Is the story of the woman caught in adultery original to John?
The passage is missing from the earliest manuscripts of John, including P66, P75, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. Some later manuscripts place it after Luke 21. Most scholars regard it as an early Christian tradition that floated into John's Gospel in the medieval transmission.
What the text actually says
The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the most beloved passages in the Gospels. It is also one of the most textually unstable: it is missing from the earliest manuscripts, it floats between locations in later ones, and it is not commented on by the early Greek fathers who otherwise comment on every verse of John.
And every man went unto his own house. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.John 7:53-8:2 (KJV)
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.John 8:7 (KJV)
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.John 8:11 (KJV)
What the primary sources say
The case is almost entirely manuscript and patristic. Four manuscripts and the silence of three early commentators do most of the work.
The earliest substantially complete manuscript of John, dated to around AD 200, does not contain the pericope. The text moves directly from John 7:52 to John 8:12 without the story of the woman.
Another very early papyrus, P75 also lacks the pericope. P75 is one of the most carefully copied early New Testament manuscripts and is regarded as a high-quality witness to the early Alexandrian text.
Neither of the great 4th-century codices contains the pericope. Sinaiticus moves from 7:52 to 8:12 without interruption. Vaticanus does the same. These two manuscripts are independent of each other and together represent the strongest early external witness against the passage's originality.
Origen wrote one of the longest and most detailed surviving commentaries on John. He does not mention the pericope at all. Given Origen's verse-by-verse method, his silence at this point in John is widely treated as strong indirect evidence the passage was not in his text.
Chrysostom's homiletical series on John goes through the Gospel verse by verse and skips directly from John 7:52 to John 8:12. He does not preach on the pericope, again suggesting it was not in the Greek text he was using in Antioch.
Jerome is the first major Western father to clearly attest the passage as part of John, noting that it is found 'in many Greek and Latin codices' of his day. His comment shows the passage was circulating in the Latin tradition by around AD 400 but also that it was not in all manuscripts.
The reconciliation attempts
Three readings structure the discussion. The first is dominant; the second is held by a substantial minority who find the story itself too well-formed to be a late invention.
Late interpolation
The passage is not original to John and was added to the Gospel in the medieval transmission. The argument: the earliest Greek manuscripts and the major 3rd and 4th-century Greek commentators do not have it; the Greek style differs from the rest of John; some later manuscripts place it elsewhere (after John 7:36, after John 21, or after Luke 21:38), which is the textual fingerprint of a floating tradition. This is the standard academic position.
Floating genuine Jesus tradition
The passage is an authentic early Jesus tradition that was not originally part of John but was preserved orally and in independent written sources before being inserted into John's Gospel. On this reading, the story really happened (or reflects historical memory of Jesus) but found its way into John secondarily. The fact that some manuscripts place it after Luke 21 supports this reading.
Original but removed for moral reasons
A minority view, going back to a comment by Augustine (De Adulterinis Coniugiis 2.7), holds that the passage was original to John but was deliberately removed by some early scribes who worried it would license adultery. Augustine's comment is sometimes cited; the textual evidence for early excision is thin, and most scholars today regard this as an apologetic explanation rather than a documentary claim.
Lukan, not Johannine
Some manuscripts (notably family 13) place the pericope after Luke 21:38, and the language has more Lukan features than Johannine. A minority of scholars argue the story belongs in Luke and was relocated to John in the bulk of the transmission.
Where the consensus is and isn't
Where there is consensus: the passage is missing from the earliest and best Greek manuscripts of John, is not commented on by the major 3rd and 4th-century Greek fathers who go through John verse by verse, and floats between locations in the manuscripts that do contain it. Almost every modern critical edition double-brackets the passage to signal that the editors do not regard it as part of the original Gospel of John.
Where there is not consensus: whether the story is nonetheless historically grounded in Jesus's actual ministry. Many scholars who reject the passage's originality to John still regard the underlying story as plausible early tradition. The textual question (Is it in John?) and the historical question (Did it happen?) are not the same question, and the answers can diverge. Most modern Bibles print the passage with a note flagging the manuscript problem rather than removing it entirely.
Where to read it in Deep Bible
Read John 8 with the manuscript variants surfaced inline, and the wider Johannine book introduction:
Related questions
Other contested-passage treatments that touch on the same primary sources or interpretive issues:
Frequently asked
Which manuscripts contain the pericope adulterae?
Codex Bezae (5th century) is the earliest Greek manuscript that contains the passage in John 7:53-8:11. Later Byzantine manuscripts also contain it. The earlier Alexandrian manuscripts (P66, P75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) do not.
Did Augustine accept the passage?
Yes. Augustine treats the pericope as part of John and in De Adulterinis Coniugiis 2.7 suggests it had been removed by some scribes who worried it would license adultery. This is the earliest known proposal of deliberate excision, though the textual evidence for such an early excision is thin.
Where else do manuscripts place the story?
Some manuscripts place the pericope after John 7:36, after John 21 (at the end of the Gospel), or after Luke 21:38 (in family 13). This positional instability is the classic textual fingerprint of a passage that originated outside its eventual host text.