LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY:

THE APORIA OF JOHN 7:53-8:11

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. CAMPBELL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE COURSE NBST 655

LIBERTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

BY

JOEL DORMAN

LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2010

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1

Internal Evidence against the Pericope............................................................................................1

External Evidence against the Pericope...........................................................................................3

Potential Solutions...........................................................................................................................4

Total Inclusion.......................................................................................................................5

Total Exclusion......................................................................................................................5

Conditional Inclusion.............................................................................................................7

Final Thoughts.................................................................................................................................8

Bibliography....................................................................................................................................9

i.
 1

Introduction

John 7:53-8:11 gives the account of a woman “caught in the act of adultery”.1 This story

presents Jesus standing in the temple courts with a crowd awaiting the teaching from this unique

Man. Attempting to gain evidence to use against Jesus, the Pharisees present the woman and

demand an answer: kill her or set her free. After writing on the ground, Jesus ends the

confrontation with the often-quoted declaration, “If any of you is without sin, let him be the first

to throw a stone at her.”2 After the accusers of the woman leave, Jesus tells her, “go, and sin no

more”.3 A story full of grace, redemption, and emotion, the pericope of the adulterous woman is

a witness that “the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.”4

There is, however, a glaring problem with John 7:53-8:11: it is highly doubtful it was

ever a part of John’s Gospel. The evidence against the pericope’s inclusion in John Gospel is

outstanding. Carson asserts, “Modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the

text (NIV) or to relegate it to a footnote (RSV).”5 To that end, this paper presents the internal and

external evidence against the pericope and offers potential solutions for its use in contemporary

Bible study, teaching, and preaching.

Internal Evidence against the Pericope

Before any information is presented regarding external sources against the pericope’s

inclusion in the text, it is better to begin with the Gospel itself and the internal evidence against

the inclusion of John 7:53-8:11.

1
John 8:4b, New International Version. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is taken from The Holy
Bible: New International Version. electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, 1984.
2
John 8:7b.
3
John 8:11b, King James Version.
4
Luke 19:10.
5
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity
Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 333.
 2

Köstenberger, analyzing the Greek behind the English translations, presents the

uniqueness of the words. Of the eighty-two (Greek) words used in the verses between John 7:53

and 8:11, fourteen are exclusive to the Gospel of John. This means seventeen percent of the

Greek words in this pericope are not repeated anywhere else in the Gospel of John.

Köstenberger also demonstrates, with the exception of John 8:5, every verse between John 7:53

and John 8:11 contains one of these exclusive words. Additionally, he submits that of the

remaining words used, many of them are rare, although present, in John’s writing.6 Even though

translators have attempted to level the differences in vocabulary, the story still possesses an

observable difference in words and usage.

Concurring with these conclusions, Carson contributes that even the syntactical

constructions and phrases are not found in the rest of the Gospel of John. Therefore, if this

pericope is authentic and historical, he concludes it is more akin to the writing style of Luke than

John.7 While agreeing this pericope bears more of the tone and technique of the Synoptic

Gospels, Beasley-Murray adds the complication of the high proportion of textual variants found

therein. “It is clear,” he concludes, “that the story was not penned by the Fourth Evangelist (or

any of the other Gospel writers)”.8

The internal evidence against the aporia of the adulterous woman summarizes as a

comparison between John 7:53-8:11 and the rest of the Gospel of John. Significant portions of

the words are foreign to the rest of the book while many of the remaining words are rare in

6
Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004), 245-246.
7
Carson, 333.
8
George R. Beasley-Murray, vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary: John, Word Biblical Commentary
(Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 143.
 3

John’s writing. Furthermore, the method of phrase construction with these words is foreign to

John’s Gospel and resembles more of the writing style used in the other Gospels.

External Evidence against the Pericope

The external evidence only bolsters the internal clues. Providing no level of certainly or

stability, John 7:53-8:11 only presents more doubt through canonical history. In many cases, the

external evidence is silence—not only in terms of comment, but in terms of absence.

This pericope, while included in the Greek miniscule manuscripts from the medieval

period, is not included in the vast majority of the oldest Greek manuscripts. Reinforcing this

absence, these verses are excluded throughout the diversity of the families of texts. Furthermore,

many of the manuscripts that do include this pericope do so with notations marking its

questionable nature.9

Discussion and commentary on the aporia of the adulterous woman does not begin in the

Western traditions until the twelfth century with Euthymius Zigabenus who affirmed this section

of John is not included in the correct editions. Further silence of commentary or comment of this

pericope comes in the form of the early church fathers: Cyprian, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.

Eastern traditions are not much better: this story finds no reference until the tenth century.10

Of the manuscripts including this pericope, it is found in different places: after John 7:36,

John 7:44, 7:52 (its contemporary location). Some manuscripts add it as an addendum at the end

of the Gospel while others place it after Luke 21:38.11 This unsettled location does nothing to

help support the claim of authenticity and canonicity.

9
Carson, 333.
10
Beasley-Murray, 143.
11
Köstenberger, 247.
 4

Adding to the mystery of this pericope, there are oblique references to a story that

resembles John 7:53-8:11. For example, in the second century Eusebius reports Papias “told

another story about a woman who was accused of many sins in the presence of the Lord, a story

which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.”12 The “Gospel according to the

Hebrews” is not the book of Hebrews in the Bible, but a noncanonical “Gospel” whose

publication is best determined as approximately A.D. 150 in Egypt.13 While some of the details

of this story by Papias differ from the John 7:53-8:11 account, the internal evidence

demonstrates the numerous textual variants. As such, this could be the same story. If this

pericope was located in the “Gospel according to the Hebrews”, then it should be rejected along

with the other contents (of the “Gospel according to the Hebrews”) as uninspired and

noncanonical.

The external evidence, then, only supports the internal evidence against the aporia of the

adulterous woman. If it was a true story, then it was first recorded in noncanonical books and

not the four canonical Gospels. The clear consensus of the manuscript evidence, although not

without some minor objections, verifies it was never included in John. Of the few manuscripts

that do include it, the pericope bounces between locations inside the Gospel (or moves to another

Gospel account).

Potential Solutions

Although the internal and external evidence weighs very heavily against the aporia of the

adulterous woman, it is still included in modern translations. It is still a loved story of mercy,

grace, and forgiveness. Data alone does not provide the balance to the equation. What does one

do with this popular story, however much in doubt, since it is included in the translations of John
12
Beasley-Murray, 143.
13
David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers and Astrid B. Beck, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 570.
 5

and enjoys a rich history in the church? Although there may be variations of these potential

solutions, the results still conclude to three categories: total inclusion, total exclusion, and

compromised inclusion.

Total Inclusion

Total inclusion is what many in the church have done over the past several hundred years.

The story is presented, perhaps even without any reference to the footnotes in modern English

translations, and taught as inspired and the message of mercy, hope, and repentance is presented

for another generation. This appears to be the weakest approach.

Contemporary congregations have footnotes in their Bibles reading, “The earliest

manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.”14 Much as this writer did

as a teenager, people will wonder as to its authenticity whether the subject is directly addressed

or not. This writer has witnessed the questionable nature of the text presented in messages in

which the preacher, without any evidence to support his conclusion, suddenly announces its

authenticity. Certainly, the people of God deserve better. Furthermore, if one were to merely

teach the passage and make no reference whatsoever to this footnote and the implications, then

one is hoping for ignorance of the congregation at best and being dishonest to the congregation at

worst.

Total Exclusion

Being the exact opposite, total exclusion simply does not teach the text. Whether or not

the evidence is presented before moving past the pericope is irrelevant. In the end, the text of

John 7:53-8:11 is not taught or presented. Köstenberger concurs with total exclusion,

The pericope is no different from other possibly authentic sayings of Jesus that
may be found in New Testament apocryphal literature. Thus, though it may be
possible to derive a certain degree of edification from the study of this pericope,
14
Footnote on John 7:53, NIV.
 6

proper conservatism and caution suggest that the passage be omitted from
preaching in the churches…15

Köstenberger truly believes and validates this, as he offers no commentary on the

pericope. Despite the same conclusions for the material’s authenticity, the other

commentaries surveyed for this project did not make such a broad statement as to the

pericope’s inclusion or exclusion.

The issues relating to total exclusion are complex and demand some level of

treatment. First, this pericope is a loved story. Releasing this story’s authenticity is

tantamount to heresy to some Christians in the pew and the pulpit. The accusations

would match those used against liberalism: cutting out parts of the Bible, doubting the

Bible’s authenticity, and reliance on external “facts”.

Second, because one pastor in one pulpit excludes it, it does not mean Bible study

literature, small group discipleship materials, and all other preachers and teachers draw

the same conclusion. While the evidence overwhelmingly reveals John 7:53-8:11 is not

in the original Gospel (and, thus, a later addition), is one prepared to face the onslaught of

other materials that for tradition’s benefit conclude differently?

Third, if the passage is excluded from teaching, regardless of the presence or

absence of public explanation, one must be prepared for inevitable questions of the

construction of the Bible and the decisions for canonicity. Certainly, if one has served in

the position of pastor-teacher for any time, they have had to deal with textual variants and

perhaps have laid the groundwork for this discussion. Nevertheless, the theories of

transmission, canonicity requirements, and textual criticism are sciences with which the

average Christian has little familiarity.

15
Köstenberger, 248.
 7

Conditional Inclusion

Some teachers choose the mediating position of a conditional inclusion of the text. After

presenting all the evidence, Carson concludes, “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.”16 Carson implies, then, it is appropriate to teach it. In addition, Carson offers

commentary on John 7:53-8:11. If one adopts the approach of Carson, then the passage can be

presented with all of its faults and taught based on the fact that there is no compelling reason to

doubt the authenticity of the event, in spite of the doubt of authenticity of the account.

If the text were presented in this manner, it resembles the approach of total inclusion: the

evidence is presented and the conclusion is to teach it as authentic, the evidence notwithstanding.

The subtle difference in this conditional inclusion is the acknowledgement that the pericope, as it

is written, may not be authentic, but the picture offered of the Lord Jesus Christ is consistent

with that of the rest of Scripture. “There is no reason to doubt its substantial truth,” Beasley-

Murray writes, “The saying…it preserves is completely in character with what we know of our

Lord...”17

Conditional inclusion would certainly counteract the charges of “cutting out of the Bible”

but it seems to contradict the thinking-faith preachers and teachers encourage. If the evidence

overwhelmingly concludes the aporia of the adulterous woman is not authentic, then its

“substantial truth” is irrelevant. There are many apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books also

containing the same “substantial truth”; nevertheless, they are rejected. On what grounds would

these books be rejected when the same evidence calls for John 7:53-8:11 to be rejected?

16
Carson, 333.
17
Beasley-Murray, 143.
 8

Admittedly, those are entire books and this pericope is just a small section; even so, the criteria

for canonicity should remain consistent.

Final Thoughts

The issues surrounding the pericope of the adulterous woman recorded in John 7:53-8:11

are complex. It has been included in English translations for so long, there is no longer any

generation in the church that has not learned from it. At the same time, however, there was no

evidence presented in any of the commentaries surveyed that authenticated the pericope. As far

as research demonstrates, John 7:53-8:11 was a later insertion into the Gospel. The aporia

presented in this paper has internal and external evidence overwhelmingly against its

authenticity. Of the three potential solutions, the only tenable resolution is total exclusion.

Despite the grace, mercy, love, and redemption presented in the adulterous woman aporia, the

validity of these traits of the Lord Jesus Christ finds no diminishment by the elimination of this

pericope.

Bibliography
 9

Beasley-Murray, George R. Vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary : John. Word Biblical
Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-
Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.

Freedman, David Noel, Allen C. Myers and Astrid B. Beck. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004.