The John 7:53 - 8:11 Forgery?

[Vision]

Hey guys,

I’ve been discussing whether certain texts in the bible are authentic with some friends of mine and one of them brought up the assertion that many scholars conclude that the story about the woman caught in adultry is a forgery that was added later around the 5th century. They pointed me to religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm, which didn’t seem to cite any sources for this assertion.

Anyways, anyone know of any good web resources that touch on this subject?

 

[Todd_Easton]

The verses are discussed in the 1859 Haydock Commentary on John 8:1:
Ver. 1, &c. The last verse of the foregoing chapter, and the eleven verses that follow in this, are not found in the greater part of our present Greek copies, yet they are in some manuscripts and so are retained in the Protestant translation. We read nothing of them in the commentaries of St. Chrysostom or St. Cyril; but St. Jerome (lib. ii. con. Pelag. tom. 4, part 2, p. 521. Ed. Ben.) says, they were found in many both Latin and Greek copies. St. Ambrose (Ep. 52.) says this passage, of the woman taken in adultery, was always famous in the Church. St. Augustine expounds them, tract. in Joan., &c. (Witham)

The footnote on John 7:53ff in the 1970 New American Bible says:7,53ff: The story of the adulteress is missing from the best early Greek MSS. Where it does appear, it is found in different places in different MSS: here; or after 7,36; or at the end of this gospel; or after Lk21,38. It seems to have been preserved largely in Western and Latin circles. There are many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful readings. It appears in Jerome’s Vulgate. However, it is certainly out of place here; it fits better with the general situation in Lk21,38. The Catholic Church accepts it as inspired Scripture.

 

[Todd_Easton]

In a discussion on the Integrity of the Gospel of John in *A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture *(1953, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, and others), pages 978-979, it says, in part:

… The passage of the Adulteress, 7:53-8:11, remains [to be discussed]. Is it by St John?

. The case is briefly as follows. Most important MSS and versions omit this passage from Jn. They are B, S, A, C, W, Theta, etc., many minuscules, the Syriac, Sahidic and Armenian versions, many Latin MSS prior to St Jerome. The Greek Fathers do not comment on it, and it seems to have been unknown to Tertullian and Cyrpian. Many MSS note it with an asterick or insert it after Jn 21:24 or Lk 21:38 (Ferrar Group). Moreover, it seems strangely thrown in between our Lord’s discourses and has features of vocabulary and style more like the Synoptics.

. On the other hand D[Codex Bezae?] and six other unicals have it as well as the great majority of cursives, about 100 Evangeliaria, the Egyptian Bohairic, several Old Latin texts and Vg[Vulgate]. It was known to many Greek writers who did not comment on it, even, it seems to Papias (Eus., HE[Eusebius, *History of the Church] III 39). The Latin Fathers Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine give it full recognition. Jerome says ‘in multis graecis et latinis codicibus invenitur de adultera’ (Adv. Pelag. ii. 19), and Augustine supposes it was omitted from some texts because Christ’s conduct seemed too lenient (De Conj. Adult. ii. 6). It is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 24 (4th cent.).
. The difference of style is not conclusive against its Johannine origin, for it is permissible to any writer when dealing with an unusual subject to use words he does not employ elsewhere. Renan even maintained that there is nothing in the passage at variance with the style of the Fourth Gospel. It seems however to prove the point one way or the other.
. Is the passage a genuine part of the Gospel tradition? On the assumption that it is not, no adequate reason can be found to account for its insertion in so many texts, which show that it was widely current at least by the 3rd cent. and known in the 2nd (Papias). But in an age when sins of the flesh were punished with severity by the Christian church, as a reaction against pagan licence, the periscope may well have caused surprise and even scandal (as Augustine suggests), and then have been omitted from many texts. With the milder discipline of the 4th cent. the passage would gradually have re-established itself as authentic. The decree of the Council of Trent declaring the Books of the Bible with all their parts as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be inspired and canonical is always regarded as including this passage.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Todd Easton:

It was known to many Greek writers …, even, it seems to Papias (Eus., HE[Eusebius, *History of the Church

] III 39).

In the Protestant translation and commentary found at www.ccel.org, of Eusebius, History of the Church, book III, 39.16, on the Writings of Papias, it says, in part:16. … And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.967

The accompanying footnote says:967. It is very likely that the story referred to here is identical with the story of the woman taken in adultery, given in some mss., at the close of the eighth chapter of John’s Gospel. The story was clearly not contained in the original Gospel of John, but we do not know from what source it crept into that Gospel, possibly from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where Eusebius says the story related by Papias was found. It must be noticed that Eusebius does not say that Papias took the story from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but only that it was contained in that Gospel. We are consequently not justified in claiming this statement of Eusebius as proving that Papias himself was acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see above, chap. 25, note 24). He may have taken it thence, or he may, on the other hand, have taken it simply from oral tradition, the source whence he derived so many of his accounts, or, possibly, from the lost original Gospel, the “Ur-Matthæus.”

 

[Verbum]

Hi Vision,

Forgery implies fraudulous intent. This is not the case, as this passage, although apparently not in the first manuscripts of John’s Gospel, is considered inspired by the Catholic Church. As seen from some of the above posts, various explanations are given for this insertion, but they are all speculative.

Verbum

 

[Vision]

Thank you guys. I really appreciate it. That is EXACTLY what I needed. Thank you everyone for pointing me in the right direction.

 

[Forever_His]

Verbum:

Hi Vision,

Forgery implies fraudulous intent. This is not the case, as this passage, although apparently not in the first manuscripts of John’s Gospel, is considered inspired by the Catholic Church. As seen from some of the above posts, various explanations are given for this insertion, but they are all speculative.

Verbum

Can someone tell me in plain english if the story of the adulterous woman was added to the text of John later (when) and by whom?

 

[MEP]

Forever His:

Can someone tell me in plain english if the story of the adulterous woman was added to the text of John later (when) and by whom?

No, I don’t think anyone can. All that can be said is that the Catholic Church recognizes the story as inspired scripture and maintains its placement in the Gospel of John. The above information is the best guess(es) as to whether it actually originated in John’s gospel or somewhere else (though there may be more speculation than just what is posted above).

Personally, I kind of like the last theory posted by Todd Easton…

Is the passage a genuine part of the Gospel tradition? On the assumption that it is not, no adequate reason can be found to account for its insertion in so many texts, which show that it was widely current at least by the 3rd cent. and known in the 2nd (Papias). But in an age when sins of the flesh were punished with severity by the Christian church, as a reaction against pagan licence, the periscope may well have caused surprise and even scandal (as Augustine suggests), and then have been omitted from many texts. With the milder discipline of the 4th cent. the passage would gradually have re-established itself as authentic. The decree of the Council of Trent declaring the Books of the Bible with all their parts as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be inspired and canonical is always regarded as including this passage.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Vision:

Hey guys,

I’ve been discussing whether certain texts in the bible are authentic with some friends of mine and one of them brought up the assertion that many scholars conclude that the story about the woman caught in adultry is a forgery that was added later around the 5th century. They pointed me to religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm, which didn’t seem to cite any sources for this assertion.

Anyways, anyone know of any good web resources that touch on this subject?

The best thing to do is to get a Greek NT - such as the United Bible Societies editions of it - with critical apparatus, and see which manuscripts are quoted as supplying which readings of the parts of the text.​

The episode may really belong to Luke - it is sometimes found after Luke 21.38 & (IIRC) the language is more Lukan than Johannine.

“Forgery” sounds like an attention-grabbing term used by the sort of people who know nothing about textual criticism. ##

 

[Lazerlike42]

tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html

Pretty decent info usually availible there

 

[Forever_His]

MEP:

No, I don’t think anyone can. All that can be said is that the Catholic Church recognizes the story as inspired scripture and maintains its placement in the Gospel of John. The above information is the best guess(es) as to whether it actually originated in John’s gospel or somewhere else (though there may be more speculation than just what is posted above).

Personally, I kind of like the last theory posted by Todd Easton…

Thank you. Coincidentally some one just asked about this on a secular forum I sometimes read. Any suggestions on a response?

Does it bother any Christian that the story from John about casting the first stone wasn’t found in any Bible before the 12th century? If people were putting words in Jesus’ mouth a thousand years after his death, isn’t it logical to assume they were doing it all along?

 

[RyanL]

Forever His:

Thank you. Coincidentally some one just asked about this on a secular forum I sometimes read. Any suggestions on a response?

You may point him to the Vulgate. Translated in the early 5th century, this pre-dates his assertion by several hundred years and includes the story in question. And yes, there are verifiable surviving manuscripts.

This is really a stupid assertion that is readily proved wrong. Quite likely, this is internet cascade mis-information.

God bless,
RyanL

 

[Forever_His]

RyanL:

You may point him to the Vulgate. Translated in the early 5th century, this pre-dates his assertion by several hundred years and includes the story in question. And yes, there are verifiable surviving manuscripts.

This is really a stupid assertion that is readily proved wrong. Quite likely, this is internet cascade mis-information.

God bless,
RyanL

Thank you Ryan. I was ready to point that out but the link is a great addition.

 

[Forever_His]

BTW: Ryan, how is your little one? Are you getting any sleep?

 

[Forever_His]

## The best thing to do is to get a Greek NT - such as the United Bible Societies editions of it - with critical apparatus, and see which manuscripts are quoted as supplying which readings of the parts of the text.

The episode may really belong to Luke - it is sometimes found after Luke 21.38 & (IIRC) the language is more Lukan than Johannine.

“Forgery” sounds like an attention-grabbing term used by the sort of people who know nothing about textual criticism. ##

I confess that this is not an area I am familiar with. I can see how someone can come to the conclusion that the verses were “made up” if they simply appeared one day. What is the simpliest way to explain that this is not the case?

 

[TOME]

I think Todd Easton and Goggle of Geer’s post really answers the question of this thread with some important back ground. So I won’t add to theirs.

Building from them, however, I would like to add the importance of understanding how God used human instruments in His written Revelation. Quite often, more in protestant chat rooms than here, people seem that the Gospels were written by four men, perhaps lock in a room and had their Gospel dictated to them by Christ maybe through the Holy Spirit.

The Gospels are a Faith document developed over many years, from the Faith Response of different Faith Communities. Some times borrowing from an earlier Gospel, sometimes relying on different oral traditions particular to their community and sometimes from common sources used in creating both canonical
Gospels and non-canonicl works.

But the most important thing I’m trying to stress here is that the Gospels are Faith Documents which developed from various Faith Communities and their response to the Gospel Message.

 

[adventistnomore]

You know what I find funny… Skeptics (even Muslims) love to bring up passages of the Bible that may have been later additions as proof of the Bible’s corruption.

Funny though… we know all the texts that are in question, and all the issues behind them. And they dont change ** one iota ** of the faith. Instead, they use these documented examples to make the untenable/unprovable claim that the Bible is beyond repair… PLEASE!!!

 

[anawim]

There are a few other passages in the NT that were also disputed.

In John 5:4a “And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond and the water was moved.”

In the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus sweats blood.