Hello Foogworg, thanks for taking the time to respond.

You said:

“You do not have the actual earlier verses from the PA in John. You may have authors who referenced the story.”

We have authors who reference the story, certainly.

We also have authors quoting verses from the passage.

We also have authors applying the passage as authoritative.

Of course we don’t have manuscripts of the verses before we have manuscripts of the verses. That’s the whole point.

Before our earliest surviving manuscripts, we have a wide-ranging collection of people talking about, interacting with, and applying the passage, indicating it was well known from our earliest records.

Thus: it was not added later.

You said:

“Well, if “extensive records talking” about a passage is your criteria for accepting a text, then you would also accept certain apocryphal and non-canonical gospels and texts quoted and accepted by some of the sources you listed in your article.”

This article isn’t discussing the criteria for accepting any given text.

It’s discussing one text in particular, a passage currently found in most Bibles, and that is commonly understood to have been added centuries later than the Gospel in which it is found.

In this particular case, the evidence brought to bear is targeting the unique status of this particular passage, demonstrating that it was held as Scripture far earlier than our earliest surviving manuscripts, thereby undercutting the argument that it was added later.

Discussing apocryphal and non-canonical material would be fascinating, but it has no bearing on this particular topic.

You said:

“I’m not going through each one, but just for starters…

Didascalia Apostolorum is a forgery intended to appear written by the twelve apostles.”

Which woulnd’t hinder my point in the slightest.

And this forgery, pretending to be from the Apostles, quotes the pericope adulterae.

It demonstrates that even in this very early date, the pericope adulterae was even earlier, such that it could be quoted.

The Didascalia being a forgery wouldn’t change anything about the fact that it still indicates the pericope adulterae existed before it.

You said:

“Cyprian quoted from the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas.”

Both of which were also earlier than the time he wrote, which is the only point I’m making.

The pericope adulterae was earlier than Cyprian.

By his time, the pericope adulterae was standard Scripture, held in John 8, included in lectionary readings.

Cyprian quoting Shepherd and Barnabas doesn’t change that.

You said:

“The Codex Vaticanus manuscript (early 300’s) marks the passage with a diacritical mark, but leaves the passage itself out of the text. This indicates the scribe knew of the passage, but chose to omit it, and marked the text to inform the readers that its omission was a conscious choice.”

You are speculating. You do not and cannot know this.”

It’s not a hard conclusion to reach, my friend.

Vaticanus makes a special mark in exactly the place the passage would be found.

Why?

Why there, out of all places?

You know exactly why.

Do you really intend to argue that a special mark in exactly the place the passage would be found is somehow not related to the passage?

You said:

“Didymus the Blind did quote and accept some texts that are not considered canonical today. His works reference passages from the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Acts of John1. These texts were valued by some early Christian communities but did not make it into the final New Testament canon.”

And yet, all of these books existed prior to him.

Which the pericope adulterae did, as well.

You said:

“In conclusion, you have evidence the PA was a popular Jesus Story like some other apocryphal and non-canonical stories, not that it actually happened and was in the original manuscript.”

It isn’t referenced as an apocryphal story.

It’s included in Scripture.

Cyprian in particular records it being present in John 8, exactly where we find it today.

Many reference it as a clear Gospel passage, not an excerpt from an apocryphal or non-canonical work.

Jerome includes the story and emphasizes that he only included material found in the earliest manuscripts.

In conclusion, we have evidence that the pericope adulterae was indeed in the Gospel of John from a very early date, and that it was widely regarded as fully Scriptural and canonical long before our earliest surviving manuscripts of John 8.