The Pericope Adulterae (John 7.53 - 8.

11)
A Cumulative Approach for its Acceptance as Sacred Johannine Scripture
 Except for possibly the longer ending to the Gospel of Mark, no other text-

block of Scripture has received more scholarly attention than the Pericope

Adulterae of John 7.53-8.11.1 In this fascinating narrative, a woman caught in

the act of adultery is paraded by the scribes and Pharisees before Jesus and the

gathered crowd. The context is clear; the religious leaders bring the woman to

test Jesus, rather than a concern that the Torah has been violated. Gail O’Day’s

assessment of the woman is spot-on, “she is an object on display, given no

name, no voice, no identify apart from that for which she stands accused.” 2

When asked if he agrees with Moses’ judgement of stoning, Jesus

responds with silence and then proceeds with the dramatic act of bending down

and writing on the ground.3 When Jesus finally answers, he invites those without

sin to be the first to cast a stone.4 As Jesus bends down to write in the dirt once

more, the accusers depart, beginning with the “older ones,” until the woman

alone stands before Jesus.5 When asked by Jesus whether anyone is left to

accuse her, she replies in the negative. It is then that Jesus’ renowned words

are uttered, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” 6

For all the PA’s literary beauty, its acceptance as Scripture has varied

widely among biblical scholars. Bridges likens the story to the apocryphal

literature of the Old Testament, “The OT apocrypha represent a benign

1
The term Pericope Adulterae will most often hereafter be abbreviated as PA.
2
Gail R. O’Day, “John 7:53-8:11: A Study in Misreading,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 111 no. 4
(Winter 1992): 632. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 3,
2017).
3
This action in John 8.6b is repeated by Jesus in verse 8.
4
Verse 7.
5
Verse 9.
6
Verse 11b, The ESV Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version), copyright 2001 by
Crossway. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

1
expansion of the OT canon, and the pericope adulterae represents a benign

expansion of the Gospels.”1 In light of his low view of the pericope, he advises

preachers to use the story “with caution, not basing whole sermons on the

passage, using it (if at all) as an illustration, and verbally footnoting it as a

doubtful passage.”2 Köstenberger agrees that, “proper conservatism and caution

suggest that the passage be omitted from preaching in churches.” 3 Baum

suggests that those who hesitate to accept the PA as canonical “can remove it

from the NT without having to fear a serious loss.” 4 While I concede his point

that everything the PA has to say can be found several times elsewhere in the

biblical canon, I would exercise caution in dismissing the text too hastily.

At the popular level, most modern versions of the Bible in modern English

contain brackets or indicator lines to separate these twelve verses from the rest

of John’s Gospel. Consider the well-known New Living Translation, which sets

the PA apart with horizontal lines and brackets the explanatory note, “The most

ancient Greek manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11.” 5 The NLT’s preface

indicates its translators have used two standard editions of the Greek New

1
Carl B. Bridges, “The Canonical Status of the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11),” Stone
Campbell Journal 11, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 221. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed March 4,2017).
2
Ibid: 221.
3
A.J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids,
Baker, 2004): 249.
4
Armin D. Baum, “Does the Pericope Adulterae Have Canonical Authority? An
Interconfessional
Approach,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24, no. 2 (2014): 178. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 6, 2017).
5
Holy Bible. New Living Translation copyright© 1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation.
Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights
reserved.

2
Testament as their sources, yet the reader is left wondering what ancient

manuscripts are lacking the PA, and more importantly, how the text should be

viewed.

This paper is written to put forth reasons for acceptance of the PA as both

Johannine in nature and as sacred Scripture. Objections to this will be

considered, and twelve arguments in favor of the PA will be offered. It is my

conviction that the cumulative effect of these arguments outweighs claims in

opposition to the PA. As one stroke of an artist’s brush across the canvas does

not create a picture, similarly, no single argument presented here in favor of the

PA yields a solid case for acceptance of it. However, as the cumulative effect of

the artist in applying multiple movements of the brush enables one to accept his

work as art, the arguments set forth in this essay in favor of the PA have the

cumulative effect of accepting John 7.53-8.11 as both Johannine and sacred

Scripture. While it would seem logical that a parallel case could be made for

opposition to the PA, it will be shown that some of the arguments against the PA

crumble under scrutiny.

The arguments in this paper for acceptance of the PA are presented under

six broad headings, referred to hereafter as Considerations. The first is

Polemical Consideration, and arguments against the PA will be evaluated. The

reader will discover that these arguments are not as airtight as they seem, and

sometimes do not give the whole picture. Once arguments against the PA are

refuted, Canonical Consideration will be given attention. Here the longstanding

tradition of the PA as inclusion in the sacred canon will be appraised. From

3
there, Textual Consideration will explore both the presence and absence of the

PA in the textual tradition. Usual arguments for exclusion of the PA based on

manuscript evidence will be weighed in the balance with the evidence in support

of the PA. Next, Stylistical Consideration will highlight features of the PA that are

characteristically Johannine. Then, the more subjective experience of the ways

in which the Holy Spirit has used this text throughout church history will be

recognized under Pneumatological Consideration. Finally, the case for

acceptance of the PA gains its strongest momentum as arguments are given

under Historical Consideration. Here the reader will see how the pericope fits

hand-in-glove with the Jesus tradition of the canonical gospels, which is why very

few scholars doubt the historicity of the account. When all Considerations have

all been weighed in the balance, this paper will conclude with a Summary of

Findings. It is my judgement that when all the arguments put forth are

considered, they lead to the firm conviction that the PA should be accepted as

both sacred Scripture and Johannine in nature.

Polemical Consideration

Three prominent areas of concern for those who either reject the PA as

Johannine, or as Scripture, are linguistics, that the pericope is Lukan in nature,

and that it is late in form. This brief section will illustrate how far-reaching some

of these claims are, and serve as a hortatory reminder for careful study on the

part of the interpreter.

It is known that some expositors contend against Johannine authorship

because the PA contains vocabulary that appears to be non-Johannine.

4
However, as Heil has demonstrated, it is “extremely precarious for such a brief

passage of only twelve verses.”1 He then cites two examples from John’s

Gospel, the healing of the blind man (5.1-11) and the feeding of the multitude

(6.1-15), which also contain vocabulary not used elsewhere in John, yet whose

authorship remains undisputed.2 Snapp is no doubt correct, “the entire argument

based on vocabulary is precarious because it can be turned in any direction that

the commentator wants to take it.”3

Another assertion that is surely overdrawn is that the PA is Lukan in

nature, rather than Johannine. Salvoni has stated the connection between the

PA and Luke’s affinity for including stories about women, stating his case with

examples of the resurrection of the widow’s son (7.11-17), Jesus’ female

followers (8.1-3), and the woman with the alabaster jar of perfume (7.36-50). 4

What is overlooked is that John’s Gospel is no less female-friendly than Luke’s.

Consider John’s inclusion of Jesus’ interaction with his mother at Cana (2.1-12),

the lengthy story of the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (4.1-44), the emphasis

on sisters Martha and Mary at the death of their brother, Lazarus (11.1-45),

Jesus’ anointing by Mary (12.1-1-8), and the prominence of Mary of Magdala as

witness to the empty tomb (20.1-18).

1
John Paul Heil, “The Story of Jesus and the Adulteress (John 7:53-8:11) Reconsidered,”
Biblica,
72 no. 2 (1991): 183. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March
2, 2017).
2
Ibid.
3
James Snapp Jr., A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11: With a Tour of the External Evidence
(Elwood, James Snapp Jr., 2016): loc. 754. Kindle.
4
Fausto Salvoni, “Textual Authority for John 7:53-8:11,” Restoration Quarterly 4, no. 1: 13.
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2017).

5
 Other so-called Lukan-isms in the PA are the words, horthos,

dawn), and (paraginomai, to be present, to come near, approach).1

The word horthos is used in the PA in 8.2, and Hughes, citing Denaux and

Corstjens, states that it is “a uniquely Lukan word.” However, outside of its

presence in the PA, the word appears a mere two times in the entire New

Testament.2 How does Luke’s single use of the word in his gospel, and single

use in Acts establish the word as uniquely Lukan? Furthermore, when

comparing gospel with gospel, Luke and John both use the word once. In other

words, the word is used too infrequently in the New Testament to make anything

other than a feeble case against the PA.

Likewise, Luke’s affinity for the word paraginomai proves nothing against

the PA, and shows only that New Testament authors other than Luke had equal

access to a common Greek verb. It occurs 27 times in Luke-Acts, 3 times in

Matthew, once in Mark, and twice in John.3 The appearance of the word in Mark,

and other use in John is not contested. To establish a conclusion against the

PA, while ignoring its single occurrence in Mark and other occurrence in John,

proves to be an exercise in selectively using evidence.

The assertion that the pericope is late in form is based largely on the

discipline of Form Criticism.4 Ward cites the Form Critic Martin Dibelius, who

attests that the PA is late is form because it does not have the brevity and

1
"Paraginomai," Bible Study Tools, accessed March 20, 2017,
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/paraginomai.html.
2
Luke 24.1 and Acts 5.21.
3
“Paraginomai,” accessed March 21, 2017.
4
Roy Bowen Ward, “The Case for John 7:53-8:11.” Restoration Quarterly 3, no. 3: 131. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2017).

6
simplicity that one might expect.1 When the PA is compared; however, to a

similar pericope in brevity and simplicity found in the Gospel of Mark, Dibelius

makes an exception to his rule because the added details in Mark “seem

necessary for the development of the narrative.” 2 Here, the highly subjective

nature of Form Criticism shows its hand. Unless one has an a priori bias against

the Pericope Adulterae, it must be concluded that the form of the PA is as

ancient as that of the Tribute Money pericope in Mark. 3 Jesus’ action of writing

on the ground further suggests an early and reliable tradition, not one that is

embellished and late.4

Canonical Consideration

The longstanding canonical status of the PA must be kept in mind before

making too harsh of a judgment against it. For most of the church’s history, it

has appeared in the Gospel text, and much of the church around the world

considers it canonical.5 The primary Scripture texts used in the Roman Catholic

Church, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Ukrainian Church accept the

PA unequivocally.6 Aside from textual critics within the pews, the broad

acceptance of the people of God is that this pericope is as authoritative as

anything else in the Gospels.7 Moreover, despite the brackets and other ways

the text is set apart from the rest of John’s Gospel, it is doubtful that the pericope

will be removed from the sacred canon.

1
Ibid.
2
Ibid: 132.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid: 136.
5
Bridges: 213.
6
Ibid: 217-218.
7
Bridges: 221.

7
 Although an unabridged account of the development of the canon is

outside the purview of this essay, sufficient is the reminder that the early

Christians developed the idea of a canon based on the authority of Jesus and

that of his apostles.1 In light of this, Baum astutely concludes, “If the canonicity

of the PA is determined according to the same historical and content-related

criteria that the ancient church applied during the development of the canon of

Scriptures, nothing speaks against the canonicity of the PA.” 2 Snapp concurs in

asking, “Why should a reading that is manifestly ancient, and which is supported

by 85% of the extant Greek manuscripts, and against which there is no decisive

internal evidence, be rejected?”3

Textual Consideration

Textual Criticism is the discipline of involving textual witnesses and how

they were transmitted.4 External criteria, especially the age of the textual

witnesses, is considered, as well as internal criteria, of which evaluating textual

variants is part. As the various textual evidence is evaluated below, it will also be

shown that some of the methodology to which the textual critic of prior years held

onto as a firm anchor have in recent times been shown to be a floating buoy,

often driven by winds of scholarly presumption. O’Day is certainly on terra firma

about the PA in stating, “assumptions about textual transmission have

overdetermined the reading of the text.” 5

1
Baum: 175.
2
Ibid: 177.
3
Snapp: loc. 913-914.
4
Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2012): 283.
5
O’Day: 631.

8
 This section will survey three significant topics in relationship to the text.

A necessary beginning point is the direction(s) to which the textual evidence

points, based on the appearances of, and omissions of, the PA in the ancient

sources. This naturally leads to reviewing early external witnesses to the text,

where Papias contributes greatly to the Pericope Adulterae. The knowledge of

the PA by this very early leader in the church is a strong indication that there

were texts present in the second and third centuries containing the pericope, but

are no longer extant. A third area concerns the probing of why the PA is absent

in several significant early Greek manuscripts.

Textual evidence is a double-edged sword. On the factual side, it can

reveal with which ancient witnesses contain the PA, and which do not. What

textual witness cannot do with any certainty is tell us why John 7.53-8.11 is

absent in the handful of texts that have traditionally been deemed the earliest

and best manuscripts.

Concerning its appearance in ancient manuscripts, the PA appears in

1,476 Greek manuscripts, while it is absent in 268.1 Only nine of these are early,

and just six were produced prior to A.D. 400: P66, P75, Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph),

Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Borgianis (T), and possibly Codex Washingtonianus

(W).2 If Codex Bezae (D) can be dated to A.D. 400, as Parker does, it provides

the only witness to the inclusion of the PA in our earliest extant texts.3

1
Snapp: locs. 92, 221.
2
Ibid: 220.
3
Cited in Chris Keith, “The Initial Location of the Pericope Adulterae in Fourfold Tradition,”
Novum
Testamentum 51, no. 3 (2009): 215. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed March 15, 2017).

9
Distinguished scholar Bart Ehrman regards Codex Bezae to be “one of our oldest

witnesses.”1 Therefore, the case against the PA in textual evidence rests on its

omission in six of the earliest manuscripts, in contrast to the single early

manuscript that contains it.

It is true in Textual Criticism that “manuscripts are weighed, not counted.” 2

While this may be granted, what must also be given attention is the significance

of Jerome’s work in translating the Greek texts available to him into Latin, which

came to be known as the Latin Vulgate. Jerome’s work on the Gospels was

complete by A.D. 384, when he presented them to Pope Damascus. 3 That the

PA was included in the texts he had access to is seen in his statement, “In the

Gospel, according to John, there is found in many of both the Greek as well as

the Latin copies, the story of the adulteress who was accused before the Lord.” 4

In his Preface to the Gospels, Jerome states that his revision of the

Gospels was achieved by not only comparing Greek manuscripts, but more

importantly, “only early ones” were used. 5 Therefore, in approximately a

generation following our earliest existing texts, there were many manuscripts that

included the PA, although these sources are no longer available. It is almost

certain that the Greek texts Jerome refers to, which include the PA, predate the

surviving texts that exclude it. In addition, while Jerome admits both the

presence and absence of the PA in Greek texts available to him, the comment in

1
Cited in Snapp: loc. 282.
2
"Introduction and Textual Criticism,” Quartz Hill School of Theology, accessed March 23,
2017,
http://www.theology.edu/b725a.htm.
3
Keith: 215.
4
Jerome, Pelag. 2.17. Cited in Keith: 220.
5
Snapp: loc. 371.

10
his Preface to the Gospels indicates that the earliest Greek manuscripts available

in the mid-fourth century did indeed not only contain the PA, but included it in its

present-day location.

Papias is considered to have been a disciple of the Apostle John. 1 There

is some belief that this early bishop of Hierapolis was John’s scribe, primarily

because of his compilation of Jesus’ sayings and teachings, which he completed

around A.D. 130.2 The fourth century church historian Eusebius writes that

Papias, “expounded another story about a woman who was accused before the

Lord of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains.” 3 While

the referent of “the Gospel according to the Hebrews” is uncertain, Papias’

comments seem to point strongly in the direction of the PA. If this is true, and

many scholars believe it is, Papias’ knowledge of the pericope predates our

earliest extant manuscripts by two centuries. 4 If reasonable assumptions based

on the works of Jerome and Papias are true, then the question of why the PA

was added to the text is muted. Instead, one ought to ask, “Why was the PA

omitted from some manuscripts?”

Textual Critics have often followed the methodology of Lectio Brevior

(Brevis) Potior, that the shorter reading is to be preferred, based on the

assumption that scribes were most likely to add to the text rather than omit from

it.5 Snapp, referring to the research of James Royse, has verified that copyists

1
"Papias of Hierapolis,” American Bible Society Resources, accessed March 24, 2017,
http://bibleresources.americanbible.org/resource/papias-of-hierapolis.
2
Ibid.
3
Bridges: 216.
4
See Salvoni: 11, Baum: 174, Burge: 143, Snapp: loc. 1181-1248.
5
Klein, Textual Criticism, 75. Cited in Tov: 277.

11
were more likely to make omissions than to add to the text. 1 Textual Critic

Emmanuel Tov has demonstrated this tenet to be impractical, and that, “to a

large extent, textual evaluation cannot be bound by any fixed rules.” 2 He

continues,

Common sense, rather than textual theories is the main guide,

although abstract rules are sometimes also helpful. In modern
times, scholars are often reluctant to the admit the subjective
nature of textual evaluation, and, as a consequence, an attempt is
often made, consciously or unconsciously, to create an artificial
level of objectivity by the frequent application of abstract rules
[emphasis retained].3

If we work with the hypothesis that the PA was not an interpolation to the

Gospel of John, then possible reason for its exclusion in some manuscripts can

be explored. O’Day suggests that resistance to include John 7.53-8.11 in the

gospels is because of the “androcentric fears this text evoked.” 4 Her thesis is not

without merit. More likely, however; is the suggestion made by Snapp, that the

PA was omitted based on the influence of the lectionary. 5 His reasoning is sound

and deserves attention. The lector responsible for the reading of the text for

Pentecost, John 7.37-52 and 8.12, made notations in his text to skip over the PA,

as this was not part of the Menologion reading for Pentecost, but for the Feast of

Saint Pelagia on October 8.6 Subsequent copyists, observing the notations to

skip the text, mistakenly interpreted these to mean to skip the text in copying,
1
Snapp: loc. 198.
2
Tov: 280.
3
Ibid: 281.
4
O’Day: 639.
5
Snapp: loc. 224 ff.
6
Ibid: loc. 304.

12
and omitted it. The strength of Snapp’s argument is that it not only answers the

question as to why some manuscripts omitted the PA, but for its removal from the

Gospel of John and placed after Luke 21:38.1

Stylistical Consideration

Reasons for not accepting the PA have also been put forth for the style of

the pericope. Salvoni is among those who believe the text to be Lukan in origin,

and posits that it is not in agreement with the plan of John’s Gospel because,

“always there a miracle gives the opportunity of many following discussions with

the Jews of a theological teaching.”2 His statement perplexing on two accounts;

first, the PA is not considered a miracle narrative, and not all miracles in John

give rise to theological discussion between Jesus and the Jews. 3

This Consideration will explore three lines of reasoning typically used

against the PA. Once again, it will be shown that the blade sharpened against

the pericope can cut both ways, and that the vocabulary, narrative flow, and

structure can be reasonably shown to be Johannine.

The internal evidence of linguistics is has often been used against the

inclusion of the PA into John’s Gospel. Robert Morgenthaler’s groundbreaking

study, Statistics of New Testament Vocabulary, has led to other studies that tip

the scales away from Johannine authenticity in other directions. Yet, as Johnson

has admirably demonstrated, this method for disproving authentication of the PA

has two critical limitations.4 First, the statistical method has been proven to break
1
See also Keith: 229.
2
Salvoni: 13.
3
For example, the healing of the royal official’s son in John 4:46-54.
4
Alan F. Johnson, “A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae?” Bulletin of

13
down when applied to works other than the New Testament. When applied to

the works of Cicero, it was proven to be unreliable. 1 In addition, G. Udney Yule,

a statistician at the University of Cambridge, has revealed that it takes at least

10,000 words minimum to establish a basis for authorship with any certainty. 2

Thus, while the statistical method may have some merit, it is woefully deficient in

application to the short pericope of John 7.53-8.11.

More importantly, there are linguistic indicators within the PA that are truly

Johannine. Heil has shown the linkage between the phrases used in the PA of

Jesus going “to the temple” (eis to hieron) and “taught” (edidasken) with John

7.14.3 He also demonstrates that the parenthetical statement in John 8.6 is

nearly identical to that in John 6.6. 4 Johnson takes this a step further that the

form of John 8.6 contains three explanatory phrases, and these occur ten other

times in the Gospel of John.5 Another linguistic linkage is seen when comparing

Jesus’ parting admonition to the woman in 8.2 to that given to the crippled man in

5.14.6

The PA has been discredited both in part, as seen above in vocabulary

and phrases, and in whole, as it is argued that the entire pericope does not fit

naturally into the flow of the narrative of John 7-8. Burge is not alone in his

assessment, “But even as we glance at its setting in John, we see how

the Evangelical Theological Society 9, no. 2: 93. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed March 15, 2017).
1
Ibid.
2
Ibid.
3
Heil: 183-184.
4
Ibid: 184.
5
Johnson: 95.
6
Charles P. Baylis, “The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no. 582: 183. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed March 4, 2017).

14
awkwardly it fits,” and again, “The internal evidence makes it clear that the

passage is foreign to its present setting and interrupts it. Most likely, it is not

even Johannine.”1 With strong sentiment such as this from a respected New

Testament scholar, is there anything that can be said in defense of the narrative

as it appears in the Gospel of John?

First, it may be noted that the flow of the narrative is greatly interrupted

without the PA, and omission of it leads to questions in search of answers that

are not provided.2 When the context is considered, it is apparent in John 7.40

that a division occurs among the people as to Jesus’ identity as the Prophet

and/or Messiah.3 This division ends with a key transitional verse, “Some of them

wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him.” 4 Seamlessly, what we have

at the beginning the next pericope is a conversation between the officers on one

hand, the chief priests and Pharisees on the other, and the officers are asked by

the Pharisees why they failed to bring Jesus to them. 5 An internal squabble

ensues between the Pharisees and one of their own, Nicodemus, and ends with

the Pharisees’ statement regarding the absence of a prophet arising from

Galilee.6

With the PA omitted, the text would begin again in 8.12, where Jesus is

present and speaking to “them,” of which Pharisees are included. Note the
1
Gary Burge M., “A Specific Problem in the New Testament Text and Canon: The Woman
Caught
in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11), Journal of the Evangelical Society 27, no. 2 (June 1984): 144. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2017).
2
Cmp. Heil: 186.
3
Verses 40-44.
4
John 7.45.
5
Cmp. 7.32, “The Pharisees heard the crowd muttering these things about him, and the chief
priests and Pharisees sent officers to arrest him.”
6
Verse 52.

15
conundrum when the PA is removed, as Jesus appears and disappears in the

narrative like a stage magician; one moment not present, the very next moment

present and speaking to the Pharisees. Such awkwardness is removed,

however; when the PA remains part of the story. The dialogue between the

Pharisees and Nicodemus ends, and rather than left hanging, resolves as, “They

went each to his own house.”1 In contrast, Jesus departs to the Mount of Olives.2

The Pharisees are once again introduced in the PA at 8.3, and interaction with

Jesus takes place until they leave in 8.9. The PA ends with dialogue between

Jesus and the woman, and the text resumes with Jesus teaching once again with

the Pharisees present. So then, for whatever awkwardness is discovered with

the presence of the PA in the narrative, omission of it doesn’t diminish this, but

rather adds to it.

John Paul Heil makes an interesting case for the presence of the PA in the

Johannine narrative of chapters 7-8 with the connection of throwing stones. The

plan to seize Jesus comes to a head when Jesus announces, “Truly, truly, I say

to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 3 The response Jesus receives to this

revelation is that stones are picked up to throw at him. Heil remarks, “… they

tried to do to Jesus what he had prevented them from doing to the adulteress

(8.7-9). It becomes obvious that they were more interested in stoning and killing

Jesus than the woman.”4 This proposal is strengthened when it is remembered

1
Verse 53, the beginning verse of the Pericope Adulterae.
2
8.1.
3
John 8.58.
4
Heil: 187.

16
that the motive to bringing the woman before Jesus in the first place was to test

him.

A final stylistic piece that has been largely overlooked by scholarship is

John’s affinity for using Old Testament allusion, rather than quotation, as does

Matthew. In the opening of John’s Gospel, allusion is made with the eternal

Word and the creation of Genesis 1. In chapter two, allusion is made with Jesus

and Moses in Exodus 7.19, in the turning of water into wine. 1 Chapter three of

John contains the prominent allusion of Moses’ lifting the serpent in the

wilderness with the forthcoming crucifixion of Jesus.

In the PA, allusion is also made without quotation. Jesus writes on the

ground twice, and we are not given details as to why. Scholarly assessment of

this has been offered in two extremes. On one side is the near endless

conjecture about what Jesus wrote, while the other side minimizes what Jesus

wrote in favor of the fact that Jesus wrote.2 Such speculation misses the strong

allusion to Jeremiah 17:13, “O LORD, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you shall

be put to shame; those who turn away from you shall be written in the earth, for

they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water.” It will suffice to

mention briefly its connection to the PA. There is the putting to shame of the

stone-throwers, which causes them to walk away. The religious leaders are

exposed for what they truly are (those who have turned away from Israel’s God).

The forsaking of the LORD with the motif of water fits nicely with their recent

celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, of which water played a major factor.

1
Baylis: 174.
2
For example, see Chris Keith’s, “The Initial Location of the Pericope Adulterae in Fourfold
Tradition.”

17
 Pneumatological Consideration

A more subjective, yet important contribution to the study of the PA may

be referred to as Pneumatological Consideration, which addresses how the Holy

Spirit has used the pericope in the Church. 1 Gary Burge, whose objections to the

PA have been noted admits, “Further, the story edifies the Church and has often

become a vehicle through which the Holy Spirit works.” 2

The story in the PA has become proverbial. Books have been written

based on its theme.3 I have seen powerful dramatic presentations, including a

monologue. Songs have been written, including the catchy, “You Can’t Stand on

the Rock While Throwing Stones.”4 While this may not be foremost in

consideration of the PA’s acceptance, the value of the pericope in the life and

history of the church must also not be underestimate. Calvin’s words concerning

the PA, contained in his commentary on the Gospel of John, ring true, that it

“contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit.” 5

Historical Consideration

The strongest case for acceptance of the Pericope Adulterae as sacred

Scripture is found in its broad acceptance as an authentic piece of Jesus

tradition. There is nothing in the story that is unorthodox. Nothing in the story

contradicts anything elsewhere in Scripture. In other words, the story presents

1
Cmp. Baum: 167-171.
2
Burge: 148.
3
For example, Nicole Johnson, Dropping Your Rock: The Freedom to Choose Love Over
Judgment (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2002).
4
“You Can’t Stand on the Rock (While Throwing Stones),” Accessed March 27, 2017,
https://www.amazon.com/Cant-Stand-While-Throwing-Stones/dp/B06XV7HCDQ/ ref= sr_1_1?
ie=UTF8&qid=1490712929&sr=8-1&keywords=You+can%27t+stand+on+the+rock +while+
throwing+stones.
5
Baum: 172.

18
Jesus acting in ways that are solidly grounded in the Jesus tradition, both in his

interaction with the accusers and with the woman. Note how scholars uphold

this.

Most [scholars] accept it as an independent piece of Jesus

tradition. Gail R. O’Day, Candler School of Theology, Emory
University1

The story appears to be an early and authentic part of the gospel

traditions. John Paul Heil, Kenrick-Glennon Seminary2

The events of the story probably happened… “Neither do I

condemn you; go and sin no more” (8:11, NKJV) sounds like the
Jesus of the Gospels. Carl B. Bridges, Johnson Bible College3

The historicity of the event that the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-
8:11) relates has not been disproved. The orthodoxy of the words
of Jesus it contains also cannot be denied. Armin D. Baum, Free
Theological College Giessen4

The account has all the earmarks of historical veracity.

Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament5

It is most likely that the text is authentic in the sense that it

originated from the oral tradition that supplied our gospels with their
raw materials. Gary M. Burge, King College6

1
O’Day: 639.
2
Heil: 191.
3
Bridges: 216.
4
Baum: 163.
5
Quoted in Baum: 174.
6
Burge: 145.

19
 Considering the broad affirmation of the PA’s historicity, it seems puzzling

that the work of textual criticism has been permitted to eclipse this important

piece of the Jesus tradition. I stand with the query of Baum,

But what can be more authoritative than the authentic words of and
deeds of Jesus? Did not the first Christians develop the whole
concept of canonicity on the basis of Jesus’ (and his apostles’)
authority? Did they not regard every authentic word and deed of
Jesus as normative for their Christian faith?1

When such an important question is combined with the uncertainties

contained in the manuscript tradition, the reasons for acceptance of the PA as

Scripture are strengthened. O’Day asks, “Or is it more likely that it was part of

the original gospel of John? Is it possible that the external evidence is not so

overwhelming after all and that the story could have been omitted very early on in

the manuscript traditions?”2 It seems that scholars have chosen to see the PA as

a tide moving from the ocean of manuscripts into the text, rather than the other

way around. However, this way of seeing the pericope is not entirely justified.

Summary of Findings

This essay has sought to demonstrate the cumulative effect of studies in

favor of the Pericope Adulterae in John 7.53-8.11. Polemical Consideration

revealed that arguments against the pericope based on linguistics was not as

solid of a foundation as once considered to be. Studies on vocabulary against

1
Baum: 175.
2
O’Day: 191.

20
the pericope were shown to be unwarranted, and capable of being stretched in

any direction the interpreter desires. Similarities to the Gospel of Luke were

demonstrated to be just that; similarities, and certainly not proof that the PA is

Lukan in origin. Form Criticism against the PA was confirmed to be highly

subjective.

Canonical Consideration demonstrated that the PA has appeared in the

Gospel text for most of Church history, and the majority of the church around the

world accepts it as part of their sacred canon. In addition, and despite the often-

confusing textual notes in modern versions of the English Bible, most Christians

in the pew read and accept the PA as much as any other Jesus story in the

Gospels. Moreover, there is no hard evidence against its canonicity.

Textual Consideration reviewed the available manuscript evidence, and

discovered that six early texts exclude the PA, while only one includes it. The

case against the PA would indeed be strong if this was the end of the story.

However, the evidence is clear that the PA was present in manuscripts available

to Jerome in the late fourth century, but are no longer extant. Most of these

manuscripts probably predate our earliest available manuscripts. It is important

to note that Jerome was aware of texts that excluded the PA, yet after weighing

the evidence, he included the pericope in his Latin Vulgate. The importance of

this cannot be overstated. Papias, an early father and disciple of the Apostle

John, also testifies of the PA. His testimony predates our earliest available

ancient manuscripts by nearly two hundred years. This section concluded by

dismantling the long-held assumption of Textual Criticism, that the shorter

21
reading is to be preferred, and possible reasons why the PA was excluded from

some manuscripts.

Stylistical Consideration explored the vocabulary, narrative flow, and

structure of the PA. The statistical method for determining Johannine vocabulary

was shown to be lacking, and then vocabulary within the PA was revealed to be

strongly Johannine. The narrative flow of John 7-8 was then studied with both

the PA’s absence and presence, leading to the conclusion that a narrative

awkwardness surely follows when the PA is omitted. Finally, the PA’s theme of

stone-throwing and use of Old Testament allusion made for a strong case for

favoring it as Johannine.

The subjective yet important facet of Pneumatological Consideration was

studied, with the recognition of how the Spirit has used the PA throughout the

church to for edification. Finally, the strongest case for the PA was offered under

Historical Consideration. Here, the acceptance of the PA as authentic Jesus

tradition was shown to be affirmed by a broad range of scholars. When push

comes to shove, the text reveals Jesus speaking and acting in ways that are

congruent with the Jesus tradition of the canonical Gospels. This is seen in

Jesus’ actions toward both the religious leaders and the woman.

The cumulative effect of these considerations lead to the belief that it is

reasonable to accept the PA as both sacred Scripture and Johannine. While

there are arguments to the contrary, these do not have the same weight as those

in favor of the pericope. When reasons in favor of the PA are given due process,

22
the stones of Textual Criticism may be dropped and the Pericope Adulterae

accepted.

23
 Bibliography

Amazon. “You Can’t Stand on the Rock (While Throwing Stones): The Calvary
Heirs.” Accessed March 27, 2017. https://www.amazon.com/Cant-Stand-
While-Throwing-Stones /dp/B0 6XV7HCDQ/ ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid= 149 0
712929&sr=8-1&keywords= You+can%27t+stand+on+the+rock +while+
throwing+stones.

American Bible Society Resources. "Papias of Hierapolis.” Accessed March 24,

2017. http://bibleresources.americanbible.org/resource/papias-of-hierapolis.

Baum, Armin D. “Does the Pericope Adulterae Have Canonical Authority? An

Interconfessional Approach.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24, no. 2
(2014): 163-178. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost

(accessed March 6, 2017).

Baylis, Charles P. “The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the

Greater Prophet.” Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no. 582: 171-184. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 5,
2017).

Bible Study Tools. "Paraginomai." Accessed March 20-21, 2017.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/paraginomai.html.

Bridges, Carl B. “The Canonical Status of the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-
8:11).” Stone Campbell Journal 11, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 213-221. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 4,
2017).

Burge, Gary M. “A Specific Problem in the New Testament Text and Canon: The

Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11).” Journal of the Evangelical

Society 27, no. 2 (June 1984): 141-148. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2017).

Elliott, James Keith. Review of The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and

the Literacy of Jesus. The Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 61 pt. 1

(April 2010): 293-296. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed March 15, 2017).

Gench, Francis Taylor. Review of The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John,
and the Literacy of Jesus. Biblical Interpretation, no. 1-2 (2012): 180-182.
 ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March
15, 2017).

Heil, John Paul. “The Story of Jesus and the Adulteress (John 7:53-8:11)
Reconsidered.” Biblica, 72 no. 2 (1991): 182-191. ATLA Religion
Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 2, 2017).

Holmes, Michael W. Review of The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John,

and the Literacy of Jesus. Religious Studies Review, 37 no.1 (March
2011): 57. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed March 15, 2017).

Hughes, Kyle R. “The Lukan Special Material and the Tradition History of the
Pericope Adulterae.” Novum Testamentum 55, (2013): 232-251. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 15,
2017).

Johnson, Alan F. “A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope

Adulterae?” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 9, no. 2: 91-
96. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed March 2, 2017).

Johnson, Nicole. Dropping Your Rock: The Freedom to Choose Love Over
Judgment. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2002.

Keith, Chris. “On the Pericope Adulterae: A Response to J. Keith Elliot.” Journal

of Theological Studies, vol. 64 (October 2013): 432-438. ATLA

Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 15,
2017).

Keith, Chris. “The Initial Location of the Pericope Adulterae in Fourfold

Tradition.” Novum Testamentum 51, no. 3 (2009): 209-231. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 2,
2017).

Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.

Kruger, Michael J. Review of The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John,

and the Literacy of Jesus. Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 16 (2011):
1-3. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
March 15, 2017).

Leith, Mary Joan Winn. “Earliest Depictions of the Virgin Mary.” Biblical
Archaeological Review 43 no. 2 (2017):40-49.
O’Day, Gail. “John 7:53-8:11: A Study in Misreading.” Journal of Biblical
Literature, 111 no. 4 (Winter 1992): 631-640. ATLA Religion Database
with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 3, 2017).

Polythress, Vern S. “Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of

Conjunctions.” The Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 (1984):
350-369. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed March 3, 2017).

Salvoni, Fausto. “Textual Authority for John 7:53-8:11.” Restoration Quarterly

4, no. 1: 11-15. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed March 1, 2017).

Sheridan, Ruth. Review of The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John,

and the Literacy of Jesus. Journal of Theological Studies, 65, no. 2
(October 2014): 691-694. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed March 15, 2017).

Tov, Emmanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress Press, 2012.

Quartz Hill School of Theology. "Introduction and Textual Criticism.” Accessed

March 23, 2017. http://www.theology.edu/b725a.htm.

Snapp Jr., James. A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11: With a Tour of the
External Evidence. Elwood, IN: James Snapp Jr., 2016. Kindle.

Ward, Roy Bowen. “The Case for John 7:53-8:11.” Restoration Quarterly 3, no.
3: 130-139. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed March 1, 2017).