ManyBibles

The woman caught in adultery

Christians and scholars disagree about whether John 8:1-11 belonged to the Fourth Gospel from its first writing, and what its authority is if it did not.

The passage

Scripture · New Consensus Bible

John 8:1-11

1but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2And early in the morning he came again to the temple, and all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and placing her in the middle, 4they told him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do you say?” 6They said this to test him, that they might have a charge to bring against him. But Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground with his finger, ignoring them. 7When they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the sinless one among you be the first to throw the stone at her.” 8And bending down again, he wrote on the ground. 9When they heard it, being convicted by their conscience, they went out one by one, beginning from the elders to the last, and Jesus was left alone, with the woman standing in the middle. 10Jesus straightened up, and seeing no one but the woman, said to her, “Woman, where are your accusers? Did no one condemn you?” 11She said, “No one, Lord.” Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on, sin no more.”
Study John 8 →

The question

Was this story part of John's Gospel from the start?

Background

Historical background

The passage known as the Pericope Adulterae, John 7:53-8:11 in many editions, narrates Jesus' encounter with a woman accused of adultery. It is absent from the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts—including Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus—and from early versions and commentaries. Where it appears, its location varies: after John 7:52, after John 21:25, or after Luke 21:38. Its Greek style and vocabulary differ from the surrounding Gospel of John.

The story is present in Codex Bezae (fifth century) and in many later Byzantine manuscripts, and it was known to some Latin Fathers by the fourth century. The Council of Trent's affirmation of the Vulgate, which includes the passage, shaped Catholic reception. Textual critics continue to study its origin, while churches that receive it as Scripture often distinguish between its manuscript history and its canonical authority.

How the traditions read it

Each tradition’s interpretation

Catholic

The story is authentic, canonical Scripture, affirmed by the Council of Trent.

The Catholic communion receives verses 1-11 as canonical Scripture. The Council of Trent's affirmation of the Vulgate solidified this among Latin Christians. Augustine, in De Adulterinis Conjugiis, defended the pericope's authenticity, arguing that it was omitted from some early manuscripts by individuals of weak faith who feared it granted license to sin. Catholic pastoral practice sees the passage as a model for the Sacrament of Penance: divine mercy joined to the call to conversion. The church's liturgical and catechetical use rests on this canonical reception.

Catholic views on other disputed passages →

Eastern Orthodox

The story is canonical and divinely inspired, though absent from earliest Greek copies.

The Orthodox Church receives the story as canonical and divinely inspired, while acknowledging that some of the earliest Greek manuscripts do not contain it. St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril of Alexandria did not comment on it in their Gospel homilies, but the passage was preserved in the broader Byzantine manuscript tradition and embraced by the Church as a demonstration of Christ's divine mercy. Orthodox theology distinguishes between the history of a text's transmission and the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church in recognizing the canon. In worship and iconography, the story stands alongside the rest of John's Gospel as Scripture.

Eastern Orthodox views on other disputed passages →

Anglican / Episcopal

A later insertion, yet historically true and canonically authoritative.

Anglican scholars such as B. F. Westcott acknowledge that the passage is a later manuscript insertion but maintain its historical truth and canonical authority. The Anglican appeal to reason permits textual criticism while the tradition retains the pericope in the lectionary and in the Book of Common Prayer. It is read as a profound revelation of divine mercy, consistent with the Gospel's witness. Evangelical Anglican readings emphasize the gospel of grace in Jesus' absolution. Broad church readings see universal truth in Jesus' refusal to condemn.

Anglican views on other disputed passages →

Reformed / Presbyterian

The story is canonical, despite omission in some Greek manuscripts.

John Calvin acknowledged the pericope's omission in certain Greek manuscripts but received it as canonical, using Christ's refusal to act as a civil judge to distinguish the spiritual kingdom of Christ from the civil magistracy. The Reformed tradition holds that the church's universal reception, together with the internal evidence of the story's coherence with Gospel teaching, warrants its place in Scripture. The passage is not excluded but is treated with the same authority as the rest of John. In preaching, it serves to strip away presumption and point to sovereign grace.

Reformed views on other disputed passages →

Baptist

Textual scholars note its absence, but Baptists preach it as authentic Scripture.

Baptist textual scholars like A. T. Robertson note the story's absence in the earliest manuscripts, yet the tradition frequently preaches it as an authentic historical illustration of Christ's grace and demand for personal holiness. Baptists often qualify its textual status but treat it as Scripture because of its widespread use in the churches and its harmony with the Gospel. The story is used evangelistically to show that Jesus offers pardon while calling for repentance. While not all Baptists resolve the textual question identically, the passage remains in their Bibles and sermons.

Baptist views on other disputed passages →

Restorationist / Churches of Christ

The story is authentic Scripture, though textual status is acknowledged.

Leaders in the Restoration Movement historically prioritized accurate translations, and some acknowledge the textual questions surrounding the passage. Commentators like J. W. McGarvey defended its historicity, arguing that Jesus did not set aside the Law of Moses but exposed the hypocrisy of the accusers. The passage is generally received as Scripture for teaching and is preached as a pattern of mercy and truth. Restorationist emphasis on the New Testament pattern includes this story as part of the apostolic witness.

Restorationist views on other disputed passages →

Academic textual-historical analysis

Universally recognized by textual critics as a later interpolation, though possibly ancient tradition.

Modern textual critics universally recognize the Pericope Adulterae as a later interpolation into John. It is absent from the earliest papyri and major uncials, contains non-Johannine vocabulary, and floats to different locations in the manuscript tradition. Many scholars nevertheless view it as a piece of authentic ancient Jesus tradition that was later inserted here. Its absence from the earliest copies does not require a conclusion that the story is unhistorical, only that it was not part of the Fourth Gospel as originally composed. The question of original Johannine authorship is thus distinct from the story's antiquity or value.

Scholarly views on other disputed passages →

The text and its translation

Historical background

The passage is absent from P66, P75, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus, and from early versions. It appears in Codex Bezae and many Byzantine manuscripts, often after John 7:52 or John 21:25, or after Luke 21:38. Its vocabulary includes several terms not elsewhere in John.

Common ground

AI explanation

Christian traditions that receive John 8 agree that the story presents Jesus as merciful and as calling the forgiven person to sin no more. They agree the passage is absent from the earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, though they weigh that fact differently. They also agree that the story has been read in the church as Scripture, with pastoral and liturgical significance.

Why it matters

AI explanation

The question affects how churches handle disputed texts, how they teach the doctrine of Scripture, and how they use the story in preaching and pastoral care for those who have sinned. It also shapes lectionary choices and interchurch discussions about canon and textual criticism. For many believers, the story's authority is tied to its place in the Gospel, while for others its value stands regardless of its original location.

Questions people ask

AI explanation

Was John 8:1-11 part of the original Gospel of John?

Textual critics note that the passage is absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts, including Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and that its vocabulary differs from the rest of John. Most therefore regard it as a later insertion, though many still consider the story ancient Jesus tradition. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Reformed, Baptist and Restorationist readers receive it as Scripture while weighing its manuscript history differently.

Why is the story of the woman caught in adultery in some Bibles but not others?

The passage appears in Codex Bezae and many later Byzantine manuscripts, and at varying locations: after John 7:52, after John 21:25, or after Luke 21:38. Modern critical editions usually print it with a note or set it apart, while translations following the received text include it in the main text. Churches that receive it as canonical often distinguish its manuscript history from its authority as Scripture.

How do different Christian traditions read John 8:1-11?

Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed and Anglican readers generally treat it as canonical, appealing to the church's reception and its harmony with Gospel teaching, while Baptist and Restorationist teachers often acknowledge the textual questions yet preach it as authentic Scripture. Academic textual critics regard it as a later interpolation but not necessarily unhistorical. The traditions agree the story shows Jesus as merciful and as calling the forgiven person to sin no more.

Did the Council of Trent settle the status of John 8:1-11?

The Council of Trent's affirmation of the Vulgate, which includes the passage, shaped Catholic reception of it as canonical Scripture; Augustine had earlier defended its authenticity. Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Reformed, Baptist and Restorationist readers also receive the story, though they describe its textual status in different ways. The article sets out these positions without deciding between them.

Related disputed passages

Scripture is quoted from the New Consensus Bible, an AI rendering. The article is AI-generated from this project’s records of how each tradition reads these passages; it describes their positions and does not rule between them.