Should John 7:53-8:11

Be in our Bibles?

Lesley Anne wilkinson | october 2023

In our series in John’s gospel, we’ve come into chapter 8. As we have, you may have noticed a heading or footnote saying something along the lines of ‘The Earliest Manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11’, or that it’s sometimes included in a different place. Now perhaps you’ve never given much thought to that, but maybe you’ve wondered what it’s about and if that changes how we read John’s gospel. Or maybe it’s raised even bigger questions, like if there’s doubt over the inclusion of this passage, can we trust the Bible in general?

These are some of the questions I’m going to try to address. 

Now I’m sure it goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. I am obviously not an expert in how the Bible came to be or in the reading of original manuscripts, but thankfully God has graciously given us other people who are that we can learn from!

This all comes under the topic of ‘Textual Criticism’. Unlike the potentially confusing name, it’s not about critiquing or being critical of the Bible, rather it means ‘thinking critically about manuscripts and variations in the biblical texts found in those manuscripts, in order to identify the original reading of the Bible.’ (1)

It’s the discipline of how the Bible came to be in the first place, and the ongoing work of ensuring the most accurate translations and faithful handling of God’s Word. 

We’re used to instant information at our fingertips, but of course we know that wasn’t always the case. Thousands of years ago, the Bible (and all ancient texts) had to be copied by hand. This was done with great care, but as you can imagine, it did mean there was room for human error or variation. Many of these variations were simply in spelling or grammar. Even with spellcheck on our computers we can still make mistakes, never mind writing it all by hand lots and lots of times!

But thankfully it’s not just that one copy of each book of the Bible was made.

You’ve probably heard of the ‘Iliad’ and the ‘Odyssey’ by the Greek poet Homer (I’ll be very impressed if you’ve read it!). These texts are among the best-known ancient texts, and their authenticity or reliability is undisputed. The Iliad was written around 900 B.C., but the earliest known copy wasn’t made until 400 B.C., meaning 500 years had passed between the original and the first copy. However, thanks to the 643 known copies, an accuracy rating of the copies comes to 95% meaning there are very few discrepancies or variations between manuscripts. These are very impressive statistics, considering other ancient texts such as Plato or Aristotle don’t even have enough manuscripts to detect an accuracy rating in the first place.

With this in mind, we turn to the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were written between A.D. 50 and A.D. 100. The earliest copies were in circulation from A.D. 130 and following, meaning there were less than 100 years between the originals and the first copies. This in itself is significant, as many people would have been alive at the time of the copies being produced that had heard the original, and they would have been able to correct any obvious errors or variations.

Furthermore, there are 5600 known copies of the New Testament in Greek, allowing for a thorough comparison. Of course, with more manuscripts, there is more potential for error, variation and discrepancies. Even so, the accuracy rating between copies is 99.5%!

And these are only the original Greek manuscripts – along with the over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages, the total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000. This far surpasses any other ancient text in existence (2).

So with such careful textual criticism conducted, we can proceed knowing that variations are not taken lightly, nor are they brushed under the carpet when it comes to the Word of God.

But what about in recent years?

With the invention of the printing press in the mid-fifteenth century, the race was on to mass-produce the Bible. At that time, the Textus Receptus (Latin for “Received Text”), a Greek New Testament, was printed rather than being hand-copied.

In his haste to get his printed first, Erasmus’ Textus Receptus included some errors as it was written from only two main manuscripts dating from the twelfth century. Although he later printed updated editions correcting some of the errors, it was not the most accurate Greek text, even though it was widely circulated. Even so, it’s from this text that many other translations were copied during the Reformation, such as by Luther and Tyndale. The Textus Receptus, copied from much later manuscripts, included the passage in John 7:53-8:11 about the woman caught in adultery.

It is also from this Textus Receptus that the King James Version was translated in 1611. This was a momentous point in history as the full text of Scripture was printed in English to be read aloud in worship services for the largely illiterate population, officially endorsed by the Monarch. Many today still use and love this translation and its recent editions.

For many years the King James Version was widely used and inspired other English translations of the text. However, the discovery of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ (sometimes called the Qumran Cave Scrolls) between 1946 and 1956, brought a new discovery of older and more accurate manuscripts.

According to the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, the ‘scroll dates range from the third century B.C. (mid–Second Temple period) to the first century of the Common Era, before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. While Hebrew is the most frequently used language in the Scrolls, about 15% were written in Aramaic and several in Greek. The Scrolls’ materials are made up mainly of parchment, although some are papyrus, and the text of one Scroll is engraved on copper.’ (3)

The discovery of these scrolls was a big deal. Rather than relying on manuscripts that were copied hundreds of years after the originals, there were now much older, and therefore more accurate, manuscripts to be studied.

Among the Scrolls were partial or complete copies of every book in the Hebrew Bible, except the book of Esther. ‘Many biblical manuscripts closely resemble the Masoretic Text, the accepted text of the Hebrew Bible from the second half of the first millennium C.E. until today. This similarity is quite remarkable, considering that the Qumran Scrolls are over a thousand years older than previously identified biblical manuscripts.’ (4)

These much earlier manuscripts allowed for correction of major variations in Scripture (of which there were very few!), including the story of the woman caught in adultery which did not appear in early copies of John’s gospel. This is why later translations, such as the New International Version (1973) and the English Standard Version (2002) do not include the passage as part of the inspired Word of God.

When it comes specifically to our passage in John 8, what we’ve seen so far is considered external evidence for the exclusion of the passage. Further external evidence includes the fact that, as your footnote probably says, the passage has often been placed in different places within the gospels. It’s evident that it was never clear where the passage was placed originally, suggesting it wasn’t there in the first place. Furthermore, there is no mention of the passage at all until the 4th century, being generally accepted by the 5th century, nor is it cited by any early church fathers, supporting this later addition.

We can also turn to internal evidence for its exclusion.  For example, it’s widely accepted that this section of John uses different language, grammar, and tone in the original Greek than the rest of the gospel. The story itself also flows more naturally and makes more sense without the inclusion of the passage. For example, if the crowd disappeared as it says in verse 9, who is Jesus speaking to in verse 12? It makes more logical sense that verse 12 is a continuation of Jesus’ discourse in the temple from 7:52.

Now there are many who agree that the events likely did indeed happen, and it’s clear that the content is not contradictory to the rest of the gospels. However, since we have seen an array of evidence to suggest John himself did not write this section or intend it to be included in the gospel, and we want to remember and respect his purpose in writing, we will not be dealing with the passage as the inspired Word of God.

So, does this mean we can’t trust the Bible?

Well, certainly not! If anything, such rigorous study and the amazing continuity and reliability of Scripture throughout time should cause us to be all the more sure of God’s Word. 

With the discovery of manuscripts often written within 100 years of the events themselves, we can be assured of their accuracy and reliability, and therefore trust that what is included in God’s Word is His self-revelation to be trusted, read, and preached as it not only informs us, but transforms our very lives through the Holy Spirit. We can also be encouraged that it’s a good thing to tackle the tricky questions, and to be ready to help others see just how amazing God’s Word is.

1) Crowe, Brandon D., ‘Textual Criticism: What It Is and Why You Need It’ (2021)

2) All of these statistics are widely available, but I most recently consulted https://www.thecollegechurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/HANDOUTS-Is-Scripture-Reliable.pdf
3) https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/introduction?locale=en_US

4) https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/introduction?locale=en_US