Defining marriage

[Running2win]

OK tremendous responses - thank you.

I acknowledge a point made by Dave L... The woman at the well had 5 husbands but the one she was currently co-habiting with was not her husband.

Jesus was indicating that she was not married to the man she was currently living with.

If then commitment + Sex = marriage, Jesus would be wrong - he would be a husband.

It seems also, the marriage of Leah had neither commitment nor love but she was seen as a wife. This would mean the giving of the daughter by the father constituted the marriage. This suggests those who mount a case for commitment being an essential condition element are in error. In this case the distinction between fornication and marriage is the giving, leaving and cleaving.

I think that we have forgotten that it is God that does the joining in a Christian marriage.
The previous two posts have drawn our attention to this.
The world experiences one flesh, but on a different level, those He draws together as believers experience being united in Spirit.

Nice points Carl! Thanks for sharing.

 

[Radagast]

I acknowledge a point made by Dave L... The woman at the well had 5 husbands but the one she was currently co-habiting with was not her husband.

That's not quite accurate. A more accurate translation of John 4:17-18 would be 'The woman answered him, “I have no man.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no man’; for you have had five men, and the one you now have is not your man. What you have said is true.”'

The N.T. does not have words for "wife" or "husband." It is always "his woman," or "her man," or something similar.

It's likely that "the one you now have is not your man" means that the man in question was already married to someone else.

It seems also, the marriage of Leah had neither commitment nor love but she was seen as a wife.

Jacob was tricked into saying "yes," but he did not disavow that "yes."

This would mean the giving of the daughter by the father constituted the marriage.

No, the saying "yes" or "I do" (with a permanent commitment implied) constitutes the marriage.

The claim is that scripture doesn't prescribe that marriage begins with a ceremony but rather cohabitation between seriously committed partners.

If people refuse a permanent commitment by not getting married, then they are not truly "seriously committed."

 

[com7fy8]

the marriage of Leah had neither commitment nor love but she was seen as a wife.

"When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren." (Genesis 29:31)

So, I would say that not only did the LORD consider her to be married; but . . . even though she was brought together with him by trickery . . . still God expected Jacob to love her.

Now, Jacob wanted Rachel who was beautiful. But God expected him to love Leah, even if Leah did not look the way Jacob wanted and was not his preference and not the desire of his heart.

So, from this I see how God wants our love to not be based on and depending on what someone looks like, or even what our preferences might be. We will discover who we are married to, anyway . . . maybe . . . after we are married. And as we find out the real truth about someone, will we still love that person??

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them." (Colossians 3:19)

So, I see from this, how there is no excuse, at all, ever to get bitter toward my wife. Plus, I would say this applies to how Jesus wants us to love any and all people.

If there is an issue, love someone first, and discover how God has us seeing things and how our Creator makes us creative for loving the person who is a temptation to get bitter. @Running2win > then we can get into genuine intimacy at least with God, by unconditionally refusing to give in to any excuse to get bitter. And this makes us able to become truly love-intimate with our spouses, not only physically intimate.

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

Through this scripture, I see how God's love is gentle and quiet, and has "incorruptible beauty" > to me, "incorruptible" means this love has God's own almighty power to keep His gentle and quiet love from being corrupted by bitterness, arguing, complaining, unforgiveness, nasty anger, fear and worry, dictatorial pleasure drives, and cares of this life which can choke us from loving.

Instead of being intimate, spiritually and emotionally, with such anti-love stuff, we can be intimate with God in His gentle and quiet love, and this in sharing with one another. This is deeper and better than surface intimacy and its physical pleasure > Psalm 63:3.

 

[Carl Emerson]

What would your church do if there was opposition from a couple?

Well that was over 40 years ago during a significant move of the Spirit and the sense of God and His righteousness was strong in many churches. Still it was not easy to place converts from the street in churches. Usually we would sort through such issues with them so they would be resolved before they tasted church...

Frankly I never witnessed opposition because the individuals had been touched by God and were being guided by His indwelling presence.

 

[tturt]

Some other Scriptures such as:
'For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee." Isa 62:5

Some traditions are found in Scripture:
"And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel.

For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself." Gen 24

Preparations for the ceremony:
-"...as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.' Isa 41:1
"Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number." Jer 2:32
'"And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." Rev 19:8


'

 

[Endeavourer]

@com7fy8

Your comments would apply where both spouses are offering each other the fruit of the Spirit; however, it is dangerous to apply such unconditionality in cases of abuse, infidelity or in cases where one spouse has a long term refusal to participate in the marriage for reasons not reasonably caused by the other spouse.

 

[pescador]

That's not quite accurate. A more accurate translation of John 4:17-18 would be 'The woman answered him, “I have no man.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no man’; for you have had five men, and the one you now have is not your man. What you have said is true.”'

The N.T. does not have words for "wife" or "husband." It is always "his woman," or "her man," or something similar.

It's likely that "the one you now have is not your man" means that the man in question was already married to someone else.



Jacob was tricked into saying "yes," but he did not disavow that "yes."



No, the saying "yes" or "I do" (with a permanent commitment implied) constitutes the marriage.



If people refuse a permanent commitment by not getting married, then they are not truly "seriously committed."

One should remember that the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery is most probably a later addition to Scripture...

This entire section, John 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: P66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D M lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, ƒ1 places it after John 21:25, 115 and a few others after John 8:12, ƒ13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be Byzantine (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are Western in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western majuscule witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian text-form omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine families include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orthrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that—an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one significant family of mss (ƒ13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24-44).sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John."

 

[Carl Emerson]

Some other Scriptures such as:
'For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee." Isa 62:5

Some traditions are found in Scripture:
"And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel.

For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself." Gen 24

Preparations for the ceremony:
-"...as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.' Isa 41:1
"Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number." Jer 2:32


'

Thanks for these references...

 

[Carl Emerson]

One should remember that the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery is most probably a later addition to Scripture...

This entire section, John 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: P66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D M lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, ƒ1 places it after John 21:25, 115 and a few others after John 8:12, ƒ13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be Byzantine (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are Western in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western majuscule witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian text-form omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine families include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orthrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that—an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one significant family of mss (ƒ13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24-44).sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John."

Do you consider that we should accept that it's inclusion was God's intent as He watched over the compilation of the NT ??

For scripture to be inerrant and inspired we need to define its bounds. Do you feel this has been done or does the process go on as we get better at knowing what is truely "His word" ?

This particular passage carries strong evidence of Love eclipsing Law.

 

[pescador]

Do you consider that we should accept that it's inclusion was God's intent as He watched over the compilation of the NT ??

For scripture to be inerrant and inspired we need to define its bounds. Do you feel this has been done or does the process go on as we get better at knowing what is truely "His word" ?

This particular passage carries strong evidence of Love eclipsing Law.

This is the footnote from the NET about this parable: "This entire section, [John] 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel.

=> There is no one absolutely correct New Testament <= There are no perfect, original texts. Translations have to be made according to the knowledge and skill of the translators; many decisions have to be made to determine what is the best -- not perfect -- rendition.

The King James only crowd claim, with no basis, that somehow the people who created that translation used an infallible source or that God directed their work or... all of which has no basis. Fortunately people that use other translations make no such (spurious) claim.

IMHO the best translation is the one that most clearly renders the best sources into modern English, the language that today's readers use every single day.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Thanks for your response, I am not sure however if it answers my question.

Are we left with an undefined NT ??

Are we agreed that this passage has His approval?

 

[pescador]

Do you consider that we should accept that it's inclusion was God's intent as He watched over the compilation of the NT ??

For scripture to be inerrant and inspired we need to define its bounds. Do you feel this has been done or does the process go on as we get better at knowing what is truely "His word" ?

This particular passage carries strong evidence of Love eclipsing Law.

There is very, very strong evidence that the story of the woman caught in adultery was added to the original New Testament Scripture, so I don't think it has enough proof to be added to the canon of Scripture. Most modern translations include it -- with a qualifying notation that it was added later.

I believe that as the art and science of translation continues and we have more and more evidence of what was written in the earliest texts we will have a more and more accurate translation of exactly what is actually Scripture and what isn't.

 

[Carl Emerson]

There is very, very strong evidence that the story of the woman caught in adultery was added to the original New Testament Scripture, so I don't think it has enough proof to be added to the canon of Scripture. Most modern translations include it -- with a qualifying notation that it was added later.

I believe that as the art and science of translation continues and we have more and more evidence of what was written in the earliest texts we will have a more and more accurate translation of exactly what is actually Scripture and what isn't.

Why should it not be scripture if it was added later - possibly with John's approval...

 

[Radagast]

There is very, very strong evidence that the story of the woman caught in adultery was added to the original New Testament Scripture

There is very, very strong evidence that it was in there originally, but that people offended by it kept taking it out. That's what Augustine tells us, for example.

 

[coffee4u]

Yeah. What I said. If you just cohab, you are not married. How hard is this?

Paul makes it crystal that in order to not fornicate, have a wife. Just read from 1st Cor. 5-7, and you will see Paul make the case for being married. If you are not married, you are living in sin-like old preachers use to tell it without shame. It shows the day and age we live in when even people that claim to be following Christ are living in sin and don't want to get married.

I think you missed the question. I believe Carl is asking what constitutes a marriage, what makes someone married.
Is it the priest who says "You are now husband and wife"? But if that is so how was it that Adam and Eve and other Old testament married couples who did not stand before a priest were counted as married? Or is it the piece of paper that you sign or something else.

I think it's a very intresting question.

 

[Radagast]

I think you missed the question. I believe Carl is asking what constitutes a marriage, what makes someone married.

It's the commitment to a permanent bond. What some translations call "cleaving."

There was a time when that could be done just by moving in together. But in today's world, full of temporary relationships, the only way to truly commit to a permanent bond is to get legally married.

 

[coffee4u]

It's the commitment to a permanent bond. What some translations call "cleaving."

There was a time when that could be done just by moving in together. But in today's world, full of temporary relationships, the only way to truly commit to a permanent bond is to get legally married.

Yes, but does that require a ceremony with a minister? Or at least prayer together before God? Just moving in could also be fornication. I would not have felt married without the ceremony. Thinking here of marriage in God sight not whatever laws a country might have passed for legal marriage. Some places you only have to live together a number of years for the state to view you as married but I don't view that as married in God's sight.

 

[pescador]

Why should it not be scripture if it was added later - possibly with John's approval...

It is added, but responsible editions note that the best evidence shows it was not part of the earliest writings.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, but does that require a ceremony with a minister?

No, it does not. In many countries, people are legally married in a government office, and a church ceremony blesses the marriage afterwards.

If a priest says "you are now husband and wife," that's only because some governments have delegated marriage celebrant duties to priests and ministers.

Just moving in could also be fornication.

Today, yes.

Long ago, moving in was understood by the community as committing to a permanent bond. In fact, it is still the case in a few U.S. states, that if you move in together and publicly call yourselves Mr and Mrs so-and-so, then there is a legal marriage that can't be dissolved without a divorce.

Of course, in today's world, if people reject the marriage arrangements of the Church, that's a very bad sign.

 

[pescador]

There is very, very strong evidence that it was in there originally, but that people offended by it kept taking it out. That's what Augustine tells us, for example.

If you're really interested in the subject, here is the NET note (with my emphases): This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: P66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D M lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, ƒ1 places it after John 21:25, 115 and a few others after John 8:12, ƒ13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be Byzantine (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are Western in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western majuscule witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian text-form omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine families include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orthrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that—an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one significant family of mss (ƒ13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24-44).sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.