In many ways, this treatment serves as a metaphor for how legalism views God's grace. Like the Pharisees, many people appear religious and claim to love God and follow His Word, but in reality they disdain God's grace and view it with contempt, relegating it to a secondary status in their theological belief system. Sadly, that's the attitude of many toward Free Grace theology: they regard it with suspicion, and ultimately reject it as unacceptable. They may give lip service to God's "free grace" (as in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which clearly states that "justification is only of free grace" and that divine pardon "is the act of God's free grace in Christ"), but in their theological belief system they functionally deny it, choosing rather to accept the strict legalism of "Lordship Salvation" or a similar type of Pharisaical framework where God's grace is relegated to an implicit footnote in their theology of the cross.
This is precisely why I believe the Pericope Adulterae belongs in the Bible! Not only for text-critical reasons (which I will explain below), but also for the profound theological truths it preserves. Far from being a spurious later addition, the story's radical message of grace is the very core of its authenticity.
Free Grace Reflections on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11)
What follows are my Free Grace reflections on John 7:53–8:11 and why it deserves its place in both the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus. Note that these remarks were originally written as an edited response to an article by Valtteri Lahti titled "Why the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) Belongs in the Bible."
Grace vs. Legalism
I myself just came to believe that the Pericope Adulterae is genuine very recently, based on something I read by William Barclay which I will explain below.
Although I do not hold to the Byzantine priority view of the New Testament manuscripts (I personally view the few older manuscripts as more trustworthy than the many newer manuscripts), I do agree that the Pericope Adulterae was most likely in the original text. It's free grace, and I'd say that's likely why it was removed. When Barclay explained it along those lines, it convinced me.
Specifically, it was his perspective on the story's theological scandal that shifted my view. Barclay has an interesting note on this issue at the end of his commentary on the Gospel of John. It's in Volume 2 of his Daily Study Bible Series (I have the Revised Edition), and the section is titled "Note on The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery" (p. 290). He argues that it was removed due to (in your words) "theological piety." I think that's a nice way to say it, as it seems "theological piety" is a gentle euphemism for what was ultimately a legalistic fear of scandalous grace.
As you noted, the story is referenced or alluded to quite early in the manuscript tradition (exactly how early is debatable, but the point is true in the main that it can be traced back to quite an early date). Then the story was removed from the manuscripts, then it is added back in. Barclay asks, "What is the explanation?" and he goes on to say: "Augustine gives us a hint. He says that this story was removed from the text of the gospel because 'some were of slight faith,' and 'to avoid scandal.' We cannot tell for certain, but it would seem that in the very early days the people who edited the text of the New Testament thought that this was a dangerous story [where have we heard that before, i.e., that free grace is dangerous??], a justification for a light view of adultery, and therefore omitted it. After all, the Christian Church was a little island in a sea of paganism. Its members were so apt to relapse into a way of life where chastity was unknown; and were for ever open to pagan infection. But as time went on the danger grew less, or was less feared, and the story, which had always circulated by word of mouth and which one manuscript retained, came back. [...] In spite of the doubt that the modern translations cast on it, and in spite of the fact that the early manuscripts do not include it [except "only in one," says Barclay], we may be sure that this is a real story about Jesus, although one so gracious [!] that for long men were afraid to tell it." (Ibid., pp. 291-292, brackets added.)
I also noticed that C. I. Scofield has a note on John 7:53–8:11 in his Reference Bible in which he takes the same view as Barclay. Regarding this, Scofield says: "John 7.53–8.11 is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts. Augustine declares that it was stricken from many copies of the sacred story because of a prudish fear that it might teach immorality!" (Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible [New York: Oxford University Press, 1917 Edition], p. 1125.)
It seems, then, that the story of the woman caught in adultery was removed from the Bible because it was scandalous grace (just like the gospel is). To me, that verifies the free grace gospel, because it too is scandalous: "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24). Praise the Lord!
When Was It Removed?
Barclay's comment also helps to solve the problem that you mentioned at the end of your article, when you said: "While it is possible that some copyists might have done that [removed the Pericope Adulterae due to their 'theological piety'], I do not believe that it is a sufficient reason for its absence in most of the manuscripts we have..." That seems fair to say. However, if the removal of the Pericope Adulterae happened "in the very early days" (as Barclay surmises, p. 291), when "the people who edited the text of the New Testament thought that this was a dangerous story" (Ibid., p. 291), then it would have been BEFORE "most of the manuscripts we have." A very logical explanation is that this orchestrated removal is evidence for a "very early" date of removal!! BEFORE there were very many NT manuscripts to remove it from. (Because how else do you explain its removal from so many different manuscripts in different parts of the world?) And thus this would therefore attest to a "very early" date of inclusion of the Pericope Adulterae in the NT manuscripts, before there were very many copies! Otherwise if it wasn't removed until later when there were more NT copies/manuscripts, how was the removal orchestrated? It would need to be orchestrated but not orchestrated, and that is vastly more difficult to do and to explain. The simplest/easiest explanation it seems to me, is that the Pericope Adulterae was in the original NT manuscript text, and thus in the very early copies, but then "very early" (when there were still not very many NT manuscripts) it was then removed.
In other words, what you're asking is: How do we explain the fact that the Pericope Adulterae was removed from all these different manuscripts, written at all these different times, in all these different parts of the world? Whereas, what I'm saying is: If the Pericope Adulterae was removed "very early" when there was only, say, a handful of localized manuscripts, that would not be difficult to do, right? Five local scribes would simply get together and agree not to copy the Pericope Adulterae in any future NT manuscripts that they copied. In that case, it would be an easy thing to do...if it was removed "in the very early days" (as Barclay suggests). So that supports the conclusion that the Pericope Adulterae has "very early" attestation in the NT manuscripts. And if so, why do scholars question its authenticity? That would support its authenticity!
The Original Placement
While some may find this surprising to hear, I'm not convinced that the Pericope Adulterae was originally in John's Gospel. In some NT manuscripts the story appears in Luke's Gospel. The reason I question if it was originally in John's Gospel is because of the relatively late date of when the Gospel of John was written (likely around 85-90 A.D.), and also because many of the Greek words in the Pericope Adulterae are otherwise non-Johannine, that is, they occur nowhere else in John's Gospel. Therefore I tend to think that it is more likely that the Pericope Adulterae was originally in Luke's Gospel. It is placed after Luke 21:38 in some NT manuscripts. Additionally, the placement of the story after Luke 21:38 seems perhaps to fit better contextually than where it occurs/is placed in John's Gospel. C. K. Barrett affirms concerning the Pericope Adulterae that "it closely resembles in form and style the synoptic narratives (especially the style of Luke; see the notes)." (Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 491; cf. p. 492.) Barrett's analysis supports my view that the Pericope Adulterae was originally part of Luke's Gospel rather than John's Gospel.
Scrivener offers an interesting theory that I think has some merit, explaining how the Pericope Adulterae came to be in John's Gospel. Scrivener postulates that John likely added chapter 21 to his Gospel after it was already written and the copies were already being circulated, and in the same way the Apostle could have added John 7:53–8:11 after his Gospel was already written and in circulation. Regarding this, Scrivener writes: "If ch. 20.30, 31 shew signs of having been the original end of this Gospel, and ch. 21 be a later supplement by the Apostle's own hand, which I think with Dean Alford is evidently the case, why should not S. John have inserted in this second edition [...] this most edifying and eminently Christian narrative? The appended chapter (21) would thus be added at once to all copies of the Gospels then in circulation, [...] though a portion of them might well overlook [...] from obvious though mistaken motives, might hesitate to receive for general use or public reading the history of the woman taken in adultery." (F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 3rd Edition, p. 610, ellipsis added. Note: I updated the Roman numerals to the current format.) What Scrivener says is, I'd say, entirely plausible, and would well explain why some of the earliest and best manuscripts don't contain John 7:53–8:11, yet others do. Scrivener's explanation also allows both sides in the textual criticism debate to "save face," because in such a scenario both sides are right! The Critical Text group is right by omitting the Pericope Adulterae since it wasn't in the very first manuscript of John's Gospel that he wrote and that was being circulated, and the Byzantine Majority text group is also right in this case, because the story of the woman caught in adultery was then added by John's own hand to the manuscript (or manuscripts) of his Gospel that were then in circulation and thus the added text is truly inspired! (John could have taken the story from another source and that would explain why many of the Greek words in the Pericope Adulterae are otherwise non-Johannine.) Concerning this, Scrivener goes on to conclude: "It must be in this way, if at all, that we can assign to the Evangelist ch. 7.53–8.11; on all intelligent principles of mere criticism the passage must needs be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by all the critical editors." (Ibid.) I agree with Scrivener's purely linguistic assessment that the style of the Pericope Adulterae is non-Johannine; however, I differ with those who would abandon the passage, as Scrivener's "second edition" theory provides a legitimate apostolic pathway for its canonical authority. Like I said, the language of the Pericope Adulterae is clearly non-Johannine. So either John got it from another source and inserted it into his Gospel after it was already in circulation, or the story belongs in one of the Synoptic Gospels (either Matthew, Mark, or Luke), with Luke's Gospel being the most likely place where the story was originally until those "of slight faith" removed it "because the grace in dealing with the woman was unpalatable to legalists." (Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook [Chicago: Moody Press, 1967], p. 554). So I think that either explanation is viable, and in fact possibly both are true!
So in my view, the three most likely scenarios regarding the original placement of the Pericope Adulterae are the following:
1) John got the Pericope Adulterae from another source (possibly one of the Synoptics) and included it in the 2nd edition of his Gospel after it was already in circulation. (John also could have added chapter 21 to his Gospel at this time as well.) This explains why many of the best NT manuscripts don't include the story of the woman caught in adultery, but others do. (Note: What Augustine says about the story being removed due to its scandalous nature can still be true and in no way does it falsify this scenario. It actually explains why the Pericope Adulterae was removed from some of the copies, and why John chapter 21 was not removed.)
2) The Pericope Adulterae was originally in one of the Synoptic Gospels (most likely Luke's Gospel), but it was then removed "very early" from some of the few manuscripts that were in existence/in circulation. This early removal of the Pericope Adulterae from some of the NT manuscripts was due to a legalist fear that the story might encourage immorality.
3) The Pericope Adulterae WAS originally in John's Gospel (and he included it as a story that he got from another source, likely one of the Synoptics or maybe even personally from one of the Synoptic writers in his interactions with them). The Pericope Adulterae was then removed from John's Gospel "very early" due to a prudish fear that it might encourage immorality.
The 2nd and 3rd scenarios, although plausible, seem to me the least likely of the three. Why? Because scenarios #2 and #3 would seem to cast unnecessary doubt on the general trustworthiness (or the characteristic trustworthiness) of the early uncial NT manuscripts that don't include the Pericope. In light of the general trustworthiness of the early NT manuscripts, it seems more likely that scenario #1 is the best, because in this case the early uncial manuscripts are preserving the first edition of John's Gospel, while the Byzantine NT manuscripts that include the story are preserving the second edition of John's Gospel (also written by his own hand). So in such a scenario as this, both groups are right! Scenario #1 is also consistent with the conclusion of many NT scholars that chapter 21 was added to John's Gospel at a later time, even by John's own hand. Scenario #1 also explains why the very earliest (and I believe the best) NT manuscripts don't contain the story, because it wasn't in the first edition of John's Gospel that was circulating.
I should also mention that John chapter 21 and the Pericope Adulterae could have been added by John at different times. This would also help explain why many of the earliest NT manuscripts contain John chapter 21 but not the Pericope. It's hard to determine because we don't know the exact timeline or sequence of when each section was added and to what NT manuscripts.
Conclusion
Whichever of these textual scenarios one adopts, the ultimate conclusion remains the same: the Pericope Adulterae is not a spurious, pious fiction, but a genuine, inspired record of the historical ministry and message of Jesus Christ. Whether it reached us as a second Johannine edition, an early Lukan narrative, or an authentic apostolic tradition preserved through early oral circulation, its presence in the canonical stream is unmistakable. Its brief disappearance from early manuscripts does not expose a flaw in text transmission, but rather highlights a tragic human tendency—the fear of scandalous, unconditional grace. In preserving John 7:53–8:11, God has ensured that His Church continues to bear witness to a Savior who stands between the self-righteous accuser and the helpless sinner, offering full, unearned pardon through His free grace.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You can also send your questions or comments to me at freegracer@gmail.com.