Disputed passage in the Gospel of John (John 7:53-8:11)

Sinful woman forgiven by Jesus. Is this passage Scriptures?

Rare major case of a truly disputed Bible passage

The textual transmission of Scriptures, from the perfect original autographs to the present, has retained
the message of God's word by conveying its meaning and intent to us. This accuracy has been maintained
throughout copying and translation into myriad languages, living and dead End Note 13. Those skeptics who
focus on the thousands of manuscript variants that exist, often fail to mention that the extreme majority
of them are insignificant, changing neither meaning or intent of the passages, most relegated to spelling
errors, word reversals or easily distinguished slips of the pen. Phrasing differences between translations
are also common. One of the rare truly disputed passages of Scriptures, a section that appears to be
missing or misplaced throughout many ancient manuscripts, is found in many Bibles today as John 7:53-
8:11. It is often referred to in scholarly documents as "the pericope of the adulteress".

John 7:53-8:11 Then each went to his own home. 8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he
appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach
them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her
stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In
the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this
question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on
the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If
any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and
wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until
only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her,
"Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I
condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." (NIV)

At the onset, it must be emphasized that no variant of Scriptures, including the aforementioned and few
major ones such as this passage in John, introduce or contradict any doctrine of Scriptures. As such, with
or without the passage, every doctrine of Scriptures can be taught utilizing other passages. This alone
displays God's hand in preserving His word and making sure that we got the meaning and intent of all He
wanted us to know. The Bible is a result of the action of a God who is sovereign over time and history, a
God who could have once-for-all engraved His word on the side of Mount Everest, but instead chose to
use fallible humans throughout time. In so doing, the infallible and perfect God shows that His word
transcends time and fallen creation - rooted in His unchangeable self.

The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11. (Text
appearing before this passage in the NIV; similar statements existing in many other modern translations)

Some modern scholars and translators easily and readily dismiss this passage in John as if it has no valid
history or place in Scriptures. By some of these textual critics, you would wonder why anyone would still
have this passage in their Bible. In fact, some modern translations have functionally abandoned this
passage in John, at best relegating it to a footnote. This is precisely why a detailed consideration of the
evidence is in order. The following charts are heavily focused on materials of the 5th century and earlier,
with some additional references spanning the centuries which followed. Even more are located in the
footnotes...

Evidence against John 7:53-8:11 (Manuscripts without)

• Aleph (Sinaticus, without the passage, circa 4th century)

• A (Alexandrinus, without the passage, circa 5th century) End Note 1
• B (Vaticanus, without the passage, circa 4th century)
• C (Ephraemi Rescriptus, without the passage, circa 5th century) End Note 1
• P75 (Bodmer Papyrus, without the passage, circa late 2nd or early 3rd century)
• P66 (Bodmer Papyrus, without the passage, circa mid 2nd century)
• Codex Washingtonianus (without the passage, 5th century)
• Codex Borgianus (without the passage, 5th century)
• Diatessaron (harmony of the gospels by Tatian, without the passage, circa 150-160 A.D.)
• Early church Fathers including Tertullian (early third century), Cyprian (early to mid third
century), Origen (early to mid third century) who perhaps knew nothing of it (the commentary of
the latter doing all the verses surrounding it!).
• Old Armenian Manuscripts (6 of them omit it)
• SYRc.s. & majority of SYRp (the oldest and best Syriac manuscripts omit it, translation dates
from 2nd century A.D.)
• Sahidic (Coptic dialect, without the passage, translation from late 2nd to early 3rd century)
• Older Bohairic (Coptec dialect, without the passage, 4th century)
• Old Georgian (without the passage, mid-fourth century translation)
• Armenian (without the passage, fifth century translation)
• Gothic (without the passage, fourth century translation, sixth century manuscript)
• ITa.l.q (several Old Latin, without the passage, 4th century)
• No Greek Church Father prior to the 9th century comments on the passage
• Greek Church Father Euthymius Zigabenus (declares that accurate copies of the gospels do not
contain the passage, 12th century)
 End Note 5
•

Evidence for John 7:53-8:11 (Manuscripts including, or referring, to this passage)

• Didascalia Apostolorum (Syriac quotation from the account, circa 3rd century. Does not state
what gospel, if any, it was in) End Note 8
• D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis, 5th century)
• Papias of Hierapolis (refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" circa 125
A.D.) End Note 2
• Didymus the Blind (refers to the passage being found in "several gospels", lived circa 313-398
A.D.)
• Pacian (370 A.D.) cites the passage. End Note 10
• B (Vaticanus, circa 4th century, which didn't include the passage, marked the end of chapter 7
with an "umlaut" indicating that an alternative reading was known)
• Jerome (says that the passage was found in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the
Latin West, late 4th century)
• Many other Latin Fathers including Ambrose End Note 7, John Chrysostom, and Augustine (all speak
of the passage as being canonical. Augustine claims that some may have excluded it earlier to
avoid the idea that Christ had sanctioned adultery, 4th and 5th centuries) End Note 12
• A majority of the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate (perhaps mostly due to Jerome's influence)
• Apostolic Constitutions (alludes to the account, late 4th century; document partially based on the
Didascalia Apostolorum)
End Note 6
•

Evidences for being unsure about John 7:53-8:11

• S (Vaticanus 354, 949 A.D., present but marked with an obelus as a questionable text)
• Minuscule 795 (has only John 7:53-8:2, excludes 8:3-11, 9th century?)
• Many Lectionaries (about 40 have only 8:3-11 and exclude 7:53-8:2, 11th century, a couple have
8:2-11) End Note 11
• Many Minuscule Manuscripts (about 50 include the full passage but mark it with an asterix or
obeli as being questionable, 11th-15th centuries, a few have shorter but still mark it as
questionable).
• A series of Minuscules (Family 1, include the passage yet have it after John 21:25, 12th-15th
centuries)
• Almost all old Armenian Manuscripts (except for the 6 which omit it, the others include the
passage yet have it after John 21:25)
• A series of Minuscules (Family 13, include the passage yet have it after Luke 24:53, 11th-15th
centuries)
• Other Minuscules (Minuscule 1333 include 8:3-11 after Luke 24:53; Minuscule 225 adds the
passage after John 7:36; Minuscule 129, 259, 470, 564, 831 and 1356 place 8:3-11 after John
21:25; Minuscule 826 has it after Luke 21:38. Mostly 11th-12th centuries)
• Several Georgian Manuscripts (include the passage but have it after John 7:44)

The New King James Version, while acknowledging that some dispute this passage, tries to turn their
footnote into a reason for inclusion.

The words And everyone through sin no more (8:11) are bracketed by NU-Text [by United Bible
Society] as not original. They are present in over 900 manuscripts. (Footnote for John 7:53 in NKJV,
square parenthesis ours for clarification)

The NKJV claim of more than 900 supporting manuscripts must be properly understood; there certainly
are that many but a majority of them are not the oldest as can be seen from the evidences presented
earlier. Likewise, not all of them have the passage appearing in the same location after John 7:52.

If the Roman Catholic Church had stayed the predominate church there would likely never have been a
question over the inclusion of this passage in John, even though they held a number of manuscripts that
did not have it, or called it into question. Why? That church for more than a thousand years had used
manuscripts based on Jerome's Latin vulgate, which included the account. Ironically, it was the
Protestant Reformation, with its call for people to read Scriptures, and its subsequent drive to make sure
that the Bible was translated properly into common languages such as German and English that led to
searching out manuscripts in the original languages.

The 16th century saw many Western European scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, working to
recover the most correct Greek texts of the New Testament, rather than relying any longer solely on the
Latin Vulgate translation. All quickly noticed that a number of early manuscripts lacked this portion of
John's gospel and than many more manuscripts were marked to note the dubious stature of its inclusion
in John. Moreover, it was also noted that in the lectionary of the Greek Church, the weekly reading for
Pentecost was set for John 7:37 to 8:12 but omits the twelve disputed verses. All this evidence restarted a
debate that appears to have existed many times throughout history and certainly in the minds of specific
scribes and translators.

The primary question remains: is this passage true and is it to be accepted as Scriptures? Certainly the
internal evidence display characteristics of being a true story; most will agree with this.

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. (Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament, 1971)

On one hand it seems clear that the weight of evidence mitigates against the originality of the story. That
is, this brief account is probably not original to the Fourth Gospel. On the other hand, the story has every
suggestion of historical veracity, suggesting that it was indeed an event that occurred in the life of Jesus
and was a story worthy of collection and recitation. (Gary M. Burge, John, The NIV Application
Commentary, 2000)

Although this narrative is included in the sequence of the outline, it can hardly have belonged to the
original text of this Gospel. It is absent from most of the oldest copies of the Gospel that precede the
sixth century and from the works of the earliest commentators. To say that it does not belong in the
Gospel is not identical with rejecting it as unhistorical. Its coherence and spirit show that it was
preserved from a very early time, and it accords well with the known character of Jesus. It may be
accepted as historical truth; but based on the information we now have, it was probably not a part of the
original text. (Merrill Tenney, John, Expositor's Bible Commentary, 1984)

People who make up stories tend to have way too many details or are completely vague with virtually no
specifics. Here this passage has all the details that one would expect from an eye-witness. For example,
someone on the sidelines would record Jesus writing on the ground, but not specifically what He was
writing. Certainly this account is in harmony with how Jesus is characterized and acted throughout the
gospels. It is most probable that this was an authentic episode in the life of Jesus.

If this passage was a forged or invented account, a huge question would be "why?" Unlike the Gnostic
and heretical forgeries that arose in the time of the apostles and continued into the first centuries of the
church, this account does not contain any new and aberrant doctrine, nor does it contradict any other
teaching of Scriptures. In fact, if it was created by a heretic, it has never surfaced in any heretical or
alternative gospel. There is no evidence that it is a fraud. As a true account, the next question is whether
it belongs in Scriptures or not.

John 20:30-31 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not
recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (NIV)

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that
even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (NIV)

John makes it clear that Jesus did other things that were not recorded in His gospel, indeed in any gospel.
The purpose God had in having some events recorded was to give us sufficient information so that we
could know about and believe in Jesus. Our passage, under consideration, does not reveal anything more
about Jesus than what we can establish elsewhere in canonical Scriptures.

Church tradition is the number one appeal made by many in fierce opposition to those who would
remove this passage from Scriptures. "Our Bible has had this for so many years, this tradition must
stand." If we use this as a valid reason, why shouldn't apocryphal books also be accept by those who
treasured them for many years? Tradition is a fallible interpreter of what is Scriptures, prone to being
misused by emotion and self-serving purposes. There must be a higher standard. And there is...

The basis by which New Testament books were recognized as being God's word, part of the canon of
Scriptures, was a four part measure or test:

1. Written by an apostle or under the direct authority of an apostle.

2. Expresses truth, always in agreement with the rest of the Canon of truth, including the Old
Testament.
3. Recognized by all of God's church, East and West, a testimony of the unity that comes from
God's Holy Spirit. This recognition began from widespread use in the church east or west.
4. Claims or exhibits authority from God. Shows its divine character, as all Scripture is God-
 breathed, answering the question "why is this document so different from all other documents?"

While this test was normally applied to complete books, exposing many Gnostic works and forgeries and
fraudulent works to not be part of God's word, the unusual nature of this specific account requires the test
to be applied separately to John 7:53-8:11. Consider, again, that historical evidence has this account
being circulated apart from John, in various places within John, in Luke, and perhaps earliest of all in
Matthew.

As for part one of the test, what do we know of the authorship of this passage? The earliest evidence
attributes it to an apostle, specifically Papias may be referencing Matthew (see End Note 2), but
unquestionably it was attributed and accepted as being apostolic. This apostolic attestation is unwavering
throughout the early church fathers that knew of the passage. Though it appears that many did not know
of it, theirs is an argument from silence. This cannot be considered as valid evidence against as those
fathers may have merely been unfamiliar with it, as was common to many New Testament works, in
some parts of the church, in the early days.

Though this fragment has been attached to the gospel of John, throughout most of church history, it does
not detract from the understanding that it is apostolic. In fact, as an untitled un-autographed work, it is no
different than the book of Hebrews, which is still accepted as having apostolic origin even though there
are many who now question who the author was. The earlier church, until the reformation, uniformly
held it to be Paul. (We consider the book of Hebrews in our seminar on the Bible!) It's the earlier
evidence that became the basis for a passage's initial acceptance and must also be for this addition to
John.

Part two of the canonical test easily vindicates John 7:53-8:11. It unquestionably does not contradict any
earlier Scripture, indeed all other Scripture, and displays all the attributes of being a true account.

Before considering part three, part four of the test can also be easily affirmed. This account of Jesus and
the sinful woman unquestionable shows itself to be different from other literature, a beautiful account, in
harmony with the authoritative accounts of the apostles which revealed the person of Jesus Christ. It
bespeaks of the authority of Jesus in administering God's grace and Law.

This leaves part three of the test... Was it recognized by all of God's church, east and west? Papias was in
the area of modern Turkey, in the Eastern Church, yet it appears that this pericope first circulated mostly
in the Western church, perhaps carried there at an early date by an influential traveler. It's acceptance in
the Western Church became widespread and indeed virtually universal in the centuries which followed.
In this, it deserved consideration and acceptance by the whole church within the test. Though its
acceptance was fragmentary in the Eastern Church, it increased throughout the centuries, certainly taking
longer than the acceptance of whole books, but it did gain that acceptance in all but some very small
branches of the Eastern Church End Note 3. I believe that this qualifies as acceptance of the church, as a
majority of the church, East and West, did accept and include the passage End Note 9.

Later questioning of Erasmus, Calvin End Note 4, and many post reformation Bible scholars, must not detract
from the fact that this passage met the test of being canonical Scriptures. If a passage is Scriptures, it is
always Scriptures. Some will always arise, for various reasons, who will dispute portions and books of
Scriptures. Unlike the longer form of 1 John 5:7, which does not have valid history or meet the canon
test, this passage is Scriptures.

It is regrettable that this account has been moved about in its position within Scriptures, but book order
or positioning was never part of the Canon or inspiration. Book order and division has changed
repeatedly throughout history and it does not detract from the message of God's word. Perhaps it would
have been far better that this account had been held as a separate document from the very beginning. It
may have been so small that it was added to gospels to keep it from being lost, and there was early
knowledge that it had come from a gospel author. Regardless, its present traditional position within the
gospel of John does not alter the message of the passage, or the passages prior and following.

I believe that is safe for Bible publishers to specially mark the passage, as it has been in many
manuscripts throughout history, if for no other reason that to show that it likely was not part of John's
gospel at this location in the original. Unfortunately, most readers lack understanding of the issues
behind this passage, and therefore do not understand what the marking or comments mean. Notations that
state "no early manuscripts", or "the best manuscripts", to not have this passage cause a majority of
readers to doubt that it should be included at all. Perhaps a better system of noting this passage must be
developed or, in the least, a more comprehensive write-up should be given.

At one seminar I was publicly asked, "Would you preach from this passage in John?" My answer is
unquestionably "yes!" It's God's word - I stand by the evidence and the canonical test.
End Notes

1. The physical manuscripts of A and C are damaged in regards to this piece of the Gospel of John; but it
is certain, from the precision with which the quantity of text in each page of these manuscripts can be
calculated, that they could not have contained these twelve verses.

2. According to Eusebius, we are told that Papias transmitted a similar account; "Papias also put forth
another history concerning a woman accused of many sins before the Lord; and this history is contained
in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." (Ecclesiastical History 3.39). This was not an obscure reference
to some pseudo or Gnostic gospel, rather it may have been a general references to the gospels as a whole
beginning with Matthew (as the primary one), or, perhaps, to the gospel of Matthew in specific.

Eusebius, who didn't care for the unlearned format of Papias' writings, does note that Papias used the
gospels written under the authority of the Apostles: "The same writer used quotations from the first
Epistle of John, and likewise also from that of Peter, and has expounded another story about a woman
who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains."
He also elsewhere recorded that Papias stated "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the
Hebrew language". This makes it probable that Papias was attributing the account of Jesus and sinful
woman specifically to the gospel of Matthew.

Irenaeus in his work, Against Heresies (circa 180 A.D.), likewise says "Matthew also issued a written
Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying
the foundations of the church." Modern scholars lightly dismiss these early claims, to the gospel of
Matthew having been written in Hebrew, because it "was written in Greek." This assertion is based on
their best calculations and observations. Some have gone so far as to say that the present gospel of
Matthew could not have been by Matthew, since they accept that his was written in Hebrew and this one,
in Greek, could not be a translation of that one.

The evidence of the early church is that Matthew's gospel was an early one, written in Hebrew and later
circulated in a Greek edition. Beyond Papias and Irenaeus, as mentioned above, others testified to the
same:

Origen (lived 185-254 A.D.) wrote in his commentary on Matthew that he accepted "the traditional view
of the four gospels which alone are undeniably authentic in the church of God on earth. First to be
written was that of the one-time excise-man who became an apostle of Jesus Christ - Matthew; it was
published for believers of Jewish origin, and was composed in Hebrew letters/language. Next came that
of Mark, who followed Peter's instructions in writing it ... Next came that of Luke, who wrote for Gentile
converts ... Last of all came John's." (Cited in Ecclesiastical History 6.25).

Jerome (circa 392 A.D.), in chapter three of his De Viris Illustribus says "Matthew, also called Levi,
apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for
the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though
by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at
Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered, a city of Syria, who use it."

Jerome also mentions that he made translations of the Hebrew gospel of Matthew into Greek and Latin.
Some have speculated that this was a completely different gospel than the one we have today, yet, if this
was true, Jerome would have been diligent to note this and list it either among the canonical books or the
multitudes of non-canonical books that he was aware of. Indeed, the second chapter of Jerome's
commentary on the canonical book of Matthew states that the Hebrew copy of Matthew and the Greek
edition were of the same subject, something that modern scholars, with an absence of the texts to
examine, presumptuously assure us to be in error.

Other church fathers, such as Athanasius (lived circa 293-373) in his Synopsis of Sacred Scriptures and
Epiphanius (lived circa 310 or 320-403) in his Panarion (also called Against Heresies), also speak of
Matthew first being composed in Hebrew. Significantly, some of the earliest fragments of this gospel in
Greek show a Jewish influence. The name of name of Jesus was written in an abbreviated form, as Jews
commonly did with God's name in Hebrew. Certainly this implies that the author of Matthew was Jewish
and the gospel was of a very early date (as this was not common practice in the gentile church).

Internal evidences also show a close affinity to Hebrew thought. For example, Deuteronomy 6:5 divides
man into "heart, soul and might". Matthew alone retains this Hebraic three-fold imagery (Matthew
22:37), with later writers Luke (Luke 10:27) and Mark (Mark 12:30) utilizing a Greek four-fold imagery
to full translate the sense and meaning for Gentile readers. As an apostle of Jesus, Matthew had no need
to copy from Mark, as many scholars now widely speculate; he wrote with more and very specific
Hebrew detail as one who was there. Others have written of this in more detail so I will end by merely
listing a few of the passages where a more Jewish emphasis exists in Matthew's gospel: Matthew 24:20
versus Mark 13:18; Matthew 5:18 versus Luke 16:17; Matthew 10:5; Matthew 15:24; Luke 20:46 and
Mark 12:38-39 versus Matthew 23:2 onward).
3. The Eastern Orthodox Church uses a New Testament based upon the Byzantine type text, meaning it
includes John 7:53-8:11. The Syrian Orthodox and Maronite Churches, have never included John 7:53-
8:11; their translation is based on Peshitta manuscripts that did not have it from antiquity.

4. Calvin, while questioning the passage, ends up encouraging the acceptance of this passage:

"It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture
that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by
the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an
Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage." (John Calvin,
Commentary on the Gospel of John)

5. Other manuscripts which exclude the pericope.

Codex Regius from the 8th century, Codex Athous Lavrensis (circa 800 A.D.), Codex Petropolitanus
Purpureus, Codex Macedoniensis, Codex Sangallensis and Koridethi from the 9th century and Codex
Monacensis from the 10th; Uncials 0141 and 0211; Minuscules 3, 12, 15, 21, 22, 32, 33, 39, 63, 96, 124,
134, 151, 157, 169, 209, 228, 297, 388, 391, 401, 416, 431 (added by a later corrector), 445, 470 (added
by a later corrector), 565, 578, 584, 703, 723, 730, 731, 741, 742, 768, 770, 772, 776, 777, 788, 799, 800,
827, 828, 843, 896, 1100, 1178, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1333, 2193 and 2768; a majority of lectionaries

6. Other manuscripts which include the pericope.

9th century Codices Boreelianus, Seidelianus I, Seidelianus II, Cyprius, Campianus and Nanianus;
Tischendorfianus IV from the 9th century; Minuscule 28, 318, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195,
1216, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174; the Byzantine majority text; lectionaries 79, 100 (John 8:1-
11), 118, 130 (8:1-11), 221, 274, 281, 411, 421, 429 (8:1-11), 442 (8:1-11), 445 (8:1-11), 459; some
ancient Syriac manuscripts, most Bohairic Coptic manuscripts, some Armenian manuscripts, and ancient
Ethiopian manuscripts.

7. Ambrose (circa 374), in a sermon on David's sin, said: "In the same way also the Gospel lesson which
has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an
adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation . . . Did Christ err that He did not
judge righteously? It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds..."

8. In the Didascalia (Teaching) of the Apostles and in the Apostolic Constitutions, which are based on
the Didascalia, it says:

... to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the
judgment in His hands departed. But He, the Searcher of Hearts, asked her and said to her, 'Have the
elders condemned thee, my daughter?" She saith to Him, 'Nay, Lord.' And He said unto her, 'Go thy way:
Neither do I condemn thee.'

9. The Eastern Church selected nine of the twelve verses from this passage in John to be publicly read on
St. Pelagia's day each year, October 8. This practice dates back to the earliest written records of the
practices of this church. Obviously the Byzantine type text that included this passage was known to the
people from quite an early period, regardless of the general silence of most early Greek scholars on this
passage or lack of use at Pentecost.

10. Spanish father Pacian (c. 370) appealed to this pericope when protesting against excessive severity in
discipline. "Are you not willing," he asked, "to read in the Gospel that the Lord also spared the adulteress
who confessed, whom no man had condemned?"

11. That some Lectionaries have the passage in part, in full, or not at all, cannot be taken as definitive
proof that the passage was known or not known. Many churches read the passage surrounding this, in
John, at Pentecost. Obviously the account of Jesus and the sinful woman did not fit into the theme of
Pentecost. In many Lectionaries, it is probable that there was an intentional omission of this passage to
suit the theme for that Sunday. This may also explain why some of the Greek fathers did not comment on
the passage, as they commenting primarily on the surrounding passage in light of Pentecost, as practiced
in their churches.

12. Augustine, after citing the phrase of Christ, "Neither do I condemn you: go, and sin no more," wrote:
"This proceeding, however, shocks the minds of some weak believers, or rather unbelievers and enemies
of the Christian faith: inasmuch that, after (I suppose) of its giving their wives impunity of sinning, they
struck out from their copies of the Gospel this that our Lord did in pardoning the woman taken in
adultery: as if He granted leave of sinning, Who said, Go and sin no more!" (Augustine, De Adulterinis
Conjugiis) Another has translated part of this foregoing statement as: "Certain persons of little faith, or
rather 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."

13. A living language is one that is still in use and spoken by a diverse group of people. A dead language
is one that no longer is spoken as a day-to-day language. Living languages continue to evolve and change
over time, even as the English language has changed dramatically over the past 500 years. A dead
language no longer changes and all words are defined by their original or former usage.

Article by Brent MacDonald of Lion Tracks Ministries (c) 2009 BJM/LTM

As posted on www.NotJustAnotherBook.com
Non-profit duplication permitted - a courtesy email is appreciated