Came across this note yesterday in the ESV study Bible in regards to John 7:53-8:11…
There is considerable doubt that this story is part of John’s original Gospel, for it is absent from all of the oldest manuscripts. But there is nothing in it unworthy of sound doctrine. It seems best to view the story as something that probably happened during Jesus’ ministry but that was not originally part of what John wrote in his Gospel. Therefore it should not be considered as part of Scripture and should not be used as the basis for building any point of doctrine unless confirmed in Scripture.
What really got me was, “…It should not be considered as part of Scripture…”
I’ve noticed stuff like this before; places where there were notes indicating parts weren’t in some manuscripts or nobody could be sure of the meaning of a particular word. But I’ve never seen something this strong before.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Most translations use the “critical” text, which is based upon one ancient manuscript tradition. this tradition leaves out the Resurrection account in Mark’s gospel, and also the story of the woman caught in adultery, as well as a work here and there.
The ESV at least notes the existence of that passage. The NIV, if I remember correctly, relegates it to a footnote.
The King James and New King James use the traditional manuscript, which contains these passages. A good study Bible will at least note the textual diferences.
I happen to think that passage belongs in the Bible, but that some person who thought he was was more “morally upright” than Jesus “lost” that page, and then the error was repeated enough to create a family of similar manuscripts.
Thanks for the comment.
I’d like to read the theories that people have, like yours, over this section.
WOAH. I never caught that one. I have to pay closer attention to my notes, this is why my new bible takes me double the time to read!