I hope Christians don’t get offended by me showing this evidence from their own scholars, i aint here to bas
h Christianity, am only here to convey the truth, that is all thanks. I am starting of with this that Christians always love to quote this VERSE John 7:53 to 8:11 about the the WOMAN who got caught committing Adultery and Jesus didn't do nothing about it and let her go without any punishment.
There is few things i want to ask Christians before i give all the evidence from their own Scholars.
1. Why is the writing the style completly different from Johns style of Writing.
2. When the woman was caught engaging with the man. Where is that MAN? Because the only person they the Jews brought to Jesus was the WOMAN,So where is the man that was enganged in do this with her?
3. Why is this passage John 7:53 to 8:11 not found in any EARLY Manuscripts?
4. If this incident really took place, how come the other Goespels Mathew Mark and Luke don’t mention it?
These are all the different BIBLES that have deleted that verse John 7:53- 8:11from their Bible--->>> (1881 RV) - (FN - B) Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53-viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other
(NIV) (FN) (The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.)
(NASV) (FN - B) John 7:53-8:11 in not found in most of the old manuscripts
(NLT) (FN) The most ancient Greek manuscripts do not include John 7:53–8:11.
(ESV) (FN - B) The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11. Some manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11; others add the passage here or after 7:36 or after 21:25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations in the text.
(NKJV) (FN) (7:53) The words And everyone through sin no more (8:11) are bracketed by NU-Text as not original.
(NCV) (FN - B) Some of the earliest surviving Greek copies do not contain 7:53—8:11.
(HCSB) (B)
(NAB-ROMAN CATHOLIC) (FN) THE STORY OF THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY IS A LATER INSERTION HERE, MISSING FROM ALL EARLY GREEK MANUSCRIPTS. A WESTERN TEXT-TYPE INSERTION, ATTESTED MAINLY IN OLD LATIN TRANSLATIONS, IT IS FOUND IN DIFFERENT PLACES IN DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPTS: HERE, OR AFTER JOHN 7:36 OR AT THE END OF THIS GOSPEL, OR AFTER LUKE 21:38, OR AT THE END OF THAT GOSPEL. THERE ARE MANY NON-JOHANNINE FEATURES IN THE LANGUAGE, AND THERE ARE ALSO MANY DOUBTFUL READINGS WITHIN THE PASSAGE. THE STYLE AND MOTIFS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF LUKE, AND IT FITS BETTER WITH THE GENERAL SITUATION AT THE END OF LUKE 21:BUT IT WAS PROBABLY INSERTED HERE BECAUSE OF THE ALLUSION TO JEREMIAH 17:13
(NWT-JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES) (FN)* MANUSCRIPTS א B SYS OMIT VERSES 53 TO CHAPTER 8, VERSE 11, WHICH READ (WITH SOME VARIATIONS IN THE VARIOUS GREEK TEXTS AND VERSIONS).
LETS SEE WHAT THESE FROM 4 DIFFERENT SCHOLARS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SAY>>>> 1 TC THIS ENTIRE SECTION, 7:53-8:11, TRADITIONALLY KNOWN AS THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE, IS NOT CONTAINED IN THE EARLIEST AND BEST MSS AND WAS ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT AN ORIGINAL PART OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. AMONG MODERN COMMENTATORS AND TEXTUAL CRITICS, IT IS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT THE SECTION IS NOT ORIGINAL BUT REPRESENTS A LATER ADDITION TO THE TEXT OF THE GOSPEL. B. M. METZGER SUMMARIZES: “THE EVIDENCE FOR THE NON-JOHANNINE ORIGIN OF THE PERICOPE OF THE ADULTERESS IS OVERWHELMING” (TCGNT 187). EXTERNAL EVIDENCE IS AS FOLLOWS. FOR THE OMISSION OF 7:53-8:11: Ì66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 AL. IN ADDITION CODICES A AND C ARE DEFECTIVE IN THIS PART OF JOHN, BUT IT APPEARS THAT NEITHER CONTAINED THE PERICOPE BECAUSE CAREFUL MEASUREMENT SHOWS THAT THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENOUGH SPACE ON THE MISSING PAGES TO INCLUDE THE PERICOPE 7:53-8:11 ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE TEXT. AMONG THE MSS THAT INCLUDE 7:53-8:11 ARE D Ï LAT. IN ADDITION E S Λ 1424MG AL INCLUDE PART OR ALL OF THE PASSAGE WITH ASTERISKS OR OBELI, 225 PLACES THE PERICOPE AFTER JOHN 7:36, Ë1 PLACES IT AFTER JOHN 21:25, {115} AFTER JOHN 8:12, Ë13 AFTER LUKE 21:38, AND THE CORRECTOR OF 1333 INCLUDES IT AFTER LUKE 24:53. (FOR A MORE COMPLETE DISCUSSION OF THE LOCATIONS WHERE THIS “FLOATING” TEXT HAS ENDED UP, AS WELL AS A MINORITY OPINION ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASSAGE,
CONTINUING >>>> SEE M. A. ROBINSON, “PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE BASED UPON FRESH COLLATIONS OF NEARLY ALL CONTINUOUS-TEXT MANUSCRIPTS AND ALL LECTIONARY MANUSCRIPTS CONTAINING THE PASSAGE,” FILOLOGIA NEOTESTAMENTARIA 13 [2000]: 35-59, ESPECIALLY 41-42.) IN EVALUATING THIS MS EVIDENCE, IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT IN THE GOSPELS A IS CONSIDERED TO BE OF BYZANTINE TEXT TYPE (UNLIKE IN THE EPISTLES AND REVELATION, WHERE IT IS ALEXANDRIAN), AS ARE E F G (MSS WITH THE SAME DESIGNATION ARE OF WESTERN TEXTTYPE IN THE EPISTLES). THIS LEAVES D AS THE ONLY MAJOR WESTERN UNCIAL WITNESS IN THE GOSPELS FOR THE INCLUSION. THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE COULD BE SUMMARIZED BY SAYING THAT ALMOST ALL EARLY MSS OF THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT TYPE OMIT THE PERICOPE, WHILE MOST MSS OF THE WESTERN AND BYZANTINE TEXTTYPE INCLUDE IT. BUT IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT “WESTERN MSS” HERE REFERS ONLY TO D, A SINGLE WITNESS (AS FAR AS GREEK MSS ARE CONCERNED). THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE EARLIEST AND BEST MSS EXTANT OMIT THE PERICOPE; IT IS FOUND ONLY IN MSS OF SECONDARY IMPORTANCE. BUT BEFORE ONE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE PASSAGE WAS NOT ORIGINALLY PART OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, INTERNAL EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AS WELL. INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE INCLUSION OF 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 FITS IN THE CONTEXT. IF THE “LAST GREAT DAY OF THE FEAST” (7:37) REFERS TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES, THEN THE STATEMENT REFERS TO THE PILGRIMS AND WORSHIPERS GOING HOME AFTER LIVING IN “BOOTHS” FOR THE WEEK WHILE VISITING JERUSALEM. (2) THERE MAY BE AN ALLUSION TO ISA 9:1-2 BEHIND THIS TEXT: JOHN 8:12 IS THE POINT WHEN JESUS DESCRIBES HIMSELF AS THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. BUT THE SECTION IN QUESTION MENTIONS THAT JESUS RETURNED TO THE TEMPLE AT “EARLY DAWN” (῎ΟΡΘΡΟΥ, ORQROU, IN 8:2). THIS IS THE “DAWNING” OF THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD (8:12) MENTIONED BY ISA 9:2. (3) FURTHERMORE, NOTE THE RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT FOLLOWS: JUST PRIOR TO PRESENTING JESUS’ STATEMENT THAT HE IS THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD, JOHN PRESENTS THE READER WITH AN EXAMPLE THAT SHOWS JESUS AS THE LIGHT. HERE THE WOMAN “CAME TO THE LIGHT” WHILE HER ACCUSERS SHRANK AWAY INTO THE SHADOWS, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL (CF. 3:19-21). INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) IN REPLY TO THE CLAIM THAT THE INTRODUCTION TO THE PERICOPE, 7:53, FITS THE CONTEXT, IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE NARRATIVE READS WELL WITHOUT THE PERICOPE, SO THAT JESUS’ REPLY IN 8:12 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CHARGE OF THE PHARISEES IN 7:52 THAT NO PROPHET COMES FROM GALILEE. (2) THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AUTHOR “MUST” SOMEHOW WORK ISA 9:1-2 INTO THE NARRATIVE IS SIMPLY THAT – AN ASSUMPTION. THE STATEMENT BY THE PHARISEES IN 7:52 ABOUT JESUS’ GALILEAN ORIGINS IS ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT CORRECTION BY THE AUTHOR, ALTHOUGH ONE MIGHT HAVE EXPECTED HIM TO MENTION THAT JESUS WAS REALLY BORN IN BETHLEHEM. AND 8:12 DOES DIRECTLY MENTION JESUS’ CLAIM TO BE THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. THE AUTHOR MAY WELL HAVE PRESUMED FAMILIARITY WITH ISA 9:1-2 ON THE PART OF HIS READERS BECAUSE OF ITS WIDESPREAD ASSOCIATION WITH JESUS AMONG EARLY CHRISTIANS. (3) THE FACT THAT THE PERICOPE DEALS WITH THE LIGHT/DARKNESS MOTIF DOES NOT INHERENTLY STRENGTHEN ITS CLAIM TO AUTHENTICITY, BECAUSE THE MOTIF IS SO PROMINENT IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL THAT IT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN THE REASON WHY SOMEONE FELT THAT THE PERICOPE, CIRCULATING AS AN INDEPENDENT TRADITION, FIT SO WELL HERE.
CONTINUING >>>> (4) IN GENERAL THE STYLE OF THE PERICOPE IS NOT JOHANNINE EITHER IN VOCABULARY OR GRAMMAR (SEE D. B. WALLACE, “RECONSIDERING ‘THE STORY OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY RECONSIDERED’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). ACCORDING TO R. E. BROWN IT IS CLOSER STYLISTICALLY TO LUKAN MATERIAL (JOHN [AB], 1:336). INTERESTINGLY ONE IMPORTANT FAMILY OF MSS (Ë13) PLACES THE PERICOPE AFTER LUKE 21:38. CONCLUSION: IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE MUST GO WITH THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. THE EARLIEST AND BEST MSS DO NOT CONTAIN THE PERICOPE. IT IS TRUE WITH REGARD TO INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT AN ATTRACTIVE CASE CAN BE MADE FOR INCLUSION, BUT THIS IS BY NATURE SUBJECTIVE (AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT STRONG ARGUMENTS CAN BE GIVEN AGAINST SUCH AS WELL). IN TERMS OF INTERNAL FACTORS LIKE VOCABULARY AND STYLE, THE PERICOPE DOES NOT STAND UP VERY WELL. THE QUESTION MAY BE ASKED WHETHER THIS INCIDENT, ALTHOUGH NOT AN ORIGINAL PART OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, SHOULD BE REGARDED AS AN AUTHENTIC TRADITION ABOUT JESUS. IT COULD WELL BE THAT IT IS ANCIENT AND MAY INDEED REPRESENT AN UNUSUAL INSTANCE WHERE SUCH A TRADITION SURVIVED OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDS OF THE CANONICAL LITERATURE. HOWEVER, EVEN THAT NEEDS TO BE NUANCED (SEE B. D. EHRMAN, “JESUS AND THE ADULTERESS,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).
SN DOUBLE BRACKETS HAVE BEEN PLACED AROUND THIS PASSAGE TO INDICATE THAT MOST LIKELY IT WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. IN SPITE OF THIS, THE PASSAGE HAS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT, SO IT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TRANSLATION.
further more this Christian Apologist Jay Smith admits that John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the Gospel of John and it is not found in any early MSS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEfpVHKtsH4Even Schaff admits that this passage is not Genuine is fake
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF POPE CALLISTUS SECTION 6 CONTAINS A QUOTE THAT MAY BE FROM JOHN 8:11 - "LET HIM SEE TO IT THAT HE SIN NO MORE, THAT THE SENTENCE OF THE GOSPEL MAY ABIDE IN HIM: “GO, AND SIN NO MORE.”" HOWEVER THE EPISTLE QUOTES FROM EIGHTH CENTURY WRITINGS AND IS NOT THOUGHT TO BE GENUINE.
^ THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS VOLUME 8: THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS, EXCERPTS AND EPISTLES, THE CLEMENTIA, APOCRYPHA, DECRETALS, MEMOIRS OF EDESSA AND SYRIAC DOCUMENTS, REMAINS OF THE FIRST - BY PHILIP SCHAFF (PUBLIC DOMAIN) PP. 607, 618
Homer from the 8 century said that this part of John7:53 to 8:11 was not part of the Johns Gospel it was added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomerBart D Ehrman said that the story was INJECTED INTO John that the story is not PART of John you can watch his lecture on Youtube. Watch 33rd mintute that is when he starts talking about the woman that comited Adultery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFs-llHmxNcOne of Bart d ehrmans Critics Daniel b Wallace admits in this short video clip that John 7:53 to 8:11 does not belong in the Gospel of John------>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cobVbGs5yXMHUBNER SAYS, “IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE THE TEXTUAL REASONS FOR THIS CONCLUSION, GIVEN THAT IT ISN'T FOUND IN ANY THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS (2ND-4TH CENTURY), OR ANY OF THE 4TH CENTURY CODICES, OR IN MOST OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS, ETC.” THE MARGINAL NOTE ON JOHN 7:53 IN THE NKJV STATES THAT THE MODERN CRITICAL TEXT “BRACKETS 7:53 THROUGH 8:11 AS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT
HUBNER CONCLUDES THIS ARTICLE:--->>
IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO DESIRE CERTAINTY AND AVOID DISCOMFORT IN DEALING WITH TEXTUAL VARIANTS TO REJECT THE FACTS AND TURN TO SOME BRAND OF KJV ONLYISM, OR "THE TR IS STABLE," OR WHATEVER. THE BELIEVER MUST OPEN HIMSELF UP TO THE WORD OF GOD ITSELF - ALL OF IT, AS IT COMES TO US FROM THE SANDS OF EGYPT OR THE HALLS OF A MONASTERY OR SOME OTHER PLACE. THE LORD HAS PROVIDED A RICH TRADITION FROM WHICH TO GAIN AND READ THE AUTOGRAPHIC TEXT. BUT LIKE A CHILD SITTING WITH 110 PIECES FOR A 100 PIECE PUZZLE, WE MUST EVERY NOW AND THEN DO SOME WORK TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS TRULY PART OF GOD'S WORD. THE STORY OF THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY PROBABLY ISN'T ONE OF THOSE PIECES.
Tthis Christian Pastor admits that there is no Original copies left of the BIBLE Torah.
http://1peter315.blogspot.de/2006/01/why-didnt-god-preserve-original.htmlhttp://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/the-woman-taken-in-adultery/All in all we can conclude that this passage John 7:53 to 8:53 is not part of the BIBLE
![In the name of Allah most gracious most Merciful
I hope Christians don’t get offended by me showing this evidence from their own scholars, i aint here to bash Christianity, am only here to convey the truth, that is all thanks. I am starting of with this that Christians always love to quote this VERSE John 7:53 to 8:11 about the the WOMAN who got caught committing Adultery and Jesus didn't do nothing about it and let her go without any punishment.
There is few things i want to ask Christians before i give all the evidence from their own Scholars.
1. Why is the writing the style completly different from Johns style of Writing.
2. When the woman was caught engaging with the man. Where is that MAN? Because the only person they the Jews brought to Jesus was the WOMAN,So where is the man that was enganged in do this with her?
3. Why is this passage John 7:53 to 8:11 not found in any EARLY Manuscripts?
4. If this incident really took place, how come the other Goespels Mathew Mark and Luke don’t mention it?
These are all the different BIBLES that have deleted that verse John 7:53- 8:11from their Bible--->>> (1881 RV) - (FN - B) Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53-viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other
(NIV) (FN) (The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.)
(NASV) (FN - B) John 7:53-8:11 in not found in most of the old manuscripts
(NLT) (FN) The most ancient Greek manuscripts do not include John 7:53–8:11.
(ESV) (FN - B) The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11. Some manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11; others add the passage here or after 7:36 or after 21:25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations in the text.
(NKJV) (FN) (7:53) The words And everyone through sin no more (8:11) are bracketed by NU-Text as not original.
(NCV) (FN - B) Some of the earliest surviving Greek copies do not contain 7:53—8:11.
(HCSB) (B)
(NAB-ROMAN CATHOLIC) (FN) THE STORY OF THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY IS A LATER INSERTION HERE, MISSING FROM ALL EARLY GREEK MANUSCRIPTS. A WESTERN TEXT-TYPE INSERTION, ATTESTED MAINLY IN OLD LATIN TRANSLATIONS, IT IS FOUND IN DIFFERENT PLACES IN DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPTS: HERE, OR AFTER JOHN 7:36 OR AT THE END OF THIS GOSPEL, OR AFTER LUKE 21:38, OR AT THE END OF THAT GOSPEL. THERE ARE MANY NON-JOHANNINE FEATURES IN THE LANGUAGE, AND THERE ARE ALSO MANY DOUBTFUL READINGS WITHIN THE PASSAGE. THE STYLE AND MOTIFS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF LUKE, AND IT FITS BETTER WITH THE GENERAL SITUATION AT THE END OF LUKE 21:BUT IT WAS PROBABLY INSERTED HERE BECAUSE OF THE ALLUSION TO JEREMIAH 17:13
(NWT-JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES) (FN)* MANUSCRIPTS א B SYS OMIT VERSES 53 TO CHAPTER 8, VERSE 11, WHICH READ (WITH SOME VARIATIONS IN THE VARIOUS GREEK TEXTS AND VERSIONS).
LETS SEE WHAT THESE FROM 4 DIFFERENT SCHOLARS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SAY>>>> 1 TC THIS ENTIRE SECTION, 7:53-8:11, TRADITIONALLY KNOWN AS THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE, IS NOT CONTAINED IN THE EARLIEST AND BEST MSS AND WAS ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT AN ORIGINAL PART OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. AMONG MODERN COMMENTATORS AND TEXTUAL CRITICS, IT IS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT THE SECTION IS NOT ORIGINAL BUT REPRESENTS A LATER ADDITION TO THE TEXT OF THE GOSPEL. B. M. METZGER SUMMARIZES: “THE EVIDENCE FOR THE NON-JOHANNINE ORIGIN OF THE PERICOPE OF THE ADULTERESS IS OVERWHELMING” (TCGNT 187). EXTERNAL EVIDENCE IS AS FOLLOWS. FOR THE OMISSION OF 7:53-8:11: Ì66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 AL. IN ADDITION CODICES A AND C ARE DEFECTIVE IN THIS PART OF JOHN, BUT IT APPEARS THAT NEITHER CONTAINED THE PERICOPE BECAUSE CAREFUL MEASUREMENT SHOWS THAT THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENOUGH SPACE ON THE MISSING PAGES TO INCLUDE THE PERICOPE 7:53-8:11 ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE TEXT. AMONG THE MSS THAT INCLUDE 7:53-8:11 ARE D Ï LAT. IN ADDITION E S Λ 1424MG AL INCLUDE PART OR ALL OF THE PASSAGE WITH ASTERISKS OR OBELI, 225 PLACES THE PERICOPE AFTER JOHN 7:36, Ë1 PLACES IT AFTER JOHN 21:25, {115} AFTER JOHN 8:12, Ë13 AFTER LUKE 21:38, AND THE CORRECTOR OF 1333 INCLUDES IT AFTER LUKE 24:53. (FOR A MORE COMPLETE DISCUSSION OF THE LOCATIONS WHERE THIS “FLOATING” TEXT HAS ENDED UP, AS WELL AS A MINORITY OPINION ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASSAGE,
CONTINUING >>>> SEE M. A. ROBINSON, “PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE BASED UPON FRESH COLLATIONS OF NEARLY ALL CONTINUOUS-TEXT MANUSCRIPTS AND ALL LECTIONARY MANUSCRIPTS CONTAINING THE PASSAGE,” FILOLOGIA NEOTESTAMENTARIA 13 [2000]: 35-59, ESPECIALLY 41-42.) IN EVALUATING THIS MS EVIDENCE, IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT IN THE GOSPELS A IS CONSIDERED TO BE OF BYZANTINE TEXT TYPE (UNLIKE IN THE EPISTLES AND REVELATION, WHERE IT IS ALEXANDRIAN), AS ARE E F G (MSS WITH THE SAME DESIGNATION ARE OF WESTERN TEXTTYPE IN THE EPISTLES). THIS LEAVES D AS THE ONLY MAJOR WESTERN UNCIAL WITNESS IN THE GOSPELS FOR THE INCLUSION. THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE COULD BE SUMMARIZED BY SAYING THAT ALMOST ALL EARLY MSS OF THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT TYPE OMIT THE PERICOPE, WHILE MOST MSS OF THE WESTERN AND BYZANTINE TEXTTYPE INCLUDE IT. BUT IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT “WESTERN MSS” HERE REFERS ONLY TO D, A SINGLE WITNESS (AS FAR AS GREEK MSS ARE CONCERNED). THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE EARLIEST AND BEST MSS EXTANT OMIT THE PERICOPE; IT IS FOUND ONLY IN MSS OF SECONDARY IMPORTANCE. BUT BEFORE ONE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE PASSAGE WAS NOT ORIGINALLY PART OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, INTERNAL EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AS WELL. INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE INCLUSION OF 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 FITS IN THE CONTEXT. IF THE “LAST GREAT DAY OF THE FEAST” (7:37) REFERS TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES, THEN THE STATEMENT REFERS TO THE PILGRIMS AND WORSHIPERS GOING HOME AFTER LIVING IN “BOOTHS” FOR THE WEEK WHILE VISITING JERUSALEM. (2) THERE MAY BE AN ALLUSION TO ISA 9:1-2 BEHIND THIS TEXT: JOHN 8:12 IS THE POINT WHEN JESUS DESCRIBES HIMSELF AS THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. BUT THE SECTION IN QUESTION MENTIONS THAT JESUS RETURNED TO THE TEMPLE AT “EARLY DAWN” (῎ΟΡΘΡΟΥ, ORQROU, IN 8:2). THIS IS THE “DAWNING” OF THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD (8:12) MENTIONED BY ISA 9:2. (3) FURTHERMORE, NOTE THE RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT FOLLOWS: JUST PRIOR TO PRESENTING JESUS’ STATEMENT THAT HE IS THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD, JOHN PRESENTS THE READER WITH AN EXAMPLE THAT SHOWS JESUS AS THE LIGHT. HERE THE WOMAN “CAME TO THE LIGHT” WHILE HER ACCUSERS SHRANK AWAY INTO THE SHADOWS, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL (CF. 3:19-21). INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) IN REPLY TO THE CLAIM THAT THE INTRODUCTION TO THE PERICOPE, 7:53, FITS THE CONTEXT, IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE NARRATIVE READS WELL WITHOUT THE PERICOPE, SO THAT JESUS’ REPLY IN 8:12 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CHARGE OF THE PHARISEES IN 7:52 THAT NO PROPHET COMES FROM GALILEE. (2) THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AUTHOR “MUST” SOMEHOW WORK ISA 9:1-2 INTO THE NARRATIVE IS SIMPLY THAT – AN ASSUMPTION. THE STATEMENT BY THE PHARISEES IN 7:52 ABOUT JESUS’ GALILEAN ORIGINS IS ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT CORRECTION BY THE AUTHOR, ALTHOUGH ONE MIGHT HAVE EXPECTED HIM TO MENTION THAT JESUS WAS REALLY BORN IN BETHLEHEM. AND 8:12 DOES DIRECTLY MENTION JESUS’ CLAIM TO BE THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. THE AUTHOR MAY WELL HAVE PRESUMED FAMILIARITY WITH ISA 9:1-2 ON THE PART OF HIS READERS BECAUSE OF ITS WIDESPREAD ASSOCIATION WITH JESUS AMONG EARLY CHRISTIANS. (3) THE FACT THAT THE PERICOPE DEALS WITH THE LIGHT/DARKNESS MOTIF DOES NOT INHERENTLY STRENGTHEN ITS CLAIM TO AUTHENTICITY, BECAUSE THE MOTIF IS SO PROMINENT IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL THAT IT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN THE REASON WHY SOMEONE FELT THAT THE PERICOPE, CIRCULATING AS AN INDEPENDENT TRADITION, FIT SO WELL HERE.
CONTINUING >>>> (4) IN GENERAL THE STYLE OF THE PERICOPE IS NOT JOHANNINE EITHER IN VOCABULARY OR GRAMMAR (SEE D. B. WALLACE, “RECONSIDERING ‘THE STORY OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY RECONSIDERED’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). ACCORDING TO R. E. BROWN IT IS CLOSER STYLISTICALLY TO LUKAN MATERIAL (JOHN [AB], 1:336). INTERESTINGLY ONE IMPORTANT FAMILY OF MSS (Ë13) PLACES THE PERICOPE AFTER LUKE 21:38. CONCLUSION: IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE MUST GO WITH THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. THE EARLIEST AND BEST MSS DO NOT CONTAIN THE PERICOPE. IT IS TRUE WITH REGARD TO INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT AN ATTRACTIVE CASE CAN BE MADE FOR INCLUSION, BUT THIS IS BY NATURE SUBJECTIVE (AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT STRONG ARGUMENTS CAN BE GIVEN AGAINST SUCH AS WELL). IN TERMS OF INTERNAL FACTORS LIKE VOCABULARY AND STYLE, THE PERICOPE DOES NOT STAND UP VERY WELL. THE QUESTION MAY BE ASKED WHETHER THIS INCIDENT, ALTHOUGH NOT AN ORIGINAL PART OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, SHOULD BE REGARDED AS AN AUTHENTIC TRADITION ABOUT JESUS. IT COULD WELL BE THAT IT IS ANCIENT AND MAY INDEED REPRESENT AN UNUSUAL INSTANCE WHERE SUCH A TRADITION SURVIVED OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDS OF THE CANONICAL LITERATURE. HOWEVER, EVEN THAT NEEDS TO BE NUANCED (SEE B. D. EHRMAN, “JESUS AND THE ADULTERESS,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).
SN DOUBLE BRACKETS HAVE BEEN PLACED AROUND THIS PASSAGE TO INDICATE THAT MOST LIKELY IT WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. IN SPITE OF THIS, THE PASSAGE HAS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT, SO IT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TRANSLATION.
further more this Christian Apologist Jay Smith admits that John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the Gospel of John and it is not found in any early MSS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEfpVHKtsH4
Even Schaff admits that this passage is not Genuine is fake
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF POPE CALLISTUS SECTION 6 CONTAINS A QUOTE THAT MAY BE FROM JOHN 8:11 - "LET HIM SEE TO IT THAT HE SIN NO MORE, THAT THE SENTENCE OF THE GOSPEL MAY ABIDE IN HIM: “GO, AND SIN NO MORE.”" HOWEVER THE EPISTLE QUOTES FROM EIGHTH CENTURY WRITINGS AND IS NOT THOUGHT TO BE GENUINE.
^ THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS VOLUME 8: THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS, EXCERPTS AND EPISTLES, THE CLEMENTIA, APOCRYPHA, DECRETALS, MEMOIRS OF EDESSA AND SYRIAC DOCUMENTS, REMAINS OF THE FIRST - BY PHILIP SCHAFF (PUBLIC DOMAIN) PP. 607, 618
Homer from the 8 century said that this part of John7:53 to 8:11 was not part of the Johns Gospel it was added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer
Bart D Ehrman said that the story was INJECTED INTO John that the story is not PART of John you can watch his lecture on Youtube. Watch 33rd mintute that is when he starts talking about the woman that comited Adultery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFs-llHmxNc
One of Bart d ehrmans Critics Daniel b Wallace admits in this short video clip that John 7:53 to 8:11 does not belong in the Gospel of John------>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cobVbGs5yXM
HUBNER SAYS, “IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE THE TEXTUAL REASONS FOR THIS CONCLUSION, GIVEN THAT IT ISN'T FOUND IN ANY THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS (2ND-4TH CENTURY), OR ANY OF THE 4TH CENTURY CODICES, OR IN MOST OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS, ETC.” THE MARGINAL NOTE ON JOHN 7:53 IN THE NKJV STATES THAT THE MODERN CRITICAL TEXT “BRACKETS 7:53 THROUGH 8:11 AS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT
HUBNER CONCLUDES THIS ARTICLE:--->>
IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO DESIRE CERTAINTY AND AVOID DISCOMFORT IN DEALING WITH TEXTUAL VARIANTS TO REJECT THE FACTS AND TURN TO SOME BRAND OF KJV ONLYISM, OR "THE TR IS STABLE," OR WHATEVER. THE BELIEVER MUST OPEN HIMSELF UP TO THE WORD OF GOD ITSELF - ALL OF IT, AS IT COMES TO US FROM THE SANDS OF EGYPT OR THE HALLS OF A MONASTERY OR SOME OTHER PLACE. THE LORD HAS PROVIDED A RICH TRADITION FROM WHICH TO GAIN AND READ THE AUTOGRAPHIC TEXT. BUT LIKE A CHILD SITTING WITH 110 PIECES FOR A 100 PIECE PUZZLE, WE MUST EVERY NOW AND THEN DO SOME WORK TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS TRULY PART OF GOD'S WORD. THE STORY OF THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY PROBABLY ISN'T ONE OF THOSE PIECES.
Tthis Christian Pastor admits that there is no Original copies left of the BIBLE Torah.
http://1peter315.blogspot.de/2006/01/why-didnt-god-preserve-original.html
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/the-woman-taken-in-adultery/
All in all we can conclude that this passage John 7:53 to 8:53 is not part of the BIBLE](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u3dlRwy4a_-c_KRyO9RcAYEwZXccByi-laMq8Bpp2Vx9dwdQUeevMPTI_nI47tsblWDNqTyS1kp_SwAVzg09DrvcAf1m6nkEXPdWCRNIr1EKIFm_GJ10m9m1AItDiRauDpWBsjJX8VQYVYtyZe_pnd_Ms0K4TyMekowfgTb1IX5Q=s0-d)
