Does John 7:53—8:11 belong in the Bible?

The passage of John 7:53—8:11, often referred to as the Pericope Adulterae, has been the subject of much debate among scholars regarding its authenticity and whether it originally belonged in the Gospel of John. The passage describes an encounter between Jesus and a woman caught in adultery, where Jesus challenges those who would stone her by saying “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

There are several reasons why the authenticity of this passage has been questioned:

• It is missing from the earliest and best Greek manuscripts of John’s gospel.
• Its writing style and vocabulary differs somewhat from the rest of John’s gospel.
• It interrupts the flow of the narratives before and after.
• It is absent from early commentaries on John’s gospel and may not have been known to some early church fathers.

On the other hand, there are also arguments in favor of the passage’s authenticity and Johannine authorship:

• It is found in the majority of later Greek manuscripts.
• It is cited by multiple early church fathers beginning in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
• Its message and content are consistent with Jesus’ teachings and actions elsewhere in the gospels.
• Its account of Jesus’ mercy to the woman fits his compassionate character.

Ultimately, there is no scholarly consensus on whether it was originally part of John’s gospel or was added later. However, most modern English translations include it but mark it off with brackets or notes indicating the textual uncertainty. While its canonicity is debated, the passage remains theologically rich and an inspiring account of Jesus’ compassion and wisdom.

External Evidence Regarding the Passage’s Authenticity

One of the major factors in evaluating the authenticity of John 7:53—8:11 is the external manuscript evidence. Here are some key observations:

• The passage is missing from the earliest and best Greek manuscripts, including the 4th century codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
• It first appears in Greek manuscripts from the 5th and 6th centuries, though in different locations within John’s gospel.
• By the 8th century, it became more consistently placed after John 7:52.
• It was likely not originally included in some early versions like the original Syriac and Coptic translations.
• Several notable early Greek writers seem unaware of the passage, like Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem.

On the other hand:

• The passage is found in the majority of later Greek manuscripts from centuries after the earliest documents.
• It is cited by multiple Greek church fathers beginning in the late 4th century, like Ambrosiaster, Pacian, and Augustine.
• Ancient Latin translations like the Vulgate include the passage.
• Some claim traces of very early Greek manuscript evidence, but this is debated.

So externally, the evidence seems to weigh toward the passage not being original to John’s gospel. Yet the mixed nature of the external attestation makes it difficult to be certain.

Internal Evidence Regarding Style, Content, and Context

Beyond the external data, scholars have also observed internal features which create questions about the passage’s fit within John’s gospel:

• The writing style and vocabulary differs somewhat from the rest of John’s gospel.
• Jesus’ statement “Let him who is without sin…” has no parallel in John’s reported teachings of Jesus.
• The passage seems to interrupt the flow of narrative in John 7 and 8.
• In John 8:12, Jesus claims to be the “light of the world”—this theme seems disconnected from 8:1-11.
• There is no clear consensus where in John the passage best fits.

However, defenders of the passage argue:

• The language and style are not totally incompatible with John’s gospel.
• Jesus’ mercy and defense of the woman aligns well with his compassionate character in John.
• The Pharisees testing Jesus fits the theological confrontation seen in John’s gospel.
• John may have intentionally placed it here as an epitome of Jesus’ ministry.

So there are reasoned cases made both for its connection and disconnection to John stylistically and contextually. This internal data gives no consensus either way.

History of Inclusion and Exclusion

Given the inconclusive manuscript evidence, it is helpful to look at the historical handling of this passage:

• In the early church, evidence suggests it was likely not in some copies of John. Yet no copies containing it are extant.
• Church father Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398) claims it was being removed by some scribes to avoid seeming too forgiving toward adultery.
• But the passage was increasingly included in the 5th century onwards, with inconsistent placement in John.
• In the Middle Ages, marked as doubtful in some Latin manuscripts but included by most.
• Erasmus omitted it from his first two editions of the Greek New Testament (1516, 1519) due to lack of Greek manuscript evidence.
• It was incorporated into the Textus Receptus Greek text after being found in Codex Bezae (D) in 1520.
• Critics since have continued to argue for its inauthenticity or question its placement.

So the passage has seen a mixed history of inclusion, exclusion, and questioning. This again shows the difficulty in being certain whether it was originally part of John’s gospel or added later.

Evidence Synthesis and Current Scholarship

In evaluating all the evidence, most scholars conclude:

• The external manuscript evidence weighs toward inauthenticity, given its absence in the earliest witnesses.
• But its presence in the majority of later Greek manuscripts gives plausibility to its Johnannine connection.
• Styles analysis neither strongly confirms nor rules out Johannine authorship.
• Its theology aligns with Jesus’ teachings, but interrupts the narrative flow in John 7-8.
• It was likely originally floating in the oral tradition before being incorporated into copies of John.

So most scholars consider the passage inauthentic to John’s gospel, but likely containing an authentic tradition about Jesus. There is no consensus about its original place in the New Testament, so its location in John 7:53—8:11 remains disputed.

Bruce Metzger summarizes the evidence well:

“The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as P66, P75, א, B, L, N, T, W, X, Y, D, θ, ψ, 33, 124, 700, 892, 1241…External evidence alone would be decisive against its authenticity. As B. F. Westcott observed, ‘No historical trustworthiness attaches to a paragraph which was for centuries arbitrarily transferred from one Gospel to another'” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament).

So modern scholarly consensus sees it as probably inauthentic to John, but possibly an authentic tradition incorporated secondarily. Most now affirm the value of its witness to Jesus’ character and teaching, while noting the textual uncertainty.

Interpreting the Passage in Light of Textual Questions

The likely inauthenticity of John 7:53—8:11 does impact how believers should interpret and apply the passage:

• It should not be used for building doctrine, since doctrines require unambiguous Scriptural authority.
• Jesus’ statement “Let him who is without sin…” must be balanced with rest of New Testament teachings on judgment, sin, ethics, and church discipline.
• The passage is still theologically congruent with Jesus’ compassion, grace, and wisdom seen throughout the Gospels.
• While likely not original to John, it can still inspire Christians to show mercy as Jesus did.
• The textual uncertainty enables us to value the passage’s message while interpreting it in light of other more certain texts.

So for interpretation, the textual questions legitimately give this passage less authority than undisputed portions of Scripture. But its portrait of Jesus’ character retains inspirational value when seen in balance with biblical teaching as a whole.

Translation and Canon Considerations

This passage also raises issues for Bible translation and canon policy:

• English translations are divided: some omit it entirely (ESV), relegate it to footnotes (NIV), or include it marked off (NRSV).
• There are reasonable cases for each approach, given the complexities of the evidence.
• For the canon, few argue it should be removed, since traditionally part of John for over a millennium.
• But it is appropriate for it to remain marked off given the textual uncertainties.
• Its canonicity is questioned, but its traditional location in John seems settled.

So while the passage’s original inclusion in John remains debated, most Bible translations and the church historic canon include it marked off in some way. This seems a reasonable approach given its traditional presence and the lack of consensus.

Conclusion

In summary, the textual evidence regarding John 7:53—8:11 is complex and much debated. There are reasonable cases in both directions. But most scholars conclude the following:

• It was likely not originally part of John’s gospel, but added in some later manuscripts.
• But it may contain an authentic tradition regarding Jesus’ teaching and character.
• Its traditional location in John is well-established, so unlikely to change.
• It should likely remain marked off given the uncertainties over its origin.
• When interpreted in light of the rest of Scripture, it remains an inspiring depiction of Jesus’ grace and wisdom.

So this long-debated passage will likely remain part of our New Testaments. And Christians can still appreciate its portrayal of Christ’s mercy, even while recognizing it may not have been part of John’s original inspired gospel account.