They Removed It from Their Copies: Augustine, the Woman Taken in Adultery, and the Witnesses That Cannot Be Counted

The Witnesses They Cannot Count — Part I: The Gospels the Church Received — Article 1

There is a kind of textual argument that appears decisive only because it has silently narrowed the field before the evidence is heard. It says: The oldest surviving Greek copies of John omit the woman taken in adultery; therefore the passage cannot have belonged to the Gospel. The premise names a real and important fact. The conclusion claims far more than the premise can bear.

The question is not whether some ancient copies omit John 7:53–8:11. They do. The question is whether their omission interprets itself—whether it tells us, without the witness of the churches that copied and read the Gospel, that the passage was never part of the Word delivered to the church. Augustine of Hippo stands directly in the way of that shortcut.

In De adulterinis coniugiis, written while he was dealing with the seriousness of adultery, marriage, forgiveness, and Christian discipline, Augustine refers to Christ’s treatment of the woman accused of adultery. He then gives an explanation for the passage’s absence from some copies:

Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, 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.¹

---

1. Augustine, De adulterinis coniugiis 2.6–7. The Latin text is available at <a href="https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/DeConiugiisAdulterinis”>Wikisource; the traditional English translation is reproduced in The Story of the Adulteress. ↩

The words require neither embellishment nor evasion. Augustine did not say that the Lord excused adultery. He says the opposite. He identifies the moral point his opponents feared: the same Lord who said, “Neither do I condemn thee,” also said, “go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). Mercy is not moral indifference. Forgiveness is not permission. The passage rebukes both the cruel man who would stone the guilty and the careless man who would make grace a cloak for sin.

That is why Augustine is the right place to begin this series. He was not writing a nineteenth-century apparatus. He was not selecting readings by a theory of local genealogies. He was a bishop who knew the Gospel as the church’s Scripture, preached its words, and could report that some people had removed this particular history from their copies. His testimony is historical evidence about a history that the presently surviving manuscripts do not exhaust.

Augustine’s testimony is stronger than a bare allusion

The first point is often missed because Augustine’s statement is treated as though it were only a pious reflection on a familiar story. It is not. It contains three distinct affirmations.

First, Augustine receives the account as the Lord’s own deed. He calls it illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit—the act of forgiveness which the Lord did toward the adulteress. He does not introduce it as a floating tale, a doubtful tradition, or an edifying custom. In his preaching on John 7:40–8:11 he expounds the passage in sequence, calls Christ’s answer full of “righteousness,” “meekness,” and “truth,” and ends with the memorable contrast: “there remained two, the miserable and mercy.”² Whatever later critics may decide about the path of the passage through particular manuscripts, Augustine’s own use is not ambiguous. For him, this was Gospel history and Gospel doctrine.

Second, Augustine knew that the history was not present in every copy. His comment has force only because he knew that a reader might encounter a copy lacking it. The report is not therefore an argument from silence. It is testimony to a disagreement in the copied text.

Third, Augustine identifies the omission as an alteration and gives the motive he believed explained it. His account is limited. He does not name every scribe, catalogue every manuscript, or prove that every omission arose from the same cause. He does not claim that the entire Greek tradition had been purged. A faithful use of Augustine must not turn his words into an invented conspiracy. But it is equally unfaithful to reduce the report to nothing. A man who says that some readers removed the history from their codices has supplied evidence that deliberate subtraction was known, alleged, and regarded as a live explanation within the church’s own memory.

That fact changes the nature of the argument. The absence of a passage in a surviving manuscript is always evidence. It is not evidence of one kind only. A copy may preserve an authorial omission. It may preserve a scribal omission. It may preserve a lectionary break, a lost leaf, a local text, a correction, or an editorial decision. Its historical meaning must be argued. Augustine makes it impossible to pretend that moral excision is not even a category to be considered in the case before us.

What Augustine does—and does not—prove

The value of a witness is not enlarged by making him say what he did not say. The confessional defense of John 7:53–8:11 gains nothing by claiming that Augustine alone gives us an autograph, a complete genealogy of the Johannine text, or a numerical account of all fourth-century copies. He gives none of these things.

Nor does his report allow us to dismiss the omissions in Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Codex Sinaiticus, or Codex Vaticanus. Those omissions must be faced. A text which teaches preservation has no need to deny the reality of textual variation. The doctrine is not that every copyist was kept from every mistake, nor that every manuscript contains every true reading. It is that God, by His singular care and providence, kept His Word pure in all ages and made it available to His church as the rule of faith and obedience.³

But the corresponding error is worse: to speak as if the four surviving witnesses named above are the whole early history of John, and as if their omission supplies its own explanation. They are not. A manuscript is an extant object. It is not the entire church in one binding. The manuscript counts only what survives. The historical record includes also the copies fathers saw, the readings they cite, the lessons churches appointed, the versions translators made, and the disputes Christians remembered. Providence is not a name for one modern collection of artifacts. It governs losses as well as survivals.

Augustine’s report therefore establishes a modest but decisive proposition: the extant omission of the pericope cannot be treated as morally neutral, historically self-explanatory proof of non-authenticity. A theory which says that every omission must have preceded every inclusion has already assumed the very point in dispute. Augustine gives direct historical reason to consider the reverse movement—removal—as an actual possibility in this case.

This is not special pleading. Historians accept the testimony of ancient writers concerning books, copies, readings, and controversies that no longer survive in physical form. No one reasons that because an author’s personal library has perished, his report about its contents is therefore worthless. A patristic statement is not infallible; neither is it vapor. It is a document, to be weighed by proximity, specificity, purpose, corroboration, and coherence with the rest of the evidence.

Augustine scores highly on each of those measures. He is specific about the passage. He distinguishes the Lord’s forgiveness from permission to sin. His immediate subject—adultery and Christian discipline—gives him every reason to take the moral force of the narrative seriously. And he is not a distant medieval collector repeating an unknown tale. He is a late-fourth- and early-fifth-century pastor whose Gospel exposition shows that the story functioned in the life of the church as Scripture.

The argument from fear is not an argument against grace

Some readers recoil from Augustine’s explanation because they imagine that it makes the ancient church censorious or corrupt. But the point is not difficult to understand. A community serious about holiness may be tempted to hide a passage which weak men misuse. That temptation is not confined to late antiquity. It is the temptation to protect obedience by reducing the record of mercy.

The passage itself refuses the false choice. Christ does not call evil good. He does not deny the woman’s sin, mock the law, or tell the accusers that righteousness is unimportant. He exposes false judgment in men who prosecute another while ignoring their own guilt. Then He gives the woman a command which cannot be mistaken: “sin no more.” The scene is severe precisely because it is merciful. It brings both accusation and absolution beneath the Lord’s judgment.

Augustine’s interpretation belongs to his wider doctrine of grace. The Gospel neither leaves the sinner under condemnation nor frees him to serve sin. The line which frightened the “little faith” readers is part of one sentence. To preserve only the danger of mercy, and suppress the mercy which leads to repentance, is to alter not only a manuscript but the moral shape of the Gospel.

This matters for textual criticism. Scribal changes need not arise from stupidity or malice in the crude sense. They often arise from misplaced reverence, liturgical practice, harmonization, fear of misunderstanding, or a desire to defend what is true. A critic who allows only accidental error and well-meaning expansion has already imposed a modern psychology upon the ancient church. Augustine witnesses to a different danger: a reader may remove what he finds pastorally dangerous because he has not understood the unity of grace and holiness.

The church as witness, not master

To say that the Holy Ghost bore public witness to the Word through the church is not to say that the church created the Word. Augustine’s testimony derives its force from the fact that he is a witness to Scripture, not its author. The church recognizes the voice of her Shepherd; she does not give that voice its authority.

This is the old Protestant distinction. The Westminster Confession states that the authority of Holy Scripture “dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church,” because God Himself is its author. Yet the same confession acknowledges that the church’s testimony may move and induce men to a high and reverent esteem of Scripture, while saving persuasion arises from “the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”⁴ Scripture is self-authenticating; historical testimony is ministerial.

James Ussher makes the same point in a useful order. He speaks of the consonant testimony of men through the ages, of the Scriptures’ own marks, and finally of the Spirit’s inward assurance, which is greater than all merely human persuasion. The church’s witness is neither despised nor enthroned. It is received as one of the means by which God has publicly carried His Word through history, while the Spirit gives the believer certainty that no merely human chain of argument can create.⁵

That order preserves both reverence and honesty. It forbids a Roman claim that Scripture hangs upon the church’s decree. It also forbids a modern claim that a scholar may annul the church’s received text merely by sorting surviving fragments according to an autonomous rule. The church is not an infallible editorial board; neither is she an irrelevant crowd whose centuries of reading can be swept aside by a handful of surviving codices.

Augustine therefore does not become the final court. He becomes what he actually is: a weighty historical witness whose testimony must be included in any responsible judgment about John 7:53–8:11.

The copy we possess and the evidence we have lost

The hard truth is that textual history contains absences. We do not possess every second-century Gospel book. We do not possess Augustine’s personal copies. We do not possess the codices he says had been altered. We do not possess the books used in every North African congregation, every Palestinian village, or every household where John was read aloud. No textual theory is allowed to pretend otherwise.

The question is what Christians are entitled to infer from that loss. The critical answer commonly says: only present, extant, physical witnesses may carry real weight; patristic testimony is at best an ornament around the apparatus. Augustine’s statement exposes the poverty of that rule. It makes the historian choose between two claims:

1. the surviving omissions by themselves tell the complete story; or
2. the surviving omissions are part of a larger history in which fathers preserve testimony to readings, copies, and controversies no longer extant.

The second claim is not a retreat from evidence. It is a refusal to amputate evidence because it is not bound in a presently accessible codex. In courts, in classical history, and in ordinary life, we distinguish between an object and a trustworthy witness to an object that has perished. Scripture’s transmission deserves at least that common fairness.

The received reading does not rest upon a private taste for a moving story. It rests upon the church’s received text, the passage’s coherence with the whole counsel of God, its enduring public use, and historical witnesses such as Augustine who make a simple theory of late invention inadequate. It is not enough to say that an early manuscript omits the narrative. One must also explain why Augustine knew the narrative as the Lord’s act, preached it from John, and believed that some had removed it from their copies.

That explanation cannot be supplied by counting alone.

The next article will widen the lens. Augustine is neither the first nor the only witness. The Didascalia, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose, Jerome, and the church’s later reception show that the question is not whether one African bishop happened to like a story. It is whether the churches across regions remembered, read, and transmitted a Gospel history which the critical text now encloses in brackets.

Sources cited