107 [text]. On the lack of agreement between the capitula and the rest of the MS, see Theodore Zahn, Tatian's Diatessaron (FGNK 1; Erlangen, 1881) 300–3. For further discussion, see William Petersen, Tatian's Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 25; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 85–86, 127–29.

55 Bt/gat: Bonifatius Fischer's siglum Bt indicates that Codex Gatianus is not to be treated as an Old Latin witness. On the other hand, it appears in the Vetus Latina list with number 30 where it is described as “Mischtext, der irischen Familie DELQR gehört.” Roger Gryson, Altlateinische Handschriften (Freiburg: Herder, 1999).

56 Enarrat. Ps. 2.30.7; trans. Hebgin and Corrigan; CCSL 38.10.1:196; ACW 30:18.

57 Leg. 1.20.44; CCSL 49.15.3:77.

58 Faust. 22.25 “inclinate capite”; Ennarat. Ps. 30.2 “inclinato capite” and 102.11.42 “rursum inclinato capite”; Serm. 272b.5 “inclinauit caput et coepit digito scribere in terram.”

59 Tract. Ev. Jo. 33.5.2; compare Cons. 4.10.17; trans. Rettig; CCSL 36.8:309; FC 78:55.

60 Serm. 13.4–6; CCSL 41.11.1:178–89.

61 de Blaauw, Sible, Cultus et Décor. Liturgia e architettura nella Roma tardoantica e medievale. Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Petri (2 vols.; Studi e Testi 355; Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1994) 1:53–71Google Scholar; Leclercq, Henri, “Stations Liturgiques,” in Dictionnaire d—archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie (ed. Marrou, Henri; Paris: Librarie Letouzey et Ané, 1953) 15.2:1653–57Google Scholar; Vogel, Cyrille, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources (rev. and trans. Storey, William G. and Rasmussen, Niels Krough, with the assistance of Brooks-Leonard, John K.; Washington, D.C.: Pastoral, 1981) 310Google Scholar; Baldovin, John F., The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development and Meaning of Stational Liturgy (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 228; Rome: Pontificum Institutum Storiorum Orientalium, 1987) 153–55Google Scholar; Frere, Walter H., Studies in Early Roman Liturgy 2:8, 87–88Google Scholar.

62 Berrouard, Marie-François, Oeuvres de saint Augustin 72. Homélies sur l—Évangile de Saint Jean XVII-XXXIII (Sér. 9; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1977) 860Google Scholar. Berrouard treats Augustine's Serm. 13 as a lectionary sermon on John 7:53–8:11. Still, Houghton points out that “there is no explicit mention within the sermon of this passage as the lection in addition to Psalm 2:10.” Hugh A. G. Houghton, “Augustine's Citations and Text of the Gospel according to John,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham, 2006) 176; see also Houghton, Augustine's Text of John, 257–61.

63 Sermo 62.4.

64 Carmen paschale 4.233–42; CSEL 10:107–8.

65 Epistle 100.5; SC 65:166.

66 Expositio Psalmorum 56.7; CCSL 47:510.

67 These results argue against O—Loughlin's comment: “[T]he story hardly surfaces in the Latin Fathers. Indeed, in works by only four writers––Ambrose (ca. 339–397), Jerome (ca. 342–420), Augustine (354–430), and Cassiodorus (ca. 485–580)––does it receive more attention than an incidental reference or allusion.” In fact, the story is mentioned, paraphrased, cited and employed by eleven fourth- and fifth-century Latin authors, often at great length. Those mentioning the story include Pseudo-Ambrose (Ambrosiaster), Ambrose, Augustine, Cassiodorus, Gelasius, Leo the Great, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Pacian of Barcelona, Peter Chrysologus, and Sedulius, the fifth-century poet.

68 The following MSS include the story: Codex Aureus (VL 15, aur), seventh cent.; Codex Veronensis (VL 04, b, the folia containing the pericope have been lost, but, as Buchanan notes, it was once there), fifth cent.; Codex Colbertinus (VL 6, c), twelfth/thirteenth cent.; Codex Bezae (VL 05, d), fifth cent.; Codex Palatinus (VL 02, e), fifth cent.; Codex Corbeiensis (VL 8, ff 2), fifth cent.; Codex Sarzanensis (VL 22, j or z, vv. 6–7 only), sixth cent; Codex Moliensis/Book of Mulling (VL 35, μ), fifth cent.; Codex Usserianus Primus (VL 14, r 1), eighth cent.; Codex Sangermanensis secundus (VL 29, g 2), tenth cent.; Codex Gatianus (VL 30, Bt/gat), ca. 800; Codex Sangallensis 60 (VL 47), ca. 800; Codex Fossatensis, eigthth cent. (VL 9A); and the ninth-century MS Würzburg Universitätsbibliothek M.p.th.f67 (VL 11A, Bw). On the reclassifications of Codex Fossatensis and the Würzburg MS as Old Latin, see Houghton, Hugh A. G., “The St Petersburg Insular Gospels: Another Old Latin Witness,” JTS 61 (2010) 110–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “A Newly Identified Old Latin Gospel Manuscript: Würzburg Universitätsbibliothek M.p.th.f67,” JTS 60 (2009) 1–21Google Scholar. It should be noted that, apart from c, d, e, ff 2, and j/z, all these Old Latin witnesses (where extant) attest to the Vulgate form of the pericope.

The following MSS exclude the story: Codex Vercellensis (VL 03, a), fourth cent.; Codex Brixianus (VL 10, f), sixth cent.; Codex Monacensis (VL 13, q), sixth or seventh cent. Codex Rehdigeranus (VL 11, l) excluded the passage initially, but it was added to the margins in the ninth cent., copied out on another piece of parchment and sewn in at the appropriate section of John.

69 See Bonifatius Fischer, Varianten zu Johannes (vol. 4 of Die lateinischen Evangelien bis zum 10. Jahrhundert; Vetus Latina. Aus der Geschichte lateinischen Bibel 18; Freiburg: Herder, 1991) 242–78.

70 For example, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Cod. Pal. Lat. 46 (ca. 800): “Feria VII ad scam Susannam secundum Iohn. Capt. Lxxxvi perexit Iesus in montem oliuti usque uade et amplius noli peccare.” Interestingly, Biblioteca Apostlica Vaticana Cod. Vat. Lat 8523 (ninth cent.), includes a capitulum listing the pericope as chapter sixteen, as does the Old Latin Codex Corbeiensis and the Du Fay Gospels (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale lat. 9385). The capitulum reads: xvi “et adducunt ad Iesum mulierem depraehensam in moechationem ut eam iudicaret,” a reading shared with Corbeiensis as well. Houghton, Hugh, “Chapter Divisions, capitula lists and the Old Latin Versions of John,” Revue Bénédictine 121 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, forthcoming. As Houghton has recently noted, those MSS which include capitulum sixteen and the rare Greek loan word “moechatio” appear to preserve an Old Latin text originating in the third century,

71 Jonathan C. Borland, “The Old Latin Tradition of John 7:53–8:11” (Masters thesis, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009) 91. According to a recent investigation of the Old Latin evidence for the pericope, Borland concludes that Codex Palatinus (e) in particular enjoys a very high level of agreement with Nestle-Aland 27 (88%). As such, from the perspective of modern critical eclecticism, the high quality of its text is clear.

72 For a treatment of the pericope adulterae in the Western textual tradition of the Diatessaron, see Becker, Jesus und die Ehebrecherin, 33–37.

73 St. Petersburg: The State Hermitage Museum, Basilewsky No. 30; Paris: Musée de Cluny, Inv. Nr. 1033. For discussion, see Volbach, Wolfgang Fritz, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters (Kataloge vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer 7; 3d ed.; Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern, 1976) 112–13Google Scholar. On the significance of the woman's gesture, see Schiller, Gertrude, Iconography of Christian Art (trans. Janet Seligman; 2 vols.; Greenwich, Conn.: New York Graphic Society, 1971–1972) 1:160Google Scholar.

74 This woman has been variously identified as the adulteress, the woman with a flow of blood (Mark 5:25–34), and the Canaanite woman (Matt 15:21–28). For further discussion, see Künstle, Karl, Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst (2 vols.; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1927–1928) 1:394Google Scholar; Lowrie, Walter, Art in the Early Church (New York: Pantheon Books, 1947) 172Google Scholar; Nordström, Carl-Otto, Ravennastudien. Ideengeschichtliche und iconographische Untersuchungen über die Mosaiken von Ravenna (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksells Boktyckeri, 1953) 59–80Google Scholar; Bloch, Paul, “Ehebrecherin,” in Lexikon der Christlichen Ikonographie (ed. Kirschbaum, Engelbert et al.; 8 vols.; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1968–1976) 1:581–83Google Scholar; Schiller, , Iconography, 1:160–63Google Scholar, 1:178–79.

75 See Johnson, Mark, “Towards a History of Theodoric's Building Program,” DOP 42 (1988) 73–96Google Scholar; von Simson, Otto G., Sacred Fortress: Byzantine Art and Statecraft in Ravenna (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948)Google Scholar; Lowden, John, Early Christian and Byzantine Art (London: Phaidon, 1997) 118–24Google Scholar.

76 Still, as Nordström points out, the selected scenes more likely reflect the north Italian context of Ravenna. Earlier attempts to associate the iconographic scheme of these mosaics with the Eastern liturgy cannot, in the end, be substantiated (Ravennastudien, 78–79).

77 Ciborium of San Marco, column C, zone 9. On the dating of these columns, see Weigand, Edmund, “Zur Datierung der Ciboriumsäulen von S. Marco in Venedig,” Studi bizantini e neoellenici 6 (1940) 440–55Google Scholar; Lafontaine, Jacqueline, “Iconographie de la Colonne A du Ciborium de Saint-Marc à Venise,” Actes du XIIe Congrès International d— études Byzantines d—Ochride 10–16 septembre 1961 (3 vols.; Belgrade: Naucno delo, 1963–1964) 3:213–19Google Scholar. For further bibliography, see Lafontaine-Dosogne, Jacqueline, Iconographie de l—enfance de la Vierge dans l—empire byzantine et en Occident (2 vols.; Académie royale de Belgique, Mémoires de la classe des beaux-arts, Series 2.11.3; Brussels: Palais des Académies, 1964–1965) 1:35Google Scholar n. 2; Willoughby, Harold L., “Representational Biblical Cycles: Antiochian and Constantinopolitan,” JBL 69 (1950) 129–36Google Scholar, esp. 133–34. The Berwardsäule bronze column in Hildesheim (ca. 1000) seems to be dependent on the San Marco columns.

78 Weigel, Thomas, Die Reliefsäulen des Hauptaltarciboriums von San Marco in Venedig (Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance 5; Münster: Rhema-Verlag, 1997) 276–78Google Scholar.

79 The inscription on column C, zone 9 reads, LEP(RO)S(VS) CVRATVR{ATVR} XRS MARIA (ET) M<A>RTHA EXIT DEMON DE ADVLTERA. On the date of these inscriptions, see Weigel, Die Reliefsäulen, 92–97; transcription of the inscriptions by Weigel on page 291.

80 The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes (ed. and trans. Crum, Walter E. and White, H. G. Evelyn; 2 vols.; New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1926Google Scholar; repr., Arno, 1973) 2:302–3; Nordenfalk, Carl, “Canon Tables on Papyrus,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 36 (1982) 29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 33. White suggests that the story has been omitted, despite the adjustment of the canon numerals. Nordenfalk suggests instead that the numerals have been specially adjusted in light of the story's inclusion.

81 Hall remarks that the ostrakon was “carefully written: probably a monk's copy.” Harry R. Hall, Coptic and Greek Texts of the Christian Period from Ostraka, Stelae, etc. in the British Museum (London: Printed by the order of the Trustees, 1905) 27 (no. 21424). A recent analysis of the same ostrakon by Christian Askeland, however, calls Hall's confident assessment into question (personal communication 2 June 2009). As Askeland notes, this fragmentary ostrakon does include terms associated with the pericope (priest, woman, and the phrase “he said”), but these are common words also found in personal letters. We would like to thank Mr. Askeland for sharing his transcription of ostrakon 21424 and for discussing the problem with us.

82 Horner lists several glosses, including: “This chapter is not in the Coptic, nor in some of the Greek copies, it was translated from the Arabic” (MS E1, 1208 C.E.); “and from here is read the section of the adulteress, and it is not found in copies of the Coptic, but in some of the Greek and some of the Syriac” (MS F2); “From the beginning of this section and to this point is not found in the Coptic; though it is found in most of the Arabic copies…. I found it in one Coptic copy…. We mentioned this section to the priest, Abu —l Fadl, the Melkite in Cairo, being of those who are acquainted with the Greek language; so he wrote it on paper in Greek, and gave it us, and said, ‘I have transcribed it from a copy which I had from Constantinople— ” (MS Bodleian Hunt 118 and British Museum Or. 3382, 1264 C.E.). Horner, George William, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, Otherwise Called Memphtic and Boharic: with Introduction, Critical Apparatus, and Literal English Translation (4 vols.; London: Clarendon Press, 1898–1905Google Scholar; repr. Osnabrück: O. Zeller, 1969) 2:428–31.

83 On the importance of Amida as a center for the production and preservation of biblical and other Christian MSS, see Mango, M. Mundell, “Patrons and Scribes Indicated in Syriac Manuscripts, 411 to 800 AD,” Jahrbuch der österreichische Byzantinistik 32 (1982) 3–12Google Scholar, at 4–5, 7.

84 For a critical edition of the Syriac, see Historia Ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori (ed. Brooks, Ernest W.; CSCO 83–84, 87–88 Scriptores Syri 3.5–6; Leuven: Typographeo I.-B. Istas, 1924)Google Scholar; see also The Syriac Chronicle Known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene (trans. Hamilton, Frederick John and Brooks, Ernest W.; London: Methuen & Co., 1899) 216–17Google Scholar.

85 Yvonne Burns, “The Historical Events that Occasioned the Inception of the Gospel Lectionary,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 32.11.4 (1982) 119–27. Burns has argued that set readings were confirmed during the reign of the Emperor Justinian (527–565), but unfortunately no sixth-century copies of the lectionary survive. Literary evidence suggests that liturgical processions on important feast days of the church year were taking place in Constantinople from the end of the fourth century. The readings associated with these feasts, however, are not indicated. For further discussion, see Baldovin, Urban Character of Christian Worship, 167–226. On the Feast of Pentecost, see Velkovska, Elena Velkova, “The Liturgical Year in the East,” in Liturgical Time and Space (Handbook for Liturgical Studies 5; Collegeville, Mich.: Liturgical, 1997) 157–63Google Scholar, at 62–63. The earliest MS evidence for the cycle of moveable feasts in Constantinople is from the tenth century; see Mateos, Juan, Le Typicon de la Grande Église. Ms. Sainte-Croix no. 40, Xe siècle (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 165; 2 vols.; Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1962) 2:136–39Google Scholar, the Pentecost readings.

86 Robinson, “Preliminary Observations,” 42–47. See also Colwell, Ernest Cadman, “The Contents of the Gospel Lectionary,” and “Method in the Study of the Text of the Gospel Lectionary,” in Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels (ed. Colwell, Ernest Cadman and Riddle, Donald W.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933) 1–5Google Scholar, at 2–3; 13–20.

87 Dating the Byzantine lectionary system is complex. The earliest MS evidence comes from the eighth century, though literary evidence implies that some form of stational liturgy was in place in Constantinople as early as the fourth century. Yvonne Burns, “The Lectionary of the Patriarch of Constantinople,” Studia Patristica 15.1 (1984) 515–20. Burns suggests that the lectionary developed in stages, with the Easter to Pentecost cycle established first, followed by additions to a Menologion that marked key festivals in the church year and in the life of the city of Constantinople. For example, 25 September marked the deliverance from an earthquake that struck the city during the reign of Theodosius the Great, a feast that was commemorated with a procession to the Campus, probably from the fifth century onward. In a separate essay, she suggests that the main cycle of Gospel lections for the various feasts was established during the reign of the Emperor Justinian, as an accompaniment to his extensive church building projects across the Eastern Empire, which would have necessitated the copying of several new Bibles (Burns, “Historical Events,” 119–27).

88 Most often, the story was read to commemorate St. Pelagia (October 8), or so surviving medieval menologia suggest. The Life of St. Pelagia of Antioch was composed in Greek during the fifth century; thus, the pericope adulterae cannot have been incorporated in the liturgy until after that time. On the date of composition, see Flusin, Bernard, “Les texts grecs,” in Pélagie la Pénitente: Métamporphoses d—une légende (ed. Petitmengin, Pierre; 2 vols.; Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1981) 1:39–76Google Scholar. For further discussion of the lectionary text of the pericope adulterae, see Wikgren, Allen Paul, “The Lectionary Text of the Pericope, John 8:1–11,” JBL 53 (1934) 188–98Google Scholar. Wikgren compared thirty-seven lectionaries, dating from the ninth to the seventeenth centuries, confirming the association of the story with Pelagia and, secondarily, with Theodora.

89 Robinson, “Preliminary Observations,” 44–45 and 44 n. 22.

90 Itinerarium Egeriae 43.5–9. Renoux, Athanase, Le Codex Arménien Jérusalem 121 (2 vols.; Patrologia Orientalis 35.163; Brepols: Turnhout, 1969) 2:19–25Google Scholar, 28–32, 54–55, 193–95; Baldovin, The Urban Character, 64–72.

91 Lewis, Agnes Smith and Gibson, Margaret Dunlop, The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels, Re-Edited from Two Sinai MSS and from P. de la Garde's Edition of the “Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum” (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1899Google Scholar; repr., Jerusalem: Raritas, 1971) xv, lv, 59–60, 242–43. François Nau's analysis of twelve medieval Syriac Menologia suggests that Pelagia was introduced to the Syriac festal calendar by the seventh century, though none of these MSS specify the lections to be read on her feast day, which was, in all but one case, designated for 8 October. Un martyrologe et douze ménologes syriaques (ed. and trans. Nau, François; Patrologia Orientalis 10.1; Martyrologes et ménologes orientaux 1–13; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1915) 21Google Scholar, 34, 47, 77, 113.

92 In the Greek, retranslated from the Syriac by Lewis and Gibson, MSS A and B read: ’Ετ∊λ∊ιώθη τὸ ∊ὐαγγέλιον 'Iωάννου ἑλληνιστὶ ἐν ’Εφέσῳ. MS C reads: ’Ετ∊λ∊ιώσθη τὸ ∊ὐαγγέλιον 'Iωάννου βοηθ∊ίᾳ τοῦ χριστοῦ (Lewis and Gibson, Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, lv). They explain that the pericope adulterae “was at one time appended to St. John's Gospel after the final colophon,” and “in the Greek or Syriac MS from which the lessons of the Palestinian Lectionary were taken, the section was removed to the place (between chapter vii and viii) which it now usually occupies.” These scribes, however, “not highly endowed with intelligence,” transported the colophon with the story (ibid., xv).

93 Maurice Robinson assumes that it is likely missing from another fragmentary papyri as well (39). Once a complete copy of John, only John 8:14–22 survives, but the numeration, together with an estimate of the possible lines per leaf, indicates that John 8:1–11 was excluded. See Robinson, “Preliminary Observations,” 39 n. 13. Robinson's calculation, however, remains an educated guess.

94 It is explicitly omitted by Codex Sinaiticus ( 01), fourth cent.; Codex Vaticanus (B 03), fourth cent.; 032, fourth cent.; 029, fifth cent.; and 022, sixth cent.

95 Robinson has suggested the latter option, though text critics more often conclude that these marks were adopted from Alexandrian text-critical practice. See David C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 192.

96 For example, Photios, the ninth-century patriarch of Constantinople, neglects the passage in his extant sermons.

97 On the reforms of Symeon Metaphrastes and the Menologion he produced, see Christian Hàgel, “The Redaction of Symeon Metaphrastes: Literary Aspects of the Metaphrastic Martyria,” and Efthymiadis, Stephanos, “The Byzantine Hagiographer and His Audience in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries,” in Metaphrasis: Redactions and Audiences in Middle Byzantine Hagiography (ed. Hàgel;, Christian KULTs skriftserie 59; Oslo: The Research Council of Norway, 1996) 7–21, 60–80Google Scholar.

98 According to Wikgren, this reading was also found in two of the lectionary MSS he surveyed: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale gr. 315 (sixteenth or fifteenth cent.) and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canon gr. 119 (fifteenth or sixteenth cent.).

99 Lührmann, “Die Geschichte von einer Süderin,” esp. 298, 303–4.

100 Alexakis, Alexander, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1996) 1–42Google Scholar. On the particular importance of florilegia to the Byzantine church, see Lobrichon, Guy, “Making Sense of the Bible,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity (ed. Noble, Thomas F. X. and Smith, Julia M. H.; 9 vols.; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 3:543Google Scholar.

101 For example, Family 13 of the Gospels, the family that places the pericope adulterae after Luke 21:38, may have been produced there, on the basis of an eighth-century continuous text version of the Gospels that could have been produced in Sicily. On the Sicilian origin of Family 13, see Botte, Bernard, “Ferrar (groupe de manuscrits),” in Supplément au dictionnaire de la Bible (ed. Pirot, Louis; 14 vols.; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1938) 3:272–74Google Scholar. For an edited text of the pericope adulterae as it appears in this family, see Geerlings, Jacob, Family 13—The Ferrar Group (Studies and Documents 20; Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 1961) 128–30Google Scholar. According to Jac Perrin, Family 13 currently consists of the following members: Greg.-Aland 13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 983, 1689, 1709, and recently rediscovered ANA 4, National Archive, Tirana, not yet associated with a Greg.-Aland number. Jac Perrin, “Family 13 in the Gospel of John,” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Diego, 15 November 2007).

102 Sansterre, Jean-Marie, Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome aux époques byzantine et carolingienne. Milieu du VIe s-fin du IXe siècle (Mémoires de la Classe des lettres 2.66; Brussels: Palais des académies, 1933) 65–76, 174–206Google Scholar.

103 On the impact of various political upheavals on interchanges between the Constantinopolitan and Roman churches, see Kolbaba, Tia M., “Latin and Greek Christians,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity (ed. Noble, Thomas F. X. and Smith, Julia M. H.; 9 vols.; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 3:213–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Burgon, Dean, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (London: George Bell and Sons; Cambridge, U.K.: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1896) 249Google Scholar. Burgon assumed that Jerome had access to MSS with the expansion in question.

105 Derek Krueger, Writing and Holiness: The Practice of Authorship in the Early Christian East (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004) 7, 133–57.

106 In John's Apocalypse, divine wrath is unleashed when the Lamb opens a scroll with seven seals (Rev 5:1–6:14). The faithful are preserved on the basis of their inscription in the book of life (Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12). According to the author of Colossians, Christ's forgiveness erases (ἐξαλ∊ίφω) the handwritten decree (χ∊ιρόγραφον) against the believers, nailing it to the cross (Col 2:14). For further discussion, see Lohse, Eduard, Colossians and Philemon (trans. Poehlmann, William R. and Karris, Robert J.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 108–9Google Scholar. As Krueger notes, the Gospel of Truth imagines Jesus— incarnation as “a materialization of God's speech analogous to committing words to parchment or papyrus” (Krueger, Writing and Holiness, 7).

107 ὁ γὰρ ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ ὤν ἁμαρτητικόϛ τέ ἐστι καὶ γῆ καὶ σποδόϛ, ὁ δ jἐν γνώσ∊ι καθ∊στώϛ, ἐξομοιούμ∊νοϛ θ∊ῷ ∊ἰϛ ὅσον δύναται, ἤδη πνυ∊ματικὸϛ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐκλ∊κτόϛ. ὅτι δὲ τοὺϛ ἀνοήτουϛ καὶ ἀπ∊ιθ∊ῖϛ γῆν καλ∊ῖ ἡ γραφή, σαφὲϛ ποήσ∊ι 'I∊ρ∊μίαϛ ὁ προφήτηϛ κατὰ 'Iωακ∊ὶμ καὶ τῶν ἀδ∊λφῶν αὐτοῦ λέγων· «γῆ γῆ ἄκου∊ λόγον κυρίου· γράψον τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον ἐκκήρυκτον ἄνθρωπον.» Clement of Alexandria, Clemens Alexandrinus (ed. Stählin, Otto; 4 vols.; Deutsche Akademie der Wissenshaften zu Berlin; Berlin: Akademie, 1960) 2:323Google Scholar.

108 Stromateis 4.26.169.4–6; cf. Genesis 18:25, John 3:18. Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, 2:323.

109 «καταισχυνθήτωσαν» γάρ φησιν «ἀφ∊στηκότ∊ϛ, ἐπι τῆϛ γῆϛ γραφήτωσαν»· καὶ γὰρ «ᾧ μέτρῳ μ∊τρ∊ῖτ∊ μ∊τρηθήσ∊ται ὐμῖν». Αἲτιοϛ ἕκαστοϛ ἑαυτῷ ἐστι τοῦ γραφῆναι. Εἰ <τὰ> ἐπὶ γῆϛ ζητ∊ῖϛ, οὐ ζητ∊ῖϛ τὰ οὐράνια· (SC 238:168–70; FC 97:184–85 [trans. Smith]).

110 On the date and place of origin of Codex U, see Biblioteca nazionale marciana, Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum codices graeci manuscripti (7 vols.; Rome: Istituto Poligrafico Dello Stato, 1967) 1:13Google Scholar; Nelson, Robert S., “The Later Impact of a Group of Twelfth-Century Manuscripts,” Byzantine Studies Conference 3 (1977) 60–61Google Scholar; and Zorzi, Marino, Collezioni Veneziane de Codici Greci dale raccolte della Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana (Venice: il Cardo, 1993) 100Google Scholar (no. 72). The MS was copied in the ninth century, and then evangelist portraits were added much later, probably in the fourteenth century; at this same time, the scribe Joasaph added liturgical notations (Nelson, “Later Impact,” 60; Zorzi, Collezioni Veneziane, 100).

111 This reading of Romanos is heavily indebted to Krueger, Derek, Writing and Holiness, 159–88Google Scholar. Also see Hunger, Herbert, “Romanos Melodos, Dicther, Prediger, Rhetor—und sein Publikum,” Jahrbuch der österreichishen Byzantinistik 34 (1984) 39–42.Google Scholar

112 χ∊ρουβὶμ δὲ ὑποδ∊ξάμ∊να ἐγνώριζ∊ τὰ γράμματα ἐκλάμποντα χάριτι πορφυρίδοϛ τοῦ αἵματοϛ· ἐτέρπ∊το δὲ πῶϛ ὑπηγορ∊ύθη καλῶϛ (Hymn 39.10; SC 128:338). For discussion see Krueger, Writing and Holiness, 164–65.

113 ταύτῃ γὰρ κάλαμον λαβών, ἄρχομαι γράφ∊ιν συγχώρησιν πᾶσι τοῖϛ ἐκ τοῦ ’Αδάμ. ἡ σάρξ μου, ἥν ὁρᾷϛ, ὥσπ∊ρ χάρτηϛ γίν∊ταί μοι, καὶ τὸ αἷμά μου μέλαν ὅθ∊ν βάπτω καὶ γράφω, δωρ∊ὰν νέμων ἀδιάδοχον τοῖϛ κράζουσι· (Hymn 34.7; SC 128:121). Romanos the Melodist, On the Life of Christ: Kontakia (trans. Ephrem Lash; San Francisco, Calif.: Harper Collins, 1995) 129–38Google Scholar. For discussion see Krueger, Writing and Holiness, 160–62.

114 On the continuing importance of Romanos to the Byzantine church, see Schork, R. J., Sacred Song from the Byzantine Pulpit: Romanos the Melodist (Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida Press, 1933) 3–6Google Scholar; Petersen, William L., The Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus as Sources of Romanos the Melodist (CSCO 475, Subsidia 74; Louvain: Peeters, 1985) 1–3Google Scholar; and Krueger, , Writing and Holiness, 159, 191Google Scholar. The beautiful, illuminated Menologion of Basil II (ca. 1000) includes an illumination of St. Romanos followed by a brief Vita (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 1613, fol. 78; see Krueger, Writing and Holiness, fig. 11, 190).

115 Robinson, who has collated the pericope in all continuous-text MSS, reports in personal correspondence that this addition is attested by 68 other witnesses in the tenth through fifteenth centuries.

116 See Wasserman, “Patmos Family.” More recently, one additional MS with this variant reading has been identified, ANA 4, Tirana. A similar expansion is found in the tenth-century Armenian Edschmiadzin Gospels. In this unusual version of the story, Jesus, “bowing his head, was writing with his finger on the earth to declare their sins.” Frederick C. Conybeare, trans., “On the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel,” Expositor 5.2 (1895) 406; repr., David C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 99; and Vrej Nersessian, The Bible in the Armenian Tradition (London: The British Library, 2001) 20. This MS then adds, “and they were seeing their several sins on the stones,” which, though unique, finds an interesting possible parallel in a ninth-century Jesus hadith collected by Ahmad ibn Hanbal. The hadith is as follows: “A man who had committed adultery was brought to Jesus, who ordered them to stone him. Jesus said, ‘But no one should stone him who has committed what he has committed.— They let the stones fall from their hands, all except John son of Zachariah.” The translator notes: “This is a version of the Gospel story describing the stoning of an adulterous woman, transformed here into a man.” ibn Hanbal, Ahmad, The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature (ed. and trans. Khalidi, Tarif; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001) 82–83Google Scholar. We are grateful to Ibrahim Khalin for calling our attention to this Jesus hadith and to Kecia Ali for elucidating its context.

117 Thomas K. Abbott suggests this in his critical edition of the MS: Evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana. Ex Codex Userianus (Dublinensi), adjecta collatione Codicis Usseriani alterius accedit versio Vulgata sec. Cod. Amiatinum, cum varietate Cod. Kenanensis (Book of Kellas) et Cod. Durmachensis (Book of Durrow) (Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, et Soc., 1884) viiGoogle Scholar.

118 Stadtbibliothek Breslau, R. 169, fol. 273v. Vogels, Heinrich Joseph, Codex Rehdigeranus (Collectanea Biblica Latina 2; Rome: Pustet, 1913) 277Google Scholar and plate.

119 See Mayr-Harting, Henry, Ottonian Book Illumination: An Historical Study (2 vols.; London: Oxford University Press, 1991) 1:72–73Google Scholar.

120 Antwerp. Plantin-Moretus Museum. MS M.17.4. Sedulius, Carmen paschale, Liège, C9, fol. 30r.

121 Sedulius, Carmen paschale 4.233–242: “Dumque sui media residens testitudine templi/ Ore tonans patrio directi ad peruia callis/ Errantem populum monitis conuertit amicis:/ Ecce trahebatur magna stipante caterua/ Turpis adulterii mulier lapidanda reatu,/ Quam Pharisaea manus placido sub iudice sistens/ Cum damnare parat, plus liberat; omnibus illis/ Nam simul e turbis proprie sine crimine nullus/ Accusator erat, saxum qui missile primus/ Sumeret obscenae feriens contagia moechae” (CSEL 10a:107–8).

122 Carol Lewine, The Miniatures of the Antwerp Sedulius Manuscript: The Early Christian Models and Their Transformations (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1970) 1–2, 6–20. C. Caesar, “Die Antwerpener Handschrift des Sedulius,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie n.s. 61 (1901) 263. The Antwerp Sedulius offers further evidence of Kurt Weitzmann's theory that the earliest illuminated Gospels employed extensive picture cycles, arranged in a frieze-like fashion that could be read, as he puts it, “in a cinematographic fashion.” These images were then gradually reduced, applied to passages with greater liturgical significance. Weitzmann, Kurt, Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination (ed. Herbert L. Kessler; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971) 250–54Google Scholar. Removed from its context, elaborated and enlarged, the one sequential image of the pericope adulterae was then re-applied to Sedulius's poem, though it did not quite fit the context of the work.

123 Bede, Homilarium Homeliarum evangelii libri II. CCCM 122:179–80, Homily 25. English translation by Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst in Advent to Lent (vol. 1 of Bede the Venerable. Homilies on the Gospels; Cistercian Studies 110; Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1991) 247–48. The Corpus Christianorum edition of Bede must be employed with caution; see Löfstedt, B., “Zu Bedas Evangelien Kommentaren,” Arctos 21 (1987) 61–72Google Scholar; idem, “Zu Bedas Predigten,” Arctos 22 (1988) 95–98Google Scholar. Löfstedt provides a number of textual corrections and identifications of sources

124 See Mango, Cyril, “La culture grecque et l—occident au VIIIe siècle,” in I problemi dell—occidente nel secolo VIII (Settimane di studio 20.2, Centro italiano di studi sull—alto medioevo; Spoleto: Presso la sede del Centro, 1973) 683–721, at 689–90, plates 1–3Google Scholar.

125 Meyvaert, Paul, “Bede, Cassiodorus, and the Codex Amiatinus,” Speculum 71 (1996) 827–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 836–39.

126 Bullough, Donald A., “Albinus deliciosus Karoli Regis: Alcuin of York and the Shaping of the Early Carolingian Court,” in Institutionen, Kultur and Gesellschaft im Mittelalter. Festschrift für Josef Fleckenstein zu seinem 65. Geburgstag (ed. Fenske, Lutz, Rösener, Werner and Sotz, Thomas; Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1984) 73–92Google Scholar; Wallach, Luitpold, Alcuin and Charlemagne: Studies in Carolingian History and Literature (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 32; Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1959)Google Scholar; and Levison, Wihelm, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949Google Scholar).

127 For example, a collection of ninth-century homilies attributed to Paul the Deacon (ca. 720–ca. 800) includes a sermon on the passage, likely given on the designated third Saturday in Lent (PL 95:1279–81). Alcuin may have depended upon this homiliary when he composed his own a short time later. See Flint, Valerie I. J., “Susanna and the Lothair Crystal: A Liturgical Perspective,” Early Medieval Europe 4 (1995) 61–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 71–72.

128 McKitterick, Rosamond, “Charles the Bald (823–877) and His Library: The Patronage of Learning,” The English Historical Review 95 (1980) 28–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 38–40.

129 British Museum, Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities, Inventory no. M&LA 55, 12–1,5. We would like to thank Professor Fiona Griffiths for calling our attention to the Lothair Crystal.

130 The inscriptions are as follows: Susanna is assaulted by the elders, SVRREXER/SENSE (Daniel 13:19: “Surrexerunt duo sense” [the two elders arose]). SCA SVSAN/A (Sancta Susanna). The servants rush in, OCVRRERSERVI (probably a paraphrase of Daniel 13:26–27). The elders send for Susanna, MITITEAD/SVSA N/NA (Daniel 13:29: “Mittite ad Susannam” [send to Susanna]). The elders accuse Susanna, MI SER/MA NVS (probably a paraphrase of Daniel 13:34: “Posuerunt manus” [they laid their hands on her head]). Convicted of adultery, Susanna is led before Daniel, CVQ.DVCE/RET ADMOR/TE (Daniel 13:45: “Cumque duceretur ad mortem” [And when she was led away to be put to death]). Daniel accuses the elders, INVETE RATEDI/ERMALO R (Daniel 13:52: “Inveterate dierum malorum” [O you who are grown old in evil days]). The elders give conflicting evidence and are condemned, RECTE MENTITITVSES (Daniel 13:55 or 59, “Recte mentitus es” or “Recte mentitus es” [Well, you have lied or Well, you have also lied]). The elders are executed, FECE RQE ISSICV TMA LE/EGE RANT (Daniel 13:61: “Feceruntque eis sicuti male egerant” [And they did to them as they had maliciously dealt (against her)]. Susanna is declared innocent and gives thanks, ETSALVATVSESANG…IN/NOXIVSI ND…/…A (Daniel 13:62: “Et salvatus est sanguis innoxius in die illa” [And innocent blood was saved that day]). This reconstruction is dependent upon that of Genevra Kornbluth, “The Susanna Crystal of Lothair II: Chastity, the Church, and Royal Justice,” Gesta 31 (1992) 25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, appendix 1, 37–38.

131 The exact purpose and message of the Lothair Crystal has been a subject of considerable debate, though scholars agree that an emphasis is placed upon just judgment. See Kornbluth, “The Susanna Crystal,” esp. 27–34 and Flint, “Susanna,” 61–86.

132 The Comes of Würzburg (Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M.p.th.f. 62), the Comes of Mürbach (Besancon, Bibl. Mun. 184) and a lectionary from either St. Amand or Marchiennes (Douai, Bibliotheque Municipale, Codex 12). See Flint, “Susanna,” 71. On the Comes of Würzburg, also see Hans Thurn, Comes Romanus Wirziburgensis. Facsimileausgabe des Codex M.p.th.f. 62 der Universitäts-Bibliothek Würzburg (Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1968).

133 Pietri, , Roma christiana. Récherches sur l—Église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440) (Bibliothèque des ecoles français d—Athènes et de Rome 224; Rome: École française de Rome, 1976) 1:498–501Google Scholar; and Chavasse, Antoine, “Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l—Antiphonaire romains de la Messe. Rapports et Date,” RB 62 (1952) 3–94Google Scholar, esp. 4, 72–74.

134 Flint, “Susanna,” 76.

135 This is Flint's perspective. Kornbluth, by contrast, views the crystal as a propaganda piece, designed to associate Lothair II with Justitia.

136 McKitterick, “Charles the Bald,” 38–40.

137 München, Clm 14000, fol. 5v. On books as forms of elite exchange, see Brubaker, Leslie, “The Elephant and the Ark: Cultural and Material Interchange across the Mediterranean in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries,” DOP 58 (2004) 175–95Google Scholar, at 182–85. On the Byzantine style of this portrait, see Mayr-Harting, Ottonian Book Illumination, 1:61–62.

138 The Expositio Quatuor Euangeliorum, a seventh- or eighth-century work attributed to Jerome likely composed in Ireland, discusses the passage, as do several anonymous commentary collections preserving excerpts from Augustine's Tractatus in Iohannis Euangelium, the Expositio and other works. For example, see Brearley, Denis, “The Expositio Iohannis in Angers BM 275: A Commentary on the Gospel of St. John showing Irish Influence,” Recherches augustiniennes 22 (1987) 151–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 179; and Kelly's, Joseph F. edition of Cod. Vind. Lat. 997, CC 108C:118–19Google Scholar. On the Expositio, see Bernhard Bischoff, “Wendepunkte in der Geschichte der lateinischen Exegese in Frühmittelalter,” Sacris Erudiri 6.2 (1954) 189–281, at 198–99. Brearley suggests that Angers BM 275 and the Expositio may well draw on earlier and yet still unidentified collectanea (157 n. 43).

139 Introduction to On Christian Rulers and The Poems by Sedulius Scottus (trans. Edward Gerard Doyle; Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 17; Binghamton, N.Y.: State University of New York, 1983) 9–48; and Sedulii Scotti. Collectaneum Miscellaneum (ed. Simpson, Dean; CCCM 67; Turnhout: Brepols, 1988) ix–xxxiiGoogle Scholar.

140 Collecaneum Miscellaneum 13.2.14: Christus: “Qui uestrum sine peccato est, mittat in eam lapidem.” The subject of Book 13.2 is “from the doctors [of the church]” (de doctoribus) (CCCM 67:53–56, at 54).

141 Sankt Gallen Stiftsbibliothek (SB) 292, fol. 135; also see Karlsruhe. BLB, St. Peter perg. 88 and 109. On these MSS, see Graff, Eberhard G., Diutiska: Denkmäler deutscher Sprache und Literatur, aus alten Handschriften (Stuttgart: Druckerei Anton Hain, 1827; repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1970) 2:167–88Google Scholar; Bergmann, Rolf, Verzeichnis der Althochdeutschen und Altsächsischen Glossenhandschriften (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973) 29Google Scholar, no. 221. According to Elias Steinmeyer, this gloss is unusual, found in only this MS. See Elias Steinmeyer and Eduard Sievers, Ergänzungen und Untersuchungen (vol. 5 of Die Althochdeutschen Glossen; ed. Elias Steinmeyer; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1922).

142 CSEL 82:57–58.

143 CCSL 41:179.

144 CCSL 41:180: “Illos a uindicta repressit conscientia, me ad subueniendum inclinat misericordia” (Conscience inhibited the others from vengeance; pity persuades me to come to your help).

145 The full gloss of John 8:1–11 is as follows: “Digito scribebat in terra terra terram accusatur. Et mulier in medio stans id est inter mortem et vitam et inter iudicium et misericordis” (With his finger he wrote on the ground “earth accuses earth.” And the woman stood in the middle, that is, between death and life, judgment and pity). We would like to thank Professors Christopher Celenza, Deeana Klepper, and Fiona Griffiths for their invaluable assistance with this MS.

146 Sedulius Scottus, for example, advised Carolingian princes to remember that “there is no authority unless it be from God” and thus “the more pious rulers subject themselves humbly to the King of Kings, the more they ascend on high to the summit of glorious distinction” (De rectoribus christianis 1; trans. Doyle, 53). Augustine links the pity shown to the adulteress to the pity expected from pious rulers on numerous occasions. Also see Epistle 153.4; De adult. coniug. 2.7; Io. Ev. tr. 33.5.1, 3–6.1.

147 For the general history of this period, see Mayr-Harting, , Ottonian Book Illumination, 1:57–68Google Scholar; Ronig, Franz, Codex Egberti. Das Perikopenbuch des Erzbischofs Egbert von Trier (977–993) (Treveris Sacra 1; Trier: Spee-Verlag, 1977) 5–13Google Scholar; Eickhoff, Ekkehard, Theophanu und der König. Otto III und seine Welt (Stuttgart: Keitt-Cotta, 1996Google Scholar).

148 Trier, Stadtbibliothek, MS24, fol. 46v. Ronig associates the phrase “terra terram accusat” with Augustine's thirteenth sermon on Psalm 2:10 (Ronig, Codex Egberti, 76).

149 Darmstadt. Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, MS 1640, fol. 171r.

150 Mayr-Harting, Ottonian Book Illumination, 1:57–117.

151 For further discussion of this MS, see Millet, Gabriel, Recherches sur l—iconographie de l—evangile aux XIVe, XVe and XVIe siècles, d—après les monuments de Mistra, de la Macédoine et du Mont-Athos (Bibliothèque des écoles français d—Athènes et de Rome 109; Paris: Fontemoing, 1916Google Scholar); Shigebumi Tsuji, “The Study of Byzantine Gospel Illustration in Florence, Laur. Plut. VI, 23 and Paris, Bibl. Nat. cod. gr. 74” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1967); Velmans, Tania, Le Tétraèvangile de la Laurentienne, Florence, Plut. VI, 23 (Bibliothèque des cahiers archéologiques 6; Paris: Klincksieck, 1971)Google Scholar.

152 See Weitzmann, Kurt, Illustrations in Roll and Codex: A Study of the Origin and Method of Text Illustration (Studies in Manuscript Illumination 2; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1947) 128–29Google Scholar; idem, “Narrative and Liturgical Gospel Illustrations,” in Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination (ed. Kessler, Herbert; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971) 250Google Scholar; idem, “The Selection of Texts for Cyclic Illustration in Byzantine Manuscripts,” in Byzantine Books and Bookmen (Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium 1971; Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1975) 75–76Google Scholar; Deshman, Robert, “The Illustrated Gospels,” in Illuminated Greek Manuscripts from American Collections: An Exhibition in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann (ed. Vikan, Gary; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973) 40–43Google Scholar; Brubaker, Leslie, Vision and Meaning in Ninth-Century Byzantium: Image as Exegesis in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 76–78, 80–82Google Scholar (figs. 63, 65, Rossano Gospels); Mayr-Harting, Ottonian Book Illumination, 32, 79, 122–23 (fig. 74, Rossano Gospels), 178–79 (fig. 104, Sinope Codex). We borrow the term “cinematographic” from Weitzmann (Studies, 250).

153 There are four surviving pre-iconoclastic illuminated Gospels: the Rossano Gospels, the Sinope Gospels, the Syriac Rabula Gospels, and a Syriac Gospels held in Paris (Rossano: Cathedral Library, BA: S.N.; Paris: Bibliothèque nationale suppl. gr. 1286; Florence: Laurenziana cod. Plut. I, 56; Paris: Bibliothèque nationale cod. Syr. 33).

154 Velmans, Le Tétraèvangile de la Laurentienne, 6; Deshman, “The Illustrated Gospels,” 40. Also see Brubaker, Vision and Meaning, 38–47, 55–57. As Brubaker points out, following the iconoclastic controversies of the eighth and ninth centuries, Byzantine artists were under increased pressure to produce images what would be perceived as traditional rather than innovative (43). Though the Laurenziana codex was illustrated more than a century later, arguably this earlier conservatism influenced the selection of miniatures. We would like to thank Professor Brubaker for her assistance with the ninth-century illuminated homilies of Gregory of of Nazianzus held in Paris (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale gr. 510). According to some early art historical works, this MS depicts the woman taken in adultery. As Professor Brubaker explained, however, the Paris Gregory illustrates the story of the woman with flow of blood, not the adulteress.

155 To our knowledge, the Laurenziana Gospels preserves the only extant illumination of the pericope in the Byzantine tradition, a phenomenon that may also be linked to its lack of liturgical prominence. As Weitzmann argues, illuminated MSS gradually reduced the number of scenes portrayed, so that only the most prominent passages, especially those connected to the main liturgical feasts, were chosen for enlargement, and in a more grandiose, hieratic style (Weitzmann, Illustrations in Roll and Codex, 104–105, and Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, 290. Compare Shigebumi Tsuji, “Byzantine Lectionary Illustration,” in Illuminated Greek Manuscripts from American Collections, 37–38). Thus, a comparable eleventh-century Gospels held in Paris (Paris. Bibliothèque nationale cod. gr. 74), though also richly decorated, neglects to illustrate the pericope adulterae, as well as other, more marginal episodes.

156 Paul Bloch specifically links Codex Egberti to the frieze-style Gospel illuminations of earlier centuries, suggesting that the artist adapted his image of the pericope from a now lost illustrated Gospels of this type. See Bloch, “Ehebrecherin,” 582.

157 On the importance of luxury books as Byzantine-Frankish royal gifts, see Brubaker, “Elephant and the Ark,” 175–95; on the exchange of artifacts and ideas across the Ottonian and Byzantine Empires, see Mayr-Harting, , Ottonian Book Illumination 1:119–201Google Scholar.

158 Shapiro strikingly says about the miniature in Codex Egberti, “[Jesus—] pointing finger touches the last letter, as if to indicate his act of writing…. It is not written horizontally across the field like other inscriptions in the miniatures of this manuscript. It is the only inscription of speech in the entire series of Gospel scenes. But these are not really spoken words; by calling upon the accusers to read his mute writing, Christ evokes in them a corresponding inner speech, the voice of conscience.” Meyer Shapiro, Words, Script, and Pictures: Semiotics on Visual Language (New York: George Braziller, 2000) 189.

159 Eustathius of Thessaloniki, Homily 6 lines 406–445. Eustathios von Thessalonike. Reden auf die grosse Quadragesima (ed. Schönauer, Sonja; Frankfurt: Beerenverlag, 2006) 160–61Google Scholar. We would like to thank Professor Alexander Alexakis for calling this sermon to our attention.

160 The Parisian biblical scholar Peter Comestor (d. 1178/79) also suggested that Jesus wrote “terra terram accusat,” attributing the phrase to Jerome but identifying its source as a Letter to Irenaeus, a letter now attributed to Ambrose (Ep. 68). Peter states: “Quid scribebat? Quidam dicunt id quod eis respondit. Hieronymus in quadem epistola ad Studiosum, videtur eum velle scripsisse: Terra, terra scribe hos viros abdicatos, vel: Terra Terram accusat, in epistola ad Iraeneum” (Historia scholastica: In Evangelia 98; PL 198:1587).

161 Jacobus is referring to later, more elaborate Glossed Bibles anticipated by the ninth-century St. Gall MS 292. For further discussion, see the introduction to Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria: Fascimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81 (ed. Froehlich, Karlfried and Gibson, Margaret T.; 4 vols.; Brepols: Turnhout, 1992) 1:vii-xiGoogle Scholar. This fifteenth-century printed edition of the Glossa does not include the gloss “terra terram accusat” (4:244). Nevertheless, an interlinear gloss of Jeremiah 17:13, which was associated with the pericope adulterae by both Ambrose and Jerome, refers back to the passage (3:128).

162 “Quid autem Christus in terra scriberet? Ambrosius dicit quod scribebat: ‘Terra terram accusat.— Augustinus dicit quod scribebat illud quod postea uoce expressit: ‘qui sine peccato uestrum etc.— Glossa dicit scribebat eorum peccata que illi legentes pre uerecundia exierunt. Chrysostomus dicit quod scribebat: ‘Terra absorbe hos uiros abdicatos.—” da Varazze, Iacopo, Sermones Quadragesimales (ed. Maggioni, Giovanni Paolo; Edizione Nazionale dei Testi Mediolatini 13. Serie I, 8; Florence: Edizione del Galluzzo, 2005) 257Google Scholar. The comment attributed to John Chrysostom is a paraphrase of Jeremiah 22:29, a verse assocated with the passage by Ambrose as well, though he paraphrases the verse differently (Epistle 50.4). As far as we can determine, there are no known references to the pericope adulterae in the extant writings of John Chrysostom, a conclusion also reached by the twelfth-century scholar Euthymius Zigabenus. To Zigabenus, Chrysostom's neglect of the passage served as a decisive proof that it must be apocryphal, though he did not hesitate to comment on the story anyway (PG 129:1280d).

163 Nicholas Poussin's Cristo e l—adultera (1653; Paris. Louvre, ill. 44) offers an interesting seventeenth-century example. Depicted standing, Christ points to several Hebrew characters written in the earth, letters which are likely intended to represent the Decalogue. See Saracino, Francesco, “‘Quei mistoriosi caratteri—. Poussin, l—Adultera e il decalogo,” Gregorianum 88 (2007) 5–22Google Scholar.

164 On this point, see Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980); with the cautions expressed by The Bible and Culture Collective, The Postmodern Bible (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995) 57. Also see Allen, Intertextuality, 95–115. Here we paraphrase McGann: “As the literary work passes on through time and other hands, to other readers besides ourselves, it bears along with and as itself the gathered history of all its engagements” (“Interpretation as a Game that Must be Lost,” 136).