EXEGETICAL PAPER ON. JOHN 7:53 - 8:11
Thesis
There has been much discussion on the authoritativeness of John 7:53-8-11 based on the argument that the passage was not part of the original Greek Text of the Gospel. The passage involves a narrative of a women caught in the act of adultery and brought to Jesus .However, the canonical and authenticity of these particular verses have raised many questions given that the ancient manuscripts do not have John7:53-8-11. Amidst such questions, the verses have become controversial as some people believe that the story of Jesus forgiving the adulterous woman is an inspired account that may have illegally been inserted. The questions arising from this controversy are: is the verse scripture? Was it written by John? The issues to be addressed include; whether the verse is scriptural; whether it was written by John; is it historical, that is, ancient and true? Is it canonical? If the verse was not originally part of the John’s Gospel, why it has been included before 8:12 in majority of English Bible Versions? Despites the significant external and internal evidence that the passage was not recorded in the original Greek Text , the discussion demonstrates that it is canonical and an authentic scripture.
Introduction
John 7:53-8:11 is one of the most disputed scriptural passage of the Gospel, since the text seems to have been misplaced or missing in most ancient manuscripts. The passage, referred to as “the periscope of the adulteress” has pitted scholars’ arguments against one another, about its authenticity and authoritativeness to the church and Christianity[1]. This portion of the scripture is difficult, not because it cannot be understood easily but because knowing whether it should be part of John’s Gospel is hard. Many translations or versions of the Bible put the passage in brackets, including a note that explains that it was not part of earliest manuscripts. Many of manuscripts were in Greek and any variations in them are only of little significance[2]. The problems of canon, interpretation, and text are evident in this passage. Some commentators have chosen to ignore this text altogether under the assumption that it is not authentic , offers an appendix discussion while others incorporate it in the whole of John’s text. Various studies have offered all sought to provide an explanation on the episodes strange textual significance and tradition. Many scholars of the text consider that there is overwhelming evidence against it and therefore, reject the passage as being original. However, the passage still is still found in the many of contemporary translations and specifically the English translations. Unlike other texts such as John 5:4 which are only included by a footnote, the text is retained within the text but normally separated using brackets[3]. If there is consensus among many scholars that there is very convincing evidence against it, why is the passage not regarded as genuine and should not be excluded from the entire text as has been done with other passages? On the other hand, some scholars have supported the authenticity of the passage, with some using internal evidence to demonstrate the passage as being original.
JOHN 7:53 - 8:11 Historical and origin
To begin with, it is important to empathize that text in John does not contradict or introduce another doctrine than that present in the entire scripture. Hence, even where the passage is left out, all the doctrines of the scriptures may be taught using other related passages. Some scholars have readily dismissed the passage like it does not have any valid place in the biblical scripture or history[4]. By considering the arguments of these critics, one is left wondering why the passage would be left in the Bible. Some current translations have actually left out the passage and relegated it to just a footnote[5]. The NKJ version in an attempt to acknowledge that this text has been disputed by some offers a footnote that provides reason for its inclusion. The version claims that over 900 manuscripts supporting its inclusion have to be well understood[6]. Certainly, there are, many such manuscripts but many of them are not as old as some evidence may claim and similarly not all have the text placed in the same location. Had the Roman Catholic Church continued to be the predominant church, questions could not have arisen about the inclusion of this text even though the church had some manuscripts that did not include it or even questioned it[7]. This is because the Catholic Church had for many years utilized manuscripts that were in Jerome’s Latin vulgate and in which this account was included.
The protestant Reformation emphasized on the need for people to study scriptures and embarked on efforts to ensure that Bibles translation was done properly into various common languages like English and German. This led to increased searching of manuscripts based on their original languages. Many scholars in Western Europe including Catholics and Protestants, while working to recover the New Testament Greek texts noted that various manuscripts did not have this part of John’s Gospel. They marked more manuscripts so as to note that inclusion of the passage was of dubious nature[8]. In addition, they scholars also noted that in the Greek Church lectionary, the weekly reading for verses 7:37-8-12 as part Pentecost, but the disputed verses were left out. The whole of this evidence reignited a debate which seems to have been there many times in history among the minds of translators and scribes[9]. This informs the basic question whether the text is true or should be accepted as part of the scripture. The internal evidence offers characteristics of the text being true and thus led some scholars to agree with it. This account has been found to have every mark of historical veracity, given that it is an oral traditional piece that had circulated in specific regions of Western church and was later integrated into the different manuscripts in different places[10].
In a sense, it appears clear that the significance of this evidence preserves the originality of the story. This means that the passage may not be part of original John’s Gospel. However, the episode has all historical veracity suggestions, and this appears to suggest that it was really an incidence that transpired in Jesus’ life and the story was worth of recitation and correction. Even though such a narrative is incorporated in outline’s sequence, it could barely have been part of John’s original text. Its absence from the majority of the earliest copies which were produced before the 16th century and even from the earliest commentators’ works do not disqualify it from the scripture[11]. The assertion that it is not part of the Gospel does not mean that it is rejected as a historical art. The passage’s spirit and coherence shows that it had been securely kept from very early in time and it also aligns well with Biblical doctrine and even Jesus character. Hence, the text can be accepted as part of scriptures historical truth[12]. However, based on the available on the available information, the passage was never part of the earliest text.
Individuals who come up with narratives tend to include too much information or details most of which are unclear and having no specifics. In this case, the passage includes all necessary details that an eyewitness would be expected to give. For instance, a person on the sidelines would note that Jesus wrote on the ground while not recording the specific information that He wrote. This means that the passage is harmonious with the character of Jesus and His actions through all the gospels. This shows that most likely; the text presented an authentic episode in Jesus ‘life. If the text was invented or forged, a big question would involve “why”. In comparison to some heretical or Gnostic forgeries arising during the apostolic time and which were carried forward into the 1st centuries of early church, the passage in John does not incorporate deviant or new doctrine and does not contradict other teachings in the gospel[13]. As matter fact, had it been a creation of a heretic, no alternative or heretical gospel has ever included it. This means that no evidence can be presented to dispute its authenticity. In regard to whether it should be considered as scripture, it is worth noting the fact that there are many incidents involving Jesus that are not recorded in the Bible.
According to John 20:30-31, there are many miraculous signs that Jesus performed before the disciples but were never recorded, while the recorded ones serve a purpose of making people believe in Him as Christ , the Son of God. In chapter 21 verse 25, John that it would be impossible to record all the things that Jesus did[14]. Hence, the purpose for having some of this things recorded was to provide enough information for people to believe in Him. This passage does indicate additional aspects of Jesus other than what the canonical scriptures establishes. Church tradition, in that the text has been in the Bible for many years, should not be a valid reason for considering it a scripture but a higher standard must exist. This is because tradition as a basis of interpreting the scriptures is prone to misuse for self-fish or emotional purposes[15].
Authorship of the text
Many forgeries and even Gnostic works have been exposed as fraudulent works that are not a portion of God’s word using a specific test. The test includes; an apostle’s writing or writing under his direct authority; an express truth that in all cases agrees with the other scriptures including Old Testament; writing is recognized by the whole Church of God , and an indication of Unity provided by Holy Spirit; claims God’s authority in that divine character is presented since “all Scripture is God –breathed”[16]. John 7:53-8:11 account can also be subjected to the same test to determine its authenticity. It is important to consider that there is historical evidence showing that the passage had been circulated in other places in John Luke and all of the earliest Mathew Gospel[17]. Applying the test using the earliest evidence shows that the passage can be attributed to an apostle and most like Mathew or Luke, and it was accepted as an apostolic text. Even the earliest Roman Catholic fathers can be linked to this apostolic attestation even though it may seems most had no idea of it but such can be considered a silent argument. Even though the text has been included John’s Gospel in whole of Church history, it does not discount the notion of the passage as apostolic[18]. Actually, being an un-autographed work makes it no different than Hebrews book which is generally accepted on the basis of its apostolic origin although many people question its author.
However, some aspects of the text could indicate that John was not author especially considering the writing style used. For instance the expression “tò őros twn ẻlaiwn” found in 8:1,[19] and whose translation is the “Mount of Olives” can be compared with a more simpler term used by John in 4:20-21 and 6:1 - őros , which leaves out the phrase tò őros twn ẻlaiwn and twn ẻlaiwn and including the rest parts of the Gospel[20]. These phrases can be found in synoptic gospel and more particularly Luke’s Gospel and which could be a testimony that the text was not written by John. Such terms used in the text appears odd when applied in John’s Gospel[21]. Trying to explore the appearance of terms in the text and relating them to entire book may mean that the text was not written by John. Whatever the argument, the question of whether the text was written by John would require further analysis.
Canonical and scriptural nature of the text
The major issue arising from the text is that its external attestation is week, with the only main Greek manuscript from the 8th century and offering the traditional narration of the story is Codex Bezae from 5th or 6th century[22]. The manuscripts interpolations have clearly been noted. Various manuscripts imply that the event had been known in regions covered by the western church. The text was also included in many Byzantine from the 19th century, but various scribes showed their reservation about the passage by using obelus to write it[23]. The evidence from such evidence indicates that the integration of the text was done later and most of the western church was familiar with it. However, there is no considerable Greek texts from the eastern provenance provide support for the passage. The patristic evidence shows similar results whereby in the eastern regions, none of the Greek fathers allude to the text for about a thousand years. Even where it is mentioned by individuals such as Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century, they see it as just an n insertion. Others like Westcott indicate that the most ancient lectionary reads leaves the text out.
In addition, in the works of Cyprian of Carthage and Tertullian that gives judicial directions relating to adultery cases, there is no mention of the adulterous woman and even Jesus[24]. However, the later west shows strong patristic support for the text so that individuals such as Pacian of Barcelona and Augustine had knowledge about it. Jerome remarked that he found the text in John’s Gospel among many Latin and Greek codices. Upon beginning his Vulgate work in late 4th century, Jerome included the passage into the major Latin text and even Church canon of the western regions. In addition, while fathers and lectionaries in the earliest church are silent on the text, the Didascalia Apostolorum and Eusebius manuscripts points to its antiquity[25]. In the first one, bishops are beseeched to accept those people who repent with mercy while an illustration of a woman brought before Jesus is given, who did not condemn her but sent her away. In the second one, Eusebius gives a narration about Papias but to which he relates. Papias is shown to be aware of a story involving a malicious accusation of a woman before Jesus because of her sins, and which should have been noted in Hebrews Gospel, and this is taken to be Johannine periscope text. In essence, the text seems to be absent from various major patristic literature in Greek, but seems to have been included in the early manuscripts of Latin West. There is only one certain witness if the text from the Eastern and this is Syrian Didascalia , but still does not offer solid grounds for inclusion of the passage into John’s Gospel[26].
There are also difficulties in internal evidence that seem to address the authenticity of this passage. Such internal factors provide considerable evidence indicating the text as foreign to John’s Gospel. The text is placed after 7:36, 7:44 or even at the last chapter of the Gospel. The text is also place at Luke 21:38 in some other manuscript or even after 24:53. The placement indicates that an essential text tradition later in the Church was perceived as separate from the initial link and probably Lucan[27]. Moreover , a look into John’s Gospel may show that the text does not fit well especially considering that in end of Chapter 7 , Jesus is seen taking oar in Feast of Tabernacles while in Chapter 8 , it shows as if Jesus was nearing the last Passover, where he rests at Mount of Olives and comes back every day. In John 8:9, Jesus is seen alone but is seen in crowd again in 8:12-13[28]. Omitting the section indicates that there would be smooth flow of Tabernacle discourse between 7:1 and 8:59[29]. By including the text in between, awkwardness is seen that can go a long way to explain the extent of textual variants. In addition, the text appears unjohannine considering the many terms that can be seen in synoptic but which are not present in any other verse in John’s Gospel. There is unconscious syntax that stands out, with connection of sentences with de in the text, a case that is not seen in other parts of the book. For instance, where there are five utilizations of de in Mathew, there are two in John[30]. These items brings about a consensus among various scholars, that internal evidence clarifies the text as being foreign compared to the current settings.
However, while such reasons may be given to show that the text is not part of the original Gospel, it does not necessary mean that it should be removed from New Testament or just be dismissed like other verse such as Mark 16:9-20. The text is most probably authentic in that its origin is oral tradition from which information in the gospels were gotten. The narrative can be classified among the other synoptic conflict narratives, where Christ is request to offer judgment on the law and shows His skills as he stands His ground before the opponents and at the same time not violating the law[31]. The hard ending of the story is seen the final words he says to them, “Let him who is without sin through the first stone”. The incident compares with many other narratives in the Gospels that Jesus is called upon to offer direction especially in matters concerning the canonic law. This is illustration of a repeated them throughout the scripture in the New Testament, which is Jesus and the Law[32]. This can be related to Luke 6:5 issues in the law, where Jesus is accused of not keeping the Sabbath Holy, where in a similar manner He demonstrates His understanding and teaching on the issue of the law. This can parallel the inclusion of John 7:53-8-11 that has been examined above[33]. It can be seen as an authentic story gotten from various sayings and whose inclusion serves to bring about discipline not only to the early but the present Church.
Personal Review
The account of adulterous woman in John 7:53-8:11 brings about controversies in terms of its authenticity due to the textual history. The absence of the text in the early manuscripts is the major source of contention, even though some later manuscripts written in Latin included it in John’s Gospel. The major issue in this discussion or argument is whether we have a gospel that is inauthentic or not related to the Christian canon. The lack of inclusion of the passage in the early Greek manuscript does not render it inauthentic or it does not mean that it should be removed from the John’s Gospel. The above discussion demonstrates enough reasons to consider the periscope adulterae as an authentic text and hence its considerations as a divine scripture. Even though some scholars have disputed on the originality of the text on the basis that it may have been forged, others have to a consensus that it is reflection of the character of Jesus depicted in the entire Scripture especially in the New Testament. There is enough evidence to show that the text was not part of original John’s Gospel, but it is a clear reflection of the character of Jesus demonstrated in the other major Gospels. After subjecting the text into a test which measures the authenticity of the other texts, the passage can be considered as a scripture.
One cannot argue that John is not the author of the passage on that it is untitled since a book like Hebrews that is un-autographed and whose authorship has been questioned. Despite such disputes the Hebrew’s book has been accepted on the ground that it has apostolic origin. The message intended by the author of the text in John does not in any way contradict the doctrine presented in the scripture. In addition, the issue of whether the passage is canonical is understood from its historical understanding where it had been accepted in the Western Church. The passage contains a message that resonates with the character of Jesus which is depicted in other incidents that are recorded in the other Gospels. That it was not recorded in the Early Manuscripts does not mean it is not authentic since the same John’s Gospel tells that many of the things done by Jesus were not recorded. The text has great teachings in Christian religion in relation to law, mercy and judgment.
Conclusion
The authenticity of JOHN 7:53 - 8:11 has resulted to big controversial considering that the text is not included in the early manuscripts. Many scholars have come to a consensus that the text was not originally part of John’s Gospel but its scriptural and canonical nature has drawn differing argument. The external and internal evidence of the early manuscripts corroborate the argument that the text was an insertion into the entire book. However, the inclusion of the text in most English Bible version shows that its tradition had been accepted as a scripture. The passage demonstrates Jesus’ character and its harmony with other similar incidents in Gospels means that it’s significant for teachings on law and judgment. Further research should involve the text and canon problem if at all the canonical authority of the Bible rests on originality of its books.
References
Painter, John, and Daniel J. Harrington. 1, 2, and 3 John. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 2008.
Keith, Chris. "Recent and previous research on the pericope adulterae (John 7.53—8.11)." Currents in Research 6, no. 3 (2008): 377-404.
Keith, Chris. "The initial location of the Pericope Adulterae in fourfold tradition." Novum Testamentum 51, no. 3 (2009): 209-231.
Knust, Jennifer Wright. "Jesus, an adulteress, and the development of Christian scripture." J.-J. Aubert & Z. Várhelyi (eds.), A tall order: Wrifing the social history of the ancient world. Essays in honor of William V. Harris (2005): 59-84.
Punch, John David. "An analysis of'non-Johannine'vocabulary in John 7: 53-8: 11, Part 1." In die Skriflig 47, no. 1 (2013): 412-417.
Bromiley, Geoffrey William. E - J. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2002. 840-853
Punch, John David. "The pericope adultrae: Theories of insertion & omission." PhD diss., [Sl: sn], 2010.
Knust, Jennifer Wright. "Early Christian re-writing and the history of the Pericope Adulterae." Journal of Early Christian Studies 14, no. 4 (2006): 485-536
Grisanti, Michael A. "Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The place of textual updating in an inerrant view of Scripture." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 4 (2001): 577-598.
Shanks, Monte A. Papias and the New Testament. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2013.
[1] Keith, Chris. "Recent and previous research on the pericope adulterae (John 7.53—8.11)." Currents in Research 6, no. 3 (2008): 377-404.
[2]Keith, Chris. "Recent and previous research on the pericope adulterae (John 7.53—8.11)." Currents in Research 6, no. 3 (2008): 377-404.
[3] Keith, Chris. "The initial location of the Pericope Adulterae in fourfold tradition." Novum Testamentum 51, no. 3 (2009): 209-231.
[4] Keith, Chris. "Recent and previous research on the pericope adulterae (John 7.53—8.11)." Currents in Research 6, no. 3 (2008): 377-404.
[5] Keith, Chris. "The initial location of the Pericope Adulterae in fourfold tradition." Novum Testamentum 51, no. 3 (2009): 209-231.
[6] Knust, Jennifer Wright. "Early Christian re-writing and the history of the Pericope Adulterae." Journal of Early Christian Studies 14, no. 4 (2006): 485-536.
[7] Knust, Jennifer Wright. "Early Christian re-writing and the history of the Pericope Adulterae." Journal of Early Christian Studies 14, no. 4 (2006): 485-536.
[8] Knust, Jennifer Wright. "Early Christian re-writing and the history of the Pericope Adulterae." Journal of Early Christian Studies 14, no. 4 (2006): 485-536.
[9] Keith, Chris. "The initial location of the Pericope Adulterae in fourfold tradition." Novum Testamentum 51, no. 3 (2009): 209-231
[10] Keith, Chris. "The initial location of the Pericope Adulterae in fourfold tradition." Novum Testamentum 51, no. 3 (2009): 209-231.
[11] Knust, Jennifer Wright. "Early Christian re-writing and the history of the Pericope Adulterae." Journal of Early Christian Studies 14, no. 4 (2006): 485-536.
[12] Knust, Jennifer Wright. "Early Christian re-writing and the history of the Pericope Adulterae." Journal of Early Christian Studies 14, no. 4 (2006): 485-536.
[13] Knust, Jennifer Wright. "Jesus, an adulteress, and the development of Christian scripture." J.-J. Aubert & Z. Várhelyi (eds.), A tall order: Wrifing the social history of the ancient world. Essays in honor of William V. Harris (2005): 59-84.
[14] Painter, John, and Daniel J. Harrington. 1, 2, and 3 John. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 2008.
[15] Knust, Jennifer Wright. "Early Christian re-writing and the history of the Pericope Adulterae." Journal of Early Christian Studies 14, no. 4 (2006): 485-536.
[16] Bromiley, Geoffrey William. E - J. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2002. 840-853
[17] Grisanti, Michael A. "Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The place of textual updating in an inerrant view of Scripture." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 4 (2001): 577-598.
[18] Grisanti, Michael A. "Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The place of textual updating in an inerrant view of Scripture." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 4 (2001): 577-598.
[19] Punch, John David. "An analysis of'non-Johannine'vocabulary in John 7: 53-8: 11, Part 1." In die Skriflig 47, no. 1 (2013): 412-417.
[20] Punch, John David. "An analysis of'non-Johannine'vocabulary in John 7: 53-8: 11, Part 1." In die Skriflig 47, no. 1 (2013): 412-417.
[21] Punch, John David. "An analysis of'non-Johannine'vocabulary in John 7: 53-8: 11, Part 1." In die Skriflig 47, no. 1 (2013): 412-417.
[22] Punch, John David. "The pericope adultrae: Theories of insertion & omission." PhD diss., [Sl: sn], 2010.
[23] Punch, John David. "The pericope adultrae: Theories of insertion & omission." PhD diss., [Sl: sn], 2010.
[24] Punch, John David. "The pericope adultrae: Theories of insertion & omission." PhD diss., [Sl: sn], 2010.
[25] Shanks, Monte A. Papias and the New Testament. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2013.
[26] Shanks, Monte A. Papias and the New Testament. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2013.
[27] Shanks, Monte A. Papias and the New Testament. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2013.
[28] Grisanti, Michael A. "Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The place of textual updating in an inerrant view of Scripture." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 4 (2001): 577-598.
[29] Shanks, Monte A. Papias and the New Testament. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2013.
[30] Punch, John David. "The pericope adultrae: Theories of insertion & omission." PhD diss., [Sl: sn], 2010.
[31] Punch, John David. "The pericope adultrae: Theories of insertion & omission." PhD diss., [Sl: sn], 2010.
[32] Punch, John David. "The pericope adultrae: Theories of insertion & omission." PhD diss., [Sl: sn], 2010.
[33] Punch, John David. "The pericope adultrae: Theories of insertion & omission." PhD diss., [Sl: sn], 2010.
