John 8: The Issues

At Missio, we believe that the Bible (the 66 books comprising the Old and New Testament) were verbally inspired in their original languages. While some teach that God was directly involved in the translation of these copies into English (i.e. the King James Version), we do not. But we believe that the texts, in their original form are inspired by God and seek translations that preserve the original form.

Thus, John 8 presents a big question. If you have a copy that is worth reading, it will note that the episode involving the adulterous woman brought to Jesus is not found in the most ancient copies of the text. Untold amounts of ink have been spilled speculating on this issue and because it directly effects us in the study of the Gospel according to John, we are looking into this matter.

At Missio Dei, we utilize the English Standard Version (ESV) for teaching and preaching. In the spirit of the NASB, the ESV follows a word-for-word translation of the original languages and in the spirit of the NIV translates it into a readable format. This seems to be a good corrective for the often difficult syntax of the NASB and the idea-for-idea translation of the NIV.

At John 8, the ESV includes in the text, "The earliest manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11." This poses a big problem for our view of Scripture and our approach to the text. If it is not an original part of John's Gospel, should we view it as the authoritative word of God?

Many conservative scholars including B.B. Warfield and A.T. Roberston exclude the passage from John, but consider it authoritative. In fact, D.A. Carson (there must be something about writing theology books that allows one to drop his name and go by initials), a scholar whom I lean upon heavily, writes, "Modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the text (NIV) or to relegate it to a footnote (RSV)…. On the other hand, there is little reason for doubting that the event here described occurred” (Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John, 1991, p. 333).

This approach seems too good to be true and severely untested for my taste. If this is not an original text, then I cannot say with confidence that it is inspired and authoritative. While I respect the work of these men, I do not embrace this approach to the text. And, for those of you in the Missio Dei community, you are aware that I preached from the text and consider it to be authoritative. I will explain further reasons why in a later post....