# John 8:1-12 any versions omit this?



## Eoghan

Working through John I was surprised to find that this story is not in the original. The three earliest sources have no trace of it and are in that sense unanimous - FF BRUCE simply skips it!

The commentators I have read give the reason it is still "in" modern versions as lack of bottle. Nobody wanting to take a stand. 

My point is, if John wrote his gospel as a tightly argued document why allow this insertion to persist? If this was a Shakespearian play there would be a real move to restore the integrity of the original. Why so reticent with scripture?

The other 'error' was the angel stirring up the pool of Bethsaida. This latter addition appears to give the superstition of the day - but fails to identify it as superstition.

Working through the gospel do I cover it with my kids or ignore it as BRUCE does. I suppose it is a teaching point - having no doctrinal impact.

Have any versions actually gone as far as omitting it?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I am not aware of any version that actually omits them, by they are generally footnoted as being absent in the earliest manuscripts. Most Johannine scholars today doubt that these verses are original, however they do appear in over 900 manuscripts of John, but they are conspicuously absent from the earliest ones.


----------



## Marrow Man

I think there is also one manuscript that puts the passage in Luke instead of John. And I believe that there may be some copies of John which have the text in a different location, but the ol' memory could be fuzzy on that.

As a minor point, your pericope is off slightly -- the passage begins in John 7:53 (last very of chapter 7) and continues through 8:11. At least that is the way it is numbered in the NASB. Perhaps a different translation numbers the verse differently?

One of the reasons that is sometimes stated for the doubt of the text (or, at least where it is placed in the narrative of John) is that the last verse before the passage (John 7:52), Jesus is speaking with a group of Pharisees. In John 8:12, He is still speaking to a group of Pharisees. But the adulteress passage has them all leaving with only Jesus and the adulteress standing in the middle of the court (John 8:9). But suddenly, in v. 12, the Pharisees are there again. So, some would argue that if the adulteress passage were not there (at least not in that place in John), the text would flow more naturally from 7:52 to 8:12. I'm sure there are some who have an exegetical explanation for this, but I am just giving one perspective.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

This might explain some things. Maybe not. 


> *The King James Version Defended, by Edward F. Hills**CHAPTER SIX**Continued*​
> ​
> ​​Old Today most naturalistic scholars feel so certain that John 7:53-8:11 is not genuine that they regard further discussion of the matter as unprofitable. When they do deal with the question (for the benefit of laymen who are still interested in it) they follow the line of Westcott and Hort. They dismiss the ancient testimony concerning this passage as absurd and rely on the "argument from silence." Thus Colwell (1952) ridicules the reason which Augustine gives for the deletion of the pericope de adultera. "The generality," he declares, "of the 'omission' in early Greek sources can hardly be explained this way. Some of those Greek scribes must have been unmarried! Nor is Augustine's argument supported by the evidence from Luke's Gospel, where even greater acts of compassion are left untouched by the scribes who lack this story in John." (49)
> 
> There is no validity, however, in this point which Colwell tries to score against Augustine. For there is a big difference between the story of the adulteress in John 8 and the story in Luke 7 of the sinful woman who anointed the feet of Jesus and was forgiven. In Luke the penitence and faith of the woman are stressed; in John these factors are not mentioned explicitly. In Luke the law of God is not called in question; in John it, seemingly, is set aside. And in Luke the sinful woman was a harlot; in John the woman was an adulteress. Thus there are good reasons why the objections raised against the story of the adulteress in John would not apply to the story of the harlot in Luke and why Tertullian, for example, refers to Luke's story but is silent about John's.
> 
> (c) Misleading Notes in the Modem Versions
> 
> The notes printed in the modern versions regarding John 7:53 - 8:11 are completely misleading. For example, the R.S.V. states that most of the ancient authorities either omit 7:53-8:11 or insert it with variations of text after John 7:52 or at the end of John's Gospel or after Luke 21:38. And the N.E.B. says the same thing and adds that the pericope de adultera has no fixed place in the ancient New Testament manuscripts. These notes imply that originally the story of the adulteress circulated as an independent narrative in many forms and that later, when scribes began to add it to the New Testament, they couldn't agree on where to put it, some inserting it at one place and others at another.
> 
> Von Soden (1902) showed long ago that the view implied by these notes is entirely erroneous. Although this scholar denied the genuineness of John 7:53 - 8:11, nevertheless, in his monumental study of this passage he was eminently fair in his presentation of the facts. After mentioning that this section is sometimes found at the end of the Gospel of John and sometimes in the margin near John 7:52 and that in one group of manuscripts (the Ferrar group) the section is inserted after Luke 21:38, von Soden continues as follows: "But in the great majority of the manuscripts it stands in the text between 7:52 and 8:12 except that in at least half of these manuscripts it is provided with deletion marks in the margin." (50) Thus the usual location of the pericope de adultera is in John between 7:52 and 8:12. The manuscripts which have it in any other place are exceptions to the rule.
> 
> "The pericope," says Metzger (1964), "is obviously a piece of floating tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western Church. It was subsequently inserted into various manuscripts at various places." (51) But Metzger's interpretation of the facts is incorrect, as von Soden demonstrated long ago by his careful scholarship. Von Soden showed that the usual location of the pericope de adultera was also its original location in the New Testament text. The other positions which it sometimes occupies and the unusually large number of variant readings which it contains were later developments which took place after it became part of the New Testament. "In spite of the abundance of the variant readings," he declared, "it has been established with certainty that the pericope was not intruded into the Four Gospels, perhaps in various forms, in various places. This hypothesis is already contradicted by the fixed place which the section has, against which the well known, solitary exception of the common ancestor of the so-called Ferrar group can prove nothing. On the contrary, when the pericope, at a definite time and at a definite place was first incorporated into the Four Gospels, in order then to defend its place with varying success against all attacks, it had the following wording." (52) And then von Soden goes on to give his reconstruction of the original form of the pericope de adultera. This does not differ materially from the form printed in the Textus Receptus and the King James Version.
> 
> Also the opening verses (John 7:53-8:2) of the pericope de adultera indicate clearly that its original position in the New Testament was in John between 7:52 and 8:12, for this is the only location in which these introductory verses fit the context. The first of them (John 7:53) describes the breaking up of the stormy council meeting which immediately precedes. The next two verses (John 8:1-2) tell us what Jesus did in the meantime and thereafter. And thus a transition is made to the story of the woman taken in adultery. But in those other locations mentioned by N.E.B., which the pericope de adultera occupies in a relatively few manuscripts, these introductory verses make no sense and thus prove conclusively that the pericope has been misplaced.
> 
> Long ago Burgon pointed out how untrustworthy some of those manuscripts are which misplace the pericope de adultera. "The Critics eagerly remind us that in four cursive copies (the Ferrar group) the verses in question are found tacked on to the end of Luke 21. But have they forgotten that 'these four codexes are derived from a common archetype,' and therefore represent one and the same ancient and, I may add, corrupt copy? The same Critics are reminded that in the same four Codexes 'the agony and bloody sweat' (St. Luke 22:43-44) is found thrust into St. Matthew's Gospel between ch. 26:39 and 40. Such licentiousness on the part of a solitary exemplar of the Gospels no more affects the proper place of these or of those verses than the superfluous digits of a certain man of Gath avail to disturb the induction that to either hand of a human being appertain but five fingers and to either foot but five toes." (53)
> 
> (d) The Silence of the Greek Fathers Explained
> 
> The arguments of naturalistic critics against the genuineness of John 7:53-8:11 are largely arguments from silence, and the strongest of these silences is generally thought to be that of the Greek Church Fathers. Metzger (1964) speaks of it as follows: "Even more significant is the fact that no Greek Church Father for a thousand years after Christ refers to the pericope, including even those who, like Origen, Chrysostom, and Nonnus (in his metrical paraphrase) dealt with the entire Gospel verse by verse. Euthymius Zigabenus, who lived in the first part of the twelfth century, is the first Greek writer to comment on the passage, and even he declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it." (54)
> 
> This argument, however, is not nearly so strong as Metzger makes it seem. In the first place, as Burgon pointed out long ago, we must knock off at least three centuries from this thousand-year period of which Metzger speaks so ominously. For Tischendorf lists 9 manuscripts of the 9th century which contain the pericope de adultera in its usual place and also one which may be of the 8th century. And so the silence of the Greek Church Fathers during the last third of this thousand year period couldn't have been because they didn't know of manuscripts which contained John 7:53-8:11 in the position which it now occupies in the great majority of the New Testament manuscripts. The later Greek Fathers didn't comment on these verses mainly because the earlier Greek Fathers hadn't done so.
> 
> But neither does the silence of the earlier Greek Fathers, such as Origen (c. 230), Chrysostom (c. 400), and Nonnus (c. 400), necessarily imply that these ancient Bible scholars did not know of the pericope de adultera as part of the Gospel of John. For they may have been influenced against it by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken and also by the fact that some of the manuscripts known to them omitted it. And Burgon mentions another very good reason why these early Fathers failed to comment on this section. Their commenting was in connection with their preaching, and their preaching would be affected by the fact that the pericope de adultera was omitted from the ancient Pentecostal lesson of the Church.
> 
> "Now for the first time, it becomes abundantly plain, why Chrysostom and Cyril, in publicly commenting on St. John's Gospel, pass straight from ch. 7:52 to ch. 8:12. Of course they do. Why should they,—how could they,—comment on what was not publicly read before the congregation? The same thing is related (in a well-known 'scholium') to have been done by Apolinarius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Origen also, for aught I care, —though the adverse critics have no right to claim him, seeing that his commentary on all that part of St. John's Gospel is lost,—but Origen's name, as I was saying, for aught I care, may be added to those who did the same thing." (55)
> 
> At a very early date it had become customary throughout the Church to read John 7:37-8:12 on the day of Pentecost. This lesson began with John 7:37-39, verses very appropriate to the great Christian feast day in which the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is commemorated: In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink . . . But this spake He of the Spirit which they that believe on Him should receive. Then the lesson continued through John 7:52, omitted John 7:53-8:11, and concluded with John 8:12, Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. Thus the fact that the pericope de adultera was not publicly read at Pentecost was an additional reason why the early Greek Church Fathers did not comment on it.
> 
> Why was the story of the adulteress omitted from the Pentecostal lesson? Obviously because it was inappropriate to the central idea of Pentecost. But critics have another explanation. According to them, the passage was not part of the Gospel of John at the time that the Pentecostal lesson was selected. But, as Burgon pointed out, this makes it more difficult than ever to explain how this passage came to be placed after John 7:52. Why would a scribe introduce this story about an adulteress into the midst of the ancient lesson for Pentecost? How would it occur to anyone to do this?
> 
> Moreover, although the Greek Fathers were silent about the pericope de adultera, the Church was not silent. This is shown by the fact that John 8:3-11 was chosen as the lesson to be read publicly each year on St. Pelagia's day, October 8. Burgon points out the significance of this historical circumstance. "The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach, —and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence was felt to be embarrassing,—the Eastern Church has selected nine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8." (56)
> 
> (e) The Internal Evidence
> 
> Naturalistic critics have tried to argue against the genuineness of John 7:53-8:11 on the basis of the internal evidence. Colwell (1952), for example, claims that the story of the woman taken in adultery does not fit its context and that it differs in its vocabulary and general tone from the rest of John's Gospel. (57) But by these arguments the critics only create new difficulties for themselves. For if the pericope de adultera is an interpolation and if it is so markedly out of harmony with its context and with the rest of the Gospel of John, why was it ever placed in the position which it now occupies? This is the question which Steck (1893) (58) asked long ago, and it has never been answered.
> 
> Actually, however, there is little substance to these charges. Arguments from literary style are notoriously weak. They have been used to prove all sorts of things. And Burgon long ago pointed out expressions in this passage which are characteristic of John's Gospel. "We note how entirely in St. John's manner is the little explanatory clause in ver. 6, —'This they said, tempting Him that they might have to accuse Him.' We are struck besides by the prominence given in verses 6 and 8 to the act of writing, — allusions to which, are met with in every work of the last Evangelist." (59)
> 
> As for not fitting the context, Burgon shows that the actual situation is just the reverse. When the pericope de adultera is omitted, it leaves a hole, a gaping wound that cannot be healed. "Note that in the oracular Codexes B and Aleph immediate transition is made from the words 'out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,' in ch. 7:52, to the words 'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying,' in ch. 8:12. And we are invited by all the adverse Critics alike to believe that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist.
> 
> "But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch. 7:37 and 52, and note— (a) That two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (ver. 40-42); (b) That some were for laying violent hands on our LORD (ver. 44); (c) That the Sanhedrin, being assembled in debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Him prisoner, and disputing one against another (ver. 45-52). How can the Evangelist have proceeded,—'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world'? What is it supposed then that St. John meant when he wrote such words?" (60)
> 
> Surely the Dean's point is well taken. Who can deny that when John 7:53-8:11 is rejected, the want of connection between the seventh and eighth chapters is exceedingly strange? The reader is snatched from the midst of a dispute in the council chamber of the Sanhedrin back to Jesus in the Temple without a single word of explanation. Such impressionistic writing might possibly be looked for in some sophisticated modern book but not in a book of the sacred Scriptures.
> 
> (f) The Negative Evidence of the Manuscripts and Versions Explained
> 
> It is not surprising that the pericope de adultera is omitted in Papyri 66 and 75, Aleph B W and L. For all these manuscripts are connected with the Alexandrian tradition which habitually favored omissions. When once the Montanists or some other extreme group had begun to leave the story of the adulteress out of their copies of John's Gospel, the ascetic tendencies of the early Church were such that the practice would spread rapidly, especially in Egypt, and produce just the situation which we find among the Greek manuscripts. For the same reason many manuscripts of the Coptic (Egyptian) versions, including the recently discovered Bodmer Papyrus III, omit this passage, as do also the Syriac and Armenian versions. All these versions reflect the tendency to omit a passage which had become offensive. And the fact that the section had been so widely omitted encouraged later scribes to play the critic, and thus were produced the unusually large number of variant readings which appear in this passage in the extant manuscripts. And for the same cause many scribes placed deletion marks on the margin opposite this section.
> 
> None of these phenomena proves that the pericope de adultera is not genuine but merely that there was a widespread prejudice against it in the early Church. The existence of this prejudice makes it more reasonable to suppose that the story of the adulteress was omitted from the text of John than to insist that in the face of this prejudice it was added to the text of John. There would be a motive for omitting it but no motive for adding it.
> 
> ​​​


----------



## J. Dean

John 8 falls under the same category as the last portion of Mark. The lack of supporting text in earlier manuscripts makes the information questionable, but at the same time the widespread use of it in later accepted manuscripts prevents scholars from abandoning it as non-canon. It's not unusual for pastors to treat these passages with kid gloves, if they treat them at all.

That being said, their inclusion or exclusion does not change any essential truth of the Scriptures


----------



## Contra_Mundum

My opinion: We have four Gospels, and an additional dominical story, equally inspired. At some time that portion was "incorporated" with John's Gospel (perhaps John in fact is responsible for this portion)

Eusebius (early 4th Cent. historian) references this story as forming part of the literary remains (Scripture expositions) of the earlier writer, Papias.

We know of a generational and geographical contemporary to Papias, even Polycarp.


> Schoedel, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140:According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp."​


Thus, we may rest assured that this story is exceeding ancient, being referenced as Scripture (though not from John's Gospel) in less than a hundred years of Christ's death.

I'm not aware of other like texts that have so strong a provenance as this passage. This passage has _survived._ Why?

Could it be because the people who belong to Christ have unfailingly heard the true Voice of their Good Shepherd in this passage?


----------



## TimV

> My opinion: We have four Gospels, and an additional dominical story, equally inspired. At some time that portion was "incorporated" with John's Gospel (perhaps John in fact is responsible for this portion)



Tuesday morning brain food!!!! Thanks!!!!!


----------



## Eoghan

I am afraid I agree with Bruce (FF that is) and see this as an addition. The three earliest manuscripts are unanimous in omitting it. John's Gospel was a tightly written script and this is not part of it (In my humble opinion). I have already omitted part of John 5 regarding the stirring up of the Pool of Bethesda by an angel. That was not a part of the original either. Both omissions provide background but I would be very reluctant to call either canonical!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I find this compelling in the above that it is included....



> Moreover, although the Greek Fathers were silent about the pericope de adultera, the Church was not silent. This is shown by the fact that John 8:3-11 was chosen as the lesson to be read publicly each year on St. Pelagia's day, October 8. Burgon points out the significance of this historical circumstance. "The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach, —and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence was felt to be embarrassing,—the Eastern Church has selected nine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8." (56)
> 
> ....
> 
> As for not fitting the context, Burgon shows that the actual situation is just the reverse. When the pericope de adultera is omitted, it leaves a hole, a gaping wound that cannot be healed. "Note that in the oracular Codexes B and Aleph immediate transition is made from the words 'out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,' in ch. 7:52, to the words 'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying,' in ch. 8:12. And we are invited by all the adverse Critics alike to believe that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist.
> 
> "But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch. 7:37 and 52, and note— (a) That two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (ver. 40-42); (b) That some were for laying violent hands on our LORD (ver. 44); (c) That the Sanhedrin, being assembled in debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Him prisoner, and disputing one against another (ver. 45-52). How can the Evangelist have proceeded,—'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world'? What is it supposed then that St. John meant when he wrote such words?" (60)
> 
> Surely the Dean's point is well taken. Who can deny that when John 7:53-8:11 is rejected, the want of connection between the seventh and eighth chapters is exceedingly strange? The reader is snatched from the midst of a dispute in the council chamber of the Sanhedrin back to Jesus in the Temple without a single word of explanation. Such impressionistic writing might possibly be looked for in some sophisticated modern book but not in a book of the sacred Scriptures.



Here is a link to where Burgon discusses this. 
http://books.google.com/books?id=Oo...#v=onepage&q=Burgon on John 7:37 8:12&f=false


----------



## Elimelek

I thought _Thomas the Blind_ mentioned the pericope in his commentary of Ecclesiastes. Was it Eusebius that quoted Papias about this story coming from the Gospel of the Hebrews written in the second century?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

John Burgon wrote a large section on this passage in his book, _The Causes of The Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels_, as he marshaled forth “overwhelming” evidence to demonstrate its authenticity. We will touch upon the briefest aspects of his well-documented case. It is admitted, he says, that the “Pericope de Adultera,” is missing from some of the manuscripts. He brings up the historical fact that this passage was offensive to some of the early Christians. At this point we look at Dr. Hills’ remarks as he reviews Burgon’s historical and textual evidences:


The story of the woman taken in adultery was a problem also in ancient times. Early Christians had trouble with this passage. The forgiveness which Christ vouchsafed to the adulteress was contrary to their conviction that the punishment for adultery ought to be very severe. As late as the time of Ambrose (c. 374), bishop of Milan, there were still many Christians who felt such scruples against the portion of John’s Gospel. This is clear from the remarks which Ambrose makes in a sermon on David’s sin. “In the same way also the Gospel lesson which has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation…Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously? It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds…”[1]

According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the_ pericope de adultera_ which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. “Certain persons of little faith,” he wrote, “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 said ‘sin no more’ had granted her permission to sin.”[2] Also, in the 10[SUP]th[/SUP] century a Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of “casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus…saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things.”[3]

That early Greek manuscripts contained this _pericope de adultera_ is proved by the presence of it in the 5[SUP]th[/SUP]-century manuscript _D_. That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance on the Old Latin codices _b_ and _e_. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that “in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.”[4] There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome’s statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in _W_. And that Jerome personally accepted the _pericope de adultera_ as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate.[5]​ 

As Burgon presents his case, he says,
_

These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they now occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the Gospels reaches._

And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently established by reference to the ancient Latin version of St. John’s Gospel. We are thus carried back to the second century of our era: beyond which, testimony does not reach. The pericope is observed to stand _in situ_ [in the same place] in Codd. b c e ff g h j. Jerome (A.D. 385), after a careful survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it in the Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by himself in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least nine times; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as often. It is quoted besides by Pacian, in the north of Spain,—by Faustus the African (400),—by Rufinus at Aquileia (400),—by Chrysologus at Ravenna (433),—by Sedulius a Scot (434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises written at the same period, largely quote this portion of the narrative. It is referred to by Victorius or Victorinus (457),—by Vigilius of Tapsus (484) in North Africa,—by Gelasius, bp. of Rome (492),—by Cassiodorus in Southern Italy,—by Gregory the Great, and by other Fathers of the Western Church.

To this it is idle to object that the authors cited all wrote in Latin. For the purpose in hand their evidence is every bit as conclusive as if they had written in Greek—from which language no one doubts that they derived their knowledge. But in fact we are not left to Latin authorities…[6]​ 

Burgon then proceeds to list the various Versions (editions in different languages), and continues:


Add that it is found in Cod. D, and it will be seen that in all parts of ancient Christendom this portion of Scripture was familiarly known in early times.

But even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with the Greek MSS. (and who handled none of later date than B and [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE], expressly relates (380) that the _pericope de adultera_ “is found in many copies both Greek and Latin.” (ii.748)…Whence is it—let me ask in passing—that so many critics fail to see that _positive_ testimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adverse _negative_ testimony of [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]BT,—aye, and of AC to boot if they were producible on this point? How comes it to pass that the two Codexes, [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B, have obtained such a mastery—rather exercise such a tyranny—over the imagination of many Critics as to quite overpower their practical judgment? We have at all events established our first proposition: viz. that from the earliest period to which testimony reaches, the incident of “the woman taken in adultery” occupied its present place in St. John’s Gospel.[7]​ 

But still Burgon is not finished. It remains for him to deliver the _coup de grâce_ to this wounded falsehood. It had been the perplexity of many critics friendly to this passage that there was little attestation to it among the Greek Fathers (although the aforementioned testimonies of Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome were of great weight), and its relative lack was the continual taunt of its adversaries. Burgon shows that in the Lectionaries (books with Scripture portions to be read on particular dates throughout the year, year after year) the reading for Pentecost – Whitsunday – extended from John 7:37 to 8:12, and an internal notation, in many Scriptures prepared for this ecclesiastical use, read (translating from the Greek) *“over-leap”* from verses 7:53 to 8:11, as the topic related therein was inappropriate for that day. This in itself is a reason the verses we are looking at are sometimes missing from the section they are naturally a part of. Burgon continues:


It is the authoritative sentence of the Church then on this difficult subject that we desiderate [to wish or long for]…Are we, I say, left without the Church’s opinion?

Not so, I answer. The reverse is the truth. The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach,—and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence is felt to be embarrassing,—the Eastern Church has selected nine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8. A more significant circumstance it would be impossible to adduce in evidence. Any pretense to fasten a charge of spuriousness on a portion of Scripture so singled out by the Church for honour, were nothing else but monstrous. It would be in fact to raise quite a distinct issue: viz. to inquire what amount of respect is due to the Church’s authority in determining the authenticity of Scripture? I appeal not to an opinion, but to _a fact_: and that fact is, that though the Fathers of the Church for a very sufficient reason are nearly silent on the subject of these twelve verses, the Church herself has spoken with a voice of authority so loud that none can effect not to hear it: so plain, that it cannot possibly be misunderstood.

And let me not be told that I am hereby setting up the Lectionary as the true standard of appeal for the Text of the New Testament…We are not examining the text of St. John vii.53-viii.11. We are only discussing whether those twelve verses _en bloc_ are to be regarded as an integral part of the fourth Gospel, or as a spurious accretion to it. And that is a point on which the Church in her corporate character must needs be competent to pronounce; and in respect of which her verdict must needs be decisive.[8]​ 

There are many other defenses of our assaulted passage, but we will let it rest with what we have presented. Remember, the Greek Text of the Eastern Church – in particular, the Greek Orthodox Church – is essentially the Traditional Text of the Reformation, and of the King James Bible. That Church would not have given a place of honored remembrance and regular use for edification to a questionable text. The _pericope de adultera_ is where it should be, and always has been, in spite of the scissors of the unscrupulous.

--------

[1] _Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum_, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, Vienna, vol. xxxii, pp. 359, 360. Cited in _KJV Defended_, E.F. Hills, page 151.
[2] Ibid., vol. xxxxi, p. 387. Cited in _KJV Defended_, Hills, page 151.
[3] _S. S. Patrum…_ J.B. Cotelerius, Antwerp, 1698. Cited in _KJV Defended_, Hills, page 151.
[4] Migne, _Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina_, Vol. 23, col. 579.
[5] _KJV Defended_, Hills, page 151.
[6] _The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels_, by John William Burgon, Edward Miller, ed. (London: George Bell And Sons, 1896), pages 247-249.
[7] Ibid., pages 249, 250.
[8] Ibid., pages 259, 260.


-----------


Randy already brought out some of this material -- but I elaborate.

May this coming new year be one in which we glorify our Lord and King by a hearty and clear witness to His sovereign majesty and abundant grace, quitting ourselves like men in the face of adversity as we await His coming for us His beloved bride!


----------

