John 7:53-11

John 7:53 Pericope of the Adulteress

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as î^{66, 75} a B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syr^{c, s} and the best manuscripts of syr^p), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts ⁸ and the Old Georgian version ⁹ omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (it^{a, l*, q}). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.

When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of John 7:52 and John 8:12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive. ¹⁰

At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John’s narrative least if it were inserted after John 7:52 (D E (F) G H K M U G P 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after John 7:36 (ms. 225) or after John 7:44 (several Georgian mss.) ¹¹ or after John 21:25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 arm^mss) or after Luke 21:38 (¦¹³). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses that contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials.

Sometimes it is stated that the pericope was deliberately expunged from the Fourth Gospel because Jesus’ words at the close were liable to be understood in a sense too indulgent to adultery. But, apart from the absence of any instance elsewhere of scribal excision of an extensive passage because of moral prudence, this theory fails “to explain why the three preliminary verses ( John 7:53; John 8:1-2), so important as apparently descriptive of the time and place at which all the discourses of c. viii were spoken, should have been omitted with the rest” (Hort, “Notes on Select Readings,” pp. 86 f.).

Although the Committee was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following John 7:52.

Inasmuch as the passage is absent from the earlier and better manuscripts that normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make a decision among alternative readings. In any case it will be understood that the level of certainty ({A}) is within the framework of the initial decision relating to the passage as a whole.

⁸ According to a note in Zohrab’s edition of the Armenian version, “Only five of the thirty manuscripts we used preserve here the addition [i.e. the pericope of the adulteress] found in Latin manuscripts. The remainder usually agree with our exemplar in placing it as a separate section at the end of the Gospel, as we have done. But in six of the older manuscripts the passage is completely omitted in both places” (translated by Erroll F. Rhodes, who comments as follows in a note to the present writer: “When the pericope is found in manuscripts after John 7:52, it is frequently accompanied with an asterisk or other symbol”).

⁹ The pericope is lacking in the Adysh ms. (A.D. 897), the Opiza ms. (A.D. 913), and theTbet’ ms. (A.D. 995).

¹⁰ Occasionally an attempt is made to support the Johannine authorship of the pericope by appealing to linguistic and literary considerations (e.g. J. P. Heil in Biblica, LXXII [1992], pp. 182—191); for a convincing rebuttal of such arguments, see D. B. Wallace in New Testament Studies, XXXIX (1993), pp. 290—296. For patristic evidence of other forms and interpretations of the pericope, see B. D. Ehrman, New Testament Studies, XXXIV (1988), pp. 24—44.

¹¹ So Eberhard Nestle, who, however, identifies no specific manuscripts (Einführung in das Griechische Neue Testament, 3te Aufl. [Göttingen, 1909], p. 157). According to information kindly provided by Dr. J. N. Birdsall, the pericope follows John 7:44 in Sinai ms. georg. 16.