Apologetics: How We Got the Bible, Part 6 (the Woman Taken in Adultery)

apologetics2Back in the 1970s, many Christians were shocked when they bought one of the modern translations just released to find that the translations omitted the account of the woman taken in adultery and a large portion of the last chapter of Mark.

Many a preacher cried “liberalism!” and all sorts of other accusations were made, but the translators probably made the correct decision.

Regarding the woman taken in adultery, the NET Bible translators explain (I add paragraphing to facilitate reading on the Internet),

This entire section, Joh 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best MSS and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel.

B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming”  (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of Joh 7:53-8:11: î66, 75 ‌א‎‏‎ B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope Joh 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text.

Among the MSS that include Joh 7:53-8:11 are D Û lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mgal include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after Joh 7:36, ƒ1 places it after Joh 21:25, 115 after Joh 8:12, ƒ13 after Luk 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luk 24:53. …

In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (MSS with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion.

Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early MSS of the Alexandrian text type omit the pericope, while most MSS of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western MSS” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek MSS are concerned).

Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best MSS extant omit the pericope; it is found only in MSS of secondary importance.

But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of Joh 8:1-11 (Joh 7:53-8:11): (1) Joh 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (Joh 7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: Joh 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world.

But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orthrou, in Joh 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (Joh 8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. Joh 3:19-21).

Internal evidence against the inclusion of Joh 8:1-11 (Joh 7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, Joh 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in Joh 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in Joh 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee.

(2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in Joh 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And Joh 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians.

(3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here.

(4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of MSS (ƒ13) places the pericope after Luk 21:38.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best MSS do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well.

The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24-44).

That’s a good example of how scholarly analysis is done. The manuscript evidence is considered, and arguments pro and con are also taken into account and weighed.  In addition, the internal evidence — how well the text fits grammatically and stylistically within its alleged context — is also considered.

Clearly, the passage was not written by John as a part of his Gospel. But a excellent case may be made that it’s true — even though not part of the canonical 27 books. After all, a text does not have to be part of the canon to speak the truth.

Arguing in favor of its veracity is the fact that the early church never questioned its truth although during much of the church’s early history, adultery was considered not only a sin but very nearly unforgivable. This powerful lesson on grace cut against the culture of the church and yet the text was never questioned by the church.

And sexual immorality was taught against with a stridency we can barely imagine. Indeed, some in church leadership were so severe that they opposed sexual relations even within marriage! (Again, in direct contradiction to the scriptures.) (Many a husband was very unhappy when his wife converted and insisted on living as a “virgin,” i.e., without sexual relations, while still married!)

In that extreme culture, the story of the woman taken in adultery just didn’t fit. It was exactly the wrong message for a corrupted church filled with Greek philosophy rather than the grace of God.

And yet the church leadership never questioned its truth. The story was part of the church’s teaching during all this time, despite being so very inconvenient to the church’s evident mission to stamp out sex, even in marriage.

As a result, most conservative scholars consider the story true and likely inspired. It’s written in a style and with a beauty like the Synoptic Gospels. It fits the Jesus we know. And it’s been a beloved story for centuries because the church’s heart, filled with the Spirit, responds to it as truly the word of God.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Christian Evidences/Apologetics, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Apologetics: How We Got the Bible, Part 6 (the Woman Taken in Adultery)

  1. John says:

    Jay wrote, “It fits the Jesus we know”.

    Indeed. Yet, too many like to speed read to Jesus’ last statement, “Go, and sin no more”. Yes, that was his admonition. But not before he saved her from the self-righteous crowd.

    The irony is that many of the people who wish to see it included as inspired, though they proclaim it to be a wonderful story of Jesus, fear the heart and soul of the story, simply because for them the church’s reality cannot be that “soft on sin”. That is what happens when doctrine, in this case, inspiration, is chiseled in stone rather than written on the heart.

  2. I wonder why we might assume that if a passage is not found in the earliest manuscripts, that it should not be included in the canon. Was there an expiration date on inspiration? Did the Holy Spirit stop speaking to Mark when he dropped his pen? Did he stop speaking to everyone when John the apostle died? Does the fact that an unknown person added another anecdote to the text later somehow suggest that anecdote was not inspired?

    Before we start deciding what should and should not be in the canon, ex post facto, perhaps we should consider what we are holding as the very nature of inspiration. Is it limited to selected individuals, or to selected writings, or to specific periods of time? Did inspiration somehow dissipate over a few decades, with earlier writings being more intensely inspired than later ones? People tend to shy away from looking at these assumptions for fear of “opening a can of worms”, but we go right on living by the assumptions anyway.

    The “pericope” to which Jay refers has been preserved for us for centuries, and it is consistent with the character of Jesus as otherwise related. It may well not be as early as the rest of John’s gospel. I think that content and provenance were the two main aspects the early councils considered, and they were satisfied with it, only 300 years after the fact. So what would be the point of pulling this out of the current canon– or setting it apart as a footnote, specifically to call it into question– simply because it may not be as old as another portion of the scripture?

  3. Alan says:

    Today we have a limited set of manuscripts from which to draw conclusions. In the 300’s AD, there were a lot more. Augustine wrote that the passage existed in many Greek manuscripts in his day. Jerome concluded that it was scripture and included it in his Latin translation which became the standard for the Catholic church. Those modern scholars who think they know more about this issue than Jerome did are mistaken.

  4. Dan Harris says:

    To John (your 7:39 comment): Very well put. Thoughtful.

  5. John (the first comment above) argues from the fact that sheep recognize the voice of the shepherd. Indeed, this passage fits the Jesus who came to seek AND SAVE the lost and who said it is THE SICK who need the physician. Seems like he also spoke of more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents than over 99 just persons who need no repentance (if there be 99 such persons).

  6. SteveA says:

    The narrative I received when young was that when the apostles and the people they layed hands on died, miracles ceased and then immediately Christians had the New Testament for constitutional guidance. But the story is much messier than that. We are pretty much in the dark about the first two centuries. Marcion’s Canon and the Muratorian Canon of the 2nd century do not correspond to ours. Origen at the end of the 2nd century complained about the errors or variations in the manuscripts that were making the rounds. And, did he even have a concept of a set canon? Ireneus, late 2nd century, had the impeckable insight that there could only be four Gospels because there were only four winds that blew. He, the great heresiarch who did a lot to identify who was in and who was out of the bounds of what would become Orthodox Christianity. It was not until 367 CE that we have the first list of the New Testament that exactly corresponds to ours. And it was in a letter from Athanasius, a devoted disciple who used goons to physically intimidate people to his version of Christianity. By that time, religious writings not on the correct list were burned and those promoting them persecuted. The New Testament was decided by people who were far down the path of the falling away that we were told about

Comments are closed.