Thread by @travisdon1981

Should the #story of the woman caught in #adultery be removed from the #Bible?

Um, #NO, and here is why:

The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the most powerful historical events to be found in the Gospels. It speaks to the heart of God’s love and mercy, a love that we are to share in our hearts, a love we are to share with the world. It is also a foreshadowing of the

gift of grace and salvation to come, a gift won by the physical death and resurrection of Christ, a gift that can bring about our own spiritual resurrection. Who cannot feel compassion as this woman is dragged before the public, an invisible scarlet letter emblazoned on her chest

as the religious leaders speak out loud about her sin? Who cannot feel her broken spirit as they mention the Old Testament laws about how those guilty of adultery were to be stoned? And who cannot feel her shock and relief when Jesus states ““Let him who is without sin among you

be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7). Who cannot imagine her exhilaration when Jesus said that he did not condemn her?

What a beautiful story of Christ! It is almost impossible to imagine the Gospel of John without it.

And yet, there are many Christians who want

it removed from the Gospel of John!

I repeat: there are many Christians who want it removed from John’s Gospel!

Now why, pray tell, do they want it taken out of the Bible?

The following note in the ESV bible offers a clue:

“The earliest manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11.”

That’s right. The Oldest copies of the Gospel of John that we have do NOT have the story of the woman caught in adultery, which is also called the Pericope Adulterae. Indeed, the earliest copy we have of the Gospel of

John that has the story dates from the 5th century AD (though this doesn’t mean that there weren’t earlier copies of John with the passage in it. Not all manuscripts from the ancient world have survived to the modern era. Thus, some may very well have had it. Indeed, there is

evidence for this; the Pericope Adulterae made its way into Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Translation in 383 AD, in the 4rth century AD (the year he finished translating the gospels. The Old Testament was translated into Latin from Hebrew by 405). This seems to have been a story that

was circulated for a time and then later added to John. Indeed, it is believed by many to have been part of the early Christian oral tradition, just as the rest of the Gospels were before they were put into print. Though many scholars accept that it tells a historical event, its

placement in scripture has been a point of debate. Indeed, there was some debate in the ancient world about it as well (more on that later). So…the Apostle John didn’t write it, its not in the earliest manuscripts of John (i.e. that we have), and therefore, according to many

Christian scholars, it should not be considered scripture.

Seems like a pretty strong case, doesn’t it?

It would have to be, considering that it’s based on a double standard, and a refusal to accept the early church father’s testimony about it.

Didymus the Blind, a Christian theologian who lived in the 4rth century, wrote that the story was found in “certain gospels”. It was presented as a historical event in the third century Christian document the Didascalia Apostolorum. Jerome, who translated the bible into Latin

(the “Latin Vulgate”) put the story in his translation, even though he acknowledged that it wasn’t found in some versions of John. However, he stated that it was found in many Greek and Latin manuscripts of his day. Augustine was a big supporter of the passage. Indeed, he

mentions something quite sinister about Christian leaders who opposed the story in his lifetime:

“…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.”
Augustine, De Adulterinis Conjugiis, 2:6–7.

Thus, people were removing it from the scriptures.
Is it any wonder, then, that none of the early copies (before the

5th century AD) of John that survived to the modern era don’t have it? Some must have, in order for Jerome to have put it into his translation (remember, he also said there were many Greek copies in his time that contained it).

Now, some have discarded Augustine’s testimony, saying that he also defended the Old Testament Apocrypha (1rst and 2nd Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, etc.), which are found in the Catholic Bible but not in the protestant bible (save for some King James Bibles). This is

a genetic fallacy, a logical fallacy where someone disregards an argument based on its origin instead of on the merit of the argument itself. Yes, Augustine did have some bad theological views, but so did Martin Luther, who started the Protestant Reformation (Luther wrote an

anti-Semitic theological book titled “On the Jews and Their Lies”. I guess we should all be Catholic now…). Plus, the fact of the matter is that Augustine actually didn’t consider the apocrypha on par with scripture.

“So what?” the enemies of the Pericope Adulterae will say,

“Its still not in the early manuscripts of John! John didn’t write it, therefore it’s not scripture!”

Really?

Really want to go down that road?

Well, then you might as well cut out sections from the Pentateuch as well…

For many ages, Moses was considered the sole author of the Pentateuch aka Torah. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were thought to have been entirely pinned by Moses. Then skepticism reared its ugly head, and many scholars rejected the idea of Mosaic authorship,

pointing out passages that proved problematic to it (more on them later), as well as repetitions that differed in details and different names of God being used in certain parts of the books (including some areas where Yahweh was used in stories that take place before Moses.

The name of Yahweh wasn't revealed to humans until God spoke it to Moses, according to Exodus 6:2-3). This led to the Documentary Hypothesis, the idea that the Torah was written in stages over many centuries, with no parts written by Moses. Eventually, these documents were put

together as the Torah. Interesting idea, but even it has recently come under scrutiny, primarily due to the fact that ancient near eastern literature was known for odd repetitions that at times differed on details (see Paul’s conversion tales in Acts 9, 22 and 26). Individual

storytellers and writers in the ancient near east did this, and Moses would have been expected to do the same. Other aspects of the Documentary hypothesis, including the use of different names for God in some passages, likewise fails under closer scrutiny (The passage in Exodus

6:2-3 can be translated to mean that “Yahweh”, as a name for God, was known of long before Moses was born). Personally, I’ve never accepted the documentary hypothesis, in part due to the fact that there are multiple verses that indicate that Moses wrote a significant amount of

the Torah (Ex 17:14, 24:4-8, 34:27, Num 33:2, Dt 31:9, 19, 22, 24). Combined with the fact that most of the material from Exodus to Deuteronomy deals with Moses’ life (as well as the answers to objections about repetitions, differing details and the use of different names of God)

, it seems like good evidence for Mosaic authorship.

But did he write the entire Torah?

Um…Nope.

Genesis 12:6 is our first clue:

“Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.”

At that time…the Canaanites were in the land.

Now, if Moses wrote this, then there is a problem.

You see…the Canaanites were STILL in the land while Moses was alive! They hadn’t even invaded the land yet (Dt 26:1)! That didn’t happen until after Moses died, when Joshua led the invasion (se Joshua chapters 1-3). Indeed, if you read the book of Joshua closely, chapters 13-18

show that, despite the hyperbolic statement of Joshua 11:23…the land had not been fully conquered. After Joshua died, there were still Canaanites in the land (as shown in Judges chapters 1-2). Indeed, they were still in the land during the time of Ezra, when the Israelites

returned to Israel during the time of the Persian Empire (Ezra 9:1)! This happened during the reign of Cyrus the Great of Persia, who conquered Babylon in 539 BC and then gave the Jews permission to go back home. Cyrus died in 530 BC.

Moses lived about 1400 BC.

Next, let’s look at Genesis 36:31:

“These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites.”

Moses didn’t write that.

How do I know?

Because King Saul, the 1rst King of Israel, didn’t live until centuries after Moses! Heck, his reign marked the end of the Judges period!
Now, to be fair, Abimelech, son of the Israelite Judge Gideon, was made king of Shechem, and ruled Israel for 3 years (Judges 8:30-9:22).

However, his kingship wasn’t instituted by God (thus God didn’t recognize it, see Dt 17:14-17), he was an evil king, and during a battle a woman threw a millstone onto his head. Not wanting to die due to a woman, he had his armor bearer run him through with a sword. This was all

due to the wrath of God (Judges 9:1-57).

Oh, he also lived long after Moses and Joshua.

Now, some may say that there may have been a king who reigned during Moses time, someone who wasn’t mentioned in the Bible. Well if that’s the case (no evidence for it whatsoever), then how do people who believe that explain Deuteronomy 17:14-17:

“When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow

Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." He must

not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.”

It’s safe to say that Moses didn’t write Genesis 36:31.

It’s also safe to say that he didn’t write Deuteronomy 34, which records his death.

No one writes their own obituary.

Some try to say that Moses was writing about his upcoming death as a prophecy, but if he did…why did he describe it in the past tense?

Indeed, the passage seems even less like a prophecy in verse 10:

“And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the

LORD knew face to face,”

Indeed, in Dt 33:1, right before he gives his final blessing on Israel, it states:

“This is the blessing that Moses the man of God pronounced on the Israelites before his death.”

This was obviously not written by Moses.

It seems that, though Moses wrote the Torah, people added to it over time. Indeed, some of these additions were put in centuries after Moses’s died.

Just like the story of the woman caught in adultery was put into the Gospel of John a few centuries after it was written…

This begs the question; why are the same people who want to cut out John 7:53-8:11 not raising a ruckus about these passages in the Torah that Moses didn’t write?

Why the #doublestandard??

I could understand a little if they believed in the Documentary Hypothesis, but the Documentary Hypothesis doesn’t jive with the Biblical evidence for Mosaic authorship seen above. Whether one thinks that Moses wrote a little bit of the Torah, or most of it, there is no denying

that some of the Torah was written much later.

And yet, the scholars who dismiss John 7:53-8:11…don’t dismiss Genesis 12:6, 36:31, or Deuteronomy 34.

I once had a short twitter debate with a Biblical scholar (whose name I won’t mention) over this subject. When I brought the

passages up in the Torah that Moses obviously didn’t write, then asked why he didn’t want them gone because they weren’t written by Moses, yet still wanted John 7:53-8:11 gone, because it wasn’t written by the Apostle John, he said “That’s not how textual criticism works.”

Special Pleading Fallacy.

Now, some will cry foul, saying that there was controversy over the passage even during the ancient world.

Well...guess what?

Come on, guess what?

There was also controversy over Jude, James, Hebrews, the Book of Revelation, 2 Peter and 2 and 3rdd John! Indeed, in the third century, these (and several other NT works) were at times excluded from scripture! Though there was already recognition of some NT books being canon in

the 1rst century (2 Peter 3:16) it wasn’t until 367 AD that the New Testament canon acquired its current form.

Folks, Textual criticism is an interesting field of study. To see what was originally in a historical document and then dismissing what’s not can be comparable to a

surgeon removing a tumor from a body. But we also have to remember that God is the ultimate author of the Bible, inspiring John, Moses and countless others to write these sacred treasures. The story of the woman caught in adultery is no different. To remove it from the Bible

would be like a surgeon removing an organ as well as a tumor from a body. Like Jude and the book of Revelation, this passage passed the test of the ancient church and later the reformation (when the Old Testament Apocrypha was removed). It speaks to the character of Christ, whose

life perfectly reflected the truth that God is love (1 John 4:8,16).

Sources:

“Nelson’s Dictionary of Christianity” by George Thomas Kurian (Editor), 128-29
“Encountering the Old Testament” by Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, 168-169
“The Apologetics Study Bible (Holman CSB), 1587
“Archeological Study Bible (NIV)”, 15

“Oxford Guide to the Bible” by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (Editors), 102-104
britannica.com/topic/Vulgate
bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/ma…
confessionalbibliology.com/2016/03/29/res…
purelypresbyterian.com/2016/12/01/def…
ancient.eu/Cyrus_the_Grea…
ancient.eu/Moses/

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/martin-luther-…
christiancentury.org/article/critic…
logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallaci…
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleadi…
logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallaci…
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

BTW: one of my sources wont show up on Twitter. The website starts out with http://textualcriticism. then scienceontheweb, then .net and then ends with /FATHERS/Augustine2.html

Once again, http://textualcriticism. then scienceontheweb then .net then /FATHERS/Augustine2.html

@threadreaderapp unroll