The Canonical Status of the

Pericope Adulterae (John 7:538:11)

Carl B. Bridges
Professor of New Testament
Johnson Bible College
cbridges@jbc.edu

The story of the woman caught in adultery represents a real event in the life of
Jesus but came into the manuscript tradition too late to earn canonical status.
Considering its use as canon by Catholics, Orthodox, and some Protestants,
and considering that it displays a theology consistent with the rest of the NT, it
appears as a benign expansion of the Gospels.

The story of the woman caught in adultery, which appears in most Bibles as
John 7:538:11, represents one of only two long, near-certain interpolations into
the NT text.1 The passage presents unique challenges because of three factors:
(1) the storys events very likely happened, (2) the passage almost certainly did not
appear in the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John, and yet (3) the passage has
remained part of the Gospel text for centuries, and much of the worldwide church
considers it canonical. This article summarizes the textual evidence for the passage
and reflects on its canonical status in the light of its likely historicity and its wide
use by the church.

TEXTUAL EVIDENCE
The earliest witnesses to the text of the Gospel of John uniformly omit the
pericope, including Tatians Diatessaron (second century)2 and the third-century
papyri 66 and 75. Origen (died 253/254) does not include the passage in his
commentary on John, and Tertullian (died after 220) never cites the passage or
alludes to the story. John Chrysostom (died 407) covers much of the Gospel in his
homilies on John, but not this passage. Cyril of Alexandria (died 444) omits the

1
Long means longer than a sentence or two. On the other passage, Mark 16:9-20, see Carl B.
Bridges, The Canonical Status of the Longer Ending of Mark, SCJ 9 (Fall 2006) 231-242.
2
If the Diatessaron had included the passage, it would have appeared in section 35.

Stone-Campbell Journal 11 (Fall, 2008) 213221

SCJ 11 (Fall, 2008): 213221

passage from his Commentary on John.3 The earliest uncial manuscripts, with an
exception noted below, also omit the passage: the fourth-century Sinaiticus (= )
omits it, along with Vaticanus (also fourth century, = B), apparently Alexandrinus
(fifth century, = A),4 apparently Codex Ephraemi (fifth century, = C), the
Washington manuscript (fourth or fifth century, = W), and manuscript T (= 029)
of the fifth century.5
The earliest mention of the passage in the east comes from fourth-century
manuscripts of the early third-century Didascalia Apostolorum (Teaching of the
Apostles), which quotes go and sin no more from John 8:11.6 Around 380 this
reference to the pericope became part of the Apostolic Constitutions (2.3.24).7
Along with a reference by Didymus the Blind of Alexandria (died 398) to some
Gospels that contained the pericope in his day,8 no other evidence of the passage
appears before AD 400 in the east.
Even in the west the passage does not appear before AD 300. It appears in
most Old Latin (aka Italic) manuscripts of the fifth century (d e ff 2) and in the Latin
Vulgate (4th/5th century).9 The pericope does not appear in the Greek manuscript
tradition until the fifth-century Cambridge manuscript known as Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (= D), a Greek-Latin diglot.10 Several fourth- and fifth-century western

The writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers in the classic English-language edition edited by Alexander
Roberts and James Donaldson (10 vols.; repr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) appear in searchable
form at http://153.106.6.25/. Many of the Fathers appear also at www.tertullian.org/fathers and at
www.newadvent.org/fathers. All web links cited were active on June 26, 2008.
4
Vaticanus contains a text-critical mark (an umlaut) at this point, suggesting that its scribe knew the
passage but did not include it in the text he produced. See Philip B. Payne, Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants
in Vaticanus, and 1Cor 14:34-5, NTS 41 (1995) 240-262.
5
Manuscript citations come mostly from the Nestle-Aland/27 and United Bible Societies/4 texts.
See also Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: German
Bible Society, 1st ed. 1971, 2d ed. 1994, 1998).
6
Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus and the Adulteress, NTS 34 (1988) 33, n. 40, citing A. Vbus, The
Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac (CSCO, Scriptores Syri 177 [176]). Ehrmans article also appears in his
Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (NTTS 33; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 196-220.
7
http://153.106.6.25/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.iii.iii.html.
8
The Greek text of Didymuss reference to John 8:7 appears in Ehrman, Jesus and the Adulteress,
25; also in Bart D. Ehrman, Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels (NTGF 1; Atlanta: Scholars,
1986) 145.
9
Thomas OLoughlin, A Womans Plight and the Western Fathers, in Ciphers in the Sand:
Interpretations of the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:538:11) (eds. Larry J. Kreitzer and Deborah
W. Rooke; Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000) 83-104, esp. 87. On the earliest translations of the NT text,
see Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and
Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977).
10
Perhaps the Latin text of D influenced the Greek text at this point. For sample pages of the text
see the article Codex Bezae at www.wikipedia.org.
214

Carl B. Bridges: The Canonical Status of the Pericope Adulterae

Fathers cite the passage, including Jerome Against the Pelagians 2.17 (Jerome died
419420), Augustine Tractate 33 on John 7:408:11 (Augustine died 430), Ambrosiaster (died after 384), Ambrose (died 397), Pacian (died before 392), Rufinus
(died 410), and Faustus of Milevus (fourth century).11 In the eighth to tenth centuries a few manuscripts include the passage, in whole or in part, with text-critical
marks indicating doubt about it (E L [=039] S [= 028]). Starting in the tenth century, a few manuscripts include the passage at other points in the Gospel collection:
after John 7:36 (minuscules 225 and 1128), at the end of John (24 minuscules),
after Luke 21:38 (family 13), or at the end of Luke (1333 corrected).12
To summarize the textual evidence: the pericope represents a western reading,
and not an early one at that. Unknown in the east before the fourth century, it surfaces in the Latin fathers and the Latin manuscripts around AD 400. The passage,
as a written text, has no claim to an early provenance.

11

Manuscript citations mostly from the Nestle-Aland/27 and United Bible Societies/4 texts. On the
appropriate and inappropriate use of the church fathers in establishing the NT text, see Carroll D.
Osburn, Methodology in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism, NovT 47 (2005)
313-343; also three chapters in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., The Text of the New
Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995):
Gordon D. Fee, The Use of the Greek Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism, 191-207;
J. Lionel North, The Use of the Latin Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism, 208-223; and
Sebastian P. Brock, The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism, 224-236.
See also Ehrmans article, The Use and Significance of Patristic Evidence for Textual Criticism, in his
Studies, 247-266, originally published in New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Church History:
A Discussion of Methods (B. Aland and J. Delobel, eds.; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994) 118-135.
12
For an exhaustive treatment of the textual evidence, see Wieland Willker, A Textual Commentary
on the Greek Gospels, vol. 4b, The Pericope de Adultera: Jo 7:538:11 (Jesus and the Adulteress) (5th ed.;
Bremen: published online, 2007), available at http://bijbelstudie.110mb.com/BW/43Jh/Anderen/
Willker%20-%20John%207_53-8_11.%20A%20Textual%20Commentary.pdf. See also Reuben J.
Swanson, ed., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines
against Codex Vaticanus: vol. 4, John (Sheffield: Academic Press; Pasadena: William Carey, 1995) 105109; and Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Klaus Wachtel, eds., Text und Textwert der griechischen
Handschriften des neuen Testaments, vol. 5, Das Johannesevangelium (vol. 5.1.2; ANTF 36; Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2005) 211-215. Aland, Aland, and Wachtel show the wide variation between MSS in their
placement of text-critical marks. The earliest Ethiopic manuscripts come from the medieval period and
probably represent a Byzantine text type; still, many of them omit the pericope. See Michael G.
Wechsler, Evangelium Iohannis Aethiopicum (CSCO 617; Scriptores Aethiopici 109; Louvain: Peeters,
2005) xvi-xvii, 47, 204-205. See also M.A. Robinson, Preliminary Observations Regarding the Pericope
Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collation of Nearly All Continuous-text Manuscripts and Over One
Hundred Lectionaries, Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 (2000) 35-59. On the internal evidence, not
dealt with in this article, see John Paul Heil, The Story of Jesus and the Adulteress (John 7,53-8,11)
Reconsidered, Bib 72 (1991) 182-191; and Daniel B. Wallace, Reconsidering The Story of Jesus and
the Adulteress Reconsidered, NTS 39 (1993) 290-296.
215

SCJ 11 (Fall, 2008): 213221

HISTORICITY
But what of the story itself? Eusebius (fourth century) reports that Papias
(early second century) has expounded another story about a woman who was
accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews
contains.13 Eusebius brief note does not say clearly whether Papias received the
story from oral tradition (see Eusebius HE 3.39.2-4) and Eusebius reported its
presence in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or whether Papias himself cited
the Gospel. Eusebius also does not make clear whether Papias refers to the same
story contained in the pericope adulterae.14 If Papias and Eusebius are correct and if
their story matches the one in the pericope adulterae, a future discovery of the
Gospel according to the Hebrews might move the written record of the story back
more than a hundred years closer to the time of Jesus ministry. Even without the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, if Papiass story is the same, he provides an early
traditional witness to the account.
As many have pointed out, the story probably passed down by word of mouth
until someone wrote it up and inserted it into the Gospel of John. Moreover, the
events of the story probably happened. The account satisfies the form critics criterion of (double) dissimilarity, which identifies an incident as most likely historical if it does not appear to derive from first-century Judaism or serve the interests
of the early church.15 Jesus lenient treatment of an adulteress would run counter to
the expectations of first-century Jewish people and also of the post-apostolic church
with its increasingly rule-based ethics.16 Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no
more (8:11, NKJV) sounds like the Jesus of the Gospels.17

13

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.17 (Loeb 1926 translation by Kirsopp Lake).

Ehrman, Jesus and the Adulteress, 37, believes the pericope in John resulted from the conflation
of two stories, one of which Papias referred to.
15
The criterion of dissimilarity does not work well when applied negatively, that is, to declare a saying
or deed of Jesus unhistorical. As others have said in various ways, when applied in this way the criterion
gives us a non-Jewish, non-Christian Jesus. However, the criterion has some use when applied positively, such as to support the historicity of a deed or saying of Jesus. The questions, Could a standardissue first-century rabbi have said this? or Would the early church have made this up? strongly support
historicity when answered in the negative. On the criterion in general, see D.A. Carson and Douglas J.
Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005) 82-85.
16
George R. Beasley-Murray, John (2d ed.; WBC 36; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999) 143. For
examples of the increasing legalism of the second-century church, see Didache 8.1-3; Hermas Mandate
4.1.1-11 (29.1-11); Hermas Similitude 5.3.3, 7 (56.3, 7). Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus through Middle
Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008) 230, imagines a
scenario in which a man orders a copy of the Gospel of John without the pericope adulterae in order to
avoid giving his daughters ideas.
17
See Beasley-Murray, John, 143-144. One should use the sounds like Jesus criterion sparingly, if
only because it sounds like the Jesus Seminar.
14

216

Carl B. Bridges: The Canonical Status of the Pericope Adulterae

So far we have identified the pericope adulterae as very likely a true story, a
genuine reminiscence of things Jesus did and said, but one that entered the written
tradition much too late to become a legitimate part of the Gospel collection.18
Based on these conclusions, should the church consider it part of the canon or not?

USE

AS

CANON

The pericope adulterae stands as an undisputed part of the Gospel of John in the
Roman Catholic canon and the Greek Orthodox canon, along with the canons of
other Eastern Orthodox churches whose Scriptures derive from the Byzantine text of
the NT. Protestants who consider it Johannine and thus canonical include those who
consider the Byzantine text (aka Majority text or MT) the most accurate, including
those who follow the Textus Receptus and the King James translation. Those who
follow an eclectic Greek text like that of the United Bible Societies or the NestleAland consider the passage a later interpolation and may question its canonicity.
For Roman Catholics the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century settled the
issue of the pericopes canonical status. The Council declared an anathema on any who
did not receive as sacred and canonical the books of Scripture entire with all their
parts . . . as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition.19 This would include
the pericope adulterae, even though the decree does not mention it by name. In 1870
the first Vatican council referred back to Trent and echoed its words.20 The DouayRheims New Testament of 1582, based on the Vulgate and long the standard translation for English-speaking Catholics, contains the pericope.21 Much more recently, the
1986 revision of the New American Bible contains the note, The Catholic Church
accepts this passage [the pericope adulterae] as canonical scripture.22
18
Some call the pericope an agraphon, an unwritten saying of Jesus like, It is more blessed to give
than to receive, which does not appear in the Gospels but does appear in Acts 20:35 (NRSV).
Unwritten does not really describe the agrapha by the time we learn of them, because they all
appeared in writing long ago. Perhaps we should use a term like orphan saying, used in Robert J.
Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1992) 421-427.
19
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html. The Vulgate text appears at http://www.
drbo.org/lvb/.
20
First Vatican council, session 3, chapter 2 On Revelation, section 6. Available at http://
dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume1.htm and http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM.
21
The text of the Douay-Rheims Bible appears at http://www.drbo.org. Based on its language and
style and date of publication (the Douay OT came out in 16091610), one would not go far wrong to
call the Douay Bible the Catholic King James Version.
22
Note on John 7:538:11 in The New American Bible: Revised New Testament (Northport, NY:
Costello/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) copyright 1986 by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.
Text available at http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john7.htm#foot17. Although the
Catholic Church officially regards the PA as canon, Catholic scholars can treat John 78 without it.
See Anthony J. Kelly, An Instructive Conflict (John 7:18:59), ScrC 139 (2005) 116-128. In con-

217

SCJ 11 (Fall, 2008): 213221

In Greek Orthodox churches the Byzantine text, represented today by the

Patriarchal Edition of 1904 (reprinted with corrections in 1907 and 1912), remains
the standard text of the NT, and it contains the pericope adulterae.23 In Russian
Orthodox churches the passage appears without textual note in the old Synodal
Version and in the Slovo Zhizny (Word of Life) translation of 2000.24 The Jubilee
edition of the Ukrainian text also contains the passage, again without note.25
Outside the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, the pericopes canonical status
depends more on textual critics than on church pronouncements. The majority of
textual scholars today believe that a text reconstructed from the oldest and best
manuscripts, such as the eclectic text represented by the United Bible Societies and
the Nestle-Aland editions, represents the most likely form of the original NT documents. In this eclectic text the pericope appears with notes that make its secondary
status clear. In the UBS/4 edition, the text without the pericope adulterae earns an
A rating for certainty; in other words, the editors judge that the passage certainly did not appear in the original or in the earliest copies of the Gospel.
Some version of this eclectic text underlies nearly all modern English translations, which explains the various ways the English translators indicate the pericopes
secondary status: a note with lines separating the pericope from the rest of the text
(NIV, NLT), note with separators and different typeface (TNIV), brackets with
note (NASV, NRSV, GNT, Holman, ESV), note and extra space (RSV), brackets
with extra space and note (ASV), note only (CEV, Amplified), pericope moved to
the end of the Gospel (NEB, REB), pericope placed in footnote (New World
Translation). Outside the King James tradition, only a few publications, such as
The Message and the Phillips paraphrase, treat the pericope as part of the text with
no indication of its nonoriginal status.26
trast, Luis Heriberto Rivas treats the passage as part of the text while acknowledging it was not original: El Evangelio de Juan: Introduccin, Teologa, Commentario (Buenos Aires: San Benito, 2005) 2930, 261-265.
23
See Ioannes Karavidopoulos, Textual Criticism in the Orthodox Church: Present State and Future
Prospects, GOTR 47 (2002) 381-396, especially 385-386. The text of the Patriarchal Edition appears
at http://kainh.homestead.com/kainh.html and at http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/biblegreek.
The Pentecost reading in Greek Orthodox churches omits the pericope, perhaps reflecting its selection
at a time before the Byzantine text form uniformly included it; see http://www.holytrinitymission.org/
books/english/truth_we_hold.htm#_Toc26519154.
24
Synodal Version and Slovo Zhizny (International Bible Society, 2000) at http://www.biblegateway.
com. Although the Russian Orthodox canon now contains the pericope, the oldest Slavic translation
apparently did not; see the UBS/4 text ad loc.
25
The Jubilee Edition came from the Evangelical-Lutheran Mission in 1988, on the thousand-year
anniversary of the Christianization of the kingdom of Kievan Rus. I have found only one Slavic edition
that contains a text-critical note on the pericope: an English (NASB)-Russian diglot published by the
Slavic Gospel Press (Wheaton, 1990), which does not reflect the practice of Orthodox churches.
26
Many of these translations appear at http://www.biblegateway.com.
218

Carl B. Bridges: The Canonical Status of the Pericope Adulterae

The translations that assign some kind of secondary value to the pericope adulterae leave its canonical status in doubt. If we consider the reconstructed original
text27 of the Gospel canonical, what of a passage that never belonged to that original text? Does the inclusion of the pericope in an English translationhowever
many notes, spaces, extra lines, etc., may appearimply that it belongs in the
canon, or that we think of it as semicanonical, or what? More on this question later.
Some Protestants believe that the Textus Receptus (received text, abbreviated TR), a version of the Majority or Byzantine text, most accurately represents
the original writings of the NT. This claim loses credibility when one notices that
most who believe in the Textus Receptus seem to have a prior commitment to the
King James Bible, its NT being a translation of the TR. Although a few writers
might prefer the TR without having any interest in the KJV, the majority of interest in the TR comes from King James-only people.28 Since the TR includes the pericope adulterae, the King James NT and all its daughter translations include the section.29 For King James-only people, and for any others who consider the TR the
best Greek text, the pericope belongs in the canon.
Although a majority of textual scholars prefer an eclectic text based on the earliest NT manuscripts available, a minority argue that the Byzantine or Majority text
best represents the original.30 This viewpoint differs from the TR- and King Jamesonly viewpoint in important ways: (1) those who argue for the MT acknowledge
many differences between it and the TR, and (2) they seem to have no uniform
preference for a particular English Bible. However, the canonical conclusions of
both groups coincide at the pericope adulterae, because the Majority Text, the
Textus Receptus, and the King James Bible all contain it.31
27

The reconstructed text may not represent the original text perfectly. However, as Bart Ehrman,
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005) 62,
states, We must rest content knowing that getting back to the earliest attainable version is the best we
can do, whether or not we have reached back to the original text. This oldest form of the text is no
doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching, emphasis in original.
28
See the website of the Dean Burgon Society: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/ and to a lesser extent, that of the Trinitarian Bible Society: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org. See also the articles at http://www.kjvonly.org, a website which argues against the King James-only viewpoint.
29
Besides the original King James Version, several updates exist, including the King James II, the
New KJV (which includes a note at John 7:53), and the 21st Century KJV, the latter two available at
http://www.biblegateway.com.
30
See Maurice A. Robinson, New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority,
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 6 (2001), published online at http://rosetta.reltech.org/
TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html. Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman The Text of the New Testament:
Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed.; New York: Oxford, 2005) 218-222, describe the
case for Byzantine prioritythough they do not accept it.
31
Accepting the Majority Text does not require a scholar also to accept the pericope adulterae, but it
makes this more likely.
219

SCJ 11 (Fall, 2008): 213221

The pericope adulterae narrates a likely historical incident in the life of Jesus
that had no place in the original text of Johns Gospel. At the same time, Catholics,
Orthodox, King James-only Protestants, and Majority Text adherents argueall
for different reasonsfor its status as part of the canon. What should those who follow an eclectic NT text and who owe no allegiance to a group that considers the
pericope canonical conclude about its canonicity?

A BENIGN EXPANSION
Clearly, any ecumenical Scripture publication will need to include the pericope
adulterae. Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants consider it canonical, making any effort to remove 32 it counterproductive. Moreover, the story does not
add to or subtract from biblical theology. Jesus forgiving disposition (neither do
I condemn you) and his moral demands (go and sin no more) enjoy ample documentation elsewhere in the Gospels. For this reason, we may safely look on the
pericope not as canonical,33 but as a benign expansion of the canon.34
If this assessment is true, the OT apocrypha provide a better analogy to the
pericope adulterae than the NT apocrypha do.35 The NT apocrypha, specifically the
apocryphal Gospels, often portray Jesus in ways that conflict with his portraits in
the canonical Gospels. Many of the NT apocrypha (here painting with a broad
brush) present another Jesus and another vision of Christian faith.36 The OT apocrypha, on the other hand, expand the canonical OT in ways agreeable to, or at least
not hostile to, its theology. Little appears in the OT apocrypha that, broadly speak-

32

See the language of King James-only believers who accuse modern translators of mutilating the
(King James) text.
33
Contra Eldon Jay Epp, Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and
Canon, in Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 19622004 (Leiden: Brill,
2005) 595-639, especially 637-638. Previously published in Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders,
eds., The Canon Debate: On the Origins and Formation of the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002)
485-515.
34
Previously I argued that we should consider the long ending of Marks Gospel (16:9-20) canonical (Bridges, Canonical Status, 231-242). In that case the questionable passage appeared in what one
might call the earliest full version of the Gospel, that is, a version with resurrection appearances. Also,
the other Gospels fully document the events of the long ending. However, the case of the pericope adulterae differs from that of Marks long ending. The earliest full edition of John omits the pericope, and
the incident appears nowhere else in the Gospels. A former student summarized my conclusions on the
Mark passage as, Not original but canonical. He might summarize my view on the pericope adulterae
as, Not original and not canonical.
35
Contra Andreas J. Kstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament;
Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004) 245-249, who compares the pericope to NT apocryphal writings.
36
C. Marvin Pate, Current Challenges to the Christian Canon, CTR 3 (2005) 3-10, available at
http://criswell.wordpress.com.
220

Carl B. Bridges: The Canonical Status of the Pericope Adulterae

ing, could not have appeared in the canonical books of the OT.37 This assessment
may explain why Protestants have usually chosen other issues for disagreement with
the Roman church and left the OT canon question alone.38 The OT apocrypha represent a benign expansion of the OT canon, and the pericope adulterae represents
a benign expansion of the Gospels.
What does a preacher do with a benign expansion of the Gospels? Realistically speaking, people will consider the pericope part of the Gospel tradition as long
as they see it in their Bibles, however hedged about by brackets and notes.39 A wise
preacher will use it with caution, not basing whole sermons on the passage, using
it (if at all) as an illustration, and verbally footnoting it as a doubtful passage. If
nothing else, a preacher can avoid invoking the old journalistic clich: This story
is too good to check.
What use can scholars make of the pericope? Several do use it as though it
were canonical or nearly so.40 SCJ

37
David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2002) 37-38, mentions some theological advances between the canonical OT and the Apocrypha
but notes that the Apocrypha do not move as far beyond OT theology as some might think. See also
deSilvas description of the theology of each apocryphal book ad loc.
38
This analysis leaves aside the question of inspiration. Like most Protestants, I consider the canonical books inspired and the apocrypha not inspired. The argument here has to do with content, not inspiration.
39
Kstenberger, John 248-249, text and n. 10, indirectly supports this point when he argues that the
pericope should not appear in the text under any circumstances.
40
Kreitzer and Rooke, eds., Ciphers; Ryan Schellenberg and Tim Geddert, Phinehas and the
Pharisees: Identity and Tolerance in Biblical Perspective, Direction 34 (2005) 170-180; Jeffrey L.
Staley, Reading This Woman Back into John 7:18:59: Liar Liar and the Pericope Adulterae in
Intertextual Tango, in Noncanonical Readings of Canonical Gospels (eds. George Aichele and Richard
Walsh; New York: T&T Clark, 2005) 85-107. An interesting recent treatment of the pericope that
acknowledges its secondary status comes from Chris Keith, Jesus Began to Write: Literacy, the Pericope
Adulterae, and the Gospel of John (diss. Edinburgh, 2008), who notes that only in the pericope adulterae, out of the whole Gospel tradition, does Jesus write anything. Keith is now teaching at Lincoln
Christian College and contributed an article to SCJ 9 (Spring 2006). Keiths article in the June number
of Currents in Biblical Research arrived as this article went to press, and I have not been able to interact with it. Future researchers will find his conclusions, and especially his bibliography, useful. See Chris
Keith, Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7.538.11), CBR 6 (2008)
377-404.

221