Does the adulterous woman belong in your Bible?

Does the adulterous woman belong in your Bible? April 1, 2014

The story of the adulterous woman, found in the Gospel of John, is a tricky text. The current scholarly consensus is that the account found in John 7.53-8.11 is not original to John, and modern translations often bracket the story and flag it as dubious.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison of the NKVJ, NIV, ESV, and the NRSV. Only the NKJV really attempts a defense of the story.

These brackets, however, don’t go far enough, according to Owen Strachan. Rather than bracket the text, he suggests Bible translators and publishers move the story out of the gospel proper and into a footnote:

If scholars speak with a nearly univocal voice that this passage is not part of John’s Gospel, then let’s go one further than our translations already have (thankfully!), and consider moving it out of brackets and into a footnote. Our goal here is maximum clarity and minimum confusion. . . . I wonder if it might serve the church better by moving this passage out of the flow of John’s Gospel. This is especially true for younger Christians and those who do not have advanced training in biblical studies.

I respect Owen a great deal, and what follows is only meant to address the red flags that jumped in my mind as I read his recommendation.

First, our faith does not depend on a pristine text — or a modern reconstruction of what scholars believe approximates that elusive pristine text. If it did, what should we make of the faith of all those Christians that lived before this reconstruction, including great exegetes like Augustine or Chrysostom, or pastors who led the church before even the canon (let alone this imagined reconstruction) was settled?

Second, doesn’t this change our concept of scripture — or at least underscore a serious disagreement among Christians about its nature? Rather than a collection of texts written in and for the church and recognized as valid by that church, biblical books and even minute passages now become arbitrated by scholars.

Third, by elevating the Bible above the church, Protestants inadvertently exposed it to all the same scrutiny with which they were then viewing the Catholic hierarchy. The effects are immediately seen in Luther wobbling over the inclusion of James in his New Testament. If the church doesn’t validate the text, who does? In this instance, scholarly consensus is consulted to “uncanonize” a portion of generally received scripture.

Fourth, Sola Scriptura becomes queer indeed when ideas from outside Scripture are determining what goes into it.

Fifth, inerrancy becomes equally queer when every Bible you can find is apparently wrong — or when, stepping back to the underlying textual traditions and the copies made therefrom, Christians have been hearing a bunk passage read from the lectionary and expounded from the pulpit for centuries. In that case, inerrancy is just the province of moderns with-up-to-date Bibles. Or are we just fooling ourselves here?

It’s perhaps ironic that the story in question contains the closest thing in Scripture to Jesus writing. It reminds us of the most obvious fact about Scripture — everything ever said by Christ in the Bible is something reported, something mediated, something transmitted by the apostles and the church. And let’s not forget that the church existed before the Scripture. Not a word of the New Testament was written at Pentecost. The church preceded the scripture, and it’s on the authority of the church that the authority of the scripture rests (1 Tim 3.15).

When we disregard that, even the most conservative among us end up recommending changing the text of scripture to fit contemporary ideas, however good and warranted they appear. But it seems a small view of both the church and the scripture if that’s all it takes to decide what is and what isn’t the Word of God.

"Thank you, I am a Mormon and my love for Jesus Christ is only surpassed ..."

Why Mormons aren’t Christians
"Two kings were about to wage war against King Ahaz. Isaiah comes along and gives ..."

Is the virgin birth really predicted ..."
"Praying three times a day is the Jewish prayer schedule. Blessing the Lord seven times ..."

Why pray the hours?
"So do you have any evidence that the Greek version is more authentic to the ..."

You’re reading the wrong Book of ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Theology is personal and ontological, lived out and experienced through the Body of Christ. This is theology-as-archaeology. Deism-lite.

    • Joel J. Miller

      Yes, that’s about right unfortunately. And certainly, being as gracious as possible here, there’s no awareness on the part of Strachan or others that’s what’s happening here. Alas.

      I think what Samuel Stephen Thomas said is spot on: “The Protestant search for the true ‘Historic Text’ is the same species of the Liberal’s search for the ‘Historic Jesus.’ Both bypass the pillar and ground of the Truth, reconstructing the subject matter in their own image.”

      I’ll grant the motivation is good. But the action is, as this story shows, misguided.

  • John Carter

    Seems to me we need this pericope as well as the book of Susanna as a reminder that humanity isn’t only about men and the Mother of God. Some aspects of Orthodoxy tend to romanticize the all male aspect of Mt. Athos (for example) in a way that in fact does not give much honor to either the Mother of God or our first mother or to the Incarnation but rather testifies to our brokenness and compartmentalization.

    • Joel J. Miller

      Agreed. I keep meaning to do a post on Susanna. Someday I will. The church in her wisdom knows what we need to know and provides the passages to enlighten our hearts accordingly.

  • Steven Odom

    I like reading your Patheos posts, but the video ads with sound that pop up out of nowhere are driving me away….

    • Joel J. Miller

      They are irritating as all get-out. Agreed. Wish I could change it.

      • Steven Odom

        So, I’m guessing they’re irritating you more than me even!

  • Rhysem

    This has always been a major issue with biblical scholarship. We all know and understand that the bible has historical and contextual inaccuracies. This is not a surprise given it’s history and translation. Debating the relative value of John 7.53-8.11 is a fairly minor quibble in the grand scheme of things which only glosses over the greater debate.
    The bible as a holy text, both OT and NT, has always been problematic. The level of cognitive dissonance required to reconcile the various problems with scripture requires faith not archaeology.

  • Grotoff

    Only things from outside scripture can tell you what constitutes scripture. Obviously. If a text claiming to be scripture was enough to make it so then the Bible leaves out a great many books who are scripture.

    Inerrancy is already incredibly queer. Jude outright refers to the Book of Enoch being written by Enoch, even though every Christian denomination outside Ethiopia accepts that it wasn’t. The multitude of spelling, grammar, and formatting mistakes in every ancient text testifies to the fact that no supernatural force was guarding the wording of the text itself. It’s long after time for Evangelicals to drop strict inerrancy. It never made sense.

    • Agni Ashwin

      “The multitude of spells, grammar, and formatting mistakes in every ancient text testifies to the fact that no supernatural force was guarding the wording of the text itself. ”

      You assume that supernatural forces care about spelling, grammar, and format.

      • Grotoff

        As the Panda who eats, shoots, and leaves can tell you, grammar makes a difference in meaning. Much more for spelling. If precise meaning was important, than that force should have been active. I guess it’s not.