The Pericope Adulterae was not just that one verse but the passage of John 7:53-8:11. A quick check on Wiki shows that there IS evidence that the story was contained in early manuscripts. Per Wikipedia:
The pericope is not found in its canonical place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century. Papias (circa AD 125) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which may well refer to this passage; there is a very certain quotation of the pericope adulterae in the 3rd Century Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum; though without indicating John's Gospel.
I know you don't agree, but I believe the Bible we have today is what God has preserved for the world. It is exactly what he intended for us to have.
I did not mean to imply the verse itself was the Pericope, but part of it. And I never said it didn't appear elsewhere, just that it was not in the earliest copies of John's Gospel.
In other words, its inclusion cannot be considered part of the "inspired" text and therefore cannot be used as a matter of fact, and used for correction and teaching, etc. But it is because it is in the present copies of the Bible.
The Periciope is evidence that legendary material was added to what is otherwise considered inspired material; it is evidence of tampering and corruption of what is believed by some to be the pristine word of God.
Wikipedia is a great source for general information and I use it a lot for a quick review. However, one cannot stop with Wikipedia. For example, Codex Bezae is a variant Codex. In it, one finds things that disagree with just about any other biblical source. Syriac sources tend to vary likewise. Why should either be a reliable witness?
Or Papias, to whom we owe pretty much everything we 'know' about the authors of the New Testament, except that he obtained his information, according to him "only from people who tell the truth"(!) How reliable is that?!?
His entire corpus of information about the apostles and their eventual death is based on legends he heard from others, in other words based on hearsay.
Third century Church historian Eusebius of Cesarea refers to Papias as "dimwitted." The fascinating thing about reading the Church history is that hearsay (oral "tradition") was the source of the day from day one.
Irenaeus (180 AD), the man to whom the Church is so indebted, entirely relied on "oral tradition." Yet, one must wonder how credible is his information given the fact that in his book, Against Heresies, he states that Christ was 50 years old when he died (A.H., ii, 22)! Or when he equates Mary with the Holy Spirit (he refers to her as advocata, a Latin term for Paraclete).
Trouble is, how reliable is his very book? He died at the end of the 2nd century, and the earliest copy of his book that wen have is from the end of the 4th! Two hundred years later! And a Latin translation at that...his original Greek text exists only in fragments.
Without copyright laws and with books being copied only by hand, we cannot reliably claim that what's in his book was also in his original work.
Legends, hearsay, myths, copyists errors, doctrinal changes in texts, etc. make all these sources, including the earliest copies of the NT, subject to corruption and errors.
When biblical scholars say the Bible is 99% in agreement with the "originals," that is simply untrue. They are in agreement with the earliest copies of copies we have.
The majority of those "originals" go back to later centuries, a few late or middle 2nd century, and only one or two to the early part of the 2nd century, and they contain only a few verses, and there is not a single copy of the NT that goes back to the first century, let alone a true original!
If you just think for one moment how the copies were made it becomes immediately obvious that no one could have preserved the original text. If you consider for a moment that some text was lost, it becomes obvious that Bibles are not complete.
If you consider for a moment that the decision which books will be included in the Bible was made by the Catholic Church 400 years after Christ, it becomes obvious that it was not something God did but men, their tradition, doctrine, etc.
If God put together the Bible, as so many believe, I think he would have done a much better job, imo.