Does John 7:53-8:11 belong in the Bible?

The story of the woman taken in adultery has been rejected by many leading scholars. It is claimed that it is nothing less than a forgery. The chief arguments against it are the following: That the story is missing in some of the oldest manuscripts and earlier translations; that some of the Greek Fathers never refer to it; that it differs in style from the rest of the Gospel of John, and that the incident ought to be discredited on moral ground. However all these arguments have been proven invalid. Many old manuscripts have the story as well as some of the oldest translations. Others of the so-called church-fathers speak of it. There can be no question whatever of its genuineness. It was omitted on purpose in certain manuscripts. The Grace, which shines forth so marvelously in the Lord's dealing with the woman, was unpalatable to teachers who mixed Law and Grace. They left it out for a purpose.*

Q. — John 8:1-11. Is this story a gloss, as so many of the learned reckon, or is it of God? L.L.

A. — When celibacy was an idol, we can understand how unacceptable were the Lord's words. Even Augustine attributed its omission to infirm or no faith. Yet bearing in mind that our earliest copies are of that age, we see marks proving a wilful omission, with ample testimony to its existence. But the Christian can recognise the Shepherd's voice, such as no forger ever invented, and can note that the fact supplies the occasion for the discourse that follows, as in John 4, 5, 6, which otherwise would deprive John 8 of its analogous starting-point. Beyond just question it is of God.

Textual criticism, however, demands here to be heard, and tells us that the passage 7:53 — 8:11 is of very doubtful, if of not more than doubtful, authority, as having really formed part of the Gospel of John. The four most ancient uncial MSS., followed by others, have not that history of the woman taken in adultery, whilst five others mark the passage as doubtful. The earliest uncial MS. in favour of it is the Codex Bezae of the sixth century, supported by six others, none of which are earlier than the ninth century. These facts may well make one pause, and weigh matters. And now, without entering into further details as to MS. authority, or the witness of ancient versions, which might not be profitable for general readers, we would give the opinion of two textual critics of modern days, representatives of different schools of textual criticism, but both unquestionably of a reverential spirit when dealing with the Sacred Word. We refer to the late Dr. Tregelles, and the late Rev. F. H. A. Scrivener.

We quote first from Dr. Tregelles' Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, p. 241, London, 1854. After giving the authority of MSS. for and against it, and the testimony of ancient versions and patristic citations, he thus expresses himself: "Though I am fully satisfied that this narration is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel, and though I regard the endeavours to make the evidence appear satisfactory to be such as would involve all Holy Scripture in a mist of uncertainty, I see no reason for doubting that it contains a true narration. There is nothing unworthy of the acting of the Lord Jesus detailed in this history. And thus I accept the narrative as true, although its form and phraseology are wholly uncertain, and although I do not believe it to be a Divine record."

Mr. Scrivener, in his Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, third edition enlarged, p. 610, thus delivers himself: "It is absent from too many excellent copies not to have been wanting in some of the very earliest; while the arguments in its favour, internal even more than external, are so powerful, that we can scarcely be brought to think it an unauthorised appendage to the writings of one who, in another of his inspired books, deprecated so solemnly the adding to or the taking away from the blessed testimony he was commissioned to bear (Apoc. 22:18, 19). If chapter 20:30-31, show signs of having been the original end of this Gospel, and chapter 21 be a later supplement by the Apostle's own hand, which I think, with Dean Alford, is evidently the case, why should not St. John have inserted in this second edition both the amplification in chapter 5:3-4, and this most edifying and eminently Christian narrative? The appended chapter would thus be added at once to all copies of the Gospels then in circulation, though a portion of them might well overlook the minuter change in chapter 5:3-4, or, from obvious though mistaken motives, might hesitate to receive for general use or public reading the history of the woman taken in adultery."

Whatever, then, be the judgment of sober men as to the canonicity of this passage, there is no reason to doubt of the authenticity of the narrative. And this impression will be strengthened, as the reader observes, that a few cursives, which omit it from chapter 8, exhibit it at the end of the Gospel, and some, still fewer, insert it at the close of Luke 21. Why omit it here, and insert it elsewhere, if the history was not deemed authentic? Meeting, however, with it pretty generally in chapter 8, and believing the narrative to be authentic, we have to ask, Why is it found for the most part in this place in the Gospel of John? Augustine states it had been left out of copies for fear of allowing immorality. But whatever may have been felt about it in early days, there is nothing in it inconsistent with the Lord's ways or teaching.

The most noteworthy and important omission is of course the end of John 7 and beginning of John 8 to verse 11 inclusively. Here confessedly most of the old uncials are adverse, and not a few versions are silent, as ancient commentators also. But it is painful to add that Augustine at an early day, and Nicon, an Armenian abbot of the tenth century, bear their distinct testimony to the subjective reasons which led to leaving out the story, even where it was well known to exist in the Gospel. Nothing on the other hand can account for its insertion if it were not the inspired word of God; and in no place does it fit in, spite of strong and repeated efforts to dislodge it, save as the fact introductory to the discourse of our Lord in this chapter. The internal objections to the style or language are as weak as those alleged against Mark 16:9-20. The words, which viewed superficially afford occasion, turn out when duly weighed to be powerful evidences of their own genuineness as well as authenticity; as is indeed the case invariably with true scripture for all who value the truth.

• The Text of John 7:53 to 8:11

Together with Mark 16:9-20 these verses are the only the New Testament verses whose origins are doubted by critical text research. These twelve verses are missing in the oldest known Greek manuscripts as well as in some old translations. Hieronymus however testifies that these verses were included in many Greek and Latin manuscripts. (Hieronymus lived from 345 – 419). Augustine (354 -430) stated that this paragraph has been taken out of the text by men of little faith or enemies of the true faith. Their motive is likely to have been fear of a possible misuse of the verses. The opinion that chapter 7:53 – 8:11 belongs to the inspired text of John's Gospel by contents as well as by context is supported by the fact that probably no other occurrence of the life of the Lord Jesus so strikingly illustrates the statement of ch. 8:12 “I am the light of the world”.

The point at which we have arrived gives me an opportunity of saying a little on the beginning of this chapter, and the end of the last; for it is well known that many men, and, I am sorry to add, not a few Christians, have allowed appearances to weigh against John 7:53 — John 8:11 — a very precious portion of God's word. The fact is, that the paragraph of the convicted adulteress has been either simply left out in some copies of Scripture, or a blank equivalent to it appears, or it is given with marks of doubt and a good deal of variety of reading, or it is put in elsewhere. This, with many alleged verbal peculiarities, acted on the minds of a considerable number, and led them to question its title to a place in the genuine gospel of John. I do not think that the objections usually raised are here understated. Nevertheless, mature as well as minute consideration of them fails to raise the slightest doubt in my own mind, and therefore to me it seems so much the more a duty to defend it, where the alternative is a dishonour to what I believe God has given us.

In its favour are the strongest possible proofs from such a character in itself, and such suitability to the context, as no forgery could ever boast. And these moral or spiritual indications (though, of course, only to such as are capable of apprehending and enjoying God's mind) are incomparably graver and more conclusive than any evidence of an external sort. Not that the external evidence is really weak, far from it. That which gives such an appearance is capable of reasonable, unforced, and even of what seems almost to amount to an historical solution. The meddling was probably due to human motives — no uncommon thing in ancient or modern times. With good and with bad intentions men have often tried to mend the word of God. Superstitious persons, unable to enter into its beauty, and anxious after the good opinion of the world, were afraid to trust the truth which Christ was here setting forth in deed. Augustine,* an unimpeachable witness of facts, nearly as old as the most ancient manuscripts which omit the paragraph, tells us that it was from ethical difficulties some dropped this section out of their copies. We know for certain that dogmatic motives similarly influenced some in Luke 22:42-43. One of the considerations, adverted to already, ought to weigh exceedingly with the believer. The account, I shall show, is exactly in harmony with the Scripture that follows it — not less so than the Lord's refusal to go up to the feast and show Himself to the world, with His words which follow on the gift of the Holy Ghost in John 7; or, again, the miracle of the miraculous bread, with the discourse appended on the needed food for the Christian in John 6. In a word, there is here, as there, an indissoluble link of connected truth between the facts related and the communication our Lord makes afterwards in each instance respectively.

The suspicion that some weak believers or enemies of the faith omitted the section, as the Bishop of Hippo suggests, would expose the passage to be tampered with. It is very likely that the Christians who read the Shepherd of Hermas in their public services would omit John 8:1-11. Similar unbelief inclines critical judgment in that direction now. Judgment of facts is apt to be swayed and formed by the will.

This portion recounts the incident of the woman brought before our Lord and the discourse connected with it. Unbelief, or feeble faith indeed, seems to have hesitated to give this wondrous narrative a place in the canon of Scripture, but who that knows the nature of sin and the heart of God could question its right to the place given it here?

157 John 8:11. — "Neither do I condemn," or, command execution of the law. Had early Christians discerned that these words have regard to the distinction between the Church and the world in its sentences, they could not have hesitated, as they did, to admit the passage into lectionaries. There is no "Go in peace," or "Thy sins are forgiven thee" here: the woman is governmentally respited (cf. the case of John 5). The Lord gave effect to the law which required two witnesses (Deut. 17:2-7, 19:15). Of verse 17 of this chapter which bears singularly on the authenticity of the passage, but seems to have been uniformly neglected by those who have questioned it.

154 John 7:53 — John 8:11. — Some of those rejecting this passage are influenced by the feeling that there is no clear connection with what comes before or follows it. As to this, see the Exposition. Difficulty over the connection has, however, not weighed so much as judgment formed on the diplomatic evidence. The expositor shows that the impeachment on that side of the case is not so formidable as is usually supposed. Eusebius says that he found the passage, not merely in the Gospel of the Hebrews, but in Papias, from whom Lightfoot supposes it was derived. It is markedly in harmony with i. 17, and was not likely to be inserted by a later hand. Whilst the early Reformers (Calvin, Beza, etc.) discredited it, Augustine before them, as Bengel afterwards, upheld it. The agreement of textual critics of such different schools as Tregelles and Scrivener, of course, is unfavourable to its being read in John; whilst some, acknowledging it as "Scripture," would place it at the end of Luke 21, as in the Ferrer group of manuscripts (but in these only), so Blass, the latest editor. Lightfoot's judgment was that "it is an interpolation where it stands" ("Bibical Essays," p. 69). He regarded it as a marginal note to verse 15. We may, however, be morally certain that the Evangelist, if he did not actually put the incident in writing, told the story in his oral ministry. "Advanced" critics go with others in commendation of its spirit and teaching, Julicher describing it as "the noblest of Agrapha" (p. 393). Its Divine wisdom is attested on all sides. See, further, notes 157, 159.