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.

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 (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? 

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.