“Forgive” by Yongsung Kim
In John chapter 8, there’s a story of a woman who was caught in adultery and brought before Jesus. Her accusers want to trap Jesus, who writes in the dust and then says the man with no sin should throw the first stone (to stone her, the penalty for adultery in the Mosaic Law). After all her accusers leave, Jesus tells the woman to “go and sin no more”.
It’s an often repeated story about Jesus’s mercy, and even has its own name: the “Pericope Adulterae“. (“Pericope” means a story pulled from a larger document, and “Adulterae” obviously references adultery.)
However, did the Apostle John write this passage?
There’s a debate which rages on this topic, and we’ll examine the debate in this article. We’ll start by looking at possible reasons for its inclusion/non-inclusion, then look at the external evidence from manuscripts and the early church fathers, and then look at the internal evidence in the text itself.
We’ll also look at an iron-clad argument pertaining to this verse, which I’ve literally never seen someone else mention.
I don’t know why no one talks about this, but it’s powerful evidence all by itself. In my mind, it solves the debate all by itself with no other evidence needed… and again no one talks about it.
Here we go.
Reasons it might’ve been added/removed
Before we discuss the evidence, we’ll take a look at the possible reasons for its addition/removal.
- If it is original, why was it removed?
- If it isn’t original, why was it added?
Possible Reasons for Removal
Nearly every resource I can find says that the most likely reason for its removal (if it’s original) is because the church felt it made Jesus too “soft” on the topic of adultery. While I agree that this the most likely reason for removal, it would mean the earliest copyists were wicked men. As we discuss in my article on What’s the Best Bible Translation? And More Importantly, Why?, God commanded that we not change His words.
For them to have intentionally done so strains credulity. It’s not impossible, but it seems extremely unlikely.
Possible Reasons for Addition
The most common explanation I can find for its addition (if it wasn’t original) is that it was an oral tradition that circulated in the early church. That is, they believed it was an accurate historical account of something that Jesus actually did, but it wasn’t originally in the text of scripture.
The theory goes that eventually it was added because they believed it was authentic.
This seems much more likely, because it doesn’t make the early copyists out to be wicked men. There’s a vast gulf between removing something you don’t like, and adding something that many believed was accurate history.
One man even has a long-ish article arguing for this exact thing. He points out there there are actually three versions of the story; two shorter ones with different details, plus the third, longer version that we know today which combines the two shorter narratives. (He suggests that one of the shorter versions might’ve been written by Luke, who then decided not to include it his gospel. The evidence is quite interesting, even compelling in places.)
Now we’ll turn to manuscript evidence.
External (Manuscript) Evidence
If you ask most scholars, the external evidence is absolutely iron-clad again its inclusion… but then there’s a lot of scholars on the other side who argue the opposite. I did a lot of research, and found no shortage of scholarly articles on both sides arguing that evidence for their side was conclusive.
There’s a complicated set of evidence with many layers to unpack. We’ll give the external evidence a cursory look, but not an exhaustive one because there’s much stronger evidence in the text itself. For those who wish to read more, I’ll link to longer articles.
Omission from many manuscripts, and nearly all early ones
The following quote is from an article by Daniel Wallace, one of the most respected textual scholars in the world. The article is entitled “My Favorite Passage that’s Not in the Bible“.
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.
…
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.
That’s pretty strong evidence.
To repeat: only 1 single Greek manuscript contains the story of the woman caught in adultery until the 8th century.
Just one.
(Further, that manuscript is of dubious quality. It belongs to the western family of texts, and displays that textual family’s usual tendency to have strange readings. For more information, see my article on Textual criticism.)
There’s an interesting logical conclusion from this:
The odds are that until the 8th century, the majority – perhaps the vast majority – of Greek manuscripts did not contain the story
We can’t know for sure of course, but it seems likely.
Now, if you include late manuscripts this reverses dramatically. The following quote is from James Snapp Jr.’s (excellent) website on textual Criticism: The Text of the Gospels. He believes the Pericope Adulterae is original to John and says:
More recently, Dr. Maurice Robinson has confirmed that although 270 manuscripts do not include these verses, they are supported by 1,500 manuscripts. That is a ratio of 85 to 15, in favor of the inclusion of the passage.
It should be noted that the vast majority of the manuscripts from that 1,500 number are late manuscripts. However, the sheer volume of late manuscripts mean you can’t simply dismiss them out of hand. Further, while the late manuscripts are nearly unanimous for its inclusion, the early manuscripts argue strongly for non-inclusion.
However, a lot a of early manuscripts don’t have any part of John’s gospel, so the sample size is rather small. Again, the Text of the Gospels has an article on this topic which concludes:
- First: the evidence strongly supports the view that the text of John used in Egypt in the 200’s did not contain the passage after John 7:52.
- Second: codices L and Δ should be considered witnesses for non-inclusion and for inclusion.
- Third: the testimony of most of the major Greek manuscripts that support the non-inclusion of the pericope adulterae in chapters 7 and 8 is not nearly as clear or one-sided when they are asked to testify about the passage’s presence or absence following John 21; on this question, most of the early Greek manuscript-evidence is open to interpretation.
Like I said, the evidence is multi-layered, though I would argue it definitely leans towards non-inclusion.
Patristic (Early Church fathers) Evidence
Here again we find a mixed bag.
Nearly all the quotes which would argue for the Pericope’s inclusion are from the 9th century or later. There are some earlier quotes, but rarely before the 4th century, still hundreds of years after it was written. You can find many of these quotes in this article. (by someone who believes the Pericope Adulterae should be included) The quote by Jerome is especially interesting.
In Contra Pelagius 17.4 (384 AD) Jerome writes:
“Next in the Gospel of John in many codices both Greek and Latin is found the (story) of the Adulteress Woman, who was accused before the Lord”
Obviously this refers to the Pericope, but how many is “many”? A majority? A minority, but still “many”? If most manuscripts included it, then why not say “most” instead of “many”?
Actually, I see this as evidence against the pericope.
Why?
Because he says “many”, not a “great many”, or “most”, or even “a majority”. He didn’t say “most”, which would indicate a great majority. He didn’t say “a majority” or “a great many” which would indicate more than half. He said “many”, which in this context would certainly seem to indicate less than half.
Jerome didn’t specify how many is “many”.
(Note: As I was proofreading this article, I realized that I had used “Omission from many manuscripts” as a headline earlier. According to my usage there, “many” is about 15%. The word “many” is truly an ambiguous word.)
There’s also a quote by Augustine:
Some hostile to true faith, fearing, as I suppose, that liberty to sin with impunity is granted their wives, remove from their Scriptural texts the account of our Lord’s pardon of the adulteress, as though He who said: ‘From now on, sin no more,’ granted permission to sin.
So Augustine obviously thought it was original…
…but he was a Latin church father. (His dislike of Greek was legendary) So while the Greek and other major translations lacked the story, the Latin had it (see the quote by Wallace above), and Augustine was primarily a Latin reader.
That begs the question: Why do so few non-Latin church fathers mention the story? True, this is an argument from silence, but occasionally the silence is deafening since you’d expect them to comment on this story occasionally if they considered it scripture.
Some notable figures who excluded the passage include Origen, who transitions from John 7:52 to verse 8:12 uninterrupted in his commentary on John’s Gospel. Even more significant is the fact that Tertullian does not mention this passage of Scripture. Tertullian wrote De Pudicitia c. 220 C.E., which sought to answer the question of how a church should deal with the blatant sins committed by its members and at what point the church should excommunicate those guilty of sin. In this work, Tertullian gave clear judicial instruction in cases dealing with adultery yet does not make reference to Jesus’ dealing with the adulterous woman.
Origen clearly didn’t consider the pericope scrupture because he didn’t comment on it. Likewise, it’s almost impossible to imagine Tertulian writing a serious treatment of adultery without mentioning the pericope… unless both men didn’t consider it scripture.
Then it makes perfect sense.
File those two examples under: “deafening silence”.
Origen died in 253 AD, and Tertullian died in 220 AD; both men died ~100 years before Augustine and Jerome were born. Tertullian especially died 150+ years before either Jerome or Augustine wrote anything notable. That’s 150+ years closer to the source.
Consider: if the gospels were written by ~70 AD, then it takes 150 years to get 220 (Tertullian’s death), then 150 years again to get to Augustine and Jerome’s day.
Thus Tertullian was half as far from the source as Jerome and Augustine, and Origen was 100+ years closer to the source.
That seems like very strong evidence against the pericope.
As already mentioned, one article points out there were a few different versions of the story according to the early church fathers, and they were likely combined into the version we’re familiar with now. I think the article is well worth a read, and you can tell because this is the second time I’m linking to it in this article.
By the fourth century there were actually three extant versions of the PA: (1) the entrapment story which Jesus freely pardons a sinful woman, know to Papias and the author of the Didascalia, (2) the story of Jesus’ intervention in an execution proceeding, preserved in the Gospel according to the Hebrews and retold by Didymus in his Ecclesiastes commentary, and (3) the popular version found in MSS of the Gospel of John, a version which represents a conflation of the two earliest stories.”
So here’s the important question about the church father quotes: which version of the story were they referencing?
Since we can’t know in most cases, I’m personally less inclined to use quotes by the fathers as evidence because we can’t know which version of the story they were referring to. (That’s my own opinion though, and it’s worth every penny you paid for it. 😉 )
“Floating” Text
The text of the Pericope Adulterae is found in several locations. From that article by Dan Wallace:
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.
Many have cited this as evidence it wasn’t original to John, but was added later and different scribes added it in different places. Dr. James White sees this as absolute proof that it’s nor original, and I completely understand that position. There is literally no other passage that does this, so why this one if it’s original? Now, if it’s not original then it makes perfect sense, as Dan Wallace says it “all the earmarks of a pericope that was looking for a home.”
There are explanations from those who believe the story belongs though.
Now, it is true that the Pericope Adulterae is found in different places in some manuscripts. In fact, a total of fifty-eight manuscripts have the Pericope Adulterae in other locations – which means that an overwhelming majority of 95.9% have it at the standard location after John 7:52.[67] Furthermore, based on the manuscript and Patristic evidence, the standard location is both the overwhelmingly attested location and the earliest recorded location.[68]
Source. (emphasis original)
Note: that 95.9% consists almost entirely of late manuscripts.
Opinions vary on how reasonable all these locations are. James Snapp Jr.’s (excellent) website “The Text of the Gospels” has a four-part article series dealing with this in detail. (Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4)
However, the fact that an explanation is required at all seems a bit… suspect. That’s not to say that the “floating text” is proof it was added, but it is… odd. (Even if there’s a reasonable explanation.)
One explanation is in this article that I linked to earlier. It argues that some portion of the Pericope Adulterae was originally written by Luke, but ended up not being included in his gospel. If this was the case, it would help explain the floating text aspect. Further, as the article points out, it fits much better with Luke than John from a grammar/style standpoint. This is especially interesting considering that a few manuscripts do place it in Luke’s gospel.
External Evidence Conclusion
Like I said, the external evidence isn’t quite ironclad, but I would say it strongly leans towards non-inclusion based on the manuscript evidence and church fathers. Fortunately, the evidence from the text itself is stronger.
That said, there’s one more piece of external evidence we’ll examine just before the conclusion. It fits better there, since the internal evidence debate lends some necessary context. This piece of external evidence seems much stronger than what we’ve examined so far.
We’ll look at it just before the conclusion of this article.
Internal Evidence
While the external evidence isn’t iron-clad, some of the internal evidence is absolutely conclusive in my opinion… but only some. We’ll briefly touch the inconclusive evidence first, then move to the conclusive evidence, where we’ll spend the rest of this article.
Stylistic considerations
Some contend that the grammar and style of the Pericope Adulterae is unlike the rest of John, adding evidence that it was added. They say that the style, form, and words used are very unlike the apostle John.
A first-year Greek student will find the writings of John to be much easier to follow than someone like Paul or Peter because John used a more simple selection of vocabulary. When the first year Greek student reads through the Gospel of John and comes to the PA, they will see for the first time verbs, nouns, and conjunctions that John does not use anywhere else in his writings (which would include: 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation). In certain places of the PA, they will see words that are never used in any part of the New Testament.
That’s… strange.
Not necessarily conclusive, but you must concede that it’s very strange. There are other things too, like this is the only place that John mentions the ‘scribes’, and also the only places where features common to the other gospels (but not to John) are used. Again, this article under the heading “Is there internal evidence for John writing the PA?” has an excellent discussion of this. (And for those who are counting, this is the 5th of 6 times that I’ve linked to that article; it’s worth your time.)
However, as already mentioned, there’s some interesting evidence that Luke might’ve written part of this story…
Textual Variants
Just an aside: If the story is original, then why are there so many textual variants in the story? I noticed this as I was translating this passage. (I’m currently translating the entire New Testament from Greek to English, which you can read here if you’re interested.) This tiny piece of text (just 12 verses) has an insane number of significant textual variants. The last 3 verses (9-11) alone have 8 textual variants, 6 of which are significant.
That’s a lot.
it’s significantly more than other places, which makes sense if it was added later than if it was original to John. Again, this isn’t proof of anything, but it is interesting.
Convincing Evidence: holes in the story created by inclusion/exclusion
This has been cited by both sides as evidence for their respective positions. However there’s one hole I’ve seen that literally no one else mentions. That’s not to say no has ever mentioned it, just that I haven’t seen anyone mention it. Oddly, it seems to be the most obvious and convincing hole that’s right there in the English text – no Greek required (though it helps) – yet no one ever talks about it.
I have no idea why.
We’ll look at both sides, starting with the holes created by excluding the Pericope first, then the holes created by including it. (And no, I won’t tell you which has the bigger hole upfront. You’ll just have to read and see, and totally not skip down to the article’s conclusion where I give it away. 😉 )
Because this is such a large variant, we’ll need to back up a bit to get enough context fully understand it. Thus, I highly recommend you read all of John chapters 7 and 8. You don’t need to, but more context is almost never a bad thing.
Holes created by NOT including the Pericope Adulterae
Relevant verses for context first.
John 7:32 & 37
32 The Pharisees heard the crowd muttering these things about Him, and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to seize Him.
…
37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.
Now, it’s important to notice that the officers were sent on one day, but they didn’t approach Jesus that day. There’s no record of them approaching Jesus until the last day of the feast.
Verses 37-44 record Jesus saying something controversial, plus the crowd’s reaction to it. I’ve added an indent to show a relevant section, and notice the jump from 7:52 to 8:12.
John 7:44-52 & 8:12-13 (the passage without including the Pericope Adulterae)
44 Some of them wanted to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him.
45 The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, “Why did you not bring Him?”
46 The officers answered, “Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks.”
47 The Pharisees then answered them, “You have not also been led astray, have you?
48 “No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?
49 “But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed.”
50 Nicodemus (he who came to Him before, being one of them) said to them,
51 “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?”
52 They answered him, “You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.”
<The Pericope Adulterae goes here>
12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”
13 So the Pharisees said to Him, “You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true.”
(NASB ’95)
Notice the abrupt change from 7:52 to 8:12 without the Pericope present.
Many have argued that this means it should be included. Now, they are 100% correct about it being an abrupt jump. It’s a somewhat jarring change from where we last left Jesus in 7:38 to where we meet Him again in 8:12.
However, one explanation I’ve heard is that the section from verse 45 to verse 52 with the pharisees should be taken as parenthetical. That is, John departs from Jesus in verses 45-52 to tell us what’s happening with the pharisees, then returns to Jesus afterward.
Removing that section and not including the Pericope Adulterae would look like this:
John 7:37-43 & 8:12-13
37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.
38 “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’”
39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.”
41 Others were saying, “This is the Christ.” Still others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He?
42 “Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?”
43 So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him.
44 Some of them wanted to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him.
<The Pharisee interlude and Pericope Adulterae go here>
12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”
13 So the Pharisees said to Him, “You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true.”
That makes perfect sense to me.
Jesus makes a controversial statement in verses 37-38. Then we see the crowd react in verses 40-44, mostly being divided about Him. Then – after the parenthetical with the pharisees – we see Jesus’ response to the crowd’s reaction in chapter 8 verse 12. (The response that Jesus gives is pretty typical of Him too, responding to skepticism with something even harder to believe.)
The Gospel of Mark does this kind of thing regularly.
In fact, Mark does it so often that it has a name: the “Markan sandwich”.
Readers of the Gospel of Mark are familiar with the Second Evangelist’s convention of breaking up a story or pericope by inserting a second, seemingly unrelated, story into the middle of it. A good example occurs in chapter 5 where Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue, importunes Jesus to heal his daughter (vv 21-24). A woman with a hemorrhage interrupts Jesus enroute to Jairus’ house (vv 25-34), and only after recording the woman’s healing does Mark resume with the raising of Jairus’ daughter, who had died in the meantime (vv 35-43). Another example occurs in chapter 11 where Mark separates the cursing of the fig tree (vv 12 -14) and its subsequent withering (vv 20-21) with Jesus’ clearing of the temple (vv 15-19). This technique occurs some nine times in the Gospel:
Mark begins story A, introduces story B, then returns to and completes story A.
There’s no reason John couldn’t be doing something similar.
If you take the section with the pharisees in verses 45-52 as a parenthetical interlude, the passage makes perfect sense without the Pericope Adulterae.
Now, this isn’t evidence that the Pericope doesn’t belong.
Not at all.
It only means that the passage makes perfect sense with the Pericope absent. That’s neither evidence for its inclusion or its non-inclusion. However, it does mean the Pericope Adulterae’s non-inclusion does fit with the text, and fit well.
Now we’ll look at its inclusion.
Holes created by INCLUDING the Pericope Adulterae
We’ll look at the whole Pericope to get the context, plus a couple verses afterward which are relevant.
John 7:53 – 8:13
7:53 [Everyone went to his home.
8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them.
3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,
4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.
5 “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?”
6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”]
<The Pericope Adulterae ends here>
12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”
13 So the Pharisees said to Him, “You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true.”
Before we get to the reason those words above are highlighted in red, let’s look at two words in verse 12: “Then” and “Them”.
“Then”
The Greek word translated “Then” in verse 12 is the word “οὖν” (oun). It means:
3767 oún (a conjunction) – therefore, now then, accordingly so. 3767 (oún) occurs 526 times in the NT and is typically translated “therefore” which means, “By extension, here’s how the dots connect.”
Our English word “then” occasionally has this connotation – for example “if ABC, then XYZ” – but it more commonly means “then” in the sense of time, meaning “afterward”. Therefore, it should be translated “therefore” in this passage.
“Them”
The Greek word translated “them” in verse 12 is the word “αὐτός” (autos), and it is the Greek 3rd person pronoun. (he/she/it/they/them).
Definition: (1) self (emphatic) (2) he, she, it (used for the third person pronoun) (3) the same
Usage: he, she, it, they, them, same.
It does mean “them” in this verse, but what’s important is the form. The endings of some Greek words will change to tell you the number and gender of the word. (If you want a short, fun explanation, you can read my article: A Few Fun Things About Biblical (Koine) Greek).
The important part is this:
The word “them” in verse 12 is both masculine and plural.
That is very important.
In verse 12, Jesus “spoke to them”; “them” being a word that’s both plural and masculine, meaning Jesus was speaking to at least two males.
But which males was he speaking to?
Verse 13 makes it clear that at least the Pharisees were there. You know, the ones who were trying to trap Jesus and who left the room in verse 9.
What this means:
We’ll look at the passage again and I’ll highlight a few words. Notice what those words mean when they’re all put together.
9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”]
<The Pericope Adulterae ends here>
12
ThenTherefore Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”
Remember the word “them” in verse 12 is both plural and masculine, meaning Jesus was speaking to multiple males. Keep that in your head and ask yourself this:
What males were in the room?
According to verse 9, didn’t they all leave? Doesn’t verse 9 say that Jesus and the woman were completely alone? That being the case, which males was Jesus speaking to? (For hadn’t they all left?) If all the males had departed and only Jesus and the woman were there, which males could He speak to?
We know from verse 13 that it includes the Pharisees, but where did they come from? Hadn’t they just left?
Don’t forget that verse 12 begins with “therefore” (not “then”) so we aren’t talking about some time later. The word “therefore” seems to indicate this was immediately after.
Also notice the word “again” in verse 12
Whoever Jesus spoke to in verse 12, it wasn’t the first time He’d spoken to them because He was speaking to them “again”. The Greek word translated “again” is “πάλιν” (palin) and it’s perfectly translated; it means “again”. So this is the same crowd He was speaking to earlier.
Let me repeat that: it’s the same crowd.
The only way this could make sense with the Pericope Adulterae included is if the men – including the Pharisees – left the room long enough for Jesus to tell the woman to sin no more, and then they all came back into the room immediately afterward.
Does that make sense?
I suppose it’s possible, but it’s certainly not stated in the text. It’s not even hinted at.
As we’ve already seen, the passage makes sense without the Pericope Adulterae included. Further, starting verse 12 with “Therefore Jesus again spoke to them” also makes sense. It makes even more sense if you consider the chunk with the pharisees as parenthetical (a interlude in a larger story).
But with the Pericope included…
Hmm…
I see a major problem.
In fact, it looks like including the Pericope actually introduces an error into the Bible.
No joke.
By saying “Therefore Jesus again spoke to them“, you’re directly contradicting verse 9 which specifically says there was no “them” (multiple males) for Jesus to speak to. All the males (except Jesus) had just left the room, so there were no males (“them“) for Jesus to speak to.
Jesus can’t have “them” (multiple males) to speak to because ever single male except Jesus had just left the room!
It’s not possible…
…so wouldn’t that be a error?
This is the reason why I don’t consider the Pericope Adulterae to be scripture: because it introduces an error so blatant that I’m not sure how anyone – much less a brilliant writer like John – could’ve missed it. And we haven’t even talked about the inerrancy of scripture…
I don’t see the Pericope as original.
Not at all.
The error is just too big.
Another piece of Internal evidence
I noticed this as I was translating John 8 from Greek to English. Look at the following verses:
John 8:2, 8:6, and 8:8
2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them.
…
6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
…
8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
This event takes place in the Temple, which is important. We’ll come back to that in a moment, but for now we need to look at the Greek word “γῆ” (gé, pronounced “ghay”). It’s translated “ground” in the passage and means:
Strong’s Concordance:
Definition: the earth, land
Usage: the earth, soil, land, region, country, inhabitants of a region.
HELPS Word Studies:
gḗ – properly, the physical earth; (figuratively) the “arena” we live in which operates in space and time which God uses to prepare us for eternity.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Definition
the earth, land
Notice what it means: dirt/earth/land.
However, remember that they were in the temple.
Do we think the temple had dirt floors? There’s conclusive proof to the contrary. From an article on BiblicalArcheology.org:
The Temple Mount Sifting Project has recovered more than a hundred geometrically cut and polished stone tiles known as opus sectile, from which we learn how Jerusalem’s majestic Herodian Temple Mount was paved.
Opus sectile—Latin for “cut work”—is a technique for paving floors and walls in geometric patterns or figurative scenes using meticulously cut and polished polychrome stone tiles. These tiles were crafted and laid with such precision that there was hardly space to insert a knife-blade between them. Opus sectile floors were more prestigious than mosaic ones and were typically used in more important areas of buildings.
Here’s a picture of the reconstructed tile sections:
Now – since these were tile – I have a question: how was Jesus writing in/on them with His finger?
Was He crushing the tile?
Anyone?
I can’t think of a way to write on tile that wouldn’t cause a huge uproar. Plus, the Bible seems to clearly indicate that Jesus was writing on earth/dirt. Unless you think the dirt in the temple was so thick that you could write in/on it, that’s a problem That means we have a terrible historical error in the Bible if the Pericope belongs.
Now, you might say that perhaps this event took place in a part of the temple that had a dirt floor.
That’s actually impossible, which we’ll look at in a moment. However, it’s entirely possible that Jesus was teaching in the outer courts which didn’t have the ornate and expensive tile flooring. However, the floor was still stone.
Let’s look at an illustration of Herod’s temple from bible-history.com, because that’s the temple were talking about.
Notice the Women’s Court just behind the Golden gate (near center of the picture). Now we’ll hear about the Gentiles Court from an article on the temple from Bible-history.com:
If you were to approach the Temple in Jerusalem in the first century A.D. you would pass through the eastern gate where Jesus made His triumphal entry. Then you would come to the Court of the Gentiles which was a large court paved with stones of various colors.
The Gentile’s Court was paved, and you can clearly see that outside the Gentile’s court wouldn’t be considered inside the temple anymore. We know from verse 2 that Jesus was inside the temple. Now, notice that the women’s court was raised higher and was also paved.
Thus, no dirt for Jesus to write on in the temple.
Even the court of the Gentiles was paved, and thus there simply wasn’t any dirt for Jesus to write on. I’m sure there was some dirt because people would track it in. However, brooms aren’t exactly a new invention and they are mentioned in the Bible in a few places. An obvious one is this:
Luke 15:8
“Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?
The Greek word for sweep is “σαρόω” (saroó) and according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance means:
From a derivative of sairo (to brush off; akin to suro); meaning a broom; to sweep — sweep.
So while I’m sure there was dust/dirt, I’m also sure there wasn’t enough dust to be writing things down.
Now, dirt floors were uncommon in temples in the 1st century, and they were especially common in a synagogue. It’s easy to see how someone could’ve assumed the same about Herod’s temple if the story was added later and not original to John. It’s nearly impossible to think how John could’ve made this error since he actually walked in the temple personally.
One more thing:
While doing research, I’ve found several people who don’t consider the Pericope Adulterae scripture, but do consider it historical. That is, they believe it should be taught because they believe its something Jesus actually did, but don’t believe it’s scripture. The trouble with that is two fold: First, writing in the stone is impossible as we’ve just seen. Second, it becomes a several hundred year old “telephone game”. That is, a story repeated through word of mouth tends to change over time, and hundreds of years is a lot of time.
Further, there are actually three different versions according to noted textual scholar Bart Ehrman:
“By the fourth century there were actually three extant versions of the PA: (1) the entrapment story which Jesus freely pardons a sinful woman, known to Papias and the author of the Didascalia, (2) the story of Jesus’ intervention in an execution proceeding, preserved in the Gospel according to the Hebrews and retold by Didymus in his Ecclesiastes commentary, and (3) the popular version found in MSS of the Gospel of John, a version which represents a conflation of the two earliest stories.”
Source: “Jesus and the Adulteress,” pg 37
Again, I recommend you read this article for more information.
However, since there are several versions of the story, we can’t know which version is original/historical/accurate, or even if any of them are. We don’t know; we can’t know. Since we can’t know, I see no reason whatsoever to take this story as authoritative in any way. I would not teach from it, and I would ignore any teaching that springs from it.
I would give this story no more weight that the apocryphal books that the Catholics include in their Old Testament, which neither the Jews nor Protestants accept. I might even give the Pericope less weight, because at least there’s a long transmission history with those books, whereas we don’t know where this story came from. (And if you want more information on those books, I have an article on why they shouldn’t be included in the Bible.)
Conclusion
While the external/manuscript evidence isn’t firmly conclusive, the text itself seems decisive. With the Pericope Adulterae not included, everything makes perfect sense. There’s one jump that’s a tad jarring, but even that completely smooths out if you take the bit with the pharisees as parenthetical.
However, if you include the Pericope, a blatant and obvious error is created.
In verse 9 with the Pericope included, we’re told that Jesus and the woman were alone. Yet without any explanation, Jesus is addressing “them” (multiple males in Greek) in verse 12, even though Jesus is explicitly stated to be the only male in the room according to verse 9. Further, He’s addressing them “again”, meaning they were the same people as before. Even more problematic, we know from verse 13 that the Pharisees – who had just left after failing to trap Jesus – were there.
This error is so large, it’s hard to imagine an absolutely brilliant writer like John making it.
It’s just too big.
Further, this error would completely destroy the concept of the inerrancy of scripture, because then it would have a clear and obvious error. Obviously, something with an error can’t be inerrant.
Further still, it’s impossible for Jesus to have written “into” the stone of the temple with His finger (without Superman-level strength). Additionally, we know the temple floors were stone or tile, while the Pericope specifies dirt. That would be a major historical error that the apostle John simply wouldn’t have made because he had actually been in the temple.
Therefore:
Admitting the Pericope Adulterae into the text of scripture means admitting that the scriptures are not inerrant, and that they have at least one error
Further, there’s evidence that two other, shorter versions of the story were combined to create the current version. This story might’ve happened – its extremely doubtful, but I suppose not completely impossible – but there’s simply no evidence for it whatsoever. Further, it’s actually a conflation of two other shorter stories.
It’s a nice-sounding story, but nothing else and it’s certainly not scripture.
It almost certainly was introduced into the the text of scripture after having been written by men. Like everything else written by men, it’s prone to error.
I would treat it as such.
(And if you’re interested in textual variants, you might be interested in my article on the Johannine Comma, or my article: Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101)
 Original or Added?){kind=link}
The “error” you are speaking about actually isn’t true. The incident that occurs after the periscope, (ie, Verse 12-20) have no connection to John 7:52, but, refer to a subsequent Occasion in the Treasury as seen by verse 20, John 8:20, NASB: “These words He spoke in the treasury, as He taught in the temple area; and no one arrested Him, because His hour had not yet come.” So I disagree with your opinion and assertion that the periscope isn’t supposed to be included in the text.
The phrase “Therefore Jesus again spoke to them” needs an explanation then. Who’s the antecedent for “them” in verse 12? How is Jesus speaking to them “again” if we’ve changed stories? Why does the verse begin with “therefore”, since the whole purpose of the word is to connect clauses? All three questions need to be answered for the Pericope’s presence to make sense.
Just as a side note, here are some early church quotes,
Ambrose knew of this passage. According to Dean John William Burgon, Ambrose quotes the Pericope de Adultera at least nine times. In To the Emperor Gratian, Three Books on the Holy Spirit; Book 3.3.15 (circa AD 381) Ambrose wrote, “With this Finger, also, the Lord Jesus, with bowed head, mystically wrote on the ground, when the adulteress was brought before Him by the Jews, signifying in a figure that, when we judge of the sins of another, we ought to remember our own.” As found in St. Ambrose: Selected Works and Letters (Volume 10 of Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, New York, NY: Christian Literature Company, p. 263)
Pacian of Barcelona (circa AD 310–391) mentions it, writing, “Put to death the thief. Stone the petulant. Choose not to read in the Gospel that the Lord spared even the adulteress who confessed, when none had condemned her; that He absolved the sinner who washed His feet with her tears; that He delivered Rahab at Jericho, itself a city of the Phoenicians; that He set Tamar free from the sentence of the Patriarch; that when the Sodomites also perished, He destroyed not the daughters of Lot; willing likewise to have delivered his sons-in-law, had they believed the destruction to come.” Letter 3(39) Against the treatise of the Novatians.
Augustine’s writings (circa AD 380-428) demonstrate not only his knowledge of the pericope adulterae, but also its current location in the Gospel of John. See, for example,
Tractate 33 (John 7:40-8:11) and The Harmony of the Gospels, Book 4.10.16-17.
Jerome was familiar with it in the first half of the 5th century (circa AD 415), writing in Against the Pelagians (Book 2.17): “John viii. 3. None of the accusers of the woman taken in adultery were without sin. Christ wrote their names in the earth.”
They may not prove the pericope was apart of John, but they prove that it was known pretty early on.
The Didascalia (first half of the third century) refers to it.
Book II of the Apostolic Constitutions does as well (3rd century).
Eusebius cited Papias (early second century, possibly a disciple of John) as referring to a story about a woman accused before Jesus — this might have been a reference to the Pericope Adulterae.
Didymus the Blind (350 A.D.) referred to it directly in his commentary on Ecclesiastes.
Ambrose preached on it around 375 A.D., saying that it caused offence to the unskilled. (He mentioned the tradition which appears in much early art that Christ wrote in the dust, “Earth accuses earth.”)
Jerome, just after 400 A.D., said it was in many (in multis) Greek and Italian manuscripts (Migne, Patrologia Latina, 23), and used it as authoritative in his rebuke to the Pelagians. You don’t use a passage to refute error if its authority is in question — you use a different passage. Jerome used this one.
Augustine, who wasn’t exactly “best buddies” with Jerome and didn’t hesitate to call him down, said that some people eliminated it from their manuscripts because they didn’t understand it (paraphrasing roughly)
Vaticanus has a diacritical mark — a mark that some scribes used to show they were aware of an alternate text at a particular point. Vaticanus excludes the account, but its scribe apparently knew of it well enough to indicate its existence.
Also your comment about it being a “conflation of two other stories” is laughable. Sorry between patriot but this article isn’t the one. Come back next time bud.
Doesn’t Koine Greek use the masculine 3rd person as a generic plural which includes male and female?
“Them”
The Greek word translated “them” in verse 12 is the word “αὐτός” (autos), and it is the Greek 3rd person pronoun. (he/she/it/they/them).
What about “all the people” that Jesus was initially teaching at the time the subgroup of the Scribes and Pwarisees brought the woman? Christ asks the woman “Where are thine accusers?” Not “Where did all the people go?”
You stated: “Jesus can’t have “them” (multiple males) to speak to because ever single male except Jesus had just left the room!”
But just as easily, all the people were still there and only the woman’s accusers all left.
I alluded to the possibility of it including women when I said this: (I actually chose the language carefully to allow for that possibility).
“They” must inlude males, but it doesn’t necessarily mean only males. Regardless, verse 9 still clearly states that Jesus was alone with the woman, so even if “they” is truly generic with no male flavor, the principle stands. . Also, He was supposed to be speaking “again” to the pharisees who accused her and just left the room.
Further, there’s more to it than just assuming that the masculine pronoun was generic. Remember that usage trumps convention, and there’s a legitimate debate about whether the Bible is even addressed to females, except where it explicitly says it is. For more information, you can read this article under the heading “The Patriarchal Bible Problem”.
Bishop Ryle says in his commentary on John that “they ALL went out” refers specifically to those who brought in the guilty woman. If we take the Pericope to be genuine, we must include John 8:1 that says Jesus was teaching in the temple when He was interrupted by a group of Jews bringing in the woman to accuse her before Christ. Jesus then disposes of the problem, and of the accusers, by bringing the guilt of the accusers to light, whereupon they ALL scuttle away in shame. Jesus then “spoke again to THEM,” that is, to those whom He was teaching in v1, before the intrusion.
This is a plausible account for the “them” in v12. Not definitive by any stretch, and doesn’t guarantee the authenticity of the Pericope. But to say that the “them” of v12 introduces a gigantic error into John’s account if we take the Pericope to be genuine seems like building quite a lot onto a flimsy foundation.
John 8:2 is where we read of Jesus already teaching a group in the temple, before the intrusion of the adultery case.
Interesting take, but it ignores verse 9 which says that Jesus and the woman were left “alone”. That is the cornerstone of the argument. The other arguments centering around “them”, “again”, etc. merely serve to strengthen that one.
I like your article, it’s very informative. But, hm, I disagree the Pericope has internal conflict. Others have already mentioned that the verse “Then Jesus spoke again to them” (or “Therefore Jesus again spoke to them”) could easily be referring to the crowd he was teaching in 8:2, but I’d like to further point out this is also the same argument made if we exclude the Pericope. There, verse 12 refers back to 7:44–the Markan Sandwich you mentioned. So in either case we are making the argument 8:12 refers backwards. (I don’t see why we couldn’t call 8:3-11 a Markan Sandwich as well, if we’re going to rely on that, with the 2 bookends being Jesus teaching in the temple, the interrupting 2nd story occurring in the middle of it. Unless we wish to make the argument a Markan Sandwich ~must~ involve a new time and place.)
Now regarding the statement “He was left alone,” and the argument this means verse 12 couldn’t refer backwards, and that it creates conflict with verse 13 when the Pharisees are magically back in the room…here’s why I don’t see an issue: we’d have to assume that ~everyone~ who Jesus was teaching before the Pharisees showed up also left when they did. Why would they do that? The incident had nothing to do with them. They weren’t accusing the woman, and Jesus wasn’t talking to them when he said “throw the first stone”. If we wish to take “alone” to mean literally no one else was in the room (which, totally fair, is what alone can mean), then we have to conclude everyone left, not just the Pharisees, which is very strange. On the other hand, if we take “alone” to refer to “Jesus and his attackers” then it’s the attackers who leave Jesus alone, and we’re not forced to make any strange conclusions. This use of alone is one of its common meanings. For instance, “Bob and his classmates were on the playground at recess. Bullies showed up. Bob outwitted them, and they walked away and left him alone.” We wouldn’t take that to mean “all the other kids left the playground too.” Now I don’t blame anyone for taking alone to mean ~only~ Jesus and the woman were left, because depending on the wording of the english translation it can definitely seem to mean that. Herein lies a trouble with translations I suppose. As it is, alone can mean “left alone by” rather than “completely alone”.
Now, for verse 13 to be an issue–the reappearing Pharisees– we’d have to assume there were no Pharisees already present in the crowd when the others arrived with the woman. Not an outlandish assumption by any means, however, since this was at the temple, where Pharisees were very common, and given Jesus’ growing reputation, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume there were Pharisees already present. As we know, “the Pharisees” doesn’t refer to the same handful of individuals every time. There could easily have been Pharisees in the crowd at the temple. Another group of Pharisees shows up with the trap, Jesus makes them look like idiots, they leave, Jesus resumes talking, and the original Pharisees pipe up and take their own crack at him. The contradiction only occurs if we take “the Pharisees” to mean the exact same people, and I don’t see any logical reason for doing that.
So…all in all, I find the internal logic of the Pericope to be fully intact, and on these grounds I don’t see why we should exclude it.
Regarding the other versions of it, I find this an issue only if there is a manuscript of John containing one of them. I don’t know if there is or not. Otherwise, I would argue it isn’t actually evidence that the gospel version is untrustworthy. Authoritative sources can contain a story, and less/non-authoritative sources can also contain the same story, or other versions of it. Unless we wish to say that a source must contain ~the only version in existence~ of any particular story, or else it’s completely up in the air? I don’t see how we could justify that axiom. And of course that multiple versions simply exist isn’t evidence that two were joined together to give birth to the third–we need more than that. Neither transmission nor evolution are linear enough to be proved with so little information. “But which version is the real one?” I see no reason not to say, “the version in the most authoritative source.” So the real question, as I see it, is did the Gospel of John originally have the Pericope? Which is the one question we can’t answer. Go figure. 😛
The fact the Pericope has been found to float around the gospels is very interesting. A test we may devise for this is to see whether other verses which we ~know~ are fake additions float around as well, to gain a likelihood that this indicates inauthenticity. For example, if 50% of added verses float, then we can assume that a floating verse has a 50% chance of being unoriginal. I suppose an issue here is that comparing single verses to entire passages is comparing apples to oranges (for example it may be more likely for verses to float than whole passages). However, the article you linked said the Pericope is the only lengthy passage which travels around. Assuming that’s true we can’t compare apples to apples. Anyway, if there are no unoriginal verses which float around the NT in different manuscripts, then we can’t draw any conclusions from the fact the Pericope does, as it would constitute only a single data point.
Thank you for your article. This and some others you have written have provided a lot of food for thought. However, I would question two of your conclusions regarding the internal evidence that the pericope would introduce error into the Bible. Let me preface this by saying that I don’t know either Greek or Hebrew. But from the Bible itself, I would disagree with the following: (1) You believe that Jesus’ stooping down and writing on the ground (John 8:6,8) could not possibly have happened in the temple at Jerusalem because the courts were paved with stone. If you turn back to the Old Testament, 2 Chronicles 7:3 (NASB95), it states: “All the sons of Israel, seeing the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the house, bowed down on the PAVEMENT with their faces to the GROUND…” This happened in Solomon’s temple. That same passage in Brenton’s Septuagint Version of the Old Testament says: “And all the children of Israel saw the fire descending, and the glory of the Lord was upon the house: and they fell upon their face to the GROUND on the PAVEMENT…” If I am not mistaken, the same Greek word for “ground” is used in both John 8:6,8 and the Septuagint translation of 2 Chronicles 7:3. And 2 Chronicles 7:3 is describing “ground” in relation to “pavement.” I think the meaning of the word “ground” is the same in both accounts. It does not appear to be referring to soil or dirt. (2) You believe that Jesus’ writing something with his finger on stone pavement would would have to be a “miracle.” Yes, it would. But whether the pericope belongs in John’s gospel or not, the account is obviously describing a scene that is supernatural. Jesus stoops and writes with his finger on the ground/pavement; he stands and makes the statement about the one who is without sin throwing the first stone; he stoops again and writes again with his finger on the ground/pavement; and the entire group of angry scribes and Pharisees shut their mouths, make no more accusation, and disperse, beginning with the older ones. Not a natural event. But I don’t think that writing something with his finger on pavement would be impossible for the one who changed water into wine, gave sight to the blind, enabled the lame to walk, healed lepers with a touch, read men’s thoughts, walked on the sea, raised the dead to life, and rose from the dead himself after three days. The pericope even jogs the memory of another old miracle: “Suddenly the fingers of a man’s hand emerged and began writing opposite the lampstand on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, and the king saw the back of the hand that did the writing. Then the king’s face grew pale and his thoughts alarmed him, and his hip joints went slack and his knees began knocking together.” (Daniel 5:5-6, NASB95) So, I don’t know whether you are right or wrong about the authenticity of the pericope in John’s gospel. But in light of what I have said above, I don’t think your arguments about ground/pavement and the impossibility of Jesus writing on pavement are persuasive. But thanks again for your posts.
So, you ended by saying:
That’s exactly my point though. In Greek, Jesus didn’t write “on” the pavement. He wrote “into” the pavement. On would be “epi”, but the Pericope says “εἰς” (eis), or “into” the pavement. See the heading: Writing “Into” The Earth. If it said “on”, then I could definitely see your point. But it doesn’t; it says “into”.
You replied to my earlier comment: “That’s exactly my point though. In Greek, Jesus didn’t write “on” the pavement. He wrote “into” the pavement. “On” would be “epi”, but the Pericope says “εἰς” (eis), or “into” the pavement.”
Thank you for your reply.
I’ll once again start with the disclaimer that I don’t know Greek. I can only work with the few tools that I have.
I read your article on this website entitled “What’s the Best Bible Translation? And More Importantly, Why?” You examined several Bible translations and divided them into literal/worth-using and less-than-literal/not-worth-using. You gave your opinion that the NASB95 and the New King James Version (NKJV) are the most literal and accurate translations out there; you rated the King James Version (KJV) and the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) as also literal and probably worth using. Others that you described as less than literal and not worth using were the New International Version (NIV), New Living Translation (NLT), English Standard Version (ESV), Christian Standard Bible (CSB), NASB20, New English Translation (NET), Good News Translation (GNT), and Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).
I have looked up John 8:6,8 in all of the above-listed Bible translations. In addition to those, I have looked up John 8:6,8 in the following translations: Tyndale Bible, Geneva Bible, Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), Darby Bible, Webster Bible, American Standard Version (ASV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE).
ALL of the above-listed Bibles, except two, translate John 8:6,8 as Jesus stooped down and “wrote ON the ground.” All of those versions, except two, translated your Greek word “EIS” as “ON”, not “INTO”.
The two exceptions (which agree with your personal interpretation of “EIS”) are the New Living Translation (Jesus wrote “in the dust”) and The Message (Jesus wrote “in the dirt.”)
Interestingly, in your blog article on the Best Bible Translations you made these comments:
New Living Translation: “it’s certainly not the best Bible translation when it comes to being faithful to God’s words. Not even close. It’s not even in the ballpark. In fact, the NLT can’t even see the ballpark it’s so far back.”
The Message: “Saying that the Message was translated poorly would be an insult to poorly translated Bibles. Yes it’s that bad.”
So to recap, the following Bible translations translate John 8:6,8 as “ON the ground”: Tyndale, Geneva, KJV, Douay-Rheims, Darby, YLT, Webster, ASV, RSV, NRSV-Catholic Edition, NASB95, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB20, NET, CSB, GNT, and HCSB. (These translations span the centuries from the time of William Tyndale down to the present day.)
The following translations translate “EIS” as INTO or IN, which you insist is the correct translation of the Greek: the NLT and The Message (both of which you have personally described on your blog as basically being worthless paraphrases).
No disrespect, Sir, but it seems rather apparent why you are now engaged in doing your own personal translation of the New Testament.
In Christ.
You have indeed hit upon the reason I’m translating: I prefer a more literal translation than even the NASB95, LSB, and NKJV . That’s not to say they’re bad (they aren’t), just I prefer more literalism. I went looking at some lexicons and did find a single one that had “on” as a possible meaning. The verse examples it gave all make perfect sense when translated as “into” or “to” instead of “on”, but it did list “on” as a possible meaning.
Given that fact, I deleted the section which focused on the “into” aspect of eis.
I still think that “into” is the proper understanding, and some commentaries agree with my position as well, but I’ll concede that there is some support for “on” in one lexicon.
Also, that’s why my Bible translation’s website has a forum attached: so readers can push back and point out translations that they disagree with. (Though more often they email with questions instead of using the forum.)
Given what I wrote above, I also went and looked up what you said about 2 Chronicles 7:3. It is indeed the same word for for earth/dirt/ground that’s used in the Pericope. However, Solomon’s temple might’ve had dirt floors.
Regardless, the point still stands. How could Jesus has wrote something in stone or tile? Drawn his finger like He was writing, perhaps. But actually wrote something like the Pericope records him doing? That would take either dirt floors (which it didn’t have) or a miraculous writing in stone. Obviously Jesus could’ve wrote into the stone, but that seems like it would’ve been mentioned in the story since it would be a major miracle. (Being that it would hearken back to Sanai and God writing into stone to make the original stone tablets on which the Ten Commandment were written.)
You replied: “Given what I wrote above, I also went and looked up what you said about 2 Chronicles 7:3. It is indeed the same word for earth/dirt/ground that’s used in the Pericope. However, Solomon’s temple might’ve had dirt floors.”
Thanks for your reply.
Only one last comment. 2 Chronicles 7:3 says “All the sons of Israel, seeing the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the house, bowed down on the PAVEMENT with their faces to the GROUND…” (NASB95). The Septuagint version says the same in Greek, i.e., “PAVEMENT” corresponds to Strong’s G3038. So we know for certain that the place where the people bowed their faces to the GROUND in Solomon’s temple did NOT have a dirt floor. It was PAVEMENT.
You’re right, it does say pavement in 2 Chron 7:3. Again though, my whole point is that you can’t write something in pavement with a finger without a miracle. Plus writing “on” pavement isn’t writing since you don’t leave any writing behind.
Do you see any problem with the suggestion that Jesus was in the Gentiles’ Court which had dirt flooring?
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/25132/did-jesus-write-on-stone-in-john-86
The source in the article I linked to which clearly states stone flooring during the 1st century, while the fellow who answered points to modern trees as evidence.
Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin. – Augustine
Thanks, BP for yet another thought-provoking article. However, I must confess that I am not at all persuaded by your internal contradiction argument (and it looks like I am not the only one). When it says that Jesus was left alone with the woman it is obvious it is only referring to the accusers and not the original group he was teaching. That is why Jesus says in 8:10, “where are your accusers”. The accusers had all left and not the original group. I find it difficult to understand why any in the original group would (necessarily) have been convicted as they had not accused the woman of adultery. Surely it means the accusers were convicted and not those he was teaching (although some of them might have been convicted as well but not felt compelled to leave like the accusers). No doubt some of the original group Jesus was teaching also included some Pharisees as well who were not party to the accusation and who did not leave. This would explain why in verse 8:13 there were still some Pharisees on hand to object to His claim that “I am the light of the world” when Jesus returned to his teaching.
Your explanation doesn’t seem to fit the text, especially the two bits I highlighted. (This in NKJV)
Jesus “saw no one but the woman”. That makes it abundantly clear that He was alone with her, and no one else was present.
There is another reason why your internal contradiction theory does not work, and that is because the events recorded in John 7 and John 8 did not even happen at the same feast. John 7 records what happened at the Feast of Tabernacles prior to the crucifixion and John 8 records events that happened c3 months later at the Festival of Lights (or Feast of Dedication/Hannukah). This is what I believe is going on: In Chapter 7 Jesus gets up and preaches on the last and greatest day of the Feast of Tabernacles. When the feast is over everyone naturally heads off home as implied by John 7:53. Jesus also leaves Jerusalem and either returns to Galilee or more likely the Judean countryside at this time. Then 3 months later Jesus returns to Jerusalem for Hannukah and as was his custom went to the Mount of Olives to stay with Mary, Martha & Lazarus in Bethany, as alluded to in John 8:1. The next day, as recorded in John 8:2, Jesus goes to the Temple to teach. This is not the day following the “last and greatest day of the feast” of Tabernacles as there would be no crowd to teach as they had all left for home! No, this was likely the first day of the Festival of Lights and so John 8 through to John 10 inclusive should be viewed as a unit recording the events at the last Hannukah before the crucifixion, as clearly stated in John 10:22. It then makes perfect sense that Jesus states in John 8:12 that He is “the light of the world” at the start of the Festival of Lights (and not after the last day of Tabernacles)! So, if the Pericope does not belong where it is currently placed then you have the anomaly of John 8:12, “Then spake Jesus again unto them”, spoken at Hannukah, referring back to John 7 which happened at Tabernacles. This cannot be and so it is reasonable to conclude that the Pericope should be exactly where we find it! What do you think?
It’s an interesting theory, but I think you’ve forgotten John 8:59 which says Jesus left the temple. (and 9:1 opens with Him traveling) So while I think you’re exactly right about John 9-10 and Hannukah (which is a great point!), there’s no reason to think that John 8 happens around Hannukah. I also don’t think a 3 month time gap between 8:1 and 8:2 makes much sense.
It seems to indicate that it was the very next day. However, my objections doesn’t rest on this. You could be 100% right about the timing and it wouldn’t affect my objection. My objections regard the contradiction between Jesus speaking to them again in 8:12, and the stone floor. Your timing argument doesn’t really affect the contradictions I noticed, especially the stone floor one.
Thanks for the interesting challenge but here are some further counters to your arguments:
A. Jesus was left alone: This cannot mean he was literally left alone with the woman unless you are willing to argue that his disciples were also convicted and left as well. No, logically this must mean all her accusers left and not the original group He was preaching to (or at least not all of them). As I said above, it is reasonable to surmise that the original group included some Pharisees who were not with the accusers and who remained after the accusers had all left. It was these remaining Pharisees who were on hand to object when Jesus claimed to be “the light of the world”. So, there is no obvious contradiction here.
B. There is no evidence that John 8 links to Hannukah in John 9-10: I think the fact that Jesus claimed that He was the “light of the world” strongly signals that this narrative links to the Festival of Lights/Hannukah and not the preceding feast of Tabernacles. Jesus was obviously using a theme appropriate to the feast He was attending, incidentally, just as He was also doing in John 7:37-38 in the case of Tabernacles.
C. John 8:1 indicates that it was the next day: This is not supported by John 7:37, John 7:53 nor John 8:2. We know Jesus was preaching on the last day of Tabernacles. This is one of the three great feasts (along with Passover & Pentecost) which was attended by great multitudes that came from far and wide i.e., throughout the whole of Israel and even beyond. John 7:53 is clearly indicating that Tabernacles had ended and everyone was heading off home. John 8:2 says that Jesus went to the Temple and “all the people came to him”. How could all the people come to him if they had all headed off home? The statement that “all the people came to him” clearly indicates that this was when a feast was in full swing and not the day after Tabernacles. This also supports the argument that a new narrative had started and that John 8 should be linked to John 9-10 and Hannukah.
D. John 8:59 says Jesus left the Temple and John 9:1 has him traveling: I am not sure of your point here? This is not saying He was on a major journey. All I think it is saying is that He left the Temple and was in all likelihood heading off to Bethany for the night and would be back the next day. On the way to Bethany he passed by the man born blind and healed him. Am I missing something?
E. Writing on a Stone Pavement: I have three comments on this: 1) Even if it were true that the Temple was eventually all stone pavements, John 2:20 (a year or so earlier) says that the Temple was not yet completed. Who is to say that the Temple was not still under construction? 2) You are using a modern artist’s illustration of the Temple to make your point. It is not as if this is based on an eyewitness account, so this is not strong evidence at all. 3) At the risk of opening up a “can of worms”, Ernst Martin’s theory is that the Temple was located further south in the city of David and not on the so-called “Temple Mount” which was in fact Fort Antonio where the trial of Jesus took place and not the Temple (interestingly, John 19 refers to the “pavement” in the Praetorium). If this theory is true (and I think there is a very strong case for it) then any illustration based on today’s “Temple Mount” is irrelevant to the question at hand. The bottom line is I think that your case is not proven.
Any further thoughts?
I do love when I get thoughtful comments. 🙂
A. I am willing to say that He was left completely alone with the woman, disciples included, as that’s what the text clearly states in 8:10; Jesus “saw no one but the woman”. Whether the disciples were convicted or simply not present isn’t specified.
B. I agree that “Light of the world” would make a lot of sense at Hannukah, though I don’t agree that there’s a 3 month gap between 8:1 and 8:2. It seems like the next day by the phrasing, which is similar to the resurrections accounts. See the next point.
C. I see your point, but don’t find it compelling. Contextually speaking, 7:53 would apply to the most recent antecedents, which would be the chief priests and Pharisees in verse 45-52, not the whole crowd of people attending the feast. The chief priests and Pharisees would live in Jerusalem or nearby, so it wouldn’t require a long journey for them. As for “all the people” in 8:2, it could syntactically be limited to the people in the temple, or in Jerusalem even. (That makes more sense actually because the word for coming there is in the imperfective tense, which indicates a continual action in the past, not a one-time event.). I don’t think you’re twisting the passage or anything, but I think your explanation makes less sense than 8:2 being the following day.
D. Apologies if I wasn’t clear. I simply meant that 8:59 is a natural break with Jesus leaving. To my mind, the most natural place to put the 3 month time gap is between 8:59 and 9:1. Part of the reason I find it more natural is because it isn’t followed by a sentence like 8:2.
E. (1) You make a very interesting point, but consider this:
It seems inconceivable that the temple floor hadn’t been paved 46 years after work started, especially since the outbuildings had been finished and the work was “finishing touches”. Flooring/paving is more basic than a finishing touch. However, I must admit that while it’s highly unlikely, it’s not entirely impossible.
E. (2) The illustration was just to make thing easier to see, I quoted the article about being paved with stones.
E. (3) As stated above, Herod’s temple was a rebuild of Zerubbabel’s temple, so if that theory is right then the temple must’ve been in the wrong place for 400+ years. That seems highly unlikely. Admittedly not impossible, but highly unlikely.
I am glad you appreciate thoughtful comments. Only two Bereans could enjoy an exchange like this! A few more comments (naturally):
A. Jesus was teaching in the Temple courts so it would be nigh on impossible for Him to be left alone with the woman, especially at the height of a great feast. The crowds were likely huge and it would have probably taken a very long time for such a huge crowd to shuffle off. At the same time there must have been newcomers joining the crowd all the time e.g., no doubt some would ask “what is going on over there” the reply would be “Oh, Jesus is teaching”. “Fantastic, I would love to hear him”, and so many would be moving in his direction and not away! It is not as if he was in a house so that everyone else could have left. Also, John 8:9 says “Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst”. But in the midst of what? If it was just Jesus and the woman there couldn’t be a midst. I think it must mean in the midst of the original crowd he was teaching after all the accusers had shuffled off, no?
B. The 3-month gap is between John 7:53 and John 8:1 and not between John 8:1 and John 8:2. Whoever placed the chapter divisions got it spot on (on this occasion) in my opinion, with John 7:53 ending the Tabernacles narrative and John 8:1 kicking off the Hannukah narrative. John 7:53 has everyone returning home when Tabernacles ended and this included Jesus and his disciples. Then 3-months later in John 8:1 Jesus returns to Jerusalem for Hannukah and first heads to the Mount of Olives/Bethany and then goes to the temple early the next morning for the first day of Hannukah. Note that this also follows the same pattern at the last Passover c3months later than Hannukah i.e., Jesus first goes to Bethany and then heads to the Temple the next day (see John 12:1). I confess this perhaps could have been stated explicitly but I think it can be deduced if you look at the big picture and understand that John 8-10 is one unit recounting the events at the last Hannukah. I think the scribe who placed the chapter divisions also got this?
C. I just see John 7:45-52 as a Parenthesis. John 7:53 appears to be a universal statement “every man”. If it meant just the chief priests and scribes, what would the purpose of that statement be? It does not tell you anything of import whatsoever. If, however it meant everyone at the feast then it has some importance, telling you that Tabernacles had ended and sign-posting the start of a new narrative (Hannukah).
D. I agree that that would be a natural place for the 3-month gap if John 8 was part of the Tabernacles narrative rather than the Hannukah narrative. But that is of course the point that we are not seeing eye-to-eye on!
E(1) I am not sure why you think it is so absolute i.e. if any part of Temple was paved then it must have been paved where Jesus was teaching? The Temple was a big place with the priests’ court, men’s court, woman’s court, court of the gentiles and Solomon’s porch. Were they all paved? We just don’t know. Couldn’t a priority have been applied, with the priests’ and men’s court being paved first, and the others later? Where did Jesus teach? Sometimes in Solomon’s Porch but sometimes it may have been in the court of the Gentiles? We do not know. Perhaps where Jesus was teaching it was not paved but it was paved as part of the finishing touches you mention between AD30 and AD63? Who is to say? There is simply too much uncertainty here to definitively say, it was paved where Jesus taught, so he could not have written on the ground, so the Pericope is not original. I think it is simply too much of a stretch.
E(2) Noted.
E(3) Sorry, I don’t think I was very clear here. Martin’s theory has all three Temples (Solomon’s, Zerubbabel’s and Herod’s) located at the same place but further south than the so-called Temple Mount/al-Ḥaram al-Sharīf, in the City of David or Mount Zion. The theory says that no Jewish Temple ever stood on the Temple Mount and in the time of Jesus it was occupied by a massive Roman Fort known as Fort Antonio (where Jesus’ trial took place). This is a fascinating topic that I have been studying for 7 years! As you can imagine, this is a highly charged subject with huge political and religious ramifications. Personally, I am convinced that Martin is right, but people tend to divide on this subject like the Red Sea! My point was that if Martin is right then any archaeological evidence suggesting that Herod’s temple was paved is in reality evidence that the Roman Fortress was paved (hence my reference to John 19 and the “pavement”). This adds further uncertainty to your argument against the Pericope.
Any other comments?
Sorry for the delay, the weekend was quite busy. I’ll suggest you read C first, then B, then A, then as normal.
A. You say this took place at the height of a great feast, but I disagree. I think it took place right after the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. And like the day after most feasts/parties, there would be fewer people there. Not none, but much fewer. That in turn makes it entirely likely that Jesus and the woman could find themselves alone. “in the midst” is a translation of a single Greek word and it can mean in the midst of a group, but it can also mean in the middle of a room. IIRC, it’s used that way elsewhere, so the word itself isn’t evidence that there were other people there.
B. Ah, I misunderstood where you thought the gap was, thanks for clarifying. However, I still completely disagree about there being a 3 month gap between chapters. the way I read it, including in Greek, the more natural reading is that 8:2 is right after the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles covered in the end of John 7. I understand your point about “light of the world”, but I think putting a 3 month gap there simply doesn’t make sense, the excellent Hannukah/light of the world parallelism notwithstanding.
C. I just looked at the Greek of 7:53, and “all/every” is a very poor translation:
You can double check me in an interlinear Bible if you like. All/every would be “pas”. “Each” vs “all/every” does seem relevant here. In my opinion, “each” clearly leans towards referring only to the men mentioned in 45-52, not everyone at the feast. (Further, the New Testament is full of “unimportant” details, and especially John. Consider John 12:3, which says “and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume”. That detail has no bearing on the story, other than it’s an interesting detail that John recalled.)
D. Well, we (sort of) agree on something. 🙂
E.1. The article said that “Finishing touches continued until AD 63”, and other sources seem to confirm that. Flooring is hardly a “finishing touch”. It’s basic and from my understanding of stone buildings back then, it’s also literally foundational. My understanding — which could be wrong — is that the stone flooring was the foundation in those days. They would quarry large stones and fit them together, and that would be both the foundation and floor. (though sometimes they would add tile on top of stone to make it look nicer) You had to put the whole floor together to make sure everything fit before doing much on the walls or you’d run into problems. Thus, the flooring would be the first thing completed, not a “finishing touch”.
E.3. Ah, okay. Again, thank you for clarifying. 🙂 You might be right, but remember that all of the temple buildings would’ve needed foundations to stand, and those foundations would’ve almost certainly been stone and laid before the walls. (See E.1. above) So even if he’s right — and I sadly don’t have the time to research this right now — I’m not sure it’s a strong argument.
I am glad you still have more to say as I do not think we have exhausted this discussion quite yet! Some further comments:
A. See my comments below under B for why I conclude this cannot be the day after Tabernacles. As for your comment that it could mean in the middle of a room, I would say: sure, in theory, it could mean that, but there is nothing in the context to suggest that is the case. It is also a rather strange thing to say, isn’t it? Why not just say that Jesus was left along with the woman in the room? What would the significance of the middle of the room be here? I can’t think of one. No, in the midst of the crowd is the most natural interpretation and is consistent with the context. Furthermore, John 8:20 says that Jesus was teaching in the Temple Treasury (which, if memory serves, was in the woman’s court). This surely would have been in the open air and not in a room?
B. Here is my full logic for why it was not the day after Tabernacles. My suggestion that Jesus’ statement “I am the light of world” was spoken at the Festival of Lights is not on its own conclusive. But there are two other lines of evidence which I think nail this link, and they are: 1) Jesus repeats the statement that he is “the light of the world” in John 9:5, which undeniably happened at Hannukah. Is this mere coincidence? Not likely, so this greatly strengthens the case that John 8:12 was spoken at Hannukah; and 2) In John 8:59 it says “and so passed by”, and in the very next verse John 9:1 says “And as Jesus passed by” (or “And passing by”). This term (Greek “parago”) clearly links the John 8:12-8:59 narrative with John 9. As John 9 happened at Hannukah, we can therefore conclude that so did John 8:12-8:59.
So, why do I keep banging on about John 8:12-8:59 being spoken at Hannukah? If the Pericope is not original then Jesus’ statement, “Then spake Jesus again unto them” (John 8:12), would be referring back to verses in John 7. This would be linking something that happened at Hannukah to something that happened at Tabernacles. This cannot be, as it would give rise to a contradiction. However, if the Pericope is present, then there is no such contradiction, as John 8:12 is then referring back to John 8:2 where Jesus started teaching the crowds, likely at the commencement of Hannukah.
Also, setting aside this contradiction for now, I would also argue that it is highly unlikely that Jesus would return the day after Tabernacles to teach. I would imagine that there would be a big cleaning up exercise in the Temple by the Levites on the day after a great feast, and so I seriously doubt anyone else would be allowed in the Temple precinct. What is even more of an issue is that Jesus turned up early in the morning to teach, surely the worst possible time on the day after Tabernacles. No, it makes much more sense that this is the start of Hannukah.
C. I agree that “each” is a more literal translation, but I do not think it follows that the KJV translation is poor. Here is my reasoning: For arguments sake, let us just say that this verse (John 7:53) is referring to the “chief priests and Pharisees” and not to the whole crowd at the feast. Now ask yourself the question, on the last day of the feast of Tabernacles, what would cause all the “chief priests and Pharisees” to return to their own houses? There is only one answer to this question, and that is because the feast had ended. And if the feast had ended then all the crowd will have headed home as well. So, it does not matter if John 7:53 is referring to the whole crowd (my view) or just the chief priests and Pharisees (your view), the result is the same, namely, that Tabernacles was over. So, I think the KJV translation is fine.
E1 For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that the Temple was not paved, but just that it is not possible to say for sure that it was paved where Jesus taught. It is simply too speculative. It also feels like this should be no more than secondary evidence brought to bear against the Pericope and not the primary evidence, otherwise it feels like archaeological evidence is being used to judge scripture, don’t you think?
E3 Sure, this would not be a trivial exercise, but would be well worth the effort if you ever get a chance. It is a very big deal, imho. Incidentally, I agree it is not a strong argument against the Temple being paved, but I am not making that argument anyway. As I think I have already said, if correct it would however invalidate any archaeological evidence from the Temple Mount used to argue that, say, all parts of the Temple precinct were paved.
Comments?
I think we might be getting a bit “lost in the weeds”, so I refocused slightly.
A. The Greek could also refer to the center of anything, including a courtyard. However, “in the midst of the people” isn’t a natural reading because they were explicitly stated to be alone in verse 9, and Jesus saw no one but the woman in verse 10. I’m sorry, but the “in the midst of other people” understanding is flatly and clearly contradicted by the text. It’s utterly repudiated and leaves no room for others being there (Which makes a lot more sense on the day after tabernacles than during Hannukah.) This point alone is enough to override every other argument in my opinion because it’s a blatant contradiction. It’s the foundation of the article. (The stone bit is just additional evidence.)
B. To the “Light of the world” being repeated, I don’t see that as strong evidence, or even evidence at all. It seems closer to “dust on the scales” of evidence because Jesus could’ve said it any time; He didn’t have to say it at Hannukah (even if it would make sense).
Additionally, in John 8:59 the phrase “going through the midst of them, and so passed by (parago)” (KJV/NKJV) is an textual variant, with the evidence against it being strong and the evidence for it being weak. The NA28’s textual apparatus doesn’t even include it in the text, and merely gives a footnote with the few supporting witnesses. Thus, between 8:59 and 9:1 is a perfectly logical place to put a 3-month gap. (Further, the natural way to read the Greek is with 7:53 and 8:1 as part of the same sentence.)
C. Your entire argument here rests on 7:53 belonging, which I don’t believe it does. If you omit 7:53-8:11 and place the 3-month gap between 8:59 and 9:1, everything makes perfect sense.
E.1. For the sake of argument and time, we can consider it secondary evidence. I consider the “alone then suddenly with people” argument the primary one anyway.
E.3. Agreed that it’s not trivial, but I have a lot of large items on my plate and very little time right now. Perhaps in the future.
I think we have arrived at an impasse. I have enjoyed the debate, but as Paul says “each one should be fully convinced in his own mind”.
I also enjoyed it and agree that we have indeed reached an impasse. God Bless and take care.
Hi, i have been in the middle east specifically Doha Intl, a very up to date luxurious airport. Story short: The huge modern airport structure INSIDE of the airport seemingly well sealed from hot weather suddenly was filled by a sandstorm so dusty that fire alarms yelled instructing ppl to leave the building, breathing was difficult, eyesight was limited to only 1m – INSIDE the building. If people would have been calm enough to sit down on the tiled floor they could have written in the dust that settled on top of the tiles. I dont suggest the temple was messy, but sandstorms might render the floor covered in a thin layer of dust. A black bag of mine actually turned white from the sand.
any construction of ceiling/walls/woodwork/etc could as well result in dust on the tiled floor that every child without superpower could write in/on… any thoughts?
I really enjoy your articles and the thoroughness and common sense you use in them. However the arguments in this one seem rather weak, or maybe I should say, very weak. Perhaps you could explain further. Taking your arguments one at a time:
1. Reasons for adding/removing. I agree removing would indicate that the copyists were wicked men, yet that is hardly an argument. I understand that you believe Johannine Comma was removed; why not this as well? As far as adding it, it seems a stretch to think it would be added because it was believed to be authentic. Would there not have been hundreds of stories not included in the Gospels that the disciples and others would have known to be authentic? Yet I don’t hear of any of those being added.
2. Omission from manuscripts. In your Textual Criticism 101 article you show that most of these early texts are Alexandrian and are not good quality or good at agreeing with each other. It would be helpful if you were more specific about which early texts have it and which don’t. You clearly state in Textual Criticism 101:
The (Byzantine) manuscripts from the Medieval period were “substantially identical” and “beyond all question identical” to those known in the “second half of the fourth century”. That’s from the 4th century to the ~15th century; a period of 1,100 years (over a millennia) with virtually no change.
Further, Westcott and Hort agreed that the “common text” (Byzantine text) had at its root a text that was as old as – or older than – their oldest manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). Again, the only reason they didn’t give them any weight was because they (incorrectly) believed the Byzantine text was a combination of the Western and Alexandrian Text types.
You state that is your opinion that the majority text in most places is the closest to original. So could you explain how the reasoning, “Most of the old manuscripts don’t have it” holds any value to this argument? I may be misunderstanding you. Also, it seems obvious that though today we may only have one manuscript from earlier than the 8th century with it in, there must have been many more since it was quoted many times before the 8th century (though you do say they may not have all been quoting a Bible story).
3. Patristic evidence. The reasoning based off of Jerome’s quote is very, very weak. He apparently believed it was in enough manuscripts to include it in the Latin translation. Besides, in the paragraph above the quote, you say “you can find many of these quotes in this article.” There are ten in the article. Are you saying that this is the minority and that there are many more? You say many could mean 15% like you used it at another place. Are there 56 more quotes not included in that article? That may be the case but that is obviously not what you mean. Very little can be based on Jerome’s use of many other than that some had it and some didn’t.
I didn’t research, but it seems to be that if we only kept passages that the early church fathers commented on more than this one, we wouldn’t have much left.
Also, this story was not a demonstration of how we should deal with adulterous individuals, it is a demonstration of Jesus’ ability to outwit the Pharisees at their attempt to trick him (and showing His authority to pardon sin), so it does not seem surprising that Tertullian didn’t mention this. Assuming it was in Paul’s Bible, does it surprise you that he does not mention it in talking to the Corinthians about dealing with adulterers?
4. Floating text. Again consider that the later texts are in some ways superior. It could be argued that floating text shows that many people believed it was supposed to be in the text, they just didn’t know exactly where because someone had removed it from earlier ones. If only one person or group decided it should be in, why would it float around? As for what Dan Wallace says, that is a logical error. There are no earmarks of a pericope looking for a home. I could just as well say it has all the earmarks of a pericope that was known to be original trying to find its original location.
5. Stylistic considerations. This does seem strange, though it makes me wonder how many other passages in the Bible this could be said about. Are there other words that John only uses once, or Peter? I can’t think of an easy way to find this out or I would have done it.
6. Textual variants. I can’t explain the variants, but I am curious as to which manuscripts have the variants. Do the Byzantine manuscripts agree? Like you say, it isn’t proof of anything. It could just as easily be argued that it looks like scribes were so sure that it should be in that they put it in even if they weren’t sure of the exact wording. Why would there be variants unless a lot of people thought it should be there? I am not saying this is what happened, just that it seems to my just as logical as any other supposition.
7. Hole/error made by including it. You use this as your most important reason for thinking it is not original. Yet this seems to me to be the weakest argument yet. I always assumed this story belonged and never noticed any inconsistencies. V. 2 “All the people came unto him…and he taught them.” The scribes and Pharisees interrupt, bringing a woman with them. Jesus’ response convicts the ones that brought her and one by one they leave. Jesus is left alone with the woman. They alone were left of the people involved with this incident. The Greek work means “remaining; sole or single.” This does not mean Jesus and the woman were the only ones in the temple. Other places this same Greek word is used: Martha says she was left to serve alone. (Jesus and Mary were in the house.) Romans 11:3 Paul quoting Elijah says he is left alone. (Was there no one else around?) I Thess. 3:1 Paul and his companions were left at Athens alone. (The city was not empty.) This word can clearly mean there is only one (person or group) left of the persons in discussion. Martha was the only one serving; Jesus and the woman were the only ones left of the group that was in discussion. Imagine a group comes up to your pastor while he is preaching and interrupts. The pastor says something that causes them to leave. Wouldn’t you say he is now alone? Jesus saw none but the woman. The Greek word for none does not mean no one and I don’t think it is ever used in the Bible to mean that. It means “not even one.” Clearly, in my opinion, referring to not even one of her accusers. I think all or most of the people that he was teaching before this interruption were still there. And I fail to see any reason why this couldn’t be possible. Notice those that heard what Jesus said, were convicted and left. This probably means the ones He was speaking it to and certainly does not need to include everyone in the temple. Then Jesus spoke again to the group he had been talking to in v. 2 saying…. This did include Pharisees (v. 13). It would seem very reasonable that there were Pharisees in the group in v. 2 monitoring Jesus’ activities. After all, He was in the temple. Jesus is teaching. The Pharisees interrupt. The interrupters leave and Jesus is left alone. Jesus resumes teaching. Where is the discrepancy. Can you explain what I am missing?
8. Another piece of internal evidence. You agree in a reply to a comment that the Greek word used for ground in this passage was used to mean a paved part of Solomon’s temple. So there is no problem with this word usage and it seems to me you should remove the part of the article implying a problem with the word. You say, “That means we have a terrible historical error in the Bible if the Pericope belongs”, referring to the use of the word for ground. However, you agree that it is used in the Septuagint in a verse where it is used for a paved area. The terrible historical error does not exist.
As far as writing “into” the floor/ground, there is absolutely no way we can say this wasn’t possible. It could have been a miracle (though I agree it doesn’t seem to be from the passage), there may have been dust (it does not take much dust to write in), there may have been any kind of repair or modification of the floor at the time that left a patch of earth uncovered. Only one possibility is all there needs to be, and we can’t say it’s impossible.
9. One more thing. Is it not possible that all 3 of these events occurred and only one got into the Bible?
I am not trying to say whether this passage should be in the Bible or not, I am just saying I don’t find any one of your reasons convincing. Maybe you could explain further.
So, I believe you might’ve misunderstood my textual criticism article in the sense of my “preference” for the MT. I really just think those manuscripts shouldn’t be ignored as they are now. Also, remember that we have plenty of early Byzantine readings in early manuscripts, just they’re not a majority. It does seem odd to include a passage that was completely absent for the first 1/3 of the church’s existence, including in manuscripts with Byzantine readings. Even the Comma has more manuscript support (though in translations not Greek)
To my main point about Jesus being alone: the text literally says that “Jesus saw no one but the woman”, and here’s a copy/paste of the word that’s translated “no one” from a few lexicons;
The word is also used that way normally. I see no reason to take it any other way. I might actually edit the article to make that more clear if/when I get time.
As to writing into the stone, I suppose there is the tiniest of slim outside chances that there’s an explanation. I’m talking going from none to hyper-slim, but I’m not convinced of them.
Thank you for your reply. Yes, I understand you are not saying the Byzantine are always correct. You are right that we have many Byzantine texts from before the 8th century, but according to the article you reference, (“A CALL FOR SERIOUS EVANGELICAL APOLOGETICS: The Authenticity of John 7:53-8:11 as a Case Study” at truthinmydays.com) many of the early texts do not have the Gospel of John in them. Of the few that do have the Gospel of John, he says:
“All but one of the uncials omitting it [Pericope Adulterae] are considered to be of the Alexandrian text-type.”
I think that is at least worth noting. You don’t give external textual evidence as the main reason you believe its inauthenticity, which I think is correct. It seems like a fairly good case can be made from either side, based on manuscripts.
I agree it does seem odd to include it if absent for so long. Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I found, in Greek there are 9 unicles and 2 manuscripts from before the 8th century. Only one contains the Pericope. So we don’t have much data from Greek texts. However, the story is included in some early translations: Philoxenian Syrian, Palestinian Syriac, Boahiric Coptic (some), Armenian, Ethiopic, Old Latin (not all), and the Latin Vulgate. Doesn’t that seem odd? Where did it come from? And early church fathers did quote this story. This is from some one else’s comment: “Jerome, just after 400 A.D., said it was in many (in multis) Greek and Italian manuscripts (Migne, Patrologia Latina, 23), and used it as authoritative in his rebuke to the Pelagians. You don’t use a passage to refute error if its authority is in question — you use a different passage. Jerome used this one.” (Devante) Is this story true?
Thanks for that info on the meaning of the word mēdeís. I was wrong on how the word is translated. I use the KJV. I was interested to find, by following the link you provided, that Acts 9:7 uses the same word.
“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” KJV
Not to be argumentative, but how does this fit? This is a group of men traveling with Paul and Paul is on the ground in the road, but they see no man. What is the meaning here? These two situations seem comparable. Am I missing something?
To early manuscripts, there’s a reason I didn’t make external evidence my primary argument. My point is simply that there’s a good case to be made for non-inclusion, even if there’s also a case for inclusion. I didn’t chase down the Jerome quote because he didn’t source the part about using it to refute the Pelagians. I get a lot of comments and unfortunately don’t have the time to chase everything down, but I’d love to see the source if you do.
To Acts 9, Greek is very different than English in some respects. English likes to spell everything out while Greek likes to leave things out and let the reader supply them, which it does this all the time. It’s this way in Acts, where the object is implied: “…but seeing no man [who could be speaking/from whom the voice could come/etc.]“. The exclusion is still total, just Greek is implying an object without explicitly stating it, which again is very common in Greek. So you have:
John 8: “seeing no one but the woman” (Explicitly stated object)
Acts 9: “Seeing no man” (Implied object)
So you’re right about the construction being similar, the real difference is the implied object in Acts 9 versus the explicitly stated object in John 8. IIRC, mēdeís is basically always used in ways similar to a transitive verb, with the object either stated or directly implied. That’s from my memory of translating roughly 2/3 of the NT over the last several years. There might be exceptions, but I don’t think they’re common.
Thanks for your reply.
So you are saying that Acts 9 is correct, “seeing no man,” even if others were around, but John 8 is incorrect, “seeing no one but the woman,” if others were around. Do you actually believe that? You said earlier, speaking of “seeing no one but the woman,” “This point alone is enough to override every other argument in my opinion because it’s a blatant contradiction. It’s the foundation of the article.” Are you that sure about it? You would remove this story because of this word?
I agree that the object in Acts 9 is implied. I am familiar with that kind of thing, having taught some middle grade English. I disagree that “but the woman” is the object of “no one.” “But the woman” is an exception to the object. The object cannot be an exception to the object. This verse could be read: “seeing no one [from the group He had just been interacting with] but the woman.” Would that really violate Greek grammar? You better be very sure to use this as a reason to say this passage is not authentic.
You mention that no one else that you know of ever mentions this problem. Seems to me that if it was a problem, someone else would have thought of it.
Besides, did you even consider that maybe Jesus really didn’t see anyone at all except the woman? The Pharisees could have come in on the opposite side of Jesus from the group He was teaching. The Pharisees came to the center of the court, but that does not mean Jesus couldn’t have had Pharisees on one side of Him and the group He had been teaching on the other side. He may have really only seen the woman when he straightened up. Then turned and talk to the group behind Him. I do not at all think this has to be the way it happened, but it is possible.
Again, I am not trying to prove this story is original. I am saying I have yet to see a reason why it could not be. If you have a good reason, I would be glad to hear it.
Reminder to both of us: it is okay to change our minds when presented with new ideas/facts. In fact, we must be willing to change our minds. There are Bible scholars/archeologists who seem to live by: “Doubt the Bible (and traditional views on the Bible) unless proven true.” Hundreds of times these people have needed to admit that the Bible and traditional views of it are true after all. I think: “Believe the Bible. Believe traditional views on the Bible unless proven false.”
It’s always hairy trying to explain one language in another, and I’ll concede that the woman isn’t technically the direct object; more accurately she’s “direct object adjacent”. The Greek construction makes a connection there that isn’t obvious (or possible) in English, so yes technically “but the woman” isn’t an object”, but the Greek attaches “the woman” to the object in ways that English can’t. Yes it’s definite in Greek.
The trouble with your supposition is that verse 9 specifically states that Jesus was alone with the woman, and the “no one” reinforces that. It’s more than just one word; it’s the whole context and explicitly stated two different ways in two different verses. I simply can’t ignore the agreement in those two verses. According to the text in two places, Jesus and the woman were alone. I would think I’m ignoring the text if I said anything different.
About changing minds, I have changed my mind before because of comments; it’s called “Berean Patriot” for a reason. However, in light of the textual difficulties I find it nearly impossible to make a case that it’s original. That’s part of the test I use for ideas: can I make a strong case for a position? Could I defend it in a debate? I can for non-inclusion, I personally would feel like I was lying if I did for inclusion.
You said: “Believe the Bible. Believe traditional views on the Bible unless proven false.” I understand that, but I’ve spent too much time studying the Bible to accept that. Consider my articles on polygamy, or Divorce. The traditional view on the Bible for these two topics seems to blatantly ignore the text of scripture itself. So while I have a healthy respect for tradition, but I’m not willing to ignore the text of scripture for any tradition. To be sure, including the Pericope is tradition, but I would have to ignore the text to accept it into the text.
Maybe I lost sight of the bigger picture. There seems to be another reason this “no one” reason is weak. Even if it’s true that this absolutely could not be correct Greek, it would not prove inauthenticity. Its only discrepancy would be because of the verse after the Pericope ends. It could just mean this story is not in the correct place in our Bibles. Is that right?
Which would make the argument against this passage weaker still. If this story was originally at a different place in the manuscript, then we cannot say for certain that it was not in the early manuscripts. Some of them do not contain the whole Gospel of John or have missing pages but are used as evidence against the Pericope because it is not in John 8. Wouldn’t the manuscript evidence be weaker yet and the “no one” argument totally irrelevant if this story belongs at a different place in our Bibles?
I would be glad to hear your thoughts.
The fact that the Pericope floats is — in my opinion — extremely strong evidence that it’s not original. The only way I can think of that it would “float” in several different places multiple books and be original is if it was cut out at an extremely early date and people who knew it was original were trying to find a place to add it back in. However, that not only strains credulity, but also that one article I linked to 5-6 times makes a compelling case that the current form wasn’t the original form, but it was originally two different stories that were blended. Dr. James White makes this case very well and names the actual manuscripts in this ~2 minute YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p796PhsXr1c (he has several other good videos on the topic as well.)
Like I said in my previous comment, I simply can’t make a compelling case to include it to myself. I can tear down the case to include it all day long in my own mind, but I can’t do the same for non-inclusion.
Thanks for taking the time to reply each time. I still don’t agree with you, but I like the way you study things out in all your articles.
I tried to show earlier how “alone” is not always used in the strict meaning of “completely by oneself.” It can mean “the only one of a certain group.” I will just say that the textual difficulties and the “floating” can’t both be used as evidence against this story. One or the other, but not both at the same time, since the textual “discrepancies” go away if we put this story at another place in our Bibles.
Dr. James White makes an interesting study, but there is a lot of supposition. And we really can’t say which story came first. It is interesting to note that most people think the Gospel of John was written 60 or 70 years after Jesus’ death. Other eyewitness accounts of events in Jesus’ life could have been popular for 70 years before John ever wrote his Gospel. PA could have been in John’s Gospel and yet not be the oldest story. That’s why I don’t think there is much to that idea. If we believe what he says about Luke writing it, then there are no internal evidences against its authenticity, including your biggest reason for noninclusion. I don’t necessarily think that, since then there would be more external evidence against it, but again, I am trying to show that not all the evidences against can be used at once. So possibly the evidence against is not even as strong as it looks on the surface.
If we say this story was added (something that would be completely unique I believe, and is not mentioned by early church fathers), somehow it got to be in nearly all the Greek manuscripts by the 1200s and in many other languages long before the 1200s. If we say it was removed, this would arguably not be unique, and is something that early church fathers accused people of doing. That is basically why I argue for its inclusion.
Thanks for the interesting study. I am willing to leave it at that, though you are welcome to reply if you want. Even when we both try our best to be correct, we won’t always agree. The important part is trying our best, which I am willing to say you are!
I will likely check out those other articles you mentioned.
Your missed chance to respond to my simple opposing point as well as childish behavior defending the own opinion quoting a single random source with full intent way too many times strains your credulity.
Which point in which comment? Did you comment under a different name? I ask because there’s no other comment from someone using your name (and nothing went to spam either)
Hello, my name is Douglas Collins. I have read your article and all the comments. I have a question.
9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
Are you saying that since Jesus was left alone that even the disciples left the room. Who then recorded what happened after everyone left?
As for Jesus seeing only the woman, I don’t know if you are married, but, if a man looked at his wife in a crowded room and was only focused on her – wouldn’t you say that he saw only her?
I just find it hard to believe that Jesus was teaching in the temple and everyone, including the priests, left the temple – and the entire temple was empty except Jesus and the woman.
About being alone, it explicitly says that Jesus was alone and then repeats it by saying he only saw the woman. (And I hope you don’t mean that Jesus was looking at the woman like you mentioned. I’ve never heard that applied outside the context of romance, and that would be… weird.) It does strain credulity to the breaking point to say that no one was there besides Jesus and the woman, which again is problematic. I would never say it doesn’t belong based on that, but the evidence is stacked pretty heavily against it and this doesn’t help.
the husband and wife example was probably a poor analogy. I was just making the point that Jesus was so focused on her, that all he seen was her. Sorry.
I still think that, at the very least, the disciples were there to record what they saw.
If this isn’t part of scripture, how does that affect (or is it effect – always get those two words mixed up 😊). God’s preservation of scripture and our faith?
It depends on what you mean by “God’s preservation of scripture”. if you are referring to the belief held by some that God must’ve “preserved the scripture perfectly in all ages” (called the doctrine of preservation), then I suggest you read my article on textual criticism. I don’t believe there’s a scriptural foundation for that belief, which I show in that article. If you hold the more common and reasonable position that God preserved scripture through the plethora of manuscripts we have, then it’s easy. The earliest manuscripts don’t contain it and it contradicts itself as shown in this article, so there’s plenty of evidence that it doesn’t belong.
This story shouldn’t really affect our faith because no central tenant of the faith is affected or taught here that isn’t also taught many other places. In fact, I would argue the faith gets easier because the rest of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is clear that the proper penalty for Biblical adultery (a man having sex with another man’s wife. A married man having sex with an unmarried woman isn’t Biblical adultery, but fornication. See my article on the topic.) is death for both the man and woman.
Thank you for your reply. I agree with your definition of God preserving scripture. Disagree with you that it contradicts itself.
Don’t you think that all this talk about textual variants and textual criticism has undermined the faith of a lot believers? Especially laymen/women who don’t understand all of this stuff.
Don’t you think that all of this talk has also made it harder for sinners to believe God’s word and come to a saving faith in him?
What’s the alternative? If a Christian or unbeliever asks why some Bible translations contain verses that others don’t, how would a man uneducated in textual criticism answer? I’ve encountered Christians who were doubting, and me laying out the basic principles of textual criticism helped their faith.
Conversely, there’s only one group of Christians whose faith seems affected negatively: those who insist that their English translation was penned by God Himself and cannot ever possibly be wrong in even a single word. (Even though it’s only a translation, and I’ve heard this regarding horrible translations) Since the arbiter of doctrine and practice in the Christian faith is the Bible, textual criticism matters. Which verses belong and which ones don’t matters. Every mainstream and semi-mainstream Bible in print to today was created via textual criticism. Even the KJV is a product of (17th century) textual criticism.
(And BTW, the reason I took the time to point out how 99% of the Bible isn’t in doubt in my article on textual criticism is because of the concerns you mentioned. Taught properly, I don’t see how it would weaken someone’s faith.)
I should add that when I said that “contradicts itself”, I was referring to the passage concerning the woman caught in adultery.
Typo:
Eternal Evidence Conclusion
(should be external)-it’s a header
Is there a better way than in the comments to point out typos?
Darrel
Email? It’s on the contact page. And thanks. 🙂
i refer to the comment i made under the name ‘writing on the dust’
february 9th
I’m not so sure about the supposed Bible-breaking error you mention in the pericope. I have a pretty simple solution. Couldn’t Jesus have simply walked to an area of the temple (or outside) where the people were, and continued talking to them there? It’s absurd to think that verse 12 must IMMEDIATELY, within seconds, follow the events of verse 11. As for Jesus writing on the ground in the temple, I’ve actually always found it quite strange… but if that’s the strangest thing that happens in the Bible, I think we’re doing okay.
As for your reasoning that the pericope couldn’t have been removed because it would make the copyists “wicked men”… I just find that such a weak argument. Don’t you argue in favor of the Johannine Comma in another article and give perfectly logical reasons why it would have been removed? It makes perfect sense that the story of the adulterous woman would’ve made some men in the early church uncomfortable, and that it could have fallen out (on purpose *or* accidentally) of early copies. This could also explain it “sliding around” between John and Luke. The story was known to at least some of the church in the early third century… I could see scribes making their copies of John and wanting to insert it back in, but perhaps not remembering where it went. Or scribes of Luke wanting to include it just for completeness’ sake, as with the other harmonizations we find between gospels.
I personally find the pericope genuine, and believe it deserves to be preached from.
As to “writing on the ground” would have meant to be writing in dust, I have seen in Asian cultures, people will write on their hands or other surfaces the strokes of the characters in order to make plain what they are saying. I can imagine that Jesus was writing similarly texts of Leviticus 20:10 (the punishment for both parties in adultery) or Exodus 23:1-3 (against perverting justice as the Pharisees are doing) on the ground in Hebrew or Aramaic characters. The Pharisees could see & be confronted by their own efforts to deceive Jesus.
Here’s a take on this passage by Greek teacher John Niemela, who argues for its authenticity:
“A New Look at the Woman Caught in Adultery (John Niemela)” [Play time 47:25]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0xqcLyDa84
If the Greek in question actually refers to Jesus writing “on” the ground, and the language supports any floor being referred to as ground, then isn’t it reasonable to consider that one can “write” on a surface with ones finger without leaving a mark? Jesus finger was not a pen. No ink flowed out, yet he gave motion to the strokes of letters as if ink were flowing.
Bear with my taking liberty, but is there not something to be said as to the juxtapositioning of Moses writing on the stone tablets and Jesus writing upon the floor of the temple, or of the very earth itself? Jesus was being asked to approve of carrying out the penalty prescribed by the law. Yet whatever he wrote on that floor of the temple must have been in accord with his own mercy for the adulterer and thus superior to the law. Against love there is no law. Mercy triumphs over judgement. Perhaps Jesus was writing “Mercy” in invisible letters as the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus was amending or superceding the law of sin and death.
Furthermore, ever since I have learned of this controversy, I have been amazed at the literalists and the inerrantists who for so long have warned that one discrepancy in the bible is the undoing of it all…yet they are willing to call this passage a mistake. I’m not saying that is you at all. Simply that I am amazed at the sudden willingness of so many to carve out an exception for one of the most beautiful scenes of grace in the entirety of scripture. My cynical side says there is some utility in this for the Pharisaical spirit which has yet to die out of even the Christian religion.
But let’s say it never happened. What would Jesus have done if faced with such a challenge? Can you imagine the one who said “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” handling the situation with any less grace and wisdom?
Is it not in the same vein as Christs subversion of the culture of condemnation by the law when he and his disciples were picking corn on the sabbath?
Morally, spiritually and philosophically this bears all the ear marks of a historical encounter with the Son of God.
Further more, I have heard much weaker arguments for the inclusion of the disputed texts such as Jude and II Peter. But I suppose for those who defend thier inclusion they contain something far more valuable than authenticity, namely scathing condemnations of the enemies de jour of whatever orthadoxy has been offended.
Forgive my mellodramatic tone. I know that I posess nothing of the scholarly and analytical gifts demonstrated on this fascinating forum. But since you opened it for all, I offer my sentiments.
Thanks for your thoughts.