April  2,  2020 

Thought  for  Today

“Home  alone?  Sing and dance till showtime!” 

 

FATHER   ANTHONY   RUSSO  

REDEMPTORIST 

My classmate, Father Tony Russo, died on Monday evening, March 31, 2020.  No it wasn’t from the Coronavirus 19. 

However, with the quarantine – and lock downs – and stay the stay at home policies – as well as the request to avoid groups and gatherings, Tony’s funeral is put off till July.  At least that’s what I heard. His cremated remains will be brought to Philadelphia in July.

Tony was a saint – and we jokingly liked to say – the only one in our class.

He joined our class for our last year in our minor seminary at St. Mary’s  College, North East, Pennsylvania.

He was a graduate of Virginia Military Institute – and spent some time in the army – as an engineer.

After he got out of the army he got a job for a company which was working on sewer pipes in the city of Philadelphia.

One time there at Sunday Mass, he noticed a handwritten request on a bulletin board: “Looking for someone to drive our nuns here and there.”  I figure the story went something like that.

Well, one of the nuns he was taking to the doctor or somewhere asked him if he ever thought about being a priest. I don’t know what he answered at that moment, but she said, “If you do, think Redemptorists and check it out with the Redemptorists at  St. Peter’s Rectory.”

One day, in dry dirt clothes, he dropped into St. Peter’s Church on Girard Avenue. He asked Brother Hillary – who was at the inside window - if there was a priest he could talk to.  

It was just just after lunch. Brother Hillary went inside the rectory and yelled up the stairs to the second floor. He could hear a couple of Redemptorists talking so he yelled, “Would one of you talk to a bum. He’s looking for a handout.”

Father Joe Oppitz said, “I’ll take it.”

The rest is history. Tony went to a “catch-up seminary” for older vocations – up in Massachusetts – mainly for Latin – and catechism catch up, based on the seminarian religious IQ.

Then he joined us at St. Mary’s – North East Pa.  Years later Tony told me how difficult it was dealing with us younger men – who were still growing up.

[Class picture at St. Mary's -1959 - Tony on top - Center Left]

In 1959-60 we  made our one year novitiate in Ilchester Maryland – as a class of around 21.  We had 4 brother candidates.

After taking our first vows – August 2, 1960,  we went to Mount St. Alphonsus Major Seminary  - upstate New York – on the Hudson  - for 6 more years of  education.

16 of us were ordained priests June 20, 1965.

[First Blessing on Cardinal Spellman who ordained us]

At that time, we were ordained priests one year before finishing our studies – to help with weekend Masses mainly in the Hudson Valley.

Tony had an  engineer's mind - and was a serious student.  He also had a neat quarterback's spiral - being a deadly lefty passer - in touch football.

Near the end of our major seminary days Tony began to experience hearing problems. Those who make these decisions told Tony they would like him to work with Father Stephen Landherr at St. Boniface’s in Philadelphia  - in the deaf ministry - after we finished Esopus.

For a last stretch of training for  few months after the Major Seminary we went to St. Mary’s Annapolis, Maryland.   Tony knew he was going to work with the deaf. The rest of us were hoping for either Brazil, Paraguay or Puerto Rico.

Somewhere around this time, the powers that be said, “We need to leave some young blood for our work in the states, so 5 of us stayed in the States. 

I don’t know how God works, but Tony gets to Philly February 1^st, 1967 and Father Stephen Landherr dies June 14^th  1967.  Tony caught a few tricks from Steve, but obviously he would have wanted a lot more.

I was in New York and New Jersey for my first 9 years – so I’d get to see Tony now and then.

I remember getting a call from Tony about going to an off-Broadway musical, The Fantastics. I thought that was funny Tony going deaf and myself tone deaf when it comes to music.

I can close my eyes and still hear Jerry Orbach singing Try to Remember.

That musical had a long run for 42 years – with 17,162 performances.

Wouldn’t we  all like to have such a run? Tony and I did. Thank You God.

In time Tony  became the go to priest for deaf ministry in the Philadelphia, Southern New Jersey and Wilmington area.

I don’t know the name of a nun – maybe two – and others who worked with Tony. I hope to see and catch some of their stories at Tony’s funeral in July or so. He trained a lot of people. He wrote 3 books and also came out with a sort of comic   book to help teach our faith to the deaf. He had noticed that deaf kids loved comics.

Tony had a great sense of humor.  He loved a good joke and could tell a good joke.

Tony - as mentioned already - liked football. He could tell us what coaches would be saying on the sidelines - because he was a good lip reader. The Giants beat the Patriots in Superbowl XLII (2007) and again in Superbowl XLVI (2012).  Did Bill Belichick ever wonder if there was a lip reader on the Giants' sidelines?  Of course not! Neither Tony nor the Giants would ever cheat!

I heard a funny story about Tony. A nun he worked with was flying back to Philly – so somehow Tony was asked to bring her home from the airport.   Tony was naïve. He wouldn't  know a Hooters restaurant from a McDonalds. He spotted the Hooters and took her there for lunch – in priestly garb. I’ll be listening to see if I hear that cute story at his funeral in July.

Tony got a short sabbatical break somewhere along the line. He spent a month in Lisieux in France - praying. He had a great love of the Little Flower - St. Therese of Lisieux. 

In Tony's life, sickness arrived – in increments – in last third of his life. He had a persistant ring in his ear – as well as worsening  deafness.

For the last few years Tony had cancer and throat problems big time – making eating very difficult. Last June, I was with him at our rehab and nursing home at Stella Maris, Timonium Maryland.  I was recovering  from a triple by pass of my heart. I had the opportunity almost every evening to sit and talk with Tony for about a half hour.

We caught up on what happened since we were ordained priests.

Thank You, God.

I regret not having him repeat a story I think he once told me. It was about the rubber hose company his dad worked for in New Jersey. There was a suggestion box on the wall and his dad suggested running a hose from a gas transport plane in flight to a smaller plane in flight.

It happened

Back in 2008 Tony published a history of the deaf community in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. It’s entitled, In Silent Prayer A History of Ministry with the Deaf  Community in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

If you read that book, you'll hear about Father Stephen Landherr - who worked for 27 years in ministry with the deaf. Obviously, Steve gets much more “press” than Tony who worked that same job replacing Steve for over 50 years.

My hope is that someone just might by accident read these first draft comments about Tony Russo and say, “I could do that. I could follow in the footsteps of these 2 wonderful Redemptorists.

April  1,  2020

THE  FOOL

At first I’d be happy to just touch

the fringe of the crowd around him.

But then,  the more he talked, the

more I wanted to talk to him - just him.

I caught him for a one to one chat-

lucky me – just for about ten minutes.

I asked him, “I was wondering where

you get all your wonderful ideas first?”

He said, “Thanks. Well, I guess from folks

like you. I notice faces – and how people

gleam when they wash each other’s feet

or give the thirsty a glass of cold water.”

I see mothers and fathers who make sure

their kids go first and they go last – folks

who die to themselves so others can rise.

I notice people doing love in so many ways.

It seems to me that those who think others

are fools – still haven’t learned that happiness

and the kingdom of heaven is what the fools

learned is the real secret of how to live.

© Andy Costello, Reflections 2020

April  1,  2020

Thought  for  Today 

“It  is of immense importance to learn to laugh a ourselves.”  

Katherine Mansfield

March 31, 2020

THE  CORONAVIRUS 

DID  HIM  IN 

He hadn’t been inside a church for years.

Okay, there was that wedding two years ago

and oh yeah, a funeral of a co-worker ....

But now  there is this death from this virus.

But the churches – they are all closed.

He needed a funeral Mass. He needed

to pray. He needed to hear the sacred words,

“I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.”

Just sitting there alone in his apartment,

he felt so  - all alone – so socially distant -

from God, from family, from friends.

He needed Christ: Bread and Communion.

He picked up a dusty Bible and began

to turn clumps and clumps of pages,

but he really didn’t know where to turn -

till he stopped and this is all he got:

“But when you pray, go to your inner room.

Shut the door. Pray to your Father in secret,

and your Father who sees all that is done

in secret will reward you.” [Matthew 6: 6]

© Andy Costello, Reflections 2020

March   31,  2020

Thought   for   Today

“Laughter is the closest distance between two people.” 

Victor Borge

LET  THE  ONE  WITHOUT  SCIENCE 

MAKE  THE  FIRST  COMMENT 

  

INTRODUCTION

The title of my comments for today is, “Let the One Without Science Make the First Comment.”

As we know, those without science and knowledge and research,  often make lots of comments – as well as those with research and science and study.

I’m making  a play on the words from the gospel text we have for today: John 8: 1-11. “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

KEN JENNINGS GOSPEL OF JOHN

Four of of us on  Sunday, January 5, 2020 were lucky to go to Sheen Center for Thought and Culture on Bleecker Street in Lower Manhattan to see and to hear Ken Jennings  tell us the Gospel of John from memory.

Thank you Kevin and thank you John for getting 4 of us there. Sorry Gene.  Since then,  every time the gospel reading is from John, the memory of Ken Jennings reading that gospel hits me. Wonderful.

What brings this up for me for a few comments is today’s gospel from John – for this 5^th Monday in Lent – the story of the woman caught in adultery.

One of us asked in the car on the way back, “Did Ken Jennings give the story of the woman caught in adultery?”

And I think we all agreed that we don’t think he told that story – and someone said, “There are theories about whether that gospel story should be in John – or maybe it should be in Luke. – or it might be a later addition.

Somebody said in the car that if they remember correctly, that story is not in all the early Christian texts.

SURPRISE

Surprise!  Because it’s the gospel reading for today, I did my research last night – and as we all know, that’s the benefit of preaching – the preacher learns the most about texts – when we take the time to research and look up stuff about readings.

Surprise! Today’s I found out, today’s first reading from Daniel 13 is not in the Jewish Scriptures. I was looking up my Jewish bible to see what it might say about the two trees – the mastic and the oak tree – in the Daniel story  and I discover the Book of Daniel ends at chapter 12 – so this story of the 2 dirty old men isn’t in there.

Surprise! Then when I start reading up on this story of the gang of men who want to stone this woman to death might not be part of the gospel of John.  It’s not in the key New Testament manuscripts for the first 8 centuries. It’s not in the Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc. etc. etc.

What I read last night was:  that’s the best scholarship.

What I read last night was that when this text was cut down to a footnote in one new Bible translations, sales went badly  and they put it in the next edition.

What I read last night some people appreciate scholarship and science and we make what we do know of the scriptures more authentic, plausible, and believable for some people when we give the best scholarship.

What I read last night was people get this story – loud and clear – even when we give this scientific stuff that scholars have questions about why it was put into the bible and why it isn’t in some bibles – and that the  research indicates it’s more Lucan and certainly not Johannine.

CONCLUSION

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.

About:

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.

Manuscript History and John 8:1-8:11by Chris Keith

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.

Chris Keith, "Manuscript History and John 8:1-8:11", n.p. [cited 29 Mar 2020]. Online: https://www.bibleodyssey.org:443/en/passages/related-articles/Manuscript History and John

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.