When we transition to the fourth century CE, the timeline of PA assumes a major turning point, or as we will argue, marks the beginning of canonicity. Recalling our manuscript data, the first manuscript-text to harbor the PA is Codex Bezae Caterbringehesis (5th century). However, the 1st traceable and securable textual tradition of the PA is the fourth-century Latin Vulgate (henceforth LV) dictated by Jerome of Stridon. Along with the Vulgate, we observe on the timeline, a sudden “eruption” of patristic authorties that begin to quote and cite PA in their works of exegesis, treatises, biblical editions etc. The scholarly explanation for this exponential peak in the timeline will be reviewed shortly. Firstly, however, we want to concisely cover the Latin Vulgate. In Jerome’s Praefatio in evangelio, (his methodolgies and principles for the compostion of the Vulgate) he claims that he is presenting in his Vulgate edition “the four gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts,” claiming to have consulted “only old Greek manuscripts” and assuring his critics that he had “corrected only such passages as seemed to convey a different meaning. However, we find that the manuscript data is at odds with this claim of Jerome. Firstly, as stated previously, we have three early Greek manuscripts of John that omit John 7:53-8:11 (𝔓39, 𝔓66 and 𝔓75) and PA does not appear in any single manuscript-text until the fifth-century, after the collation of the Latin Vulgate, and other numerous manuscripts that follow this trend. The manuscript-text data demonstrates that the probability of alleged ancient Greek manuscripts adducing PA is quite low, and and we must seriously asses whether Jerome, here, is erroneous in his editorial judgment to add PA in LV. The question, however, is why would Jerome overrule his Greek copies, to add a story about adultery, sexual misconduct and forgiveness? I answer this question, on my channel, under a video titled "How Jerome Corrupted The Gospel of John." to definitively conclude that due to personal motives, Jerome overruled his principles and ancient Greek source-material used either Latin manuscripts which he deemed as 'deficient', or other extra-biblical material such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The editoral decision of Jerome to canonically place PA, in the Vulgate textual tradition of John, yielded heavy influence on other textual traditions.
In the fourth century, scholars noticed an exponential peak of citations, refrences and quotations of PA from several patristics authors such as Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Pacian of Barcelona, Faustus-Milevis, Jerome, Augustine and Rufinus. It’s not necessary that we individually assed each authority, for, at this point in the timeline of external data of PA, there is a simple scholarly explanation, textual critics employ, for this peak. The majority of scholarship agree that the Pericope de Adulterae was canonized into the textual tradition of John around 3rd to late 4th century around the area of Western Church, and perhaps more specifically in the context of the Latin Fathers such as Ambrose and Jerome. This explanation is potent for several reasons: 1) There are no patristic authorities before the 4th century CE that mention the Pericope de Adulterae implicating that PA must have been placed in the Johannine tradition around this time-frame, 2) For this explanation to be true, the percentage of patristics citations from the fourth century must be heavily concentrated on a particular geographical area, which we find, is the Western Church. We know that Ambrose of Milan, Ambrosiaster, Pacian of Barcelona, and Faustus-Milevis, are all based in the Western Church. Even into the fifth century, we find that the patristic authorities who reference the Pericope de Adulterae from John such as Jerome, Augustine and Rufinus are all fathers of the Western Church, 3) The Vulgate, is a Latin edition of the Greek Biblical text, which is established as the earliest textual tradition of the Pericope de Adulterae in the textual timeline. Whether the passage was canonically placed by Jerome (likely was) or another Western tradition, the fact that the earliest textual tradition of the Pericope de Adulterae in the Gospel of John, is a Western textual tradition begets a high probability of intrusion into the canonical tradition of GJohn substatniates the propensity of New Testament Scholarship.
The final question we must address is, why should Christians care about John 7:53-8:11? What are the ecclesiastical teachings among different Christian sectarian denominations? We will find that the majority of Christians, including Catholics, Orthodox, and some Protestant Christians are compelled by their dogma and authorities to accept John 7:53-8:11 as autographical. Firstly, for Roman Catholics, the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century settled the issue of the pericope’s canonical status. The Council declared an anathema or a curse on any who did not receive “as sacred and canonical” the books of Scripture “entirely with all their parts . . . as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition.”
This would necessarily include John 7:53-8:11.
Furthermore, in 1870, the First Ecumenical Vatican Council referred back to the Council of Trent, to which they decree:
“The complete books of the old and the New Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical. These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.” (Session 3, Chapter 2 “On Revelation,” section 6-8)
The Douay Rheims New Testament of 1582, or the “Catholic King James Bible” is based on the Vulgate and long the standard translation for English-speaking Catholics, contains the pericope. 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.” Thus, we find that Catholics are obliged to accept the Pericope de Adulterae as sacred and canonical or else they are under an anathema of the Catholic Church, a truly destructive state of affairs indeed!
Nextly, for Orthodox Christians, such as the Greek Orthodox Churches, the Byzantine text, represented today by the Patriarchal Edition of 1904 (reprinted with corrections in 1907 and 1912), remains the standard New Testament edition, and contains the pericope adulterae. In Russian Orthodox churches the passage appears without a critical note in the old Synodal Version and in the Slovo Zhizny (Word of Life) translation of 2000. The Jubilee edition of the Ukrainian text also contains the passage, again without critical notes.
Lastly, Some Protestants believe that the Textus Receptus (“received text,” ), a version of the Majority or Byzantine text, most accurately represents the original writings of the New Testament. This claim loses credibility when one notices that most who accept the Textus Receptus seem to have a preceding commitment to the King James Bible, a New Testament translation that is based on the Textus Receptus. Hence for pro-King James Protestants, along with Protestants who accept the Erasmus’ Textus Receptus as autographical, the pericope belongs in the canon. Hence, we see for the said denominations and any other Christian that adheres to the Majority Text, they are misguided and misled in accepting the corruption of John 7:53-8:11 as sacred Scripture.
The pericope de adulterae is not original to the Gospel of John.
Ecclesiology and John 7:53-8:11
Verdict
The Pericope de Adulterae, otherwise known as John 7:53-8:11 is the passage about Jesus of Nazareth's encounter with a woman who is condemned for some sin to which Jesus forgives and excuses her transgression. The ambiguous quiddity of such a summary is not deliberate, but solely instantiates the unreliable textual character. For indeed, numerous crucial details, such as who condemned the woman, the woman’s transgression, the dialogue between whoever brought forth the charge of transgression and Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus writing on the ground and other narrative details have been determined to “textually insecure” and therefore must be discarded when formulating an accurate and autographical summary of the pericope de adulterae. Even more ironic, however, is including the words, “autographical” and “pericope de adulterae” in the same sentence, as leading scholars including Daniel Wallace, Bart D. Ehrman, Bruce Metzger and the bulk of New Testament scholarship contend that John 7:53-8:11, is “the clearest example of New Testament corruption.” We will provide a thorough overview as to why this scholarly consensus is certain and uncontested.