Throughout the centuries, the Bible has been revered as the immutable Word of God. Yet history reveals attempts—some deliberate, others motivated by misunderstanding or bias—to alter, suppress, or remove portions of Scripture. Among the most famous and controversial is the attempt to remove John 7:53–8:11, the story of the woman caught in adultery, from the Gospel narrative. This effort sparked a chain of events involving theological resistance, particularly by Augustine of Hippo, and contributed to the re-inclusion of other significant passages like Luke 23:34.

We aim to examine the historical forces behind these alterations, the motivations of the scribes, Augustine’s defense of the sacred text, and the divine providence that ultimately restored the passages to their rightful place in Scripture. It is an extraordinary story that underscores the resilience of God’s Word.

The Contested Passage: John 7:53–8:11

The passage of John 7:53–8:11 is one of the most beloved and recognizable narratives in the Gospels. It recounts the moment when a woman, caught in the act of adultery, is brought before Jesus Christ. The Pharisees aimed to test Him, citing the "Law of Moses", which calls for stoning of those who transgress the law. In response, Jesus stoops and writes on the ground, after which saying;

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

(John 8:7, KJV).

One by one, the accusers depart; and Jesus declares to the woman:

“Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”

The passage is widely regarded as a sublime example of Jesus’ mercy, grace, and wisdom. Yet despite its powerful message, it has long been the subject of controversy by Men within the textual history of the Bible.

Omission in Early Manuscripts
One of the primary reasons this passage is considered "controversial" is its absence from some of the early Greek manuscripts, including 'Codex Sinaiticus' and 'Codex Vaticanus', both dating to the 4th century. It's worth noting that this time period is around the time the Roman Catholic's newly formed "councils" and authorities of Men were determining for themselves what was "divine" and was not. This is troubling. When investigating further, we also see that the Scripture is not found in many early Syriac and Coptic versions. Additionally, some early Catholics, who wrote commentaries on the Gospel of John do not mention the 'pericope adulterae' at all.

Because of this, modern textual critics have often categorized John 7:53–8:11 as a later interpolation, suggesting it may not have been part of the original Johannine manuscript. This has led many modern Bible translations, such as the NIV and ESV, to bracket or footnote the passage, casting doubt on its authenticity.

However, the absence of a text in a manuscript couldn't be any further from the truth of the origins of which it came. The fact is, Men do NOT get to determine what is removed or added to the Word of God! The early transmission of Scripture was not free from human biases and motivations, and in the case of John 7:53–8:11, it is clear that the removal was intentional as per the judgement of Men who called themselves "scribes".

Scribes and Their Motives
Uneasy with Grace
Augustine of Hippo (354–430 A.D.) offers a fascinating insight into why the passage may have been omitted. Writing in his De Adulterinis Conjugiis ("On Adulterous Marriages"), Augustine explains:

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sin, 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."

In other words, Augustine identifies a moralistic bias among some scribes who believed that the story was "too lenient" on adultery. They feared that including it would encourage sin or be used to justify immorality. Therefore, they intentionally omitted the passage from the 'Codex Sinaiticus' and 'Codex Vaticanus' when they were first being written in an attempt to protect what they saw as the "moral integrity" of Scripture.

This admission is startling. It indicates that Human agendas (not divine revelation) motivated the excision. What was deemed "too merciful" by the standards of Men was removed, even though God clearly commands against the adding or removing of His word (Deuteronomy 4:2).

A Story “Out of Place”?
Another theory relates to the textual placement of the passage. Some manuscripts that include the story place it after Luke 21:38 or elsewhere, suggesting scribes were uncertain of its original location. This wandering nature of the text is sometimes cited as evidence of interpolation, but it may actually reflect scribal hesitation about how best to preserve a well-known but theologically challenging passage.

Rather than viewing this as evidence of illegitimacy, it may be more accurate to see it as an indicator of the passage’s persistence, even amidst uncertainty.