May 7th, 2024
By Andrew and Karen Edmondson
Many of us will know and love the story of Jesus meeting a woman who has been caught in adultery. It is found in John 7:53-8:11, and it goes something like this:
Some religious leaders bring a woman to where Jesus is teaching in the temple courts. She has been caught committing adultery. They want to trap Jesus into saying something that will get him into trouble, so they challenge him: “In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” Jesus replies that whichever of them is without sin should throw the first stone.
At this, the religious leaders start to leave quietly, one by one, until Jesus and the woman are alone. He lets her go – not condemned, but forgiven – telling her as she goes to leave her life of sin. Jesus captures our attention and our hearts once again, challenging hypocrisy, confounding expectations and bringing grace and mercy into the very heart of justice. So far, so good!
But wait a minute…. in many editions of the Bible, this story seems to come with a warning: “The earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53- 8:11” (NIV). And it’s not just a footnote, like those included in study Bibles to give background information about the text – it’s right there in the main text of the story itself, where you can’t miss it. What does this mean? Why is this note of caution needed? Surely the Bible is…. well, the Bible – and always has been. Hasn’t it? And, if not, where did this story come from?!
Some religious leaders bring a woman to where Jesus is teaching in the temple courts. She has been caught committing adultery. They want to trap Jesus into saying something that will get him into trouble, so they challenge him: “In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” Jesus replies that whichever of them is without sin should throw the first stone.
At this, the religious leaders start to leave quietly, one by one, until Jesus and the woman are alone. He lets her go – not condemned, but forgiven – telling her as she goes to leave her life of sin. Jesus captures our attention and our hearts once again, challenging hypocrisy, confounding expectations and bringing grace and mercy into the very heart of justice. So far, so good!
But wait a minute…. in many editions of the Bible, this story seems to come with a warning: “The earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53- 8:11” (NIV). And it’s not just a footnote, like those included in study Bibles to give background information about the text – it’s right there in the main text of the story itself, where you can’t miss it. What does this mean? Why is this note of caution needed? Surely the Bible is…. well, the Bible – and always has been. Hasn’t it? And, if not, where did this story come from?!
Why does it come with a warning?
Well, very simply, there is strong evidence to suggest that this story was not originally a part of the gospel written by John. This idea might raise all sorts of questions – why is the story there at all? What should we do with it? Do we need to think differently about this story, or John’s gospel… or the Bible?! Before we begin to answer some of these questions (don’t worry, we’ll get to this in a moment) let’s briefly consider some of the evidence that this story is not an original part of John’s gospel.
First, it is not in the earliest copies of John’s gospel that we have today. In the last two or three centuries, archaeologists and historians have found and identified many manuscript copies of the Bible that had been lost for a thousand years or more.i Archaeological discoveries of this kind include very early copies of John’s gospel, and many of those copies do not contain this story about the woman caught in adultery.
An overview of modern archaeological finds and scholarly evidence increasingly suggests that John did not include this story in his gospel. We know this because teams of editors working on revised editions of the Bible carefully review all the most up-to-date evidence in order to produce the most accurate version they can. For example, editors working on the 4th revised edition of the Greek New Testament in 1971 include in their commentary a long list of early Greek manuscripts and some early translations into other languages that do not contain this passage at all (there are almost none before the 6th Century), and also point out that the earliest ‘church fathers’ – leaders and theologians who shaped the church’s doctrines in the first few centuries after Jesus’s time – do not comment on this passage at all. What’s more, editors who have worked closely on the Greek New Testament tend to agree that this little section is somewhat different from the rest of John’s gospel in terms of its style and vocabulary. It sounds like it was written by someone else! They conclude:
“The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.” ii
...which is a fancy way of saying they are convinced that someone other than John wrote the story of the woman caught in adultery.
It is also interesting to think about how John’s gospel would work if this story wasn’t there. If we skip over this story, we find two separate episodes involving the Pharisees now appear one after the other (John 7:45-53, and John 8:12-20). Although these refer to separate events, they are nevertheless illuminating when they are read together. Both feature the Pharisees speaking out against Jesus, and both contain echoes of the same Old Testament scripture: Isaiah chapter 9.iii In the first encounter, the Pharisees seek to undermine Jesus, saying “a prophet does not come out of Galilee” (Jesus is from Galilee). In the next encounter, Jesus claims, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.
Isaiah chapter 9 is relevant to both of these (it’s worth quoting at length here!):
Jesus’s words clearly echo the Isaiah passage – He seems to be suggesting that He is the fulfilment of the prophecy. If we read it alongside the previous story, the reference to Isaiah 9 also seems to refute the Pharisees’ argument that Jesus can’t be a prophet because He is from Galilee: Galilee will be honoured, and Jesus is more than a prophet – He is the ‘great light’ coming into the darkness (and, if we read further in Isaiah chapter 9, He is ‘Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace!) It is quite plausible that John would deliberately have placed these two passages side by side in order to highlight the connection to Isaiah chapter 9, and to amplify Jesus’s claim that He is the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies. The story of the woman caught in adultery, when placed between these two sections, interrupts the flow and threatens to obscure this part of John’s message.
First, it is not in the earliest copies of John’s gospel that we have today. In the last two or three centuries, archaeologists and historians have found and identified many manuscript copies of the Bible that had been lost for a thousand years or more.i Archaeological discoveries of this kind include very early copies of John’s gospel, and many of those copies do not contain this story about the woman caught in adultery.
An overview of modern archaeological finds and scholarly evidence increasingly suggests that John did not include this story in his gospel. We know this because teams of editors working on revised editions of the Bible carefully review all the most up-to-date evidence in order to produce the most accurate version they can. For example, editors working on the 4th revised edition of the Greek New Testament in 1971 include in their commentary a long list of early Greek manuscripts and some early translations into other languages that do not contain this passage at all (there are almost none before the 6th Century), and also point out that the earliest ‘church fathers’ – leaders and theologians who shaped the church’s doctrines in the first few centuries after Jesus’s time – do not comment on this passage at all. What’s more, editors who have worked closely on the Greek New Testament tend to agree that this little section is somewhat different from the rest of John’s gospel in terms of its style and vocabulary. It sounds like it was written by someone else! They conclude:
“The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.” ii
...which is a fancy way of saying they are convinced that someone other than John wrote the story of the woman caught in adultery.
It is also interesting to think about how John’s gospel would work if this story wasn’t there. If we skip over this story, we find two separate episodes involving the Pharisees now appear one after the other (John 7:45-53, and John 8:12-20). Although these refer to separate events, they are nevertheless illuminating when they are read together. Both feature the Pharisees speaking out against Jesus, and both contain echoes of the same Old Testament scripture: Isaiah chapter 9.iii In the first encounter, the Pharisees seek to undermine Jesus, saying “a prophet does not come out of Galilee” (Jesus is from Galilee). In the next encounter, Jesus claims, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.
Isaiah chapter 9 is relevant to both of these (it’s worth quoting at length here!):
“Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honour Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan – The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned…” (Isaiah 9:1-2)
Jesus’s words clearly echo the Isaiah passage – He seems to be suggesting that He is the fulfilment of the prophecy. If we read it alongside the previous story, the reference to Isaiah 9 also seems to refute the Pharisees’ argument that Jesus can’t be a prophet because He is from Galilee: Galilee will be honoured, and Jesus is more than a prophet – He is the ‘great light’ coming into the darkness (and, if we read further in Isaiah chapter 9, He is ‘Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace!) It is quite plausible that John would deliberately have placed these two passages side by side in order to highlight the connection to Isaiah chapter 9, and to amplify Jesus’s claim that He is the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies. The story of the woman caught in adultery, when placed between these two sections, interrupts the flow and threatens to obscure this part of John’s message.
How did the story of the woman caught in adultery end up in John’s gospel at all, then?
In order to understand how this story could have ended up in John’s gospel in our modern English translations of the Bible, when it seems it wasn’t in John’s original version, we need to understand how Biblical texts have been passed down over the centuries. Before the printing press was invented in the 16th Century, the Bible was copied by hand. Hence, the historical evidence we have to draw on is in the form of ‘manuscripts’ produced by scribes. These scribes made new Bibles by copying out existing ones, word for word. They were highly skilled and usually produced excellent copies but, inevitably, small errors occurred. A word was missed or added here or there; sometimes a whole line was accidentally skipped. Sometimes, a scribe found what he thought was an error in an existing copy, and ‘corrected’ it in his own copy. As a result, no two manuscripts (that we know of) have an identical text (although the differences between them are generally very small).iv
So, coming back to the case of the woman caught in adultery, it is very possible that this was part of an oral tradition: a story known in the early church and passed down through storytelling from one generation to the next. At some point, perhaps, a scribe added it in when he was making a copy of John’s gospel – and lots of the scribes after him included it in their copies, too! It seems to have caused some difficulty for scribes, as some added it in a different place in John, and some even put it in Luke’s gospel!
So, coming back to the case of the woman caught in adultery, it is very possible that this was part of an oral tradition: a story known in the early church and passed down through storytelling from one generation to the next. At some point, perhaps, a scribe added it in when he was making a copy of John’s gospel – and lots of the scribes after him included it in their copies, too! It seems to have caused some difficulty for scribes, as some added it in a different place in John, and some even put it in Luke’s gospel!
Why don’t earlier versions of the Bible in English (eg King James) contain the same warnings?
If scholars generally agree that this story is not part of the original gospel of John, why doesn’t every version of the Bible contain a ‘warning’? Translations such as the King James include the story of the woman caught in adultery without any special notes.
Well, although it’s counter-intuitive, these older versions of the Bible were actually based on a later Greek text, which was derived from later manuscripts – the ones that have the story of the woman caught in adultery incorporated in them. That was all that was available in the 16th and 17th centuries when the Tyndale and King James versions were first produced. So, these versions (and those closely based on them, such as the New King James version) include the story as a matter of course; it was not considered controversial. Most of the earliest manuscripts – which were produced in the first few centuries after John’s original, and which don’t include the story – were lost, and rediscovered in the 19th century or later (some buried underground, some in libraries and the like!) English language versions of the Bible produced since the 19th century had the benefit of these discoveries. Their editors know that the story is only present in some manuscripts, and generally not in the earliest ones, and so they acknowledge this with a special ‘warning note’
Well, although it’s counter-intuitive, these older versions of the Bible were actually based on a later Greek text, which was derived from later manuscripts – the ones that have the story of the woman caught in adultery incorporated in them. That was all that was available in the 16th and 17th centuries when the Tyndale and King James versions were first produced. So, these versions (and those closely based on them, such as the New King James version) include the story as a matter of course; it was not considered controversial. Most of the earliest manuscripts – which were produced in the first few centuries after John’s original, and which don’t include the story – were lost, and rediscovered in the 19th century or later (some buried underground, some in libraries and the like!) English language versions of the Bible produced since the 19th century had the benefit of these discoveries. Their editors know that the story is only present in some manuscripts, and generally not in the earliest ones, and so they acknowledge this with a special ‘warning note’
Response: What should we do?
Should we read, study and teach about it?
So, what do we do next? Should we stop reading the story of the woman caught in adultery altogether? The answer is… probably not! Despite the controversy over its origins, the story is still included in our Bibles for a reason. Editors could have removed it altogether (as they have done with contentious verses in other places). However, the same editors who concluded this story was in the wrong place, nevertheless found it convincing as a historical text and a Biblical account. Although it is incorrectly inserted in John’s gospel at this point, there is a strong argument that it refers to events that really did take place in the life of Jesus, and was probably passed down through oral tradition from the early church. What is more, it is in ‘harmony’ with the rest of Scripture – the main teachings we might draw from the passage can all be supported from other parts of the Bible. So, there is good reason to continue prayerfully reading, pondering and cherishing this story.
Should we consider it Scripture?
That’s all very well… but should we really read this story like we read the rest of the Bible? Is it Scripture? God-breathed, more-precious-than-gold, sharper-than-a-sword Scripture? Well, that is a trickier question. Not all Bible scholars agree on this, and a lively debate looks set to continue for now. This means we might want to be a little cautious about giving this passage the full authority of Scripture, but it certainly doesn’t mean avoiding or rejecting it altogether. Even scholars who do not consider it part of Scripture see value in the story. For example, John Piper takes this approach:
In other words, we can read, weigh and interpret the story in the light of other Bible passages, and find its message is supported by themes we find revealed elsewhere in the gospels. This is a great way to approach any Bible study or teaching – and a great way to enjoy this lovely story: an echo and a pointer to our remarkable, merciful saviour, Jesus! At Churchcentral, we have decided to include this part of John’s gospel in our preaching series on Sunday 12th May 2024 because we feel it's a beautiful representation of the gospel, and that every theme is reflected clearly in other passages. We hope you find it useful!
How can I think and learn a bit more about this?
Finally, it’s worth remembering that the passage in question here is exceptional. The more we discover about the textual history of the Bible, the stronger the evidence becomes in support of the text we have in our modern translations. There is overwhelming agreement about the vast majority of the Bible as we know it, and remarkably few discrepancies like this one. We can have confidence that our Scriptures are both authentic and original. If you are still interested, intrigued, confused, troubled or excited to know more about all this, there are some resources linked below. And, of course, you can always have a chat with one of the elders or your Community Group leader – they may not be able to answer all your questions, but they can point you to someone who will (or at least have a good try!).
Places to read more:
So, what do we do next? Should we stop reading the story of the woman caught in adultery altogether? The answer is… probably not! Despite the controversy over its origins, the story is still included in our Bibles for a reason. Editors could have removed it altogether (as they have done with contentious verses in other places). However, the same editors who concluded this story was in the wrong place, nevertheless found it convincing as a historical text and a Biblical account. Although it is incorrectly inserted in John’s gospel at this point, there is a strong argument that it refers to events that really did take place in the life of Jesus, and was probably passed down through oral tradition from the early church. What is more, it is in ‘harmony’ with the rest of Scripture – the main teachings we might draw from the passage can all be supported from other parts of the Bible. So, there is good reason to continue prayerfully reading, pondering and cherishing this story.
Should we consider it Scripture?
That’s all very well… but should we really read this story like we read the rest of the Bible? Is it Scripture? God-breathed, more-precious-than-gold, sharper-than-a-sword Scripture? Well, that is a trickier question. Not all Bible scholars agree on this, and a lively debate looks set to continue for now. This means we might want to be a little cautious about giving this passage the full authority of Scripture, but it certainly doesn’t mean avoiding or rejecting it altogether. Even scholars who do not consider it part of Scripture see value in the story. For example, John Piper takes this approach:
“Who doesn’t love this story? But that does not give it the authority of Scripture. So what I will do is take its most remarkable point and show that it is true on the basis of other parts of Scripture, and so let this story not be the basis of our authority, but an echo and a pointer to our authority, namely, the Scriptures, that teach what it says.”v
How can I think and learn a bit more about this?
Finally, it’s worth remembering that the passage in question here is exceptional. The more we discover about the textual history of the Bible, the stronger the evidence becomes in support of the text we have in our modern translations. There is overwhelming agreement about the vast majority of the Bible as we know it, and remarkably few discrepancies like this one. We can have confidence that our Scriptures are both authentic and original. If you are still interested, intrigued, confused, troubled or excited to know more about all this, there are some resources linked below. And, of course, you can always have a chat with one of the elders or your Community Group leader – they may not be able to answer all your questions, but they can point you to someone who will (or at least have a good try!).
Places to read more:
- John Piper’s sermon: a clear and accessible account of the story – its history, its message and its status as non-Scriptural (in his view, at least).
- A post (by Peter Gurry) from the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog – the debate in the comments is lively, and gives a flavour of some different opinions here!
- For those who want something a little meatier and more academic, this book explores the issue in more depth (try to borrow or find an ebook – this one’s expensive!) The Pericope of the Adulteress in Contemporary Research, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.
i To give one well known example, you may have heard of the “Dead Sea Scrolls”. These were documents found by a shepherd boy in sealed pots in a cave, which turned out to date from before Jesus’ time and to include the oldest known copy of the Old Testament book of Isaiah.
ii Metzger, B., 1971, “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament”
iii See Metzger, B., 1971, “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament”
iv There is a whole field of academic study (“textual criticism”) that uses these differences to trace the history and development of the text, and to try to identify the text closest to the originals that we can.
v “Neither do I condemn you”, https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/neither-do-i-condemn-you--3
ii Metzger, B., 1971, “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament”
iii See Metzger, B., 1971, “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament”
iv There is a whole field of academic study (“textual criticism”) that uses these differences to trace the history and development of the text, and to try to identify the text closest to the originals that we can.
v “Neither do I condemn you”, https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/neither-do-i-condemn-you--3
No Comments