John 8: Part 4

Most of you have lost interest in this thread, but I am no quitter and I mean to finish sharing my thoughts.

Let me recap the arguments against the inclusion of the story regarding the woman caught in adultery at John 8.
1. The author couldn't be John because of the use of uncommon words.
2. Oldest collections of the text put it somewhere else in John, the NT, or do not include it.
3. No comments are made about the story from bible commentators in the first and second centuries.

The first argument was already concluded to be unsatisfying as it proved too restrictive to limit an author's vocabulary, fails to note that there are other places where the author uses unique word choice, and does not explain how the story fits so well into the context.

In dealing with the second and third arguments, it should be noted that by the time the Bible was being circulated as a whole (the 66 books of the OT and NT), the episode was included at its location in John 8 and was received as authoritative.
In the early 300's AD, Eusebius, a critic of Constantine's administration (he felt Constantine made it too easy to take on the name "Christian"), "the most eminent of early Church historians” and “usually discriminating in his evaluation of data” believes that this story is a part of John’s gospel and should be included in the text (Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity, vol. 1, p. 91-92). He equates it with a story that is told by one of John’s disciples (Papias) in other places.

St. Augustine explains why it is difficult to find the earliest copies of the story. He states, "Certain persons of little faith or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin." If the story was removed from the lessons, then early teachers would not make comment on the text.

Given the wide support for the historicity and the likelihood that the event took place, the fact that it follows the nature of Jesus' attitude toward sinners, the fit into the context, the tie to Papias (a disciple of the Apostle John), and the inclusion into the formal Scriptures, the burden lies with detractors to prove from where the story came, and why it became associated with the Apostle John and his gospel if it were not part of the original.

We follow the conclusion of William Hendricksen who writes, "Though it cannot now be proved that this story formed an integral part of the Fourth Gospel, neither is it possible to establish the opposite with any degree of finality. We believe, moreover, that what is here recorded really took place, and contains nothing that is in conflict with the apostolic spirit. Hence, instead of removing this section from the Bible it should be retained and used for our benefit” (Hendricksen, William. New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to John, Vol. 2, p. 35).