The claim I am reporting. Dr. Pickering is convinced it is. I bave no reason not to belive it. I have reason not to believe the NU text. F35 and the MT have much in common. The TR and MT have some texts in common.
Pickering is convinced and that is why he has said what he did, and if you want to believe what he has said that is your right. And I am not questioning that the F35 & MT have things in common and even the TR does , but that is not the question is it. You have said that the F35 reproduced the autographs but you have not provided any peer reviews that support that claim. As to your comment that no scholars have falsified his claim.
Minuscule 35 - Wikipedia in your post # 31
Sometimes scribe of 35 presented alternative to the running text. In these four instances the editors preferred to leave the uncorrected text as the base text and note the correction in the critical apparatus:
5:4 εταρασσε το 35* εταρασσετο το 35c
14:3 ετοιμασω 35* ετοιμασαι 35c
19:38 ο ιωσηφ 35* ιωσηφ 35c
21:15 om. 35* ο ιησους 35c
Also, in the edition the text
John 7:53-8:11 is marked on the margin by an
obelus (÷). This is in conformity with the practice of the manuscript itself
But Pickering included
John 7:53-8:11 in his text with no
obelus (÷) markings.
[Joh_7:53 to
Joh_8:11.] THE HISTORY OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY.—See var. readd.; and a very complete discussion of the authorities for and against the passage in Lücke (edn. 3), ii. 243–256. The critical examination of the genuineness of this passage is attended with many and complicated difficulties. Setting aside here purely diplomatic evidence (for which see var. readd.), we may observe that
at first sight, the reasons given by Aug[117] and Nicon seem enough to warrant the inference that it was expunged on account of the supposed licence given by it to sin. And this has been the hypothesis generally adopted by those who would override critical difficulties by strong autocratic assertion. ... But granting that such an hypothesis might be admissible as regards ch.
Joh_8:3-11, I do not see how the whole passage can be involved in it, especially the opening
Joh_7:53, which would naturally appear to form a sequel to what has preceded, and would surely never have been expunged with the offensive paragraph. No such hypothesis as this will account for the coexistence of so many distinct and independent texts, apparently none of which owes its origin to any attempt to remove matter of offence. ...
Alford
"
The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Joh_7:53—Joh_8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after
Joh_7:36,
Joh_7:44 or
Joh_21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after
Luk_21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (
Metzger [1994] p. 189).
Is the story of the woman taken in adultery a part of Scripture? If it is, where does it belong in the Gospel record? John 7:53-8:11 is not found in some of the ancient manuscripts; where it is found, it is not always in this location in John’s Gospel. Most scholars seem to agree that the passage is a part of inspired Scripture (“a fragment of authentic Gospel material,”
says Dr. F.F. Bruce) regardless of where it is placed.
Wiersbe
THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY, Joh_8:2-11.
A majority of the best biblical scholars agree that this narrative of the adulteress, (including Joh_7:53,) though of apostolic antiquity, could scarce have been written by John. The
external proofs are:
1. Its absence from a large share of the best manuscripts.
2. The absence of quotations of the passage in the earliest Christian writers. And,
3. The great variety of readings in the different copies of the passage. The
internal proofs are:
1. Its unlikeness to the style of John, both in its general tenor and its particular terms.
2. The possibility of removing it from the text without producing any break.
3. Its discordance with the current of thought, so as to form an actual interruption. To the force of these arguments we are obliged to yield.
Whedon
