Sermon Tone Analysis

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?

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?

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.

Inscripturation Debate

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.

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.