The “adulterous woman” John 8:1-11 story possibly not in the original text.

[just-me]

Commentators and other scholars tell us that the earliest manuscripts of John’s gospel do not include the story of the adulterous woman. (John 8:1-11) It does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifth century and no Greek Church “Father,”prior to the 9th century, made any comments on the story of the “adulterous woman”. Even then, the comments state that the accurate manuscripts do not contain this story. When it was inserted in later manuscripts, the story of the “adulterous woman” appeared in different places in scripture. The story seems to be part of an oral tradition that was circulated in the Western church, eventually finding its way into the Latin Vulgate, and from there into later Greek manuscripts.


In respect to this, Jesus wrote in the dirt which He never did in any other circumstance when the Pharisees presented questions attempting to corner our Savior into a metaphorical box. Jesus is the Word of God, and Jesus always talked in every other case recorded in scripture. Further, the story of the woman caught in adultery involves no male who was adulterous according to the law that the Pharisees seemed to abide by in works only. What Jesus did in that story doesn't compare with His Father's previous instructions, concerning adultery in any way. In short the story doesn't have any righteous recompense of reward for the actions. At least, (according to His Father's instruction that has never changed) the question “where's the man?,” should have been presented according to the demeanor of Christ Jesus recorded in every other circumstance throughout the Gospels.

 

[Magenta]

Jesus knew they were up to no good.

“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

 

[bahous]

Commentators and other scholars tell us that the earliest manuscripts of John’s gospel do not include the story of the adulterous woman. (John 8:1-11) It does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifth century and no Greek Church “Father,”prior to the 9th century, made any comments on the story of the “adulterous woman”. Even then, the comments state that the accurate manuscripts do not contain this story. When it was inserted in later manuscripts, the story of the “adulterous woman” appeared in different places in scripture. The story seems to be part of an oral tradition that was circulated in the Western church, eventually finding its way into the Latin Vulgate, and from there into later Greek manuscripts.


In respect to this, Jesus wrote in the dirt which He never did in any other circumstance when the Pharisees presented questions attempting to corner our Savior into a metaphorical box. Jesus is the Word of God, and Jesus always talked in every other case recorded in scripture. Further, the story of the woman caught in adultery involves no male who was adulterous according to the law that the Pharisees seemed to abide by in works only. What Jesus did in that story doesn't compare with His Father's previous instructions, concerning adultery in any way. In short the story doesn't have any righteous recompense of reward for the actions. At least, (according to His Father's instruction that has never changed) the question “where's the man?,” should have been presented according to the demeanor of Christ Jesus recorded in every other circumstance throughout the Gospels.

*********************
you recognise that the Bible is falsified

 

[dcontroversal]

*********************
you recognise that the Bible is falsified

Your recognize that your prophet was a deceiver and a liar and Allah is no god right?

 

[Magenta]

The Qua'ran is based on the ramblings of an adulterous war mongering pedophile who was deceived by a jinn he later allowed his wife and another relative convince him was the angel Gabriel, though years later verses had to be removed from the Qua'ran, because they were found to be Satanic in origin. Mohammed was deceived.

 

[just-me]

This thread is not for recognizing Muslim religion, or to debunk the Bible. It is interesting though, in light of the universal church founded in 325 AD by the Nicene doctrine forming the First Roman Catholic Gentile church, under "Emperor Constantine." Do an on-line search and read what others have said about these 11 verses in John, in relation to history. If (in fact) that scripture was actually added by man's doctrine, what was the purpose? Any thoughts?

 

[Magenta]

This thread is not for recognizing Muslim religion...

My apologies, did not mean to derail your thread.

 

[just-me]

My apologies, did not mean to derail your thread.

That's ok. I wasn't accusing anyone. God bless you for your participation.

 

[tanach]

In Jeremiah God told him to write on the ground the names of those in Israel that he was sent to warn. I cant remember chapter and verse as it is some time ago that I read it but it is there. Point is people wonder what Jesus wrote. It may have been the names of the accusers. As to whether the story is original I have no idea but it has a good message to those who think they are perfect in Gods eyes.

 

[just-me]

In Jeremiah God told him to write on the ground the names of those in Israel that he was sent to warn. I cant remember chapter and verse as it is some time ago that I read it but it is there. Point is people wonder what Jesus wrote. It may have been the names of the accusers. As to whether the story is original I have no idea but it has a good message to those who think they are perfect in Gods eyes.

O Lord, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters. Jeremiah 17:13

בארץ יכתבו, כי עזבו מקור מים-חיים

This Hebrew phase means "will write the country that left source of living waters." The first part of the verse emphasizes the forsaking of God's word, relating to the "dried up, and the pain caused by turning aside" written;
יבשו; יסורי וסורי

In Hebrew, "country" represents a place of abode in relation to a persons character. That's quite interesting. Thanks

"I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; so their dwelling should not be cut off, howsoever I punished them: but they rose early, and corrupted all their doings." Zephaniah 3:7

 

[just-me]

*********************
you recognise that the Bible is falsified

All "man made doctrines" are false. YHWA's doctrine is the ONLY true doctrine.

 

[damombomb]

*********************
you recognise that the Bible is falsified

We don"t stone people anymore, Jesus bore our sin's on the cross. Repent and believe. Good works is not going to save you.
Only beleieving in Jesus who shed his blood for our sin's.

John10:9
…8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.…

1Timothy2:5
…4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.…

 

[MarcR]

This thread is not for recognizing Muslim religion, or to debunk the Bible. It is interesting though, in light of the universal church founded in 325 AD by the Nicene doctrine forming the First Roman Catholic Gentile church, under "Emperor Constantine." Do an on-line search and read what others have said about these 11 verses in John, in relation to history. If (in fact) that scripture was actually added by man's doctrine, what was the purpose? Any thoughts?

The RCC has added many doctrines to scripture in an attempt to get its adherents to rely on its pronouncements.

In light of this, why should anyone be surprised if they attempted to pollute God's word.

On the other hand the passage may indeed be inspired whether or not it was added later. Whatever else the passage does; it certainly illustrates the principle of grace. This truly illustrates unmerited favor and forgiveness; and the admonition not to continue in sin is consistent with the entire NT message.

 

[valiant]

This thread is not for recognizing Muslim religion, or to debunk the Bible. It is interesting though, in light of the universal church founded in 325 AD by the Nicene doctrine forming the First Roman Catholic Gentile church, under "Emperor Constantine." Do an on-line search and read what others have said about these 11 verses in John, in relation to history. If (in fact) that scripture was actually added by man's doctrine, what was the purpose? Any thoughts?

The first Roman Catholic church was not founded in 325 AD by the emperor Constantine. Indeed when he tried to promote the primacy of the bishop of Rome he was roundly repudiated and it was pointed out to him that Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were all more ancient than Rome so that he had to back down.

Even when Gregory the Great in 6th century AD sought to claim primacy his claim was rejected although it was conceded that he might be called 'the first among equals.

As the encyclopedia Britannica makes clear The Roman Catholic church was in fact formed in 8th century AD:

~

ThePapacy was not organized until the second half of the 8th century. It broke away from the Eastern Church (in the Ency. Brit., 13th Ed.,vol. 21, page 636) under Pippin III; also the Papacy, by AbbeGuette."

The story of the woman taken in adultery was unquestionably an addition to the Scriptures, but does bear the impress of Jesus' wisdom and character. It should not therefore be used as Scripture, but we should certainly take note of the lesson that it teaches us, not to judge others without looking at ourselves first, which is of course a Scriptural doctrine. He forgave the woman because she was a repentant sinner.
​

 

[just-me]

The first Roman Catholic church was not founded in 325 AD by the emperor Constantine. Indeed when he tried to promote the primacy of the bishop of Rome he was roundly repudiated and it was pointed out to him that Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were all more ancient than Rome so that he had to back down.

Even when Gregory the Great in 6th century AD sought to claim primacy his claim was rejected although it was conceded that he might be called 'the first among equals.

As the encyclopedia Britannica makes clear The Roman Catholic church was in fact formed in 8th century AD:

~

ThePapacy was not organized until the second half of the 8th century. It broke away from the Eastern Church (in the Ency. Brit., 13th Ed.,vol. 21, page 636) under Pippin III; also the Papacy, by AbbeGuette."

The story of the woman taken in adultery was unquestionably an addition to the Scriptures, but does bear the impress of Jesus' wisdom and character. It should not therefore be used as Scripture, but we should certainly take note of the lesson that it teaches us, not to judge others without looking at ourselves first, which is of course a Scriptural doctrine. He forgave the woman because she was a repentant sinner.
​

The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, under the direction of Constantine wasn't the Roman Catholic church. I agree on that point. The Catholic church adopted the Council of Nicaea as their doctrine later in history. That counsel, in many areas, have been adopted by many protestant denominations also. The sole purpose of the Council of Nicaea was to separate the Jewish faith (described in the book of Acts) from the Gentile faith. That doctrine is still prevalent today. To describe this man made doctrine even further is that it has turned Biblical chronology (180 degrees) opposite to the truth of the first church explained in New Testament scripture. Here is a simple verse that says it right.

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. John 4:22 Jesus said this to the Gentile Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus didn't say salvation for Jews is of the Gentiles.

Paul did not write to the to the Greek first and also to the Jews.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16 (also see Romans 2:9-10)

The doctrine of Council of Nicaea in 325 AD says that salvation for the Jews is of the Gentiles. It is a compromising, patronizing doctrine that intertwined the pagan beliefs of the Romans with Christianity, attempting to salvage the Empire that had split in two.

See the prophecy of Daniel concerning the statue that Nebuchadnezzar saw in His dream. The "two iron legs" represent the Romans that are separated one from another.

"This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise." (Daniel 2:32-33 and verse 40)

If you will allow me to be a little facetious, under the direction of Constantine, the "Council of Nicaea" was to the Catholics first and also to the Protestant.

 

[Nick01]

The point of your own OP, to me, seems like an invitation to discuss the authenticity of the passage in John 11, not to discuss Nicea, or what you may think people may have taken John 8 to mean in the context of Jewish/Christian relations.

It should go without saying that whether or not the passage is authentic has nothing to do with Nicea. Personally, I think it's a long bow to link the passage with some church political motive. It certainly preceded the Vulgate, though its actual origin is not known. Bezae is the earliest witnesses, and is there in Greek and Latin. There is no early Latin-only witnesses than that. There's also no evidence it was an idiosyncratic text the Western church, although it is represents a development in the Western text type (which doesn't tell you a lot geographically - Bezae almost certainly came from Syria, for instance).

Several of the mysterious features seem to argue in its favour (the obscureness of the writing in the dust, for instance, seems odd as an erroneous addition, precisely because it's not at all clear what it is supposed to mean), but the external evidence is just too thin. I think it's a secondary addition.

FWIW, I don't think the lack of a male witness in the account is itself any argument against its authenticity. The gospels already record plenty of instances where Pharisees or other leaders acted in ways in contravention of the religious law, so it's otherwise of no surprise if they did so here. It's not even clear that their appearance with the woman in the temple courts is any kind of actual legal proceeding, but merely another attempt to try and trap Jesus in another argument.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

While most modern versions denote this passage is not in the oldest transcripts -- the NASB, for example, brackets the entire passage with "[]"-- there is actually very little debate as to the authenticity of the event. Where the narrative actually fits is debatable, but it fits well in the "seven miracles of John" by proving Christ's ability to forgive sin.

If the primary reason not to "trust" it is because Jesus writes in the dirt and is never seen to do that anywhere else, or that He has no retribution for the woman, those are very thin veneers to attempt to discredit the passage. What, for example, do we suppose He wrote in the dirt? I think Tony Evans, who is the first I heard to suggest this, is absolutely right: He wrote the name of the men standing around him alongside their mistresses' names.

That was both convicting to them, as well as the reason they threw their stones aside, but also revealed their error in bringing HIm only the woman. They presented their own sinful selves to act as judge and jury, but did not bring the man who, by law and necessity, should also have been on trial.

The passage means exactly what it purports to mean, and should be heeded as a teaching of Christ.

 

[just-me]

The point of your own OP, to me, seems like an invitation to discuss the authenticity of the passage in John 11, not to discuss Nicea, or what you may think people may have taken John 8 to mean in the context of Jewish/Christian relations.

It should go without saying that whether or not the passage is authentic has nothing to do with Nicea. Personally, I think it's a long bow to link the passage with some church political motive. It certainly preceded the Vulgate, though its actual origin is not known. Bezae is the earliest witnesses, and is there in Greek and Latin. There is no early Latin-only witnesses than that. There's also no evidence it was an idiosyncratic text the Western church, although it is represents a development in the Western text type (which doesn't tell you a lot geographically - Bezae almost certainly came from Syria, for instance).

Several of the mysterious features seem to argue in its favour (the obscureness of the writing in the dust, for instance, seems odd as an erroneous addition, precisely because it's not at all clear what it is supposed to mean), but the external evidence is just too thin. I think it's a secondary addition.

FWIW, I don't think the lack of a male witness in the account is itself any argument against its authenticity. The gospels already record plenty of instances where Pharisees or other leaders acted in ways in contravention of the religious law, so it's otherwise of no surprise if they did so here. It's not even clear that their appearance with the woman in the temple courts is any kind of actual legal proceeding, but merely another attempt to try and trap Jesus in another argument.

Thank you for your input.
The main point of this thread is if the story of the adulterous woman was not written by John, and was later added to his original writings, who added it? The question remains; what was the agenda, strategy, scheme, motive, reason or the intentions of the group or person that inventing the story, and is it possible to know, if that were the case? It is true that it was added at a later date, for as I have come to know, the first 4 translations of John, written in Greek didn't have the story.

 

[Elin]

Commentators and other scholars tell us that the earliest manuscripts of John’s gospel do not include the story of the adulterous woman. (John 8:1-11) It does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifth century and no Greek Church “Father,”prior to the 9th century, made any comments on the story of the “adulterous woman”. Even then, the comments state that the accurate manuscripts do not contain this story. When it was inserted in later manuscripts, the story of the “adulterous woman” appeared in different places in scripture. The story seems to be part of an oral tradition that was circulated in the Western church, eventually finding its way into the Latin Vulgate, and from there into later Greek manuscripts.


In respect to this, Jesus wrote in the dirt which He never did in any other circumstance when the Pharisees presented questions attempting to corner our Savior into a metaphorical box. Jesus is the Word of God, and Jesus always talked in every other case recorded in scripture. Further, the story of the woman caught in adultery involves no male who was adulterous according to the law that the Pharisees seemed to abide by in works only. What Jesus did in that story doesn't compare with His Father's previous instructions, concerning adultery in any way. In short the story doesn't have any righteous recompense of reward for the actions. At least, (according to His Father's instruction that has never changed) the question “where's the man?,” should have been presented according to the demeanor of Christ Jesus recorded in every other circumstance throughout the Gospels.

It is an immaterial difference in that it does not alter any of God's Biblical truth.

 

[sparkman]

Whether it belongs in Scripture I'm not sure..perhaps we will find some earlier manuscripts at some point that indicate it should be included.

However, regarding a possible interpretation of why he wrote in dirt, some think this relates to the giving of the Ten Commandments..note that he wrote in the dirt twice which could have related to the Ten Commandments being written on two tablets of stone.


If this is true, maybe he was pointing to his authority to pronounce judgment in this circumstance as he was the Lawgiver. This possibly could relate to the Scripture where he says he is the Lord of the Sabbath...he was the Lawgiver and had the authority to decide what was right or wrong on the Sabbath.

This is all speculation one way or the other. No one can prove whether it belongs or doesn't belong in the Canon as inspired Scripture. KJV Only guys may tell you otherwise but we know that there are reasons to think otherwise.

While most modern versions denote this passage is not in the oldest transcripts -- the NASB, for example, brackets the entire passage with "[]"-- there is actually very little debate as to the authenticity of the event. Where the narrative actually fits is debatable, but it fits well in the "seven miracles of John" by proving Christ's ability to forgive sin.

If the primary reason not to "trust" it is because Jesus writes in the dirt and is never seen to do that anywhere else, or that He has no retribution for the woman, those are very thin veneers to attempt to discredit the passage. What, for example, do we suppose He wrote in the dirt? I think Tony Evans, who is the first I heard to suggest this, is absolutely right: He wrote the name of the men standing around him alongside their mistresses' names.

That was both convicting to them, as well as the reason they threw their stones aside, but also revealed their error in bringing HIm only the woman. They presented their own sinful selves to act as judge and jury, but did not bring the man who, by law and necessity, should also have been on trial.

The passage means exactly what it purports to mean, and should be heeded as a teaching of Christ.