Jesus and the woman taken in adultery

Artist77

Member
What do you all think of John 7:53-8:1–11? Was it originally in the Bible? Personally, I think it might be something that Jesus said, but was not in the original. But I'm undecided. Do you think it is something Jesus said? Will we ever know?
 

Watchman

Moderator
Staff member
Here is what the Insight on the Scriptures says about it: The Spurious Passage at John 7:53–8:11. These 12 verses have obviously been added to the original text of John’s Gospel. They are not found in the Sinaitic Manuscript or the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, though they do appear in the fifth-century Codex Bezae and later Greek manuscripts. They are omitted, however, by most of the early versions. It is evident that they are not part of John’s Gospel. One group of Greek manuscripts places this passage at the end of John’s Gospel; another group puts it after Luke 21:38, supporting the conclusion that it is a spurious and uninspired text.
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
What do you all think of John 7:53-8:1–11? Was it originally in the Bible? Personally, I think it might be something that Jesus said, but was not in the original. But I'm undecided. Do you think it is something Jesus said? Will we ever know?
I do not have a firm opinion however I think it is unwise to remove it from a Bible it should be like it and the conclusions in mark in the 1984 NWT edition included but with the commentary that it might not be legit. It appears to be an interpolation sourced from the lost Gospel of the Hebrews the original uncorrupted version of which (some judaizer sects modified versions of it) might have been an early draft of Matthew's gospel. Papias a disciple of the apostle John is reported to have supported the historicity of the incident.
 

SusanB

Well-known member
I do not have a firm opinion however I think it is unwise to remove it from a Bible it should be like it and the conclusions in mark in the 1984 NWT edition included but with the commentary that it might not be legit. It appears to be an interpolation sourced from the lost Gospel of the Hebrews the original uncorrupted version of which (some judaizer sects modified versions of it) might have been an early draft of Matthew's gospel. Papias a disciple of the apostle John is reported to have supported the historicity of the incident.
Hi TGP, The only problem with your statement that Papias is reported to have supported the text, I know that some people think my hitting the thumbs up button on a forum comment means I agree with the comment, but actually I am just encouraging all thoughts. I might agree too but not necessarily. So, by saying it is reported that he supported it, seems to me like saying it was heard by so so that so so heard. In other words really almost 3rd hand hearsay.
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
Eusebius of Caesarea is honestly much worse than 3rd hand hardly an objective source given he was an unreliable historian with agendas on the occasions when Papias contemporary Iraneus refers to him on things it's certainly is to be treated with more weight than Eusebius. The account inserted into John was referred to in documents as early as the third century. I should say as well that John in his gospel said the world could not contain the scrolls if he were to include everything.
So there could be a number of genuine testimonies of events in Jesus life out there those would not be holy spirit inspired scripture however. I have less doubt in the interpolations historicity than Macabees and Esther that said the account of Jesus and the adulterous women almost definitely isn't scripture. The main reason I responded to this thread is because whenever I thought of this account over the years I felt that while it should be marginalized the way the 84 edition does I found the thought of if I participated in an omission like the 2013 edition induced more fear than of not excluding it. That is an entirely subjective sentiment however.

Papias (Greek: Παπίας) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60 – c. 130 AD.[2][3] He wrote the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Greek: Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις) in five books. This work, which is lost apart from brief excerpts in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320)

Papias describes his way of gathering information in his preface:[11]

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

People nowadays like to ridicule him though 🙁 because one of the things he claimed was told Jesus said can sound silly given they rarely know it's a near quotation/affirmation of a part of 2 baruch
 
Last edited:

SusanB

Well-known member
Eusebius of Caesarea is honestly much worse than 3rd hand hardly an objective source given he was an unreliable historian with agendas on the occasions when Papias contemporary Iraneus refers to him on things it's certainly is to be treated with more weight than Eusebius on this. The account inserted into John was referred to in documents as early as the third century. I should say as well that John in his gospel said the world could not contain the scrolls if he were to include everything.
So there could be genuine testimonies of events in Jesus life out there those would not be holy spirit inspired scripture however. I have less doubt in the interpolations historicity than Macabees and Esther that said the account of Jesus and the adulterous women almost definitely isn't scripture. The main reason I responded to this thread is because whenever I thought of this account over the years I felt that while it should be marginalized the way the 84 edition does I found the thought of if I participated in an omission like the 2013 edition induced more fear than of not excluding it. That is an entirely subjective sentiment however.

Papias (Greek: Παπίας) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60 – c. 130 AD.[2][3] He wrote the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Greek: Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις) in five books. This work, which is lost apart from brief excerpts in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320)

Papias describes his way of gathering information in his preface:[11]

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

People nowadays like to ridicule him though 🙁 because one of the things he claimed was told Jesus said can sound silly not knowing it's a near quotation/affirmation of a part of 2 baruch
Brother TGP, you are so educated and I can only hope to have 1/10th of the information you have. You have my greatest respect, not only because of the amount of information you know and can recall but that you are so mild tempered. I’ve never seen you get snippy. I am very impressed by that. Thanks for the info and keep it coming. Warm regards, Driven
 

BagdadBill

Well-known member
Here is what the Insight on the Scriptures says about it: The Spurious Passage at John 7:53–8:11. These 12 verses have obviously been added to the original text of John’s Gospel. They are not found in the Sinaitic Manuscript or the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, though they do appear in the fifth-century Codex Bezae and later Greek manuscripts. They are omitted, however, by most of the early versions. It is evident that they are not part of John’s Gospel. One group of Greek manuscripts places this passage at the end of John’s Gospel; another group puts it after Luke 21:38, supporting the conclusion that it is a spurious and uninspired text.
I am sorry to lose that one. I always liked the idea of let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
 

kirmmy

Well-known member
I am sorry to lose that one. I always liked the idea of let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Me too Bill, but the thought is backed up with many other scriptures. "Judge not lest ye be judged" (Matt 7:1) comes to mind. Sorry about the 14th century english but I was feeling medieval. :)
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
While it was always known to not be by Mark himself the long conclusion of his gospel was present in manuscripts very early in the 2nd century and was accepted by Iraneus in the late 2nd century, is used in the Diatessaron in the mid 2nd century and is comes up in Justin Martyr in his First Apology a few years before Tatian's work. Apparently the long conclusion to Mark was written in the 90's or 100's AD by Aristion one of the 70-72 disciples sent out by Jesus in pairs in the gospel of Luke So while I don't believe we can confidently treat it as scripture tier as a response to the abruptness of Mark's ending harmonizing it with the other gospels in the last years of John's life or shortly after his death it's hardly a random addition to the text.
 

kirmmy

Well-known member
While it was always known to not be by Mark himself the long conclusion of his gospel was present in manuscripts very early in the 2nd century and was accepted by Iraneus in the late 2nd century, is used in the Diatessaron in the mid 2nd century and is comes up in Justin Martyr in his First Apology a few years before Tatian's work. Apparently the long conclusion to Mark was written in the 90's or 100's AD by Aristion one of the 70-72 disciples sent out by Jesus in pairs in the gospel of Luke So while I don't believe we can confidently treat it as scripture tier as a response to the abruptness of Mark's ending harmonizing it with the other gospels in the last years of John's life or shortly after his death it's hardly a random addition to the text.
Right you are. I just finished reading Mark in my Bible reading. My Bible warned me about those final verses of the final chapter. But you can tell that the ending is tacked on. It just doesn't feel right or fit with the rest of Mark...it doesn't seem to be in the style he wrote.
 
Top