¹ I am greatly indebted to David Flusser for his insights into this remarkable episode from the gospel texts. Without him this study would not have been possible. See also, Flusser, , Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988) 575–609Google Scholar and my work, Jesus and His Jewish Parables (New Jersey: Paulist, 1989) 282–316.Google Scholar The role of the Pharisees in Jesus' life merits greater attention in the discipline of New Testament research.

² See Becker, U., Jesus und die Ehebrecherin (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1963) 56–8, 66–8, 73–4Google Scholar and Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St John (New York: Crossroad, 1987) 2.165–6 and 480.Google Scholar Here I wish to express my thanks to W. Yarchin of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont who has enabled me to use microfilms for the manuscripts of Beza, M, 1071 and 264.

³ Lietzmann, H., ‘H. von Sodens Ausgabe des NT: die Perikope von der Ehebrecherin’, ZNTW 8(1907)46.Google Scholar

⁴ Kurt, and Barbara, Aland, The Text of the NT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 227Google Scholar and cf. David, Holly, Comparative Studies in Recent Greek NT Texts (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1983).Google Scholar

⁵ Aland, and Aland, , The Text of the NT, 291.Google Scholar

⁶ Aland, and Aland, , ‘Introduction’, Greek-English NT (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1981)11*.Google Scholar

⁷ See Hedrick, Charles W., ‘Authorial Presence and Narrator in John’, Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings in Honor of James M. Robinson (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990) 75–93.Google Scholar

⁸ See Aland, K., Studien zur Überlieferung des NT und seines Textes (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967) 43–5.Google Scholar C. K. Barrett has pointed out the similarity of wording between John 7.53–8.11 and the language of Luke–Acts. I tend to think that at one point the story was taken from among the sources of Lucan writings which the third evangelist did not originally incorporate into his gospel. The narrative was inserted into John. Later editors believed it belonged to Luke and hence moved it after Luke 21.38. See Barrett, , The Gospel according to St John (London: SPCK, 1970) 492.Google Scholar

⁹ Bruce, Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1975) 220.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The removal of 8.6a overturns one (perhaps the) major objection that might otherwise be raised against the historicity of the narrated scene. Cf. Taylor, V., The Text of the NT (New York: St Martin's, 1963) 4Google Scholar, ‘Of two other or more alternative readings, that one is more likely to be right which most easily accounts for the origin of the others.’ Viewing verse 6a as an interpolation explains the scattering effect in the other readings. It is also supported by the rules of lectio brevior and lectio difficilior.

¹¹ See Lake, K., trans., Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1980) 1.299, 3.96.16.Google Scholar On the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’, see Pritz, Ray A., Nazarene Jewish Christianity (Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes, 1988) 83–94.Google Scholar

¹² Barrett, , John, 492.Google Scholar

¹³ Barrett, , John, 490.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Josephus Ant. 13.294 (13,10, 5).

¹⁵ See m. Makkot 1.10 (Ch. Albeck, , Shisah Sidre Mishnah [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1979] 4.222)Google Scholar and b. Makkot 7a. Compare Sanders, E. P., Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM, 1990) 19.Google Scholar He observes, ‘Josephus says that the Pharisees inclined to leniency (Antiq. 13.294), and perhaps we can see that tendency being continued in the work of their successors.’

¹⁶ See Num. 5.11–31 and m. Sotah 9.9, Albeck, 3.258, b. Sotah 47a and Kasher, M., Torah Shelemah (Jerusalem: Beth Torah, 1982) 36.400ff.Google Scholar See also the discussion by Abrahams, I., Pharisaism and the Gospels (New Jersey: Ktav, 1967) 1.72–4.Google Scholar See also Deut 22.22–4 and Lev 20.10 and Kasher, , Torah Shelemah, 32.149ff.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Against the old notion that the Pharisees were luring Jesus away into a place of danger, see, Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985) 1030.Google Scholar Cf. Bowker, J., Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge University, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ See David, Flusser, ‘… To Bury Caiaphas, Not to Praise Him’, Jerusalem Perspective (07–10, 1991) 23–8Google Scholar and also in Atiqot 21 (Jerusalem, 1991) 81–7.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. e.g., Heinz, Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literari-sches und historisches Umfeld (l.-ll.Jh.) (Bern: Peter Lang, 1982).Google Scholar

²⁰ See Shmuel, Safrai, ‘Introduction’, The Literature of the Sages, 10–11.Google Scholar Needless to say, not everything attributed to Hillel and Shammai in the rabbinic literature is dated from their time.

²¹ See e.g., b. Hullin 95b and Yebamot 105a.

²² See e.g., b. Gittin 60b and also Gerhardsson, B., Memory and Manuscript (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1961).Google Scholar

²³ See Yaakov, Sussmann, ‘The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls – a Preliminary to the Publication of 4QMMT’, Tarbiz 59 (1990) 11–76 (Hebrew)Google Scholar; Qimron, E. and Strugnell, J., Qumran Cave 4Miqṣat Ma**se ha-Torah (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 123–77Google Scholar; and David, Flusser, ‘Some of the Precepts of the Torah From Qumran (4QMMT) and the Benediction Against the Heretics’, Tarbiz 61 (1992) 333–74 (Hebrew).Google Scholar

²⁴ See j. Pes. 33a, chap. 6, hal. 1; tos. Pes. 4.13 (Lieberman, 165) and b. Pes. 66a. Cf. Urbach, E. E., The Halakhah: Its Sources and Development (Israel: Massada, 1986) 384Google Scholar note 25 and Epstein, J. N., Mevoot Lasifrut Hatannaim (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1957) 510.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Urbach, E. E., The Halakhah, 100Google Scholar and also Shmuel, Safrai, ‘Halakha’, The Literature of the Sages (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1987) 160–1.Google Scholar

²⁶ Urbach, , The Halakhah: Its Sources and Development, 108.Google Scholar

²⁷ M. Hagigah 1.8 (Albeck, 2.393) and Safrai, ‘Halakha’, 124.

²⁸ See Schnackenburg, R., John, 2.165–6Google Scholar and Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (London: SCM, 1972) 228.Google Scholar

²⁹ Abrahams, Pharisaism, 1.74.

³⁰ See Deut 17.7 and m. Sanh. 6.4 (Albeck, 4.187).

³¹ See b. Shabbat 31a and parallels.

³² See Luke 10.28, 37.

³³ See Vermes, G., Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 178–214Google Scholar and Safrai, S., ‘Teaching of Pietists in Literature’, JJS 16 (1965) 15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar and idem, ‘חידיסחה העונחהו ושי’, PWCJS 10 (1989) 1–7.