In the June 2018 edition of JETS (“The Pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery: An Inspired Text Inserted into an Inspired Text?” pp. 321-37), Scott Kaczorowski makes an amazing suggestion about John 7:53–8:11.
Many have suggested that it is not part of John’s Gospel, but that it does represent an actual historical incident. Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament takes that position (pp. 187-89). So does Kaczorowski.
But Kaczorowski goes a step further. He says that while it does not belong in John’s Gospel, it is more than just an accurate historical account. He thinks that this account is actually “an inspired text” (pp. 321, 333-337).
I’ve long believed that the Majority Text (MT) carries the correct readings. Hence I’ve long believed that John 7:53–8:11 is inspired Scripture and that it belongs right there in John’s Gospel.
However, when I read Kaczorowski, I found myself wondering if I have forgotten the evidence. I then read Metzger’s comments in his Textual Commentary and realized I needed to go back and look at the evidence.
Hodges and Farstad have a long write up on this passage in their Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (pp. xxiii-xxxii). Their explanation is night and day different than that of Kaczorowski and Metzger. They point out that over 900 manuscripts include this account and they give extensive evidence that the style is completely consistent with John’s style (contra Metzger and Kaczorowski).
The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of John 7:53–8:11 being part of John’s Gospel.
Why is it, however, that Kaczorowski suggests that though he thinks this account was not part of John’s Gospel, it is inspired Scripture and should be taught in churches? He gives the following lines of evidence: 1) “Apostolicity and antiquity” (e.g., Papias in the late first and early second century attested to its authenticity, as did many of the church fathers), 2) “Historical authenticity and orthodoxy” (i.e., it was regarded as historical and there is nothing in it which is unorthodox), and 3) “Usage and spiritual power” (e.g., the church has always found this story to be very edifying).
Kaczorowski suggests this account is inspired Scripture. But without a home. It does not belong in John’s Gospel. Nor does it belong in any other book.
He seems fine with leaving it where it is in John’s Gospel, even though it does not belong there.
Why would God give us an account without a book? Is there anything else in the Bible which is inspired Scripture, but which does not belong in any book of the Bible?
I think Kaczorowski unwittingly makes a good case for John 7:53–8:11 being a part of John’s Gospel. In any case, I’m glad to see that he is convinced that it is part of inspired Scripture. This is a move in the right direction.
Alvin
Actually this story fits perfectly in the Gospel of John. It would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say, “Repent for the Kingdom Of Heaven is at hand.” Why didn’t He? John 3:17. “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. And that is what the Gospel of John’s salvation is about (3:17; 5:34; 10:9; 12:47).
Why~? Because the sin issue was “taken away” by God’s perfect Lamb (John 1:29).
When sin becomes the issue is when they don’t believe in Jesus for everlasting life: 8:24; 15:22,24; 16:8-10 “of sin, because they do not believe in Me
Also Jesus tells her not only does He not condemn her, but He tells her to go and sin no more.
But, it would take more than just being born again, it would take abiding in His word (8:31-36). Then she would know the truth and the truth would set her free, from sin.
1 John 3:9 tells us why this is possible: Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in Him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
The innerman is purified, cleansed in new birth by the word. John 15:3 Jesus said: “You are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
Alvin
God does not show partiality:
Hosea 4:14
“I will NOT punish your daughters when they commit harlotry,
Nor your brides when they commit adultery;
For THE MEN themselves go apart with harlots,
And offer sacrifices with a ritual harlot.
The bottom line, Paul states, is that we hold (Logizometha) that man (anthrpon, generic = man or woman) is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
Alvin
That last paragraph is a quote from Zane’s Commentary on Romans 3:28-29 page 106.
Gordon
“The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of John 7:53–8:11 being part of John’s Gospel.” With the risk of sounding like Luke Skywalker: amazing, every word of that sentence is wrong. It is positions like these that keep pretty much everyone from taking you seriously.
Alvin
ZH: Talking about “community understanding” is quite different from talking about what God understands and what God wants us to understand from a passage. But, not believing that we can know for sure what God wants us to understand in a particular passage leads them to the community view which, from one point of view, is nothing more than the pooling of ignorance.