John 7:53-8:11 the woman taken in adultery.
Edward F. Hills, in his book The King James Version Defended, and many others who defend the traditional text of the Reformation Bibles all basically tell us the following: The story of the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 is called the pericope de adultera.
Why the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery Belongs in the Bible by Dr. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 150-159.
Modernistic scholars have attempted to remove this whole passage from the Bible. According to Westcott, “This account of a most characteristic incident in the Lord’s life is certainly not a part of John’s narrative.” Not only has it been said that the pericope de adultera was not a part of John’s Gospel, both Westcott and Hort insisted that the story “has no right to a place in the text of the four Gospels.”
The Westcott-Hort based NIV has this misleading statement concerning the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11: “[The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11].” What are these so called “earliest” and “most reliable” manuscripts which do not have the pericope de adultera? They are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both 4th century manuscripts. Those who reject the pericope de adultera do so on a presuppositional bias that these 2 codices which omit it are superior manuscripts.
Are the above codices really reliable? According to Dean Burgon, a renowned Bible defender of the last century, the codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among “the most corrupt copies in existence.” Burgon wrote, “I am able to demonstrate that every one of them singly is in a high degree corrupt, and is condemned upon evidence older than itself”. Although these two codices may be “earliest” they are by no means “most reliable.”
See some clear and concrete examples of the true nature of these so called “oldest and best manuscripts” by seeing how they actually read in my comparative study here -
“The Oldest and Best Manuscripts?”
There is abundant evidence in support of the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11. All these verses are found (1) in many Greek uncials and minuscules mainly of the Majority or Byzantine text-type, (2) in the ancient versions or translations: Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic, and (3) in the writings of the Church Fathers: Didascalia, Ambrosiaster, Apostolic Constitutions, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine.
Jerome (AD 340-420), the translator of the Latin Bible called the Vulgate, said this about the pericope de adultera: “. . . 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.” Jerome considered the pericope genuine, and included it in his Vulgate.
Bible critics like James White and Dan Wallace, who couldn’t tell you where to get a copy of the infallible Bible they both PROFESS to believe in if their lives depended on it, tell us: “This text has no place in Scripture; I will never preach from it!,” should heed the words of Calvin who said: “it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage.”
James White categorically denies that it is inspired Scripture and says if he were preaching through the gospel of John, when he comes to these 12 verses, he would just skip them.
The Muslims love James White. A Muslim has posted videos in which James White denies all of Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11; 1 John 5:7 and Luke 23:34 as being inspired Scripture, and yet all of these verses are found in the very versions he recommends to others.
James White is essentially the Protestant Pope of the new Vatican Versions. And he is not giving you all the factual evidence for the inclusion of 1 John 5:7. The Reformers disagree with James Wite Out.
1 John 5:7 IS inspired Scripture.
Luke 23:34 "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" is inspired Scripture
Why Muslims love James White
James Wite Out, as he debates a Muslim, also denies that Mark 16:9-20 is Scripture and John 7:53-8:11 - the woman taken in adultery.
Mark 16:9-20 is inspired Scripture
Apparently in the mind of James White, you have to first consult with HIM in order to find out what God really said or didn’t say in His precious words.
See 'James White, the Protestant Pope of the new Vatican Versions' here-
The textual evidence for the inclusion of John 7:53 to John 8:11 is both massive and widespread. According to Jack Moorman, it is the reading found in the vast Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts that we have today, including the uncial copies of D, E, G, H, K, M, S, U, Gamma, Lambda, Pi and Omega. It is found in the remaining copies of the Old Latin aur, b, c, d, e, ff2, j, g1, and r1. (See Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version, A Closer Look, by Jack A. Moorman)
It is also found in the Syriac Palestinian version, some Coptic Boharic copies, the Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions as well as the early Latin Vulgate of 385 A.D. and 415 A.D. It is also in Murdock’s 1852 and Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta. They are also included in the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2011, the Greek Bibles used all over the world by the Greek Orthodox churches and are in the Modern Hebrew Bibles as well.
As noted by many textual scholars, perhaps the reason it had disappeared from some copies was due to the nature of the text itself in that Jesus freely forgave a woman taken in the very act of adultery.
Augustine (354-430 A.D.) wrote: "Some of little faith, I suppose from a fear lest their wives should gain impunity in sin, removed from their MSS the Lord's act of indulgence to the adulteress".
Paul J. Barth, in a debate with James White, writes:
Paul J. Barth writes: "I will list some early church testimony that sufficiently disproves Dr. White’s assertion that the Pericope Adulterae did not exist until the 5th century. The Diatesseran (a harmony of the Gospels from the 2nd century) quotes it (although Schaff’s publication doesn’t contain it because it was based on a single Arabic manuscript, nearly all other Diatessaran manuscripts that have been discovered since have included it). The Didaskalia (3rd century) and the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century) quote it. Jerome and Augustine both comment on it, and Augustine said wicked scribes were removing it. Didymus the Blind (a Greek father) in the 4th century quotes it and Papias (2nd century) references it. Considering these things it would seem that the account was in manuscripts before the 5th century that are no longer extant.
In short, we have no legitimate reason to doubt Augustine’s testimony about the passage being removed from manuscripts and certainly no reason to dismiss it out of hand without at least serious consideration.”
The entire passage is found in the following Bible translations - The Anglo Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi Manuscript 140, circa 1000 A.D., Wycliffe’s Bible 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Mace’s N.T. 1729, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, the Living Oracles 1835, the Revised Version 1881, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, ASV 1901, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Weymouth, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, ISV (International Standard Version) 2014, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 and Dan Wallace’s NET version (though he denies that it is inspired Scripture)
Other Bibles that include John 7:52-8:11 are The Word of Yah 1993, the Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Lawrie Translation 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, Green's Literal 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, the Concordant Version 2006, the Context Group Version 2007, The Bond Slave Version 2008, the Faithful N.T. 2009, The English Majority Text Version 2009, World English Bible 2000, the New European Version 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, the Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, A Translation For Translators 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Common English Bible 2011, The Mounce N.T. 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The Voice 2012, The Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, The Concordant Version 2012, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012, the World English Bible 2012, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Open English Bible 2014, The Pioneer's N.T. 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The New International Reader's Version 2014, The International Standard Version 2014, the Modern English Bible 2014 and The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015.
Many of the modern Vatican Versions, which are based on the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical Greek texts, like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and Holman include all these verses but they [bracket them] to indicate doubt as to their authenticity. IF they really do not believe they are inspired Scripture, let let them be honest and consistent about it and simply remove them as the liberal RSV did back in 1946.
This IS the text of ALL Reformation Bible in all languages and it is still the text of the Greek Orthodox churches around the world today. All these verses are also included in the Modern Hebrew Bible and in the Aramaic New Testament 2011.
Among Foreign Language Bibles, all these verses are found in the following Bible translations: Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible of 2000, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909-1995, the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Second 2007, Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible, the Russian Synodal Bible, the Swedish Bible 1917, the Tagalog Ang Dating Bible, the Turkish bible, Ukranian Bible, Vietnamese Bible, Chinese Union Traditional Bible, the Arabic Bible, the Albanian bible, Bavarian, Bulgarian, Czech, Croatian and Danish Bibles, the Hungarian Karoli bible, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014, Finnish bible, and the Italian Diodati 1649, Nuova Diodati 1991 and Riveduta Bible of 2007, the Portuguese O Livro 2000 and the Almeida Bible 2009, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014.
Virtually every Bible in all languages on the earth throughout history contain these verses from John 7:53 to John 8:11, and yet we have many Bible critics among us today like James White, Dan Wallace and other new Vatican Version promoters telling even those who are using these modern, inferior UBS/Nestle-Aland critical text versions that they aren’t really the 100% pure and infallible words of the living God.
And then they hypocritically will stand in the pulpit and issue dire warnings about how the Bible is under attack today like at no other time in history and they are here to defend it. Yet is they themselves who couldn’t show you or anybody else ANY Bible in ANY language that they PROFESS (and lie about) to believe is the infallible words of God. Don’t believe me? Then simply ask either one of these men to tell you where you can get a copy of this infallible Bible they both SAY they believe in. They will NEVER do it.
Get yourself a copy of the only Bible believed by multiplied thousands of God’s blood bought children to be the complete, inspired and 100% true and infallible words of the living God and the one He has born witness to in history like no other - the Authorized King James Holy Bible. It is always right.
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8
“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart; for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.” Jeremiah 15:16
Notes from the Internet
Pastor Jeff Riddle has a blog called Stylos and addresses this entire passage and why it is inspired Scripture and the hypocrisy of those who raise doubts about its authenticity. It is not very long and he has some very good points to make.
Here is another thorough textual study showing why this passage is inspired Scripture
A CALL FOR SERIOUS EVANGELICAL APOLOGETICS: The Authenticity of John 7:53-8:11 as a Case Study, buy John Tors, March 14, 2015
Notes from the Internet -
The Text of the Gospels, James Snapp, Jr. June 4, 2016
*Note: (James Snapp is not even a King James Bible believer)
John 7:53-8:11 and James White
"In a recent interview at Apologia TV, James White (of Alpha & Omega Ministries) offered some comments about John 7:53-8:11 which reflect a common misunderstanding of some evidence pertaining to that passage. White, who does not believe that these 12 verses belong in the Bible, turned his attention to them about 52 minutes into the interview, stating that he was going to explain why most scholars are confident that the passage is not genuine.
White proceeded to explain that although most manuscripts contain the pericope adulterae between John 7:52 and 8:12, it is also found in four other places: “In manuscript 225, it’s found after John 7:36. In manuscript 1, it’s found after John 21:25. And here’s the important part: in a group of manuscripts called family 13, it’s not in John. It’s after Luke 21:38. And in manuscript 1333, it’s after Luke 24:53.”
These multiple locations, White stated, constitute “absolute evidence” that John 7:53-8:11 was not originally part of the Gospel of John, but was instead “a story, very popular, looking for a place to call home.” (This remark from White is very similar to a sentence in a 2007 essay by Dan Wallace: “The pericope adulterae has all the earmarks of a pericope that was looking for a home.”)
In White’s 1995 book, The King James Only Controversy, the same evidence was cited, and in this respect White’s comments closely resemble the contents of Bruce Metzger’s 1971 Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. White, like Metzger, has omitted important aspects of the evidence, probably because the depth of White’s research on this subject did not go much further than reading Metzger’s work. The improbability of White’s idea that the pericope adulterae was “a story looking for a place to call home” should already be obvious to anyone who ponders the contents of the first sentence of the account: “And everyone went to his own house.” That is simply not how one begins a story.
Before we look in detail at some aspects of the evidence that White did not share in his Apologia TV interview, there is something we should know about the Gospel-lection for Pentecost – that is, the Scripture-selection that was read annually at the Feast of Pentecost (one of the major feast-days of early Christianity, celebrating the coming of the Holy Spirit as related in Acts chapter 2). This lection began at John 7:37 and continued to John 7:52, at which point the lector (the person designated to read the Scriptures in the church-services) was to skip to 8:12. In many Gospels-manuscripts that are supplemented by what is known as the lectionary apparatus in their margins, symbols and notes instruct the lector to read the lection in this way.
The Pentecost-lection, in other words, consisted of John 7:37-52 plus 8:12. In lectionaries, the passage is presented in precisely that form, making it easy for the lector to read the entire passage without having to pause and jump forward in the text to find the final portion. The same motivation that led to the development of lectionaries – a desire to simplify the lector’s task – also led some copyists to reformat the passage that contained the Pentecost-lection in continuous-text manuscripts of the Gospels, with the result that John 7:53-8:11 was transplanted to other locations.
When we take a closer look at the manuscripts mentioned by White, it may become clear that once he studies them more carefully, he might not wish to continue to present them as “absolute evidence” in the future.
“In manuscript 225, it’s found after John 7:36.”
Which means that a copyist moved it so that it would appear immediately before the Pentecost-lection. In manuscript 225, John 13:3-17 – the lection for the annual foot-washing commemoration on Maundy Thursday – is likewise moved; it is found not only in its usual place but also is embedded in the text of Matthew, following Mt. 26:20, conforming to the sequence in which it was read on Maundy Thursday. If one knows nothing about lection-cycles, one might start imagining that John 13:3-17 was a very popular story that was looking for a place to call home, but the more one learns about lection-cycles, the less plausible that becomes.
“In manuscript 1, it’s found after John 21:25.”
White makes it seem as if this means that someone had the pericope adulterae sitting around as a freestanding composition, and placed it at the end of the Gospel of John. If, however, one notices the note that appears in manuscript 1 before the passage, a very different impression is received. The note says: “The chapter about the adulteress: in the Gospel according to John, this does not appear in the majority of copies; nor is it commented upon by the divine fathers whose interpretations have been preserved – specifically, by John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria; nor is it taken up by Theodore of Mopsuestia and the others. For this reason, it was not kept in the place where it is found in a few copies, at the beginning of the 86th chapter [that is, the 86th Eusebian section], following, ‘Search and see that a prophet does not arise out of Galilee.’”
Thus, according to this note, a copyist did not find this passage in most of his copies of the Gospel of John, and he also noticed that it was not commented upon by several patristic writers, so he removed it from where it had been found – after John 7:52 – and placed it at the end of the Gospel. It had not been “a story in search of a home.” According to this note, it had already had a home, following John 7:52, before it was moved to the end of the book.
In the Argos Lectionary,the lection for Saint Pelagia's feast-day is listedas October 8.
In addition, this note – which is also found in manuscript 1582, and thus echoes the archetype of family-1 – may be a copyist’s guess about how it ended up at the end of John’s Gospel, rather than an observation. In two of the manuscripts that formed the basis for the Palestinian Aramaic lectionary, John 8:3-11, rather than 7:53-8:11, was transferred to the end of the Gospel of John. This displacement of John 8:3-11 was not motivated by text-critical principles; like the dislocation of the entire pericope adulterae in 225, it was done to make the lector’s job on Pentecost a little easier – the difference being that in these manuscripts’ locale, the Gospels-lection for Pentecost included John 7:53-8:2.
Eighteen Greek manuscripts echo the same treatment of John 8:3-11, with the difference that instead of being transferred to the end of the Gospel of John, these nine verses have been dropped entirely from the text of these manuscripts, although 7:53-8:2 remains in the text after 7:52.
John 8:3-11 (or 8:1-11; there was some variation) was the lection for the feast-day of Saint Pelagia, or for The Penitents (this refers to a group of women famous for their penitence and austerity). In dozens of manuscripts of John, 8:3-11 – not the entire pericope adulterae – are accompanied by symbols in the margin, not (as some researchers have claimed) to convey scribal doubt about the passage (as if the copyists accepted 7:53-8:2 but were suspicious about 8:3-11), but to thus show where, embedded within the Pentecost-lection, one could find the lection for the feast-day of Saint Pelagia, or for the Penitents, which was October 8.
“And here’s the important part: in a group of manuscripts called family 13, it’s not in John. It’s after Luke 21:38.”
The text of the pericope adulterae has been altered in the family-13 manuscripts; in 8:2-3, instead of reading “and all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. Then brought the scribes,” they read, “And the scribes presented to him,” in order to avoid repeating material similar to the contents of Luke 21:37-38.
Once again when we notice details which White did not mention (not due to any malevolent intent, of course, but due to plain ignorance of the evidence), the picture changes significantly.
What has happened here is that someone who had a manuscript in which John 7:53-8:11 had been transferred to the end of John took things a step further to simplify things for the lector. When transferred to the end of Luke 21, the passage would be easy to find in the cycle of readings for feast-days in the Menologion: the lection for October 7, for Saints Sergius and Bacchus, was nearby, in Luke 21:12-19. Almost all of the remainder of Luke 21 is discourse, making the end of the chapter the nearest convenient place in which to insert the narrative that constituted the lection for the next day, namely, October 8, for Saint Pelagia/the Penitents.
“And in manuscript 1333, it’s after Luke 24:53.”
When we consider the details which the shallowness of White’s research prevented him from detecting, the implications of the evidence drastically change from what he misrepresented them to be. In manuscript 1333, John 8:3-11 is written on the page that follows the page on which the Gospel of Luke concludes, before the chapter-list for the Gospel of John.
What has happened is that after the text of John was written in 1333 without John 7:53-8:11, someone noticed that the passage used for Saint Pelagia’s feast-day was missing, and this person added it, preferring to use the blank page after the end of Luke instead of writing the passage in the margin alongside the end of chapter 7. According to Maurice Robinson, in manuscript 1333, the verses are accompanied by abbreviated rubrics in the margin; one says, “The Gospel-reading for October 8, for Saint Pelagia,” and the other one says, “From the Gospel according to John.”
So instead of weighing in as evidence that the pericope adulterae was “a story looking for a place to call home,” as White has claimed, 1333 simply shows that John 8:3-11 was a lection designated to be read annually on October 8, and that even after someone made 1333 based on an exemplar that did not contain John 7:53-8:11, the lack of the lection for St. Pelagia’s Day was so problematic that someone saw fit to add the lection on a blank page of the manuscript.
James White has asked, “If it was original, why, why, why? If it was original, why would there be all this chopping-up of it? It doesn’t make any sense” – I interrupt to mention that he seems to have asked that question out of sincere perplexity. But one’s perplexity should not be regarded as a platform from which to jump to a conclusion. Nevertheless that is what White has done; his statement concludes: – “unless it wasn’t original.” Such a text-critical method is highly dubious. It would be better to investigate the evidence more thoroughly, in order to answer the questions, as we have done here.
This is, of course, not all that could be said about the pericope adulterae. It should, however, justify a measure of concern when one encounters the claim that the transference of John 7:53-8:11 to locations after the end of John, or to one side or the other of the Pentecost-lection, or to the end of Luke 21, constitutes “absolute evidence” that these 12 verses were “looking for a home” or similar nonsense. Such claims say more about the shallowness of the authors’ research than they say about how copyists treated the pericope adulterae and why they did so."
Return to articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm