The Woman Caught in Adultery

What sparked my curiosity about this passage was not the verses themselves but the italicized disclaimer inserted before them. What does it mean that the "most ancient manuscripts do not contain john 7:53-8:11"? Some translations read "the earliest and most reliable manuscripts...". Do we have something in our Bible that is sketchy? I am copying a commentary from bible.org which sheds some light...


Biblical scholars have raised questions about our text for several reasons: (1) Those Greek manuscripts judged by some to be both the oldest and the best omit this passage. When the passage does appear, the text varies considerably, and even occurs at a different place. (2) Some of the older (e.g., Latin, Armenian, Gothic) translations omit it, and some ancient commentators don’t comment on this text. (3) Some would say that both the style and vocabulary of this text differs from that of John. (4) Some argue that this passage does not fit well into the context. (5) A number of highly respected scholars do not believe this text is a part of the New Testament text.

Having said all of this, I am still confident in my own mind that this text is a part of the inspired Scripture, and that it is profitable for teaching as much as any other text of Scripture (whether written by the Apostle John or not). Even after his very critical comments on this text, Leon Morris speaks positively of it:

But if we cannot feel that this is part of John’s Gospel we can feel that the story is true to the character of Jesus. Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story is authentic. It rings true. It speaks to our condition. It is worth our while to study it, though not as an authentic part of John’s writing. The story is undoubtedly very ancient. Most authorities agree that it is referred to by Papias. It is mentioned also in the Apostolic Constitutions. But it is not mentioned very often in the early days. The reason probably is that in a day when the punishment for sexual sin was very severe among the Christians this story was thought to be too easily misinterpreted as countenancing unchastity. When ecclesiastical discipline was somewhat relaxed the story was circulated more widely and with a greater measure of official sanction.

Calvin speaks of this text in a similar way:

It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage.


Tomorrow's reading: John 8:21-59; Luke 10:1-11:13