Why the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) belongs in the Bible.

Christ and the woman taken in adultery,
 drawing by Rembrandt

The Pericope Adulterae or the story of the woman caught in adultery refers to John 7:53–8:11, which eclectic textual critics today regard as uninspired. Although it is found in most modern translations, it is always footnoted to say that it is not original. This passage has been used by millions of Christian throughout history, being a strong depiction of the wisdom of Jesus Christ and to take this passage out of the scriptures to me is disastrous. I thus take the opposite view to most modern eclectic textual critics, as I believe that this text belongs to the original text of John. 

This article will seek to defend the story as a part of the original gospel of John.

Manuscript Evidence

Firstly, it should be noted that the wast majority of all manuscripts contain this story. It is present in virtually all of the Byzantine text-type manuscripts which although are later than the Alexandrian manuscripts, constitute a majority of all New Testament manuscripts in Greek that exist. Thus, the one who wishes to reject this as an authentic story must ask themselves, how is it possible that the scribes would have added such an edit into the text? What motives would there be for scribes to add this into the text in large numbers?

However, those who deny this as an authentic part of the New Testament scripture often argue that this text is not found in the most early manuscripts, thus the later ones do not have the same weight, even if there are more of them.
Even though it is true that particularly the manuscripts of the Alexandrian region lack this text, it is still found in the early Codex Bezae from the 400s. The Codex Bezae includes the Pericope Adulterae within the main text, without indicating any doubt on its authenticity. It is also found very early on in the Latin manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate dates to the late 4th century, which is close to the timing of the Vaticanus and the manuscripts used by Jerome were likely of similar age as the Vaticanus. Therefore, the Latin Vulgate is an important witness to the Pericope Adulterae. It is also found in many of the Vetus Latina manuscripts, and so the comments that this story is missing from the earliest manuscripts is very selective, as it does not take into account the early Western manuscripts.

Codex Delta's blank space

It should also be noted that some of the manuscripts which do not contain this text still contain a large blank space, which is just  enough to fit in John 7:53-8:11. Therefore, although the scribes may have not seen it as authorative, this testifies to the scribes' memories of the text being in existence.

A short list of some manuscripts before the 10th century which include the pericope include:

• Latin Vulgate (383ad) (although we do not have the original Vulgate manuscript, we know that the original included the passage)  (Latin)
• Codex Bezae (400ad) (Latin and Greek)
• Codex Palatinus (400ad) (Latin)
• Codex Corbeiensis (400ad) (Latin)
• Codex Veronesis (400ad) (Latin)
• Codex Sarzanesis (400ad) (Latin)
• Codex Fuldensis (541ad) (Latin)
• Codex Usserianus Primus (600ad) (Latin)
• Unicial 047 (700ad) (Greek)
• Unicial 0233 (700ad) (Greek)
• Book of Mulling (700ad) (Latin)
• Basilensis A. N. III. 12 (700ad) (Greek)
• Seidelianus (800ad) (Greek)
• Cyprius (800ad) (Greek)
• Campianus (800ad) (Greek)
• Unicial 030 (800ad) (Greek)
• Petropolitanus (800ad) (Greek)
• Boorelianus (875ad) (Greek)

The Early Christians

We find this story quoted by multiple early Christians early on, especially within the western church. It was quoted as scripture by Ambrose (4th century), Augustine (4th century), Jerome (4th century), Pacian (4th century), Peter Chrysologus (5th century), Prosper of Aquitane (5th century) and Cassiodorus (6th century):

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 (Pacian)

None of the accusers of the woman taken in adultery were without sin. Christ wrote their names in the earth (Jerome, Against the Pelagians (Book 2.17))

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, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum)

 Now, it is not contested that this text was widely know in the Western church, nevertheless due to an outdated claim, some have argued that this passage was totally unknown in the writings of the east until around the 12th century, to give an example Metzger wrote thus: "Euthymius Zigabenus, who lived in the first part of the twelfth century, is the first Greek writer to comment on the passage, and even he declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it". Not to mention that we have manuscripts from the east before the 12th century which contain this story, we also have multiple eastern attestations to the story of the adulteress in the very early church. Didymus the Blind in the 4th century, living in Alexandria mentioned that he knew of multiple manuscripts which included this story, Didymus writing:

We find therefore in certain Gospels. A woman it says was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to happen. The saviour it says when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her said to those who were about to cast stones ‘He who has not sinned let him take a stone and cast it ‘ If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned let him take up a stone and smite her. And no one dared. Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things they did not dare to strike her

Jerome

Jerome (400ad) additionally mentioned that this story was found in many Greek manuscripts, which are likely eastern, as Jerome did not seem to make use of the western Greek texts in his Vulgate:

in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the

story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord (Migne. Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina, Volume. 23, col. 579.)

This story was referenced to explicitly as early as the 3rd century in the Didascalia, which reads:

If, however, you do not receive a penitent back, being without mercy, you have sinned against the Lord God, since you would not have obeyed nor trusted in God our Saviour, nor acted as did he on account of the woman who had sinned, when the elders set her before him and departed, leaving judgement in his hands. He looked into her heart and asked whether the elders had condemned her. When she said not, he said to her: ‘Go, nor do I condemn you.’

Interestingly, Agapius of Hierapolis (10th century) writes that Papias in the early 2nd century already knew of this passage in the Gospel of John:

 And there was at that time in Menbij [Hierapolis] a distinguished master who had many treatises, and he wrote five treatises on the Gospel. And he mentions in his treatise on the Gospel of John, that in the book of John the Evangelist, he speaks of a woman who was adulterous

It should be also noted that the text was quoted by Rufinus of Aquilea (345-411ad), who although was a western Christian, studied under Didymus the Blind in the east, and thus was familiar with Eastern manuscripts quoted it as scripture:

 A woman taken in adultery was brought before our Lord by the Jews, so that they might see what judgment he would pronounce according to the law. He, the merciful and pitying Lord, said: ‘He that is without sin among you let him cast a stone at her. And then, it is said, they all departed.”

 Other early Eastern, Aramaic or Greek speaking authors who reference the passage include the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century), Pseudo-Athanasius (6th century) and Zacharias Rhetor (6th century). A 10th century Greek named Nikon also accused the Armenians as deleting the passage from their manuscripts "casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus . . . saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things" (S. S. Patrum J. B. Cotelerius, Antwerp, 1698, vol. i, p.235) So how can the claim that it was unknown to the Greek speaking world until Euthymius Zigabenus be still made by textual critics? 

Greek canon table from the Monastery of Epiphanus

There exists also evidence of it being known by the 5th or the 6th century in Egypt. We have found canon tables from Thebes, Egypt which date to the 6th century, containing the story of the adulteress. Although fragmentary, the numbers necessitate it's existence in it. We also found ivory pyxides from Egypt that were dated to the 5th or the 6th century, which depicted the story of the adulteress.

Additionally, some have pointed out that the 2nd century Gospel of James may perhaps include allusions to the Pericope Adulterae, as it reads "If the Lord God has not revealed your sins, neither do I condemn you" (16,2) (There is a variant in the text, where some manuscripts read "condemn" and some read "judge", however we see this variant in the biblical texts also. Many Byzantine manuscripts read "judge" while the TR reads "condemn"). This might be a possible allusion to the Pericope Adultarae in the Gospel of John, where it reads: "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.". It has also been pointed out that the Gospel of James contains multiple other parallers to the story of the adulteress, making it very likely to have drawn from it as a source.

The omission of the pericope

Augustine and Nikon evidently theorized that this passage was omitted by some copyists due to theological piety. While it is possible that some copyists might have done that, I do not believe that it is a sufficient reason for its absence in most of the manuscripts we have, instead James Snapp has pointed out that this text was skipped during the Pentecost readings, thus a scribe may have put marks on the text to point out that it should be skipped during these readings. Later copyists may have mistaken these marks as meaning that this text should be omitted. It also seems that some copyists relocated the pericope elsewhere in the Gospels (as is customary in the Georgian manuscripts), which likely happened for the same reasons as the omission. 

A Short Criticism Of Zane Hodges' Atonement Theology

Zane Hodges

 Zane Hodges and GES hold to a distinct form of universal atonement, where the death of Christ takes away the eternal punishment for sins from every man unconditionally, from both believer and unbeliever. He avoided universalism by denying that hell is a payment for our sins but as the result of not having eternal life (which he defined as distinct from being saved from the penalty of sin).

However, there are multiple problems with this view, and these have been pointed out by Jody Dillow in his book "Final Destiny". The scriptures speak of hell as the punishment for sins multiple times, the chief examples include 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and Matthew 25:46, both of which call hell punishment:

Matthew 25:46: And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

2 Thessalonians 1:9: These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

Special attention should be paid to 2 Thessalonians 1:9, as it uses the Greek word "tino", which specifically refers to a payment (Thayer's Greek Lexicon). Now, if the payment of the eternal penalty of sin is not conditional upon faith, then how can this verse speak of it as payment?

What about John 1:29 however? Many of those who believe in Hodges' view argue that the traditional view of the atonement makes it so that Jesus only "potentially" died for all, as Wilkin writes:

Four-point Calvinists and Arminians say that Jesus Christ died for everyone, but that it only counts for those who believe that He is God, that He died for their sins, and that He rose bodily from the dead. Until you believe those things, you do not gain the benefit of Christ dying for your sins. In this view, Christ’s death is potentially for all, but is actually only for those who believe in the atonement. 

I have multiple criticisms of these comments, firstly, it is not merely 4-point Calvinists and Arminians who hold to this view, it is also taught by Provisionists/Baptist traditionalists, Lutherans and Anglicans along with almost all non-Calvinists traditions. This view has also been taught by Free Grace theologians, for example Dillow writes:

This view teaches that the death of Christ provisionally achieved a satisfaction  for the sins of all men, and it becomes actual for the one who believes. The atonement  is “sufficient for all,” but “efficient” for those who believe on Christ alone for justification.

 What then was the atonement intended to accomplish? The intent of the  tonement is to satisfy the justice of God completely in a limited and specific sense.  The intent of the atonement as Paul explained elsewhere was “for the demonstration,  I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the  justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26). The atonement freed  God so that He would be just when He justified those who believed. It did not obligate  Him to provide a payment to anyone, but it made the payment available to “the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Wilkin's comments on this view making the atonement "potentially for all", I would argue are a mischarecterization. Jesus did in actuality for every man,  Jesus actually took away the sin of every man by paying for it in the cross, however we receive it by believing in Jesus, Ryrie makes an analogy for this view:

In one school where I have taught, the student aid was handled in this way.  People made gifts to the student aid fund. Needy students applied for help from that fund. A committee decided who would receive aid and how much.  But when the actual money was distributed, it was done by issuing a check to the student, who then was expected to endorse it back to the school, which  would then place the credit on his account. The money was not moved directly from the aid fund to the individual student’s account. The student had to receive it personally and place it on his account. Let us suppose you gave a gift to cover one student’s tuition for one year. You could properly say that his tuition was fully paid. But until the selection is made by the committee, and until the student receives the gift and places it on his account,his tuition is not paid. If he fails to endorse the check, it will never be paid even though it has been paid

This is not meant to be a personal attack on Hodges, however I majorly disagree with him on this issue.

Free Grace Quotes From History

Clement of Rome

 Clement of Rome (96ad)
All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Letter to the Corinthians)

Mathetes (2nd century)

In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? O sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous man, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners ( Epistle to Diognetus)

Tertullian (2nd century)

Now in Greek the word for repentance (metanoia) is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind, which in God we have shown to be regulated by the occurrence of  varying circumstances (Against Marcion, book 2, chapter 24)

(Tertullian did not believe in eternal security, but shows the same understanding of repentance)

Ambrosiaster (4th century)

"we find Ambrosiaster teaching that, while the really wicked, 'will be tormented with everlasting punishment', the chastisement of Christian sinners will be of a temporary duration." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 484)

Jerome (347 –  420)
"Jerome develops the same distinction, stating that, while the Devil and the impious who have denied God will be tortured without remission, those who have trusted in Christ, even if they have sinned and fallen away, will eventually be saved. Much the same teaching appears in Ambrose, developed in greater detail." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 484)

Jovinian (405ad)

Those, who are once with full faith born again by [spiritual] baptism, cannot be overcome by the devil (quote from Jerome's "contra Jovinianum")

Augustine (354 – 430)

Augustine mentions many in his day who believed in OSAS, although he disagreed with it:

But, say they, the catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned. (City of God)

"But the reason why our opponents think that the one person may be admitted, but not the other, is this: they think that these persons are saved, although by fire, if they believe in Christ.... They are saved, so they think, even though they do not correct their evil ways" (On Faith and Works))

Pseudo-Chrysostom (400ad)

But seeing that to break the least commandments and not to keep them are  one and the same, why does He say above of him that breaks the  commandments, that he shall be the least in the kingdom of heaven, and here  of him who keeps them not, that he shall not enter into the kingdom of  heaven? … For a man to be in the kingdom is not to reign with Christ, but  only to be numbered among Christ’s people; what He says then of him that breaks the commandments is, that he shall indeed be reckoned among Christians, yet the least of them. But he who enters into the kingdom,  becomes partaker of His kingdom with Christ. Therefore, he who does not  enter into the kingdom of heaven, shall not indeed have a part of Christ’s glory, yet shall he be in the kingdom of heaven

Caesarius of Arles (470 –  542 AD)
For many say: I believe; and they think that faith alone without good works is sufficient. (Sermon 186)

The Reformation

Leupold Scharnschlager (1500ad)

Even today some understand Christ and Paul as ascribing righteousness and life to faith alone, as if a faith without deeds and fruit is enough for salvation.

Martin Luther (1500ad)

Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. (The Babylonian Captivity) 

(Luther later changed his mind)

John Calvin (1500ad)
But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. (Institutes of the Christian Religion)

Repentance [of sins] is not placed first, as some ignorantly suppose, as if it were the ground of the forgiveness of sins (Institutes)

To salvation Paul seems to make repentance [of sins] the ground of salvation. Were it so, it would follow, that we are justified by works. (Calvin's Commentaries, 2 Corinthians 7)

Nicolaus Von Amsdorf (1500ad)

All those who teach and write that good works are necessary for salvation are going directly against Luther, yes, directly against themselves. For Luther of blessed and holy memory writes everywhere and especially on Galatians that good works not only are not necessary for salvation, but are also harmful to salvation”

"And they themselves also write and cry out that we obtain forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation by pure grace, without our works or merit, purely for free. Now if this, their own confession, is true, how then can our good works be necessary for salvation (which we have already obtained for free, by grace, before any good work, as they themselves confess)? This is contrary to their very own confession."

Book of Concord (16th century)

Concord mentions many early Anabaptists as teaching eternal security:

 "They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin."

John Cotton (1585 – 1652)

Trulie it is hard to perceive when men differ, and therefore it is not an easie matter to make such use of sanctification, as by it to beare witnesse unto justification

John Colquhoun (1748-1827)

How then can his repentance [of sins] atone for his iniquities, or entitle him to the favour of God and to the happiness of heaven? How can that evangelical repentance, which he is incapable of exercising till after his sins be all forgiven on the ground of an infinite atonement imputed to him, make atonement for them? How can that true repentance, which he cannot exercise until in justification he be already entitled to eternal life, entitle him to eternal life? Does not the consummate righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed for justification, entitle the believer fully to it? What need is there, then, that his repentance should entitle him? (Evangelical Repentance)