Thank you for the question on the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John, “Does it really matter that ‘the cast the first stone story,’ is not in the earliest manuscripts of ‘the Gospel of John’ when the manuscripts are missing huge parts of the book anyway? For instance, Papyrus 66 is missing chapters 17 through 19” (NIV).
In many of the versions of the Bible, John 7:53–8:12 is deleted or placed with a notation that the earliest manuscript does not have that passage. Scholars have debated that passage.
Here are some thoughts for one consideration on John 7:53–8:12 and those thoughts are only opinions.
A. What are the possible reasons why John 7:53–8:12 may have been deleted:
1. It may be that the church leaders may have interpreted the account of the woman caught in adultery that Jesus didn’t condone adultery.
2. It may be that the church leaders may have interpreted the account of the woman caught in adultery as giving Christians to live immoral lives since there was easy forgiveness.
3. It may be that the church leaders in their lectionary reading of the Scriptures placed a notation that this passage was to be skipped in the Sunday reading since it did not flow with the reading. That notation later was interpreted that it should be deleted by copyists.
B. What is the the “earliest” manuscript?
The oldest complete New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, dated to 325 CE to 360 CE. While Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest surviving codex, it would appear that individual scrolls were collected and organized into a book/codex and that the codex does not have the questioned passage. There are other manuscripts that have the questioned passage that do have that passage.
Did the copyists who compile the Codex Sinaiticus intentionally or unintentionally deleted the text for the reasons stated earlier? We can only conjecture and I am more incline to include it than exclude it. That’s just my opinion for the church wanted to establish the moral standards and the skipping of the reading wouldn’t allow the listener to misinterpret that one can sin and just receive forgiveness without repentance.
C. Does the teaching of John 7:53–8:12 violate the Scriptures?
The account in John 7:53–8:12 is consistent with Scriptural teaching. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says this to the lame man whom he healed at the pool of Bethsaida, “8 Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” 9 At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked. The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, 10 and so the Jewish leaders said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.” 11 But he replied, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’ ” 12 So they asked him, “Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk?” 13 The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there. 14 Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” 15 The man went away and told the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had made him well” (NIV).
Note carefully that in both incident, the individuals were in sin, were confronted by the religious leaders, and both exhorted by Jesus to leave their life of sin to avoid a several future consequence for sinning. Jesus didn’t condemn the woman caught in adultery nor the lamed man. There is parallelism between the two events, not that the woman caught in adultery is a singular event in the Gospels. Thus the teaching is the same that one is confronted to leave a life of sin, not indulge in it. This is also true in the epistles that followers are to leave their life of sin and live a life of righteousness that glorifies God. There is redemption for every person regardless of the degree of sin, known or unknown sins.
D. What might be the possible motive/reasons why a copyist would insert such a story into the Gospel of John?
One of the unknown factors or question is that why would a copyist insert that account into the Gospel of John. What would be gained from doing that? I am not aware of any plausible reasons to add a fictitious account since that would be bearing false witness. It is more likely that there were other manuscripts that had that variant reading and other copyists differ with the Codex Sinaiticus. That is a conjecture on my part.
SUMMARY: The “deleted” account of the woman caught in adultery fits into the biblical narrative of forgiveness and restoration.
For further insight and discussion: