New Internal Evidence from: R. A. Culpepper,
The Gospel and Letters of John,
Vol. (1998, Abingdon Press)
Last Updated: Feb 21, 2009
Background to the Internal Evidence
Although Culpepper himself was following the critical text (omitting 8:1-11) in his 1998 book, The Gospel and Letters of John (Abingdon Press), he inadvertantly provides previously completely unnoticed evidence for the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera!
However, before we examine this remarkable evidence for the authenticity of our passage, we must first take a brief look at Culpepper's direct remarks on John 7:53-8:11, provided in his book on pages 170-171. Here he offers about a page of discussion, dismissing the verses as an interpolation in the first paragraph, and devoting the rest of the discussion to their interpretation.
Here we can be grateful for one thing. In the process of discussing the interpretation, he largely depends upon an article by G.R. O'Day published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, back in 1992. Although he seems to ignore the profound insight O'Day has offered there, he does acknowledge his source, citing the article twice in footnotes relegated to the back of the book.
Thus the unusually diligent reader can reward themselves with the real gold, by actually hunting down that article, and gaining some real insight into the interpretation of the passage.
Main Section on the Pericope de Adultera
Here follows Culpepper's discussion of the passage. He only devotes one short paragraph (three sentences) on the question of authenticity, dismissing it as an 'interpolation'. In spite of his brevity, he manages to insert several ridiculous 'errors' into the discussion of the textual evidence, all of which conveniently make his position appear more reasonable, if not convincing. Its hard to believe these are just oversights. He has been studying and writing about John for many years.
From: The Gospel and Letters of John,
by R. A. Culpepper ( 1998 Abingdon Press pp.170-171 )
The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery (7:53-8:11)
The story of Jesus, the woman taken in adultery, and her accusers is an interpolation. It appears to be an early, free-floating unit of tradition that did not find a secure home in the written Gospels, perhaps because some feared that it would lead to leniency in dealing with adultery. It does not appear in the Greek manuscripts of John before about 900, and some insert it after 7:36, after 21:25, or after Luke 21:38, instead of at this point. 13
The story itself has held a great fascination for interpreters, some of whom have found its center in: the opposition between Jesus and the woman (Augustine: "a wretch and Mercy [miseria et misericordia]"); the words that Jesus wrote on the ground (J.D.M.Derrett, Exod 23:1b and 23:7; J.N. Sanders, the Ten commandments; and R.E. Brown, "doodling"); or in the parallel scenes in verses 6b-7 and 8-11 in which Jesus challenges the scribes and the Pharisees, as well as the woman (G.R.O'Day). 14
Verses 7:53-8:2 provide the setting: early morning, Jesus teaching in the Temple (cf.Mark 11:20,27-28; Luke 19:47-20:2). Verses 3-6a introduce the characters, the charge against the woman, and the trap that is set for Jesus, which pits him against the Law. Twice Jesus stoops and writes on the ground, and twice he speaks. Whether the structure is interpreted as two parallel scenes or a chiasm with Jesus' pronouncement in verse 7 at its center, the words that Jesus speaks form the climax of the story. O'Day diagrams the relationship between Jesus' two pronouncements as follows [ a 'criss-cross' ]:
The one who is without sin .. \ / .. throw the first stone at her (v. 7b) Neither do I condemn you. Go, .. / \ .. from now on and sin no more (v. 11b) The story vividly depicts Jesus' grace toward the woman taken in adultery. He challenges both the woman and her accusers to lay aside the question of guilt or innocence and to enter into a new life in which one's regard for self and one’s relationship to others are based on grace and mercy. 15 There are good reasons, therefore, why the Church chose to make a place for this story in the Gospels, even though it was not originally part of the Gospel of John."
Culpepper's Original Footnotes:
13. For the textual history of this story, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, (NY, UBS, 1975), 219-221.
14. See Gail R. O'Day, "John 7:53-8:11: A Study in Misreading," Journal of Biblical Literature, 111 (1992): 631-640.
15. Ibid., 636-637.
The Textual Evidence
(1) "The story ... is an interpolation."
It is in fact impossible for the passage to be a simple 'interpolation'. As we shall see shortly, the internal evidence shows at the very least that this section was deliberately composed to fit here in John's Gospel.
The passage shows deep connections to many parts of John on multiple levels. It can only be either a deliberate forgery involving extensive tampering with the whole Gospel, or else of course, it is an authentic part of this same Gospel, and has the evangelist for its author.
For an alternative explanation for the complex textual evidence, see our articles and reviews on that subject here:
Articles on the Authenticity of John 8:1-11 <-- Click Here.
(2) "It appears to be an early, free-floating unit of tradition..."
Again, we are treated to a popular myth about the passage. In fact, the manuscript evidence for 'other locations' for John 7:53-8:11 is all very late (10th century or later). And it is fully accounted for by later attempts to re-insert the passage back into new copies of defective MSS by re-copying the text from the Lectionary tradition.
This is why in a few cases, the verses are dislocated either at John 7:38 or just after 8:12. The placement of the passage at the end of John in some MSS is a result of the impossibility of re-inserting it at its proper place. This couldn't be done without removing and re-writing already bound pages in the faulty copy, and inserting more blank parchment to hold the verses.
(3) "[the passage did] not find a secure home in the written Gospels,
perhaps because some feared that it would lead to leniency in dealing with adultery."
Here we have a faulty hypothesis, based upon an over-inflated estimate of the value of a handful of 4th century uncials that omit the passage. The vast majority of Byzantine MSS (authentic Greek MSS from the core of the Eastern Greek half of the Holy Roman Empire) represent a multitude of independant streams of transmission extending back at least to the 4th century.
These MSS, numbering some 1250 continuous-text copies along with a thousand lectionaries, show that John 8:1-11 was recognized as belonging to John and respected as Holy Scripture for nearly a thousand years, from around 400 to 1400 A.D.
The explanation offered by Culpepper, although unacknowledged, is that of St. Augustine, who in the 4th century noted that some people were leaving out the verses. He commented upon them repeatedly and treated them as Holy Scripture authentic to John. He and many other 4th century fathers unanimously asserted their authenticity whenever they chose to comment upon it.
(4) "It does not appear in the Greek MSS of John before about 900 [A.D.]"
This is an incredible error of fact. Of course Culpepper knows that the story appears without any marks of doubt or caution in the famous 5th century manuscript, Codex Bezae (D), both in Greek and Latin (it is a bilingual copy of the Gospels).
To this we can add codex E (8th cent.), and manuscript 0233 (8th cent.), both of which have the passage. Manuscript 047 (8th cent.) also has 8:3-11 but omits 7:53-8:2, since it is constructed out of the Lectionary text. This evidence supports the longstanding popularity of the lectionary text in the Greek tradition as well.
Its absence in 6th and 7th century MSS is not remarkable when we remember that many thousands must have been produced, yet only a handful of MSS survive for each century before the 8th. These few samples and scraps cannot be claimed to adequately represent the state of the text for those centuries.
A far more reliable guide to the text for the earlier centuries in which we lack adequate numbers of copies can be had by projecting backward from the many later independant MSS from all over the empire, in Greek, Latin, and many other translations. Each of these later MSS represents earlier copies faithfully reproduced, and certainly reflecting a text extending back centuries earlier.
(5) "For the textual history of this story, see Bruce M. Metzger..."
This meager reference is wholly inadequate. Metzger certainly represents the 'status quo' among liberal critics.
But most scholars concede that the status of our passage is one of the most important controversies in current NT textual criticism.
There are many textual critics who take quite a variety of views on the passage and its reconstructed textual history. For Culpepper not to cue the reader to this controversy is a let down. It just supports elitism and keeps the public ignorant.
Why can't laymen know about these discussions and controversies? The academic hubris and secretiveness of experts is one of the most serious and systemic problems with the advancement of modern scientific investigation today.
For alternate viewpoints about the textual evidence and history of these verses, we can heartily recommend a few other expert opinions:
Hodges on John 8:1-11 <- Click Here for Article.
Background to the Internal Evidence
As we said before, the interesting part of Culpepper's book is not his treatment of John 8:1-11, which can only be characterized as woefully inadequate, bordering on special pleading.
The fun part is that Culpepper elsewhere in the book inadvertantly has provided startling and powerful supplimentary internal evidence for the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera.
To start, Culpepper helpfully diagrams the connections between chapter 5 of John and chapter 7. On page 166 he provides a chart, showing a remarkable and deep linkage between two sections of John, 5:1-47, and 7:15-24:
John 5____________________________________Jn 7:15-24
5:47.........."letters" /what is written' (grammata).....................7:15
5:31..........speaking on His own behalf..................................7:17
5:44..........seeking the glory from God...................................7:18
5:45-47......Moses gave the Law.......................................7:19-25
5:18...........seeking to kill Jesus........................................7:19-20
5:1-18 .......healing of man at pool/'one work'.........................7:21
5:1-18........"I healed a man's whole body on Sabbath............7:23
5:9.............the sabbath...........................................................7:23
____________________________________________________
Obviously the connections between the two passages run deep. And neither of these two passages are suspected of being additions on any textual grounds. The MSS tradition is unwavering here. Also, no one has ever produced any internal evidence suggesting either or both of these two passages was some kind of addition or insertion.
But now let us add our own second chart, showing the remarkably similar connection between two other passages in John:
Now we extend this list with the parallels between chapter 6 and 8:
John 6__________________________________John 8:1-11
6:14............ the Prophet to come.......................................7:52
6:15.............Jesus retires to mountain alone.......................8:1
6:17............it was now night................................................8:1
6:22..........the following day, the crowd/people stood.........8:2
6:37,44...........the people came to Him...............................8:2
6:21................they willingly received Him...........................8:2
6:45................they were taught of God..............................8:2
6:25................they said to Him Rabbi/Teacher..................8:4
6:32................Moses gave them bread/law........................8:5
6:30..............."What do you work/say?"..............................8:5
6:36.................they believed Him not................................. 8:6
6:21................on the ground...............................................8:6
6:41-2.............they murmered at/pressed Him....................8:7
6:34...............then they said, "give us this bread"
.......................and they that heard were convicted.............8:9
6:39-40........."I will raise them up"
......................Jesus raised Himself up..............................8:10
6:47.........."whosever believes in Me has eternal life"
....................."Neither do I judge thee"...............................8:11
_________________________________________________
Note that the parallel includes the 'joining section' (John 7:53-8:1). The whole purpose of this transitional portion is to intentionally connect to the previous part of John (the end of chapter 7).
The parallel also involves the previous verse, 7:52, which is not even in dispute as a part of John's Gospel. There is no textual evidence of a gloss here in 7:52 either.
In case this weren't enough, there are the incredible direct parallels in language between chapter 6 and the passage:
The word-for-word parallels between John 8:1-11 and John 6:1-21:
John 6:3 : ανηλθεν δε εις το ορος Ιησουν (But Jesus went to the mountain...)
John 8:1 : Ιησουν δε ανηλθεν εις το ορος (But Jesus went to the mountain..)
John 6:5 : πολυς οχλος ερχεται προς αυτον (a great crowd came unto Him)
John 8:2 : πας ο λαος ηρχετο προς αυτον (all the people came unto Him)
John 6:6 : τουτο δε ελεγεν πειραζων αυτον (this He said testing him)
John 8:6 : τουτο δε ελεγον πειραζοντεν αυτον his they said testing Him)
John 6:10 ανεπεσειν...ανεπεσαν...οι ανδρες (sit down, the men sat down)
John 8:6 : ο δε Ιησους κατω κυψας (but Jesus bent down...)
John 6:21 ...εγενετο το πλοιον επι της γης (... upon the ground )
John 8:6b ........ κατεγραφεν εις της γης (... in the ground )
______________________________________________________
It becomes obvious that whoever composed John 8:1-11 was intimately familiar with and extensively used John chapt. 6 as a template (or vise versa). But this is exactly the habit and pattern of the composer of 5:1-47, and 7:15-24, namely John the evangelist himself.
Once again it becomes clear that this cannot be any kind of naive 'insertion' of a story previously unrelated to John, by some scribe or editor trying to preserve an 'ancient tradition' or 'authentic oral story'. Either the gospel was extensively and carefully rewritten to include the pericope, or it was always an integral part of John's gospel.
Culpepper versus Zervos
It may not have quite struck the reader how incredibly profound the evidence accidentally noted by Culpepper is, compared to the blatantly artificial and strained attempt of Zervos with the Protoevangelion of James. (See our article on Zervos on the website)
After 43 pages of struggle, Zervos was only able to produce one short phrase of three words, that can connect John 8:1-11 with the Protevangelion of James.
Yet when we compare John 8:1-11 with John chapter 6, we are able to come up with at least three long clauses of near verbatum agreement in the original Greek, as well as about twenty (!) thematic or bite-size connections, resonances or parallels:
To understand the power of this connection, we need to realize how unique it is.
Of course we can set up parallel accounts between Gospels, especially when as in the case of the Synoptics, they have borrowed from each other or used common materials.
We can even find short parallels some distance apart when general themes are used repeatedly, or when deliberate chiastic patterns are embedded in a Gospel, such as the O.T. quotation patterns in John.
But we can't just arbitrarily take any two sections of a Gospel and get these kinds of concentrated interconnections.
For instance, no other section or passage in John can be aligned with either chapter 6 or 8:1-11 and be found to have this kind of heavy interconnection. John 8:1-11 is heavily connected to John 6, and not to anything else!.
This is clearly a significant finding, and it simply means this: John 8:1-11 was composed using John 6. It could never have been an independantly 'floating piece of tradition' that somehow ended up between 7:52 and 8:12 by an arbitrary or accidental interpolation of some scribe or a series of errors.
It could NOT have been composed out of the Protevangelion of James, or the Egerton Papyrus, or from the Story of Susanna. It could NOT have been composed by anyone other than the final redactor or issuer of the Gospel of John.
The Pericope de Adultera is heavily dependant upon John 6. But its more than this: Our passage is dependant upon chapter 6 exactly the same way as chapter 7 is dependant upon chapter 5, as Culpepper has shown us.
This means that whoever was imitating John knew more about John than 200 years worth of textual critics and analysts.
But when we combine this fact with the new knowledge about the structure of John itself, from the multi-level chiastic connections to the O.T. Quotation structures, it becomes clear also that the version of John we have is also completely dependant upon 7:53-8:11 for its own coherence and structural integrity.
John 8:1-11 is glued to John and John is glued to 8:1-11 in such a way that it is impossible to pry them apart without doing violence to both.
Who could have done this? John the Evangelist, whoever he may be.
The Critical Text is shown to be Mutilated
Simply omitting Jn 7:53-8:11 just damages the hidden connective structure, without completely removing it.
This means that the text of Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) cannot be original, since their text retains the broken structure.
Even with minor differences in the text for the rest of John, the above list of connections remains essentially the same when we use either codex B, or a modern critical edition of the NT, or even the Textus Receptus.
Once again, the text of a handful of 2nd-4th century documents artificially prepared for liturgical service is shown to be a secondary, mutilated text.
The discerning Christian who wants the most accurate and logically consistent text of John's Gospel will opt for the traditional or Received text which includes the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11).
Those stuck with inferior 'critical' editions of the NT like the UBS text should try to trade them for good copies of the Greek text, like the Robinson/Pierpont text, now being distributed free on the internet.