The Adulterous Woman (7:53-8:11)

Open your Bibles to . How many of you have a note along the lines of “the earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11”? Does anyone have a version that doesn’t include these verses at all?

One of my favorite modern theologians wrote a brief article on this text and titled it, “My Favorite Passage That’s Not in the Bible.”[1] That title, standing alone, concerns me. I get very nervous, rightly so, when anyone has a discussion about sections within our Bibles not belonging.

What is your initial response to the idea that some of your Bible is not actually part of Scripture? Do you think that it is possible that a true story, that was not actually part of an inspired book, could, over many years, find its way into the Bible? Do you believe that this passage about the adulterous woman is part of John’s Gospel?

I would prefer nothing more than to proceed with an explanation and application of the passage, but we will take some time to deal with this debate for the following reasons.

Reasons for dealing with this debate. (1) Almost every English Bible has some type of acknowledgment that this text (7:53-8:11) was not part of the earliest Greek manuscripts. With that said, only a few KJV Bibles acknowledge this discussion. (2) Every modern commentary, that I was able to check, dealt with the debate. All of them concluded that it was not part of the original gospel. Three of them don’t acknowledge the passage in any way. The authors skip from 7:52 to 8:12 (Kostenberger EBS; F.F. Bruce; Michaels)[2]. Three others explain their view of the controversy and then don’t comment on the passage at all (Keener; Kostenberger ECNT; Lenski)[3]. The final four explain the debate, conclude that it was likely not part of John’s Gospel, but then proceed to comment on the passage (Carson, Boice, MacArthur)[4]

Older modern commentaries (17th-19th century) have a different approach. Some don’t acknowledge the debate at all and simply deal with the text. Possibly it wasn’t a significant debate during their time (Barnes, Henry, Gill)[5]. Other authors acknowledge the debate and conclude that it shouldn’t be part of the gospel but still comment on the passage (Abingdon Bible Commentary, 1929). Very few older commentaries address the debate at all, and those that do address the debate, conclude categorically that the section should be part of the gospel (poorly argued by Pink)[6].

Early Church Fathers (2nd – 4th century). William Barclay goes too far in writing that “none of the early fathers seems to know anything about it. Certainly they never mention it or comment on it.” Yet, he goes on to make a distinction between Western and Eastern Church evidence, which Metzger quickly acknowledges when he writes, “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.”[7] It is true that Greek early church fathers, such as Chrysostom, Origen, and Cyril of Alexander don’t even acknowledge the sections’ presence in John.[8] But it is also true that the story can be traced back into the second century and Jerome included it, without question, in the Latin Vulgate. “The later manuscripts and the medieval manuscripts all have it . . . [and] some of the great Latin fathers did know it, and speak of it.”[9]

Jerome (347-420, Western Church, produced Latin Vulgate). In the Gospel, according to John, there is found in many of both the Greek as well as the Latin copies, the story of the adulteress who was accused before the Lord. Against the Pelagians 2.17 [10]

Augustine (354-430 AD) sides with Jerome and other Greek fathers as he writes, “Some men of slight faith, or, rather, some hostile to true faith . . . remove from their scriptural texts the account of our Lord’s pardon of the adulteress.” Augustine surmised that others had removed the section because they believed Jesus extended to women the “liberty to sin with impunity” or that Jesus was too soft on the sin of adultery.[11]

The story is likely authentic. Regardless the era of commentary and translation, while the evidence heavily weighs in favor of the section not being genuinely Johannine, some church fathers and most following commentators agree that the story is likely historically genuine.

After confidently stating that the section “fits nowhere into the plan of the Gospel, and is easily recognized as an interpolation,” even Lenski goes on to acknowledge that “this spurious section reports quite correctly an actual occurrence in the life of Jesus. . . . Every feature of it bears the stamp of probability.”[12] Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, acknowledges that the passage “has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places.”[13] In addition, Westcott writes that the passage “is beyond doubt an authentic fragment of apostolic tradition.”[14]

Internal evidence for its’ inclusion. (1) Many believe that the overall context makes more sense with the section included. Proponents of this view would argue that Jesus’ response in 8:12 makes sense in light of the first part of the chapter but would make less sense if that interaction were not there. (2) Pink argues that everyone with “spiritual intelligence” would be able to tell “that no uninspired pen drew the picture therein described.” [15] While Pink stirs the reader with somewhat manipulative rhetoric, his argument falls a bit shallow. In short, he concludes that it must be scripture because it sounds inspired. While shallow, he argues similarly to the great majority that conclude the section to be historically accurate based on oral tradition.

Other than Pink’s weak argument, little evidence is offered since so few commentators believe it to be genuinely Johannine.

Internal evidence for its’ exclusion. (1) Most commentators conclude that this section interrupts the flow of thought from 7:52 – 8:12. They would consider chapter 8 to be part of the ongoing conversation started in chapter 7. In these chapters, Jesus deals with two rituals associated with the Feasts. First, He addresses the water pouring ceremony by pleading with all who are thirsty to come to him and drink. Then, in chapter 8, he addresses the lamp lighting ceremony by claiming to be the light of the world. (2) The vocabulary of the section vastly differs from the rest of John’s writings. Many words are used in this section that are used nowhere else in John’s writings.[16]

External evidence for its’ inclusion. (1) Zane Hodges argues that the omission of the text from the earlier manuscripts reveals the state of affairs around 200 A.D. rather than offering evidence for or against authenticity. He argues that it was more likely that earlier manuscripts would have been tampered with. If older manuscripts were tampered with, they would have had a lot to overcome to be accepted in light of the preexisting manuscripts and the knowledge of the church at large. He goes on to explain that the reason for omission in so many early versions is that they favored the early Greek manuscripts (those that had already been corrupted). [17] (2) Western manuscripts and some early church fathers, such as Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, offer limited support for the passages inclusion.

External evidence for its exclusion. (1) The earliest manuscripts, considered to be the most reliable, do not contain this section. (2) Other manuscripts, that do include the passage, include a side note marking the text as questionable. (3) Many of the most significant earlier versions do not contain the section. (4) None of the early Greek Church fathers commented on this section, even those who had verse by verse commentaries. (5) The first Greek father (Euthymius Zigabenus) to acknowledge the section states that the accurate manuscripts did not contain it. (6) The passage is inserted in different places in different manuscripts. While most manuscripts, which include the section, place the passage similarly to modern versions, dozens of other manuscripts insert it elsewhere (7:36, 7:44, 21:25 or ).

The weight of evidence points to the exclusion of the section from the Gospel of John. Regardless, this section has been long revered as an historically accurate account of Jesus. Additionally, one cannot be certain that it was not part. I would prefer to study the passage having acknowledged the debate with a cursory overview rather than ignore it all together.

Brief summary. (1) Story is absent from all Greek manuscripts prior to the fifth century. (2) All the Greek early church fathers completely omit this passage. (3) The passage flows nicely from 7:52 to 8:12 when this section is excluded. (4) No Eastern church father includes this prior to the 10th century. (5) When the section is included, it can be found in multiple places in John and at times even in Luke. (6) The style and vocabulary of this section is unlike any of John’s other writings.

Concerns over the debate. (1) If you conclude that it should not be part of the original, the question of one’s confidence in their Bible might be undermined. This passage in John is only one of two passages with similar debate ( being the other). These passages deal with nothing of doctrinal import, and in the case of Mark, the highpoints of the passage are mentioned elsewhere. Therefore, someone’s questioning of this passage is not equivalent with a questioning of the whole of scripture. (2) If you conclude that this section should not be part of the original, what do you do with it? Can you teach it as authoritative? Should you teach it at all? (3) If one says they believe in the divine preservation of scripture, how would you deal with a passage that has been preserved but not divinely inspired? Did God sovereignly preserve a passage that He didn’t inspire? (4) If you conclude that it should be part of the original how do you explain why it’s not in the earliest manuscripts? Do you have to explain why it is not in the earliest originals?

Jesus, revealed as bold yet humble (7:53-8:2). In the few days prior to this incident (assuming this is the next day) a few groups of people attempted to seize Jesus and kill Him. Regardless of their actions, Jesus once again comes to the center of their lives to teach them. He knew that what He had to say was more important than His avoiding their animosity.

The fact that He came into the temple and sat down while a great crowd was gathering around Him as well displays His boldness.

And yet amid this boldness, his humility is vividly displayed. When a large percentage of the festival goers return home, Jesus has no place to go, reminiscent of Jesus’ statement in , “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."

John’s Gospel consistently reflects this theme of glory amid humility.

In chapter four, Jesus approaches a well because he is in physical need, and yet his glory is beautifully revealed as he manifests his care for her and reveals himself to be living water.

In chapter six, he attempts to escape to the mountain in order to be physically refreshed from a season of intense ministry and grieve the loss of his beloved cousin John the Baptist; and yet when thousands follow him to the mountain, he has compassion on them and teaches them and feeds them.

Jesus, revealed as wise (8:3-9). Were the accusers justified in their accusation? To a certain level, yes. Moses writes, in , “You shall not commit adultery.” And again, he writes, “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (). Even Jesus, earlier, had confirmed the seriousness of adultery, even broadening its severity by adding, “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” ().

Problems with the scenario. While these accusers were partially justified, there are a couple problems with this scenario. (1) Adultery involves two people, and only the woman was brought. Where was the man? If these two were caught “in the very act” then the man would have been seen. Why was he not part of this inquisition? (2) Jesus was not a judge. If the accusers truly desired justice, they would not have brought this woman to Jesus. He had no authority to enact any punishment. They should have taken her to their courts. They didn’t need Jesus’ authorization to proceed. They had already caught her.

This wasn’t about the woman. They didn’t care about her. This wasn’t about being appalled at the sin of adultery. They weren’t seeking justice. John reveals their motivation in verse 6. “This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him” ().

Problems with the question. The accusers ask Jesus one question. “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” (). These Scribes and Pharisees propose a sneaky question that offers some challenges for Jesus to navigate. How could he answer? If Jesus objected to stoning her, he would be guilty of opposing the law of Moses. If he ignored the charge, he would appear to dismiss a clear violation to the law. If he agreed that she should be stoned He could be charged with defiance to the Romans. As well, his reputation of compassion would be marred. He had been known to befriend the outcasts and the sinners. He presented a kingdom of compassion. How would he now condemn one of those outcasts and sinners that he clearly came to save? If he condemned her, how might we process the fact that Jesus has told us that he did not come to condemn the world but to save the world ()?

What was He writing? Jesus responds by writing in the dirt. “Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground” (). While we cannot know what Jesus wrote, many have speculated. (1) Some think that He wrote part of Jeremiah. “Lord, you are the hope of Israel; all who forsake you will be put to shame. Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water” ( NIV). (2) Some believe that Jesus was imitating the practice of Roman magistrates who would first write their sentence and then read it. (3) Others think that what Jesus wrote was irrelevant. His writing in the dust was a way to ignore them or to gain time. (4) Another popular view is that Jesus was writing the sins of the accusers.

The accusers did not overlook his silence. They persisted with Him, so He eventually answered, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (). In His answer (1) he upheld the law, (2) exposed the sin of the accusers, (3) avoided any charges against the Romans, and (4) showed compassion to the women and spared her life

Boice. Think of the efforts they had gone through! Think of the plotting! Yet they were destroyed in a moment when they were confronted by the God who masters circumstances.[18]

Jesus, revealed as merciful and compassionate (8:10-11). “Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” ().

While condemnation can refer to “passing a personal judgment on someone’s actions . . . [or] find fault,” the context here seems to point more to the legal terminology. In this context, Jesus tells the woman that he will not put her on trial or “hand [her] over for punishment . . . [or] administer justice.”[19] Jesus did not condemn or sentence her to be stoned. Yet, he did acknowledge her sin. He told her, “from now on sin no more” (). “The liberating work of Jesus did not mean the excusing of sin. Encountering Jesus always has demanded the transformation of life, the turning away from sin. . . . Sin was not treated lightly by Jesus, but sinners were offered the opportunity to start life anew.”[20]

Is this not the proper response for all those who have been forgiven? “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” ().

[1] Daniel B. Wallace, “My Favorite Passage That’s Not in the Bible,” Bible.Org (blog), June 24, 2008, https://bible.org/article/my-favorite-passage-thats-not-bible. Accessed August 22, 2019.

[2] Andreas J Köstenberger, Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, Encountering Biblical Studies (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002); Bruce, The Gospel of John; Michaels, The Gospel of John, 476.

[3] Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, 2nd Print edition, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2004), 245–49; Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel; Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 735–38. “This passage bears all the marks of an interpolation; thus, despite a few valiant attempts to rescue it for the Fourth Gospel, the vast majority of scholars view it as inauthentic here. First of all, its textual history is suspect; one would hardly expect so many early manuscripts to omit such an important story about Jesus were it in their text. . . . Second, it includes elements of non-Johannine vocabulary, some of them significant . . . Finally, it seriously interrupts the flow of thought in John’s narrative.”

[4] MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, 1:321–24; Borchert, , 25A:370; Boice, The Gospel of John, 2005, 2:602; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 333–37. Carson. “Despite the best efforts of Zane Hodges to prove that this narrative was originally part of John’s Gospel, the evidence is against him, and modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the text (niv) or to relegate it to a footnote.”

[5] Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Luke and John, 264–66; Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume, 1964; Gill, Exposition of the Old & New Testaments.

[6] Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 415–17.

[7] Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 4th Revised Edition (London, New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 188.

[8] Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and Epistle to the Hebrews.

[9] William Barclay, The Gospel of John, Volume 2, The New Daily Study Bible, vol. 2 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 338.

[10] Joel C. Elowsky, ed., , vol. IVa, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2006), 272.

[11] Elowsky, IVa:272.

[12] Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, 592.

[13] Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 188–89. “Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John’s narrative least if it were inserted after 7:52 (D E (F) G H K M U Γ Π 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7:36 (ms. 225) or after 7:44 (several Georgian mss) or after 21:25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after (f ). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses that contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials.”

[14] Westcott and Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, 125.

[15] Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 416–17. “The internal evidence, then, and the spiritual indications (apprehended and appreciated only by those who enter into God’s thoughts) are far more weighty than external considerations. The one who is led and taught by the Spirit of God need not waste valuable time examining ancient manuscripts for the purpose of discovering whether or not this portion of the Bible is really a part of God’s own Word.”

[16] Köstenberger, John, 245. Köstenberger offers 16 Greek words used in this section that “are not found elsewhere in this Gospel.” There are 18 total words but two are used twice.

[17] Zane Clark Hodges, “The Woman Taken in Adultery (): The Text,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136, no. 544 (October 1979): 326.

[18] Boice, The Gospel of John, 2005, 2:605.

[19] Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 238. “κρίνω (1) as making a personal evaluation think of as better, prefer (); (2) as forming a personal opinion evaluate, think, judge (); (3) as reaching a personal or group decision resolve, determine, decide (); (4) as passing a personal judgment on someone’s actions judge, criticize (); often in a negative sense condemn, find fault with (JA 4:11); (5) as a legal technical term; (a) in a human court judge, condemn, hand over for punishment (); passive be on trial, be judged (); middle/passive go to law, sue (1C 6:6); (b) of God’s judging judge, administer justice; with an obviously negative verdict condemn, punish (); (6) Hebraistically, in a broader sense rule, govern ()”

[20] Borchert, , 25A:376.

The Adulterous Woman (7:53-8:11)

Inscripturation Debate

Jesus Character Revealed