John 7:53
1 tc This
entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae,
is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an
original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual
critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but
represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger
summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the
adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as
follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In
addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears
that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that
there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the
pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include
7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of
the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë1 places it
after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it
after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete
discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as
a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson,
“Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon
Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary
Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13
[2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be
remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype
(unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G
(mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This
leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the
inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all
early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the
Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that
“Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are
concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best
mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance.
But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the
Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal
evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the
context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion
of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and
worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting
Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2
behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when
Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question
mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the
world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3)
Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting
Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader
with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the
light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds
were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11
(7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope,
7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well
without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the
charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The
assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa
9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement
by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand
without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to
mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention
Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed
familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his
readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early
Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif
does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is
so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why
someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so
well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in
vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the
Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96).
According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John
[AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (Ë13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the
weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The
earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to
internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this
is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be
given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and
style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked
whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John,
should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that
it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a
tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However,
even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS
34 [1988]: 24–44).
sn
Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most
likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. In spite of
this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of
the text, so it has been included in the translation.