I also saw why Ken Jennings didn’t include that story in
his telling of the gospel of John that Sunday afternoon for us – and kept him around
90 minutes.
Footnote: *
**************************************************************************
MY FAVORITE PASSAGE
THAT’S NOT IN THE BIBLE
Daniel Wallace
Dallas Theological
One hundred and forty years ago, conservative biblical
scholar and Dean of Canterbury, Henry Alford, advocated a new translation to
replace the King James Bible. One of his reasons was the inferior textual basis
of the KJV. Alford argued that “a translator of Holy Scripture must be…ready to
sacrifice the choicest text, and the plainest proof of doctrine, if the words
are not those of what he is constrained in his conscience to receive as God’s
testimony.” He was speaking about the Trinitarian formula found in the KJV
rendering of
1 John 5:7–8.
Twenty years later, two Cambridge scholars came to the firm conclusion
that
John 7:53–8:11 also
was not part of the original text of scripture. But Westcott and Hort’s view
has not had nearly the impact that Alford’s did.
For a long time, biblical scholars have recognized the poor
textual credentials of the story of the woman caught in adultery (
John 7:53–8:11). The evidence
against its authenticity is overwhelming: The earliest manuscripts with
substantial portions of John’s Gospel (P66 and P75) lack these verses. They
skip from
John 7:52 to
8:12. The oldest large codices of the Bible also lack these verses: codex
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both from the fourth century, are normally considered
to be the most important biblical manuscripts of the NT extant today. Neither
of them has these verses. Codex Alexandrinus, from the fifth century, lacks
several leaves in the middle of John. But because of the consistency of the
letter size, width of lines, and lines per page, the evidence is conclusive
that this manuscript also lacked the pericope adulterae. Codex Ephraemi
Rescriptus, also from the fifth century, apparently lacked these verses as
well (it is similar to Alexandrinus in that some leaves are missing). The
earliest extant manuscript to have these verses is codex Bezae, an eccentric
text once in the possession of Theodore Beza. He gave this manuscript to the
University of Cambridge in 1581 as a gift, telling the school that he was
confident that the scholars there would be able to figure out its significance.
He washed his hands of the document. Bezae is indeed the most eccentric NT
manuscript extant today, yet it is the chief representative of the Western
text-type (the text-form that became dominant in Rome and the Latin West).
When P66, P75, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus agree, their
combined testimony is overwhelmingly strong that a particular reading is not
authentic. But it is not only the early Greek manuscripts that lack this text.
The great majority of Greek manuscripts through the first eight centuries lack
this pericope. And except for Bezae (or codex D), virtually all of the most
important Greek witnesses through the first eight centuries do not have the
verses. Of the three most important early versions of the New Testament
(Coptic, Latin, Syriac), two of them lack the story in their earliest and best
witnesses. The Latin alone has the story in its best early witnesses.
Even patristic writers seemed to overlook this text. Bruce
Metzger, arguably the greatest textual critic of the twentieth century, argued
that “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” (Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., loc. cit.).
It is an important point to note that although the story of
the woman caught in adultery is found in most of our printed Bibles today, the
evidence suggests that the majority of Bibles during the first eight centuries
of the Christian faith did not contain the story. Externally, most scholars
would say that the evidence for it not being an authentic part of John’s Gospel
is rock solid.
But textual criticism is not based on external evidence
alone; there is also the internal evidence to consider. This is comprised of
two parts: intrinsic evidence has to do with what an author is likely
to have written; transcriptional evidence has
to do with how and why a scribe would have changed the text.
Intrinsically, the vocabulary, syntax, and style look far
more like Luke than they do John. There is almost nothing in these twelve
verses that has a Johannine flavor. And transcriptionally, scribes were almost
always prone to add material rather than omit it—especially a big block of text
such as this, rich in its description of Jesus’ mercy. One of the remarkable
things about this passage, in fact, is that it is found in multiple locations.
Most manuscripts that have it place it in its now traditional location:
between
John 7:52 and 8:12. But an
entire family of manuscripts has the passage at the end of
Luke 21, while another family places it at the end
of John’s Gospel. Other manuscripts place it at the end of Luke or in various places
in
John 7.
The pericope adulterae has all the earmarks of a
pericope that was looking for a home. It took up permanent residence, in the
ninth century, in the middle of the fourth gospel.
If the question of its literary authenticity (i.e., whether
it was penned by John) is settled, the question of
its historical authenticity is not. It is indeed possible that these
verses describe an actual incident in the life of Jesus and found their way
into our Bibles because of having the ring of truth. On one level, if this is
the case, then one might be forgiven for preaching the text on a Sunday
morning. But to regard it as scripture if John did not write it is
another matter. The problem is this: If John wrote his gospel as a tightly
woven argument, with everything meeting a crescendo in the resurrection, would
he be disturbed that some scribes started monkeying with his text? If we don’t
respect the human author, then we could discount this issue. But if the Bible
is both the Word of God and the words of men, then we are
playing fast and loose with the human author’s purpose by adding
anything—especially something as long as this passage—that takes a detour from
his intentions. What preacher would be happy with someone adding a couple
hundred words in the middle of his printed sermon as though such were from him?
On another level, there is evidence that this story is a conflation from two
different stories, one circulating in the east and the other circulating in the
west. In other words, even the historicity of this pericope is called into
question.
Yet, remarkably, even though most translators would probably
deny
John 7:53–8:11 a place in the
canon, virtually every translation of the Bible has this text in its
traditional location. There is, of course, a marginal note in modern
translations that says something like, “Most ancient authorities lack these
verses.” But such a weak and ambiguous statement is generally ignored by
readers of Holy Writ. (It’s ambiguous because many readers might assume that in
spite of the ‘ancient authorities’ that lack the passage, the translators felt
it must be authentic.)
How, then, has this passage made it into modern
translations? In a word, there has been a longstanding tradition of
timidity among translators. One twentieth-century Bible relegated the
passage to the footnotes, but when the sales were rather lackluster, it again
found its place in John’s Gospel. Even the NET Bible (available at
www.bible.org), for which I am
the senior New Testament editor, has put the text in its traditional place. But
the NET Bible also has a lengthy footnote, explaining the textual complications
and doubts about its authenticity. And the font size is smaller than normal so
that it will be harder to read from the pulpit! But we nevertheless made the
same concession that other translators have about this text by leaving
it in situ.
The climate has changed recently, however. In Bart Ehrman’s
2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible
and Why, the author discounts the authenticity of this pericope. What is
remarkable is not that he does this, but that thousands of Bible-believing
Christians have become disturbed by his assertions. Ehrman—a former evangelical
and alum of Moody and Wheaton—is one of America’s leading textual critics. He
has been on television and radio, in newspapers and magazines, and on the
Internet. He has lectured at universities from sea to shining sea. What he
wrote in his blockbuster book sent shockwaves through the Christian public.
I wrote a critique of Ehrman’s book that was published in
the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. There I said,
“keeping [
John 7:53–8:11 and
Mark 16:9–20] in our Bibles rather than relegating
them to the footnotes seems to have been a bomb just waiting to explode. All
Ehrman did was to light the fuse. One lesson we must learn from Misquoting
Jesus is that those in ministry need to close the gap between the church
and the academy. We have to educate believers. Instead of trying to isolate
laypeople from critical scholarship, we need to insulate them. They need to be
ready for the barrage, because it is coming. The intentional dumbing down of
the church for the sake of filling more pews will ultimately lead to defection
from Christ. Ehrman is to be thanked for giving us a wake-up call.”
I believe it’s time for us to own up to our tradition of
timidity and recognize that this has not helped the Church in the long haul.
It’s time to close the gap. I am calling for translators to remove this text
from the Gospel of John and relegate it to the footnotes. Although this will be
painful and will cause initial confusion, it is far better that laypeople hear
the truth about scripture from their friends than from their enemies. They need
to know that Christ-honoring, Bible-believing scholars also do not
think that this text is authentic, and that such a stance has not shaken their
faith one iota. No cardinal truth is lost if these verses go bye-bye; no
essential doctrine is disturbed if they are cut from the pages of the Word of God.
(Of course, if it is objected that since scholars are not absolutely sure that
this text is inauthentic they therefore need to retain it in the text, it need
only be said that such a policy practiced across the board would wreak havoc on
our printed Bibles and would mushroom their size beyond recognizable
proportions. In Acts alone, one textual tradition has 8.5% more material than
has been traditionally printed in our Bibles, yet very few object to such
variants being denied a place in the canon. Thus, to insist on having
the pericope adulterae in a footnote is a nod toward its longstanding
tradition in Bibles from the second millennium AD on.)
Of course, King James Only advocates will see things
differently. Their claim is that modern translations are butchering the Bible
by cutting out major texts. Not only is that quite an overstatement (since
only two lengthy passages in the KJV NT are considered spurious by
modern scholars—
John 7:53–8:11 and
Mark 16:9–20), but it also assumes what it needs
to prove. Is it not possible that the KJV, based on half a dozen late
manuscripts, has added to the Word of God rather than that modern
translations, based on far more and much earlier manuscripts, have cut out
portions of scripture? It is demonstrable that over time, the New Testament
text has grown. The latest manuscripts have approximately 2% more material than
the earliest ones. The problem is not that we have 98% of the Word of God; the
problem is that we have 102%! Modern scholars are trying to burn off the dross
to get to the gold. And one text that must go, in spite of our emotional
attachment to it, is
John 7:53–8:11.
One of the practical implications of this is as follows:
When Christians are asked whether this beloved story should be cut out of their
Bibles, they overwhelmingly and emphatically say no. The reason given:
It’s always been in the Bible and scholars have no right to tamper with the
text. The problem with this view is manifold. First, it is historically naïve
because it assumes that this passage has always been in the Bible. Second, it
is anti-intellectual by assuming that scholars are involved in some sort of
conspiracy and that they have no basis for excising verses that exist in
the printed text of the Bible. Without the slightest shred of
evidence, many laypeople (and not a few pastors!) have a knee-jerk reaction to
scholars who believe that
these twelve verses are not authentic. What they don’t realize is that
every Bible translation has to be reconstructed from the extant Greek New
Testament manuscripts. No one follows just a single manuscript, because all
manuscripts are riddled with errors. The manuscripts need to be examined,
weighed, sifted, and eventually translated. Every textual decision requires
someone to think through which reading is authentic and which is not. In the
best tradition of solid Christian scholarship, textual critics are actually
producing a Bible for Christians to read. Without biblical scholars, we would
have no Bibles in our own languages. When laymen claim that scholars are
tampering with the text, they are biting the hand that feeds them. Now, to be
sure, there are biblical scholars who are attempting to destroy the
Christian faith. And there are textual critics who are not Christians. But the
great translations of our time have largely been done by honest scholars. Some of them
are Christians, and some of them are not. But their integrity as scholars
cannot be called into question when it comes to passages such as
the pericope adulterae, since they are simply following in the train of
Henry Alford by subjecting their conscience to the historical data.
The best of biblical scholarship pursues truth at all costs. And it bases its
conclusions on real evidence, not on wishes, emotion, or blind faith. This is
in line with the key tenets of historic Christianity: If God became man in
time-space history, then we ought to link our faith to history. It must not be
a leap of faith, but it should be a step of faith. The religion of the Bible is the only major
religion in the world that subjects itself to historical inquiry. The
Incarnation has forever put God’s stamp of approval on pursuing truth,
wrestling with data, and changing our minds based on evidence. When we deny
evidence its place and appeal to emotion instead, we
are methodologically denying the significance of the Incarnation.
Much is thus at stake when it comes to a text such as the story of the woman
caught in adultery. What is at stake is not, as some might think, the mercy of
God; rather, what is at stake is how we view the very Incarnation itself.
Ironically, if we allow passages into the Gospels that do not have the best
credentials, we are in fact tacitly questioning whether the Lord of the
Gospels, Jesus Christ himself, became man, for we jettison historicity in favor
of personal preference. By affirming a spurious passage about him we may be
losing a whole lot more than we gain.
It is the duty of pastors for the sake of their faith to
study the data, to know the evidence, to have firm convictions rooted in
history. And we dare not serve up anything less than the same kind of meal for
our congregations. We do not
serve the church of Jesus Christ faithfully when we hide evidence from
laypeople; we need to learn to insulate our congregations, but not
isolate them. The Incarnation of Christ demands nothing less than this.
Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New
Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from
Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament
Studies at his alma mater.
His Greek
Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan,
1996) has become a standard textbook in colleges and seminaries. He is the
senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible. Dr. Wallace is also the Executive
Director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
The story of the woman caught in adultery, typically located
at
John
8:1-8:11, is one of the most popular stories in the entire Bible. Jesus’
lack of condemnation of a known sinner captivates some readers, as does his
statement “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a
stone at her” (
John
8:7) and the manner in which he outwits the scribes and the Pharisees with
that statement. Since, as his opponents note (
John
8:5), the
law
of Moses demanded that an adulteress be killed, Jesus’ opponents have
thrust him upon the horns of a dilemma. He has to choose either to allow the
woman to go free and publicly disobey the law of Moses or to approve of her
killing and forfeit his reputation as a friend to sinners (and possibly risk
trouble with Rome for contributing to a capital punishment that they had not
sanctioned). The cleverness of Jesus’ response in
John
8:7 is that it renders the enactment of the legal punishment
impossible without requiring his public disavowal of the law.
Interestingly enough, the earliest
manuscripts of
the
Gospel of
John do not contain this beloved passage. Indeed, the first manuscript to
contain the story is from around
400 C.E. Around 4% of Greek manuscripts that include the passage
place it in locations other than
John
8:1-8:11; the earliest of these is from around the ninth and tenth
centuries C.E. This perplexing manuscript history fuels debates about whether
the story was originally in John’s Gospel and, if so, where. The majority of
scholars believe a later Christian scribe inserted the passage into John’s
Gospel at
John
8:1-8:11 and that the alternate locations are due to the effects of
later liturgical reading in what is known as the lectionary system. This
popular method of reading the Bible broke the text into individual units that
were designated for specific days and often rearranged the order of the
holy text
in order to reflect these reading preferences. The story of the woman caught in
adultery was one of several such relocated passages.
A fascinating aspect of this passage is Jesus’ writing on
the ground in
John
8:6,
John
8:8.
Interpreters have
offered an array of interpretations of these actions, which range from the idea
that he wrote biblical passages to the idea that he was doodling. One must
recognize, however, that if what he wrote was important, then the
author probably would have included that information. Most likely,
John
8:6,
John
8:8 represents simply a claim that Jesus could write—a claim quite
significant in the ancient world, where most individuals were illiterate. Such
a claim also explains why a scribe inserted the passage after
John
7, where the Jewish leaders question both Jesus’ literacy specifically (
John
7:15) and Galileans’ knowledge of the law and ability to search it
generally (
John
7:49,
John
7:52). In addition, the author borrows the verbs for “writing” in
John
8:6,
John
8:8 from the Greek version of
Exod
32:15. This passage describes God’s authorship of the Ten Commandments; the
woman in John’s gospel is accused of breaking the command against adultery. The
context in
Exodus insists
that God wrote these laws with his finger (
Exod
31:18), and in the story of the adulteress, Jesus, too, writes with his
finger (
John
8:6). The author of the story of the adulteress seems to be claiming not
only that Jesus can write but also that this particular instance of writing
parallels the actions of God himself, thus making Jesus superior to Moses, whom
his enemies had challenged him to usurp by pronouncing judgment on the woman in
the first place.
Does John 7:53—8:11 belong in the Bible?
Question: "Does John 7:53—8:11 belong in the
Bible?"
Answer: The story of the woman caught in adultery is found in
John
7:53—8:11. This section of Scripture, sometimes referred to as
the pericope adulterae, has been the center of much controversy over the
years. At issue is its authenticity. Did the apostle John write
John
7:53—8:11, or is the story of the adulterous woman forgiven by Jesus a
later, uninspired insertion into the text?
The
Textus
Receptus includes
John
7:53—8:11, and the majority of Greek texts do. That is the reason the King
James Version of the New Testament (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the
section as an original part of the
Gospel of John.
However, more modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, include the
section but bracket it as not original. This is because the earliest (and many
would say the most reliable) Greek manuscripts do not include the
story of the woman taken in adultery.
The Greek manuscripts show fairly clear evidence that
John
7:53—8:11 was not originally part of John’s Gospel. Among the
manuscripts that do contain the section, either wholly or in part, there are
variations of placement. Some manuscripts put the pericope
adulterae after
John 7:36, others after
John 21:25,
and some even place it in the Gospel of Luke (after
Luke 21:38 or
24:53).
There is internal evidence, too, that
John
7:53—8:11 is not original to the text. For one thing, the inclusion of
these verses breaks the flow of John’s narrative. Reading from
John 7:52 to
John 8:12 (skipping
the debated section) makes perfect sense. Also, the vocabulary used in the
story of the adulterous woman is different from what is found in the rest of
the Gospel of John. For example, John never refers to “the scribes” anywhere in
his book—except in
John 8:3. There are thirteen other words in this short
section that are found nowhere else in John’s Gospel.
It certainly seems as if, somewhere along the way, a scribe added this story of
Jesus into John’s Gospel in a place he thought it would fit well. Most likely,
the story had been circulating for a long time—it was an oral tradition—and a
scribe (or scribes) felt that, since it was already accepted as truth by
consensus, it was appropriate to include it in the text of Scripture. The
problem is that truth is not determined by consensus. The only thing we should
consider inspired Scripture is what the prophets and apostles wrote as they
“spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (
2 Peter 1:21).
Those who favor the inclusion of the story of the woman taken in adultery point
to the sheer number of Greek manuscripts that contain the passage. They explain
its omission in early manuscripts as an attempt by overzealous church leaders
to prevent misunderstandings. Here is the theory of those who favor inclusion:
John wrote the passage just as it appears in the Textus Receptus. But later
church leaders deemed the passage morally dangerous—since Jesus forgives the
woman, wives might think they could commit adultery and get away with it. So,
the church leaders tampered with the Word of God and removed the passage. To
leave the passage in, they reasoned, would be to make Jesus seem “soft” on
adultery. Later scribes, following the lead of the Holy Spirit, re-inserted the
pericope, which should never have been removed in the first place.
The fact, however, remains that
John
7:53—8:11 is not supported by the best manuscript evidence. Thus,
there is serious doubt as to whether it should be included in the Bible. Many
call for Bible publishers to remove these verses (along with
Mark 16:9–20) from
the main text and put them in footnotes.
Because we’re talking about certain editions of the Bible being “wrong” in
certain ways, we should include a few words on the
inerrancy of
Scripture. The
original autographs are
inerrant, but none of the original autographs are extant (in existence). What
we have today are thousands of ancient documents and citations that have
allowed us to (virtually) re-create the autographs. The occasional phrase,
verse, or section may come under scholastic review and debate, but no important
doctrine of Scripture is put in doubt due to these uncertainties. That the
manuscripts are the subject of ongoing scholarship does not prove there is
something wrong with God’s Word; it is a refining fire—one of the very
processes God has ordained to keep His Word pure. A belief in inerrancy
underpins a reverent, careful investigation of the text.
Is John 8:1-11 really in Scripture?
Question
Is John 8:1-11 really in Scripture?
Answer
John 8:1-11 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At
dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered
around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the
Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the
group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of
adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you
say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis
for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with
his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to
them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a
stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this,
those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until
only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up
and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you,"
Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." "Then
neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your
life of sin."
These verses are not present in the earliest Greek
manuscripts, and in others they appear at different locations (after 7:36; after
21:25; after Luke 21:38; after Luke 24:53 etc.). However, the Gospels
are not always written chronologically. For instance, in Luke's narrative of
Christ's baptism (Luke 3:1-20), he mentions the story of John the Baptist,
preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins and his baptizing
of the multitude in the Jordan River. He then immediately mentions that King
Herod arrested John the Baptist and shut him up in prison (Luke 3:19-20).
However, in a chronological timeline we know John the Baptist baptized Jesus
prior to his imprisonment and beheading (Matt. 3:13-17;1 4:1-12;
Mark 1:9-11; 6:14-29; John 1:29-34). So, Luke adhered to the topical
subject matter rather than the sequential order of the events. Luke is not
contradicting the chronological events, but merely phrasing them topically, not
chronologically.
From John 7:53-8:1, it is apparent that the present
location of this pericope is not the original one, because Jesus was not
present at the meeting described in John 7:45-52. So, while I believe
these verses do reflect an actual historical event that took place sometime
during Jesus' ministry, the evidence suggests that they were not part of this
portion of the original manuscript.
As D. A. Carson states:
Despite the best efforts of Zane Hodges to prove that this
narrative was originally part of John's Gospel, the evidence is against him,
and modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the text
(NIV) or to relegate it to a footnote (RSV). These verses are present in most
of the medieval Greek miniscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually
all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representing great
diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western
uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also
missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many
Old Latin, Old Georgian and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church Fathers
omit this narrative: in commenting on John, they pass immediately from
John 7:52 to John 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before
the tenth century. Didymus the Blind (a fourth-century exegete from Alexandria)
reports a variation on this narrative, not the narrative as we have it here.
Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it
off with asterisks or obeli, indicating hesitation as to its authenticity,
while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants.
Although most of the manuscripts that include the story place it here (i.e. at
7:53-8:11), some place it instead after Luke 21:38, and other witnesses
variously place it after John 7:44, John 7:36 or John 21:25. The
diversity of placement confirms the inauthenticity of the verses. Finally, even
if someone should decide that the material is authentic, it would be very
difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine:
there are numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in
John, but which are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular
(cf notes, below).
On the other hand, there is little reason for doubting that
the event here described occurred, even if in its written form it did not in
the beginning belong to the canonical books. Similar stories are found in other
sources. One of the best known, reported by Papias (and recorded by the
historian Eusebius, HE III xxxix. 16), is the account of a woman, accused in
the Lord's presence of many sins (unlike the woman here who is accused of but
one). The narrative before us also has a number of parallels (some of them
noted below) with stories in the Synoptic Gospels. The reason for its insertion
here may have been to illustrate John 7:24 and John 8:15 or,
conceivably, the Jews' sinfulness over against Jesus' sinlessness
(John 8:21, 24, 46).
Reference:
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to
John (333-334). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity
Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.
