Most Christian churches regard the pericope adulterae as part of the deposit of faith. It enjoys a venerable and liberal usage in the Catholic and Orthodox lectionary cycle, the liturgy, which is the living embodiment of our faith. But for "sola scripturists", its inclusion in the canon does present a not-insignificant-dilemma, because the balance of evidence strongly favours it not being original to the Gospel of John.
If biblical inerrancy and "bible-aloneism" is your thing, then the pericope adulterae really doesn't belong in your canon.
The church fathers defended its apostolic origin but not all of them upheld its identity as part of written scripture prior to its insertion. Hilary of Poitiers (ca. 315–67/8), Pacian of Barcelona (ca. 310–91), Ambrose of Milan (ca. 339–97), Gelasius (d. 395), Rufinus of Aquileia (ca. 345–411), Jerome (ca. 345–420), Augustine of Hippo (345–430), Peter Chrysologus (ca. 400–450), Leo the Great (d. 461), Sedulius (active ca. 450), and Cassiodorus (ca. 485–580) - among other authorities - all embraced it as an authentic story about Christ.
There is a strong scholarly case to be made that the story originated in the oral tradition, as a free-floating dominical narrative not derived from any specific gospel text, that was incorporated variously into John and Luke (the language is more polished and Lukan-like).
From the blog of New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado, we learned yesterday of a new mammoth study of the pericope:
The Story of the Story of the Adulterous Woman
The apostolic father Papias (70 - 163) referred to a variant of this story as part of the oral tradition derived from Jesus. It also, apparently, featured in the Gospel of the Hebrews. So it’s very ancient and I do regard it as an authentic dominical story of Christ, part of our sacred tradition. Hurtado himself notes this in the comments underneath the blog post:
As the eminent Anglican scholar, Professor John Barton of Oxford University, explained:
“the earliest Christians perceived the traditions about Jesus as oral…it is well known that many of the Fathers cite sayings not recorded in any existing Gospel, the so-called agrapha. Certainly it is still true for Irenaeus that words of Jesus have an authority which has little to do with whether or not they stand in a written gospel…These traditions are cited as ‘what all Christians know’, not as facts attested by specific documents…Christians who saw things this way agreed in principle with Papias that, ‘I do not think that what was taken from books would profit me so much as what came from the living and abiding voice’’” (John Barton, Holy Writings, Sacred Text p.99).
I have always, however, regarded the story of the adulterous woman as an interpolation (or rather ancient agraphon inserted into scripture to save it for the lectionary cycle), simply on the basis that it breaks the flow of the Johannine discourse; has a more polished Greek style than the rest of the gospel and has clearly – according to the patristic writers – been a “floating tradition” variously inserted into GJohn, GLuke or attributed to oral tradition or another gospel.
I think Professor David Bentley Hart, the Eastern Orthodox scholar, was quite right to note in his translation of the NT that: “there is good reason to think the episode may in fact be drawn from an older narrative source than the Gospel itself…the story was something of a freely floating tradition, perhaps with very deep roots in Christian memory, one that was not originally firmly associated with any particular Gospel text, but that was inserted in various versions of Luke or John because” no one wanted it to be “left out of the church’s lectionary cycle” (The New Testament: A New Translation, p.196).
This seems to be much the same argument made by the authors of the cited study.
Indeed, St. Didymus the Blind (c. 313 – 398) noted that “it is related in some gospels” (plural) that a woman “was condemned by the Jews because of a sin and was taken to the customary place of stoning, in order that she might be stoned” (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 4.223.6–13).
I must quote from this excellent study, namely chapter II.
The researchers speak (like Barton did back in the 1990s) about the “open attitude ancient Christians displayed when discussing Gospel books and traditions” (p.54), such that “at this early stage, written Gospels did not limit the content of the gospel message, which was presumed to be much greater than what was contained in books” (p.55), “they remained open to [orthodox] traditions about Jesus that never made it into the fourfold Gospels” (ibid.) because “to these second-century Christian writers, our earliest witnesses to the New Testament Gospels, “gospel” remained an expansive term that exceeded what was found in books” (p.57) and in such a climate “it would have been possible to refer to the pericope adulterae as an authoritative tradition - as “gospel” - whether or not it was found in John. Indeed, this is precisely how the story was cited: no second or third-century allusion identifies a source text. Yet lack of attribution does not imply an absence of esteem…[because of] the sense among ancient Christians that apostolic traditions” (ibid.) were true and binding in their own right, regardless of whether they were committed to writing in the canon.
One of the most fascinating exemplars of this patristic dedication to the oral tradition, cited in the book, is that of St. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130 - ca. 200), the early church’s greatest heresy-hunter-in-chief whom the authors note: “did specify and describe each of the four Gospels, defending their authority against what he regarded as an onslaught of heretical interpretation, but even he weaved together written gospel traditions with other extra-canonical sayings of Jesus that he treats with equivalent weight” (p.57).
For instance, St. Irenaeus quotes a saying of Jesus involving vines with ten thousand branches that he explicitly states he knew not from any Gospel book but from St. Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60 - 130), who, he states, learned it from associates of the apostle John (Haer. 5.33-3).
The Gospel of John actually refers to this principle explicitly: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book” (20:30); “But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (21:25).
The academics thus conclude: “The cumulative weight of the literary evidence therefore confirms that a story involving a woman taken in adultery or sin was familiar to some Christians early on, but not necessarily that it was known from John. When known, this episode was perceived as a worthy gospel anecdote, external to the fourfold Gospel tradition, but authoritative nonetheless” an argument that is “even more certain once the manuscript evidence is consulted” (p.64).
If biblical inerrancy and "bible-aloneism" is your thing, then the pericope adulterae really doesn't belong in your canon.
The church fathers defended its apostolic origin but not all of them upheld its identity as part of written scripture prior to its insertion. Hilary of Poitiers (ca. 315–67/8), Pacian of Barcelona (ca. 310–91), Ambrose of Milan (ca. 339–97), Gelasius (d. 395), Rufinus of Aquileia (ca. 345–411), Jerome (ca. 345–420), Augustine of Hippo (345–430), Peter Chrysologus (ca. 400–450), Leo the Great (d. 461), Sedulius (active ca. 450), and Cassiodorus (ca. 485–580) - among other authorities - all embraced it as an authentic story about Christ.
There is a strong scholarly case to be made that the story originated in the oral tradition, as a free-floating dominical narrative not derived from any specific gospel text, that was incorporated variously into John and Luke (the language is more polished and Lukan-like).
From the blog of New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado, we learned yesterday of a new mammoth study of the pericope:
The Story of the Story of the Adulterous Woman
The account of the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus is a well-known textual variant and problem. Eventually obtaining a place in the Gospel of John (7:53—8:11) in the vast majority of manuscripts of the middle ages, it is typically judged by NT textual critics to be an insertion initiated at some point, and so not a part of the authentic or “original” text of GJohn. Now Jennifer Knust and Tommy Wasserman have produced a milestone work on the passage that covers an unrivalled breadth of evidence and issues, analysing not only the text-critical data (in great detail) but also the references to the passage in ancient commentaries, sermons, and letters, as well as its use in Christian liturgy and art: To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019).
The passage appears in no extant Greek manuscript of the Gospel of John before the fifth century Codex Bezae (a Latin/Greek bi-lengual manuscript of the Gospels and Acts)…
Chapters 7-8 survey meticulously the liturgical uses of the passage, and early Christian scholarly views about it, and also the references to the passage in the medieval liturgy and sermons. One conclusion from this is how the liturgical use of the passage came earlier in the Latin West than in the Greek East, but that, in the end, the liturgical usefulness of the passage overcame any initial doubts about it. Liturgy, in short, had a significant role in the passage securing such a firm place in the traditional text of GJohn.
The passage appears in no extant Greek manuscript of the Gospel of John before the fifth century Codex Bezae (a Latin/Greek bi-lengual manuscript of the Gospels and Acts)…
Chapters 7-8 survey meticulously the liturgical uses of the passage, and early Christian scholarly views about it, and also the references to the passage in the medieval liturgy and sermons. One conclusion from this is how the liturgical use of the passage came earlier in the Latin West than in the Greek East, but that, in the end, the liturgical usefulness of the passage overcame any initial doubts about it. Liturgy, in short, had a significant role in the passage securing such a firm place in the traditional text of GJohn.
The apostolic father Papias (70 - 163) referred to a variant of this story as part of the oral tradition derived from Jesus. It also, apparently, featured in the Gospel of the Hebrews. So it’s very ancient and I do regard it as an authentic dominical story of Christ, part of our sacred tradition. Hurtado himself notes this in the comments underneath the blog post:
It’s historically fair to judge that the passage was inserted into GJohn (usually as what we know as 7:53–8:11, but in some manuscripts at other locations, and in a few inserted instead in GLuke), and so not an original part of GJohn.
Most scholars have judged by references to some such story very early that its warrants are good, and that it is an example of a larger body of Jesus-tradition circulating in early Christianity. As GJohn itself says (21:25), there was a larger pool of such tradition wider than what is contained in our four Gospels
Most scholars have judged by references to some such story very early that its warrants are good, and that it is an example of a larger body of Jesus-tradition circulating in early Christianity. As GJohn itself says (21:25), there was a larger pool of such tradition wider than what is contained in our four Gospels
As the eminent Anglican scholar, Professor John Barton of Oxford University, explained:
“the earliest Christians perceived the traditions about Jesus as oral…it is well known that many of the Fathers cite sayings not recorded in any existing Gospel, the so-called agrapha. Certainly it is still true for Irenaeus that words of Jesus have an authority which has little to do with whether or not they stand in a written gospel…These traditions are cited as ‘what all Christians know’, not as facts attested by specific documents…Christians who saw things this way agreed in principle with Papias that, ‘I do not think that what was taken from books would profit me so much as what came from the living and abiding voice’’” (John Barton, Holy Writings, Sacred Text p.99).
I have always, however, regarded the story of the adulterous woman as an interpolation (or rather ancient agraphon inserted into scripture to save it for the lectionary cycle), simply on the basis that it breaks the flow of the Johannine discourse; has a more polished Greek style than the rest of the gospel and has clearly – according to the patristic writers – been a “floating tradition” variously inserted into GJohn, GLuke or attributed to oral tradition or another gospel.
I think Professor David Bentley Hart, the Eastern Orthodox scholar, was quite right to note in his translation of the NT that: “there is good reason to think the episode may in fact be drawn from an older narrative source than the Gospel itself…the story was something of a freely floating tradition, perhaps with very deep roots in Christian memory, one that was not originally firmly associated with any particular Gospel text, but that was inserted in various versions of Luke or John because” no one wanted it to be “left out of the church’s lectionary cycle” (The New Testament: A New Translation, p.196).
This seems to be much the same argument made by the authors of the cited study.
Indeed, St. Didymus the Blind (c. 313 – 398) noted that “it is related in some gospels” (plural) that a woman “was condemned by the Jews because of a sin and was taken to the customary place of stoning, in order that she might be stoned” (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 4.223.6–13).
I must quote from this excellent study, namely chapter II.
The researchers speak (like Barton did back in the 1990s) about the “open attitude ancient Christians displayed when discussing Gospel books and traditions” (p.54), such that “at this early stage, written Gospels did not limit the content of the gospel message, which was presumed to be much greater than what was contained in books” (p.55), “they remained open to [orthodox] traditions about Jesus that never made it into the fourfold Gospels” (ibid.) because “to these second-century Christian writers, our earliest witnesses to the New Testament Gospels, “gospel” remained an expansive term that exceeded what was found in books” (p.57) and in such a climate “it would have been possible to refer to the pericope adulterae as an authoritative tradition - as “gospel” - whether or not it was found in John. Indeed, this is precisely how the story was cited: no second or third-century allusion identifies a source text. Yet lack of attribution does not imply an absence of esteem…[because of] the sense among ancient Christians that apostolic traditions” (ibid.) were true and binding in their own right, regardless of whether they were committed to writing in the canon.
One of the most fascinating exemplars of this patristic dedication to the oral tradition, cited in the book, is that of St. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130 - ca. 200), the early church’s greatest heresy-hunter-in-chief whom the authors note: “did specify and describe each of the four Gospels, defending their authority against what he regarded as an onslaught of heretical interpretation, but even he weaved together written gospel traditions with other extra-canonical sayings of Jesus that he treats with equivalent weight” (p.57).
For instance, St. Irenaeus quotes a saying of Jesus involving vines with ten thousand branches that he explicitly states he knew not from any Gospel book but from St. Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60 - 130), who, he states, learned it from associates of the apostle John (Haer. 5.33-3).
The Gospel of John actually refers to this principle explicitly: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book” (20:30); “But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (21:25).
The academics thus conclude: “The cumulative weight of the literary evidence therefore confirms that a story involving a woman taken in adultery or sin was familiar to some Christians early on, but not necessarily that it was known from John. When known, this episode was perceived as a worthy gospel anecdote, external to the fourfold Gospel tradition, but authoritative nonetheless” an argument that is “even more certain once the manuscript evidence is consulted” (p.64).
Last edited:
