is John 7:53 - 8:11 part of God's inspired word

[heat_seeker]

I want to know whether John 7:53 - 8:11 is part of God's inspired and inerrant word,
as you will see in your bible, I will reference the NIV version, you will notice that the stated chapter and verses are isolated from the rest with two lines, with a special note pointing out that in the earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not include or support John 7:53 - 8:11.
My question as a Christian is that on what basis did bible scholars include this verse as scripture and inspired if the earliest manuscript do not have it and no corroborative document or evidence clarify it.
Now this bothers me as a Christian who believes in the bible's inerrancy and infallibility, that studies and research show it is anindisputable proven fact,
as i read John 7:53 - 8:11 it appears to align with the character of Jesus to do and say what He did and said, so i get in a sense comfort from that and believe it is God's word
Now, if God is is omniscient and omnipotent, would it be that He intended for The “Pericope Adulterae” to be included within His divinely inspired bible, or should we dare say that this was a slip by scholars who put it in the Gospel of John because it could most likely be a true historical account.
If it's not found in the earliest manuscripts, then why and on what grounds or basis of reason or evidence was it added in the Gospel of John? And why the Gospel of John and not the others? as you can see where my train of thought is going, please if anyone has any scholarly justification or answer to my troubling question I would greatly appreciate it,
thanks

[RBerman]

It's probably not original, but it doesn't teach anything different than the rest of the text, so I don't get excited about it either way. Inerrancy is a doctrine which applies to the original, no-unavailable manuscripts, not to the zillion non-identical copies made since then, and certainly not to modern translations.

[seanD]

I want to know whether John 7:53 - 8:11 is part of God's inspired and inerrant word,
as you will see in your bible, I will reference the NIV version, you will notice that the stated chapter and verses are isolated from the rest with two lines, with a special note pointing out that in the earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not include or support John 7:53 - 8:11.
My question as a Christian is that on what basis did bible scholars include this verse as scripture and inspired if the earliest manuscript do not have it and no corroborative document or evidence clarify it.
Now this bothers me as a Christian who believes in the bible's inerrancy and infallibility, that studies and research show it is anindisputable proven fact,
as i read John 7:53 - 8:11 it appears to align with the character of Jesus to do and say what He did and said, so i get in a sense comfort from that and believe it is God's word
Now, if God is is omniscient and omnipotent, would it be that He intended for The “Pericope Adulterae” to be included within His divinely inspired bible, or should we dare say that this was a slip by scholars who put it in the Gospel of John because it could most likely be a true historical account.
If it's not found in the earliest manuscripts, then why and on what grounds or basis of reason or evidence was it added in the Gospel of John? And why the Gospel of John and not the others? as you can see where my train of thought is going, please if anyone has any scholarly justification or answer to my troubling question I would greatly appreciate it,
thanks

There's a good probability that it wasn't in John, but there is also evidence within the passage that it was legitimate tradition. For example, Jesus writes in the dirt, but the narration doesn't specify what he writes, which suggests an authentic account. Also, the way in which they try and trap him into an act that might hurt his reputation no matter what decision he makes is very clever and seems authentic. Some have even suggested that it was in Luke instead. I also buy the reason some give why it may have been excluded, being that it would give some the implication that adultery was okay. In other words, it makes much more sense to me why they would have taken it out, than someone putting it in. Knowing how such leaders act in institutional churches, I don't find this a stretch to believe at all.

[hedrick]

My best guess is that it's a tradition about jesus going back to his life, which was transmitted separately from John. We have no way to know how it was added. We can only guess that someone thought in belonged in a gospel, and that seemed the logical place. I agree that it's highly unlikely a story like this would have been made up later, so I do think it's probably authentic.

Fortunately, forgiveness is a focus of Jesus' teaching, so the presence or absence of this particular story doesn't seriously affect his message. It seems best not to consider it part of the text of John, in which case by normal definitions it wouldn't be part of the Bible.

[Bosco]

There's a good probability that it wasn't in John, but there is also evidence within the passage that it was legitimate tradition. For example, Jesus writes in the dirt, but the narration doesn't specify what he writes, which suggests an authentic account. Also, the way in which they try and trap him into an act that might hurt his reputation no matter what decision he makes is very clever and seems authentic. Some have even suggested that it was in Luke instead. I also buy the reason some give why it may have been excluded, being that it would give some the implication that adultery was okay. In other words, it makes much more sense to me why they would have taken it out, than someone putting it in. Knowing how such leaders act in institutional churches, I don't find this a stretch to believe at all.

That's probably a good call. If the story is made up, it would seem the thing that would have been done would have been to tell us what was written. Something profound no doubt. But in leaving that out, the story is incomplete, and in a way adds some credibility to it. With that said, it isn't in the Vaticanus, Alexandrian, Sinaticus, or Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta... but that doesn't rule it out totally. Not all of the LXX matches the Masorectic texts either, but I believe both have their place as we reason through scripture and weigh things out. In fact, I personally make it a point when studying the Tanach to read both the Massoretic and the LXX (as well as the DSS) so as to best broaden the possible point of a verse.

Peace.
Bosco

[One Bad Pig]

From what I recall reading (on Tekton years ago), the pericope would fit seamlessly in Luke 21, and IIRC it's sometimes found there. It would also fit thematically in Luke, with his concern for the portrayal of women. However, Luke is also the longest gospel, and the pericope would fit close enough to the end that it's reasonable to come to the conclusion it was dropped so the author wouldn't run out of room on the scroll.