Should John 7:53-8:11 be included in our Bible?

In our Sunday study through the Gospel of John we arrived at chapter 8 and the issue of whether John 7:53-8:11 belongs in our Bible or not.  In other words, is it inspired by God and planned by Him to be included as Holy Scripture or was it added by men and not of God.

We can't be certain either way and we chose on Sunday to study it together trusting that it was of God.  

Here are three commentator's views on this issue for your own reading.  

From James Montgomery Boice’s commentary

I have hand typed this section so only included his pertinent points.  His actual commentary has more info than this.

The difficultly, simply put, is that the majority of the earliest manuscripts of John do not contain these verses and, moreover, that some of the best manuscripts are of this number.  … Does that mean we should just throw out these verses? Interestingly enough very few scholars seem willing to do this, and the fact that a good case can be made out for the other side, should make one cautious in how he deals with it.  I am willing to deal with the story as a genuine – though perhaps not a part of the original Gospel as John wrote it – for the following reasons:

1.  While it is true that most early manuscripts omit this story, it also is true that the story itself is old, regardless of who wrote it or whether or not it was originally in John’s Gospel.
2. Good case can be made for its inclusion at this particular place in John’s Gospel. For one thing, without it the change of thought between the fifty-second verse of chapter seven and the twelfth verse of chapter eight is abrupt and unnatural.  We do not know where Jesus is in John 8:12, nor to whom he is speaking.  For another thing, the introduction of a story at this point seems to fit the pattern that John has been using in these opening chapters.  In each case, from chapter 5 onward, a story is used to set the theme of the teaching that follows.  This is true of this story as well.
3. There is an excellent reason why the story may have been omitted in the early manuscripts.  In a contest with paganism, it is easy to see how the story might have been used by enemies of the gospel to suggest that Christ condoned fornication.  Indeed, this is the reason for its omission given by both Augustine and Ambrose in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.
4. The last reason for dealing with the section is the feeling, which many have had, that this story is indeed true to Christ’s nature, in accord at every point with his perfect holiness, wisdom, and deep compassion.

(Boyce, J.M., (1985). The Gospel According to John, Volume 2 (602). Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan.)

 

From John MacArthur’s commentary

Although it is often cited and taught, this familiar passage may not have actually been an original part of John’s gospel. Along with Mark 16:9–20, it is one of the longest and most famous New Testament texts whose authenticity is questioned. To determine whether or not it was in the original inspired manuscript, two lines of evidence must be considered: the internal evidence (of the passage itself), and the external testimony (of the Greek text, early versions, and church fathers).

 

The passage contains several internal indicators that cast doubt on its authenticity. Its placement here disrupts the flow of thought in this section. In 7:37–52 Jesus referred to one of the rituals associated with the Feast of Tabernacles, the water pouring ceremony (see the exposition of those verses in chapter 26 of this volume). In 8:12 the Lord alluded to the second great ritual associated with the feast, the lamp lighting ceremony (see the exposition of 8:12–21 in chapter 28 of this volume). Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the World in 8:12 follows logically after His claim to be the source of living water in 7:37–52. (The word “again” in verse 12 also implies a continuity between 7:37–52 and 8:12–21.) That claim to be the Light of the World may also be an allusion to Isaiah 9:1–2 (cf. Matt. 4:12–16), and thus an indirect reply to the Pharisees’ contemptuous remark in verse 52 that “no prophet arises out of Galilee.” Interposing the story of the woman taken in adultery obscures the Lord’s rebuttal of the Pharisees’ false claim (cf. Philip Comfort, “The Pericope of the Adulteress,” The Bible Translator 40 [January 1989], 145–47).

 

Since the story does not seem to fit here, some manuscripts insert it in different locations. While the majority place it after John 7:52, some locate it after 7:36, 7:44, 21:25, or even after Luke 21:38. As James R. White notes, “Such moving about by a body of text is plain evidence of its later origin and the attempt on the part of scribes to find a place where it ‘fits’ ” (The King James Only Controversy [Minneapolis: Bethany House 1995], 262). D. A. Carson adds, “The diversity of placement confirms the inauthenticity of the verses” (The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 333).

 

The vocabulary and style of the story offer further evidence that John did not write it (Carson, John, 334; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 883 n. 3; B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John [Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 142). For example, the scribes and Pharisees (8:3), paired so frequently in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; 23:2, 13–15, 23, 25, 27, 29; Mark 2:16; 7:1, 5; Luke 5:21, 30; 6:7; 11:53; 15:2) do not appear together anywhere else in John’s gospel. The passage also suggests that Jesus spent the night on the Mount of Olives (8:1–2). Yet the Synoptic Gospels record that happening only during Passion Week (Luke 21:37; cf. 22:39), which was still about six months away. (It is, of course, possible that Jesus spent nights on the Mount of Olives during earlier visits to Jerusalem and the Synoptic Gospels did not record it.) And though the Synoptic Gospels refer to the Mount of Olives (Matt. 21:1; 24:3; 26:30; Mark 11:1; 13:3; 14:26; Luke 19:29, 37; 21:37; 22:39), John does not (outside of this passage).

 

The external evidence also casts doubt on the authenticity of these verses. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts, from a variety of textual traditions, omit it. Others that do include it mark it to indicate that there were questions regarding its authenticity. Many of the most significant early versions (translations of the Scriptures into other languages) also omit this section. None of the early Greek church fathers—even those who dealt with the text of John verse by verse—commented on this passage. The first to do so was Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century, and even he acknowledged that the accurate manuscripts did not contain it.

 

Some (most notably Augustine) have speculated that overly zealous scribes may have excised this passage from the manuscripts because they feared it was too lenient on adultery. But there is no other known instance of scribes making such an extensive textual deletion on moral grounds (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [New York: United Bible Societies, 1975], 221). If that was the reason this section was deleted, why would the scribes have deleted 7:53–8:2? Those three verses have nothing to do with adultery, and would have connected well with 8:12. And why cut this passage, but leave in the text of John’s gospel the account of the Samaritan woman? She too was guilty of sexual immorality (4:17–18), and Jesus’ rebuke of her was even milder and less direct than His rebuke of the adulterous woman (cf. 8:11).

 

This passage, then, was most likely not part of the original text of John’s gospel. Yet it “is beyond doubt an authentic fragment of apostolic tradition” (Westcott, John, 125) that describes an actual historical event from Christ’s life. It contains no teaching that contradicts the rest of Scripture. The picture it paints of the wise, loving, forgiving Savior is consistent with the Bible’s portrait of Jesus Christ. Nor is it the kind of story the early church would have made up about Him. “No ascetically minded monk [most of the scribes who copied the early manuscripts were monks] would have invented a narrative which closes with what seems to be only a mild rebuke on Jesus’ part” (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament [New York: Oxford, 1982], 223).

 

The story was most likely history, a piece of oral tradition that circulated in parts of the Western church. (Most of the limited early support for its authenticity comes from Western manuscripts and versions, and from Western church fathers such as Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine.) Eventually, it was written down and found its way into the later manuscripts. Because it is not possible to be absolutely certain that this story was added later, its exposition is included in this commentary.

 

This passage is not primarily the story of an adulteress, or of the hypocritical religious leaders who cynically used her to attack Jesus. The central figure of this gripping drama of immorality, hypocrisy, and forgiveness, as in all of John’s gospel, is the Lord Jesus Christ. From it a fourfold picture of Him emerges. The passage reveals His humility, His wisdom, His indictment, and His forgiveness.

(MacArthur, J. (2006). The MacArthur New Testament commentary : John 1-11 (322–324). Chicago: Moody Press.)

 

DA Carson’s commentary:

These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek miniscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representing great diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church Fathers omit this narrative: in commenting on John, they pass immediately from 7:52 to 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. Didymus the Blind (a fourth-century exegete from Alexandria) reports a variation on this narrative, not the narrative as we have it here. Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli, indicating hesitation as to its authenticity, while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants. Although most of the manuscripts that include the story place it here (i.e. at 7:53–8:11), some place it instead after Luke 21:38, and other witnesses variously place it after John 7:44, John 7:36 or John 21:25. The diversity of placement confirms the inauthenticity of the verses. Finally, even if someone should decide that the material is authentic, it would be very difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine: there are numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in John, but which are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular (cf notes, below).

On the other hand, there is little reason for doubting that the event here described occurred, even if in its written form it did not in the beginning belong to the canonical books. Similar stories are found in other sources. One of the best known, reported by Papias (and recorded by the historian Eusebius, H.E. III xxxix. 16), is the account of a woman, accused in the Lord’s presence of many sins (unlike the woman here who is accused of but one). The narrative before us also has a number of parallels (some of them noted below) with stories in the Synoptic Gospels. The reason for its insertion here may have been to illustrate 7:24 and 8:15 or, conceivably, the Jews’ sinfulness over against Jesus’ sinlessness (8:21, 24, 46).

(Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (333–334). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans.)

The following is a general description about the manuscripts we have for the Old and New Testament and some information showing how reliable they are.   The following is copied from Reasoning from the Scriptures website.  For original go to www.home.earthlink.net/~ronhodes. 

The Variants in the New Testament Manuscripts Are Minimal

In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants."

This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind.

But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear.

Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.

To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever.

Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.

Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them.

For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty.

Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life.

Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations) we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.

By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.

Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:

• Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.
• Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
• Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.
• Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.
• Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.

Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.

This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 150,000 variants are solved by the above methodology.

By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said.

Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way.

We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said.

If the number of [manuscripts] increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.

The New Testament Versus Other Ancient Books

By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled!

There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.

Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have a documentation infinitely less solid."

Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact."

Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:

No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.

The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.

The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.

The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.

From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text."

Support for the New Testament from the Church Fathers

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, in addition to the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are over 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the early church fathers. There are also New Testament quotations in thousands of early church Lectionaries (worship books).

There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.

Manuscript Evidence for the Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.

In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).

The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes.

The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.

A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.

Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.

The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."

From manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians have undeniable evidence that today's Old Testament Scripture, for all practical purposes, is exactly the same as it was when originally inspired by God and recorded in the Bible.

Combine this with the massive amount of manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament, and it is clear that the Christian Bible is a trustworthy and reliable book.

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work.

These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word, so they went to incredible lengths to prevent error from creeping into their work.

The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to ensure accuracy.