Did Jesus really say, “Go and sin no more.” found in the passage John 7:53-8:11? Well according to Dallas Theological Seminary New Testament scholar Daniel B. Wallace the answer is a simple “no.” A recent Christianity Today article reports that Wallace says that Christians should be cautious about reading this passage as inspired and authoritative because the whole story of the woman caught in adultery not found in the earliest manuscripts. In a related article Wallace says, “it’s my favorite passage not found in the Bible.”
Mainstream evangelicalism subscribes to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, meaning that the Scripture as orignally given in the earliest manuscripts are inspired and without error. Wallace’s rationale is that since this passage did not appear in them they are not (or should not) be authoritative for Christians’ faith and practice. Wheaton College NT scholar Douglas share Wallace’s concern.
Wallace believes this passage should be taken out of the Bible or have a note published in our translations saying that it doesn’t appear in the originals/earliest manuscripts. He doesn’t say they are inauthentic, but again Christians should be mindful of them. Wallace says that we should be biblical as we possibility can be.
I have a problem with this. I do not get what Wallace means by the term “biblical”. Does he mean that Christians are to adhere to what appears in the original manuscripts? If he does, that’s a problem. We don’t have them. Sure, we have copies but copies are not inspired if you are an inerrantist. Also, the “Bible” they early Christians had was the Hebrew Scripture. I’m being a bit facetious, but my point is that modern evangelicalism’s doctrine of the Bible needs to focus more on the preservation of Scripture and redefine, yet, free the evangelical doctrine of inspiration from Enlightenment epistemological presuppositions.
The passage of the woman caught within adultery conveys a powerful truth about Christ. Christ has reserved judgment until the Day of Judgment. The Son of Man did not come to condemn but to save. In the passage, Christ exposes the hypocrisy of the woman’s accusers and then admonishes (commands) the woman to live a life without sin. “Go and and sin no more” is not to be a legalistic command but of one that liberates the woman and us from the bondage of sin. To go and sin no more is to walk in the newness of life given to us by Christ in his work on the Cross and his victory over the grave in his resurrection.
To remove this passage would be a sad thing for believers.
April 23, 2008 at 3:22 pm
That is absurd!
April 28, 2008 at 6:08 pm
[...] this is his favotire passage that’s not in the Bible. Wallace’s statements drew a reaction from Jason Oliver Evans, in which he argues that the passage “conveys a powerful truth about [...]
May 7, 2008 at 10:10 am
I think the question is not whether the sentiment is true or not, but whether it is in the original manuscripts of the Bible. These are really two different questions. We use the term “biblical” in an overloaded way. Sometimes the term means that it is directly found in the Bible. Other times we use it to mean that it can be derived from the bible, or that something is consistent with “biblical truth.” For example, the term trinity is not in the bible, but it is held by many to be derived from the scriptures.
As far as the “original autographs.” I share your concern with the uplifiting of this that we do not have. How can we make such glorious claims about something that we cannot find. The good thing however is that due to the huge number of manuscripts, we can be pretty certain of the orginal of most of the New Testament…
May 7, 2008 at 10:18 am
Thank the Lord for copies.