Why We’re Not Preaching on the Woman Caught in Adultery

The next pericope (or section) in John’s gospel, 7:53-8:11, is undeniably one of the most beloved stories about Jesus—The Woman Caught in Adultery. There are good reasons to love this story because it shows the depths of Christ’s love for notorious sinners in a world that is quick to condemn.

However, there is one major difficulty with this story. The difficulty is that it isn’t found in the earliest manuscripts available. Which leads textual critics, scholars, theologians and pastors to several conclusions regarding its validity in Holy Scripture and prominence in Christian teaching. In fact, many Bible translations have included notes about it—including the ESV that we use—to inform readers that this story, though loved, may not belong in our Bible.

To help you further understand the matter, below is a quotation from New Testament Scholar D.A. Carson. It is a relatively large quotation; however, it is a relatively small summary of a very large debate over this story. Please read through Carson’s explanation so that you can understand why we have made the decision to not preach on it in our series through John. Also, at the end of the quotation, I will add some frequently asked questions about this text.

Despite the best efforts of Zane Hodges to prove that this narrative was originally part of John’s Gospel, the evidence is against him, and modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the text (niv) or to relegate it to a footnote (rsv). These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek miniscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representing great diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church Fathers omit this narrative: in commenting on John, they pass immediately from 7:52 to 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. Didymus the Blind (a fourth-century exegete from Alexandria) reports a variation on this narrative,2 not the narrative as we have it here. Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli, indicating hesitation as to its authenticity, while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants. Although most of the manuscripts that include the story place it here (i.e. at 7:53–8:11), some place it instead after Luke 21:38, and other witnesses variously place it after John 7:44, John 7:36 or John 21:25.3 The diversity of placement confirms the inauthenticity of the verses. Finally, even if someone should decide that the material is authentic, it would be very difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine: there are numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in John, but which are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular (cf. notes, below).

On the other hand, there is little reason for doubting that the event here described occurred, even if in its written form it did not in the beginning belong to the canonical books. Similar stories are found in other sources. One of the best known, reported by Papias (and recorded by the historian Eusebius, H.E. III. xxxix. 16), is the account of a woman, accused in the Lord’s presence of many sins (unlike the woman here who is accused of but one). The narrative before us also has a number of parallels (some of them noted below) with stories in the Synoptic Gospels. The reason for its insertion here may have been to illustrate 7:24 and 8:15 or, conceivably, the Jews’ sinfulness over against Jesus’ sinlessness (8:21, 24, 46). [1]

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

 1. If this story isn’t in the earliest manuscripts, why is it in our Bibles?

As Carson stated above, just because the story isn’t in the earliest manuscripts, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. The story exists because of tradition. And likely, what happened was during the Medieval period of the church, the traditional story was added the sacred text, either as a footnote or commentary by a scribe to a manuscript, that was then copied and passed down. And because so many know the story, many translators have chosen to leave it in the Bible, while making a footnote about it. 

2. Is it wrong to preach on it?

Well, it depends. It isn’t wrong to reference the story as a tradition passed down and use it as an illustration. However, I would be hesitant to preach the pericope in isolation from the context of John. Furthermore, the best part of this story is also its most concerning part, which is its ability to pull on the emotions of the readers that the Bible isn’t seeking to do. With all the emotionalism that exists in modern preaching, I would say it’s best to forego preaching it. Emotions are powerful means to manipulate people. But the gospel is the power of God to transform people. And our goal is transformation. Not emotional manipulation.

3. Can I trust the Bible’s inerrancy after learning about this addition?

Absolutely! In fact, your trust in the Bible should be even higher. The good news is that over the years, we have found thousands of ancient documents, and all of them attest to the message of sacred scripture. And in those texts where additions exist, they can be discarded because of the overwhelming amount of information for the words we have in our Bibles. Furthermore, let me highlight what our statement of faith says about our belief in the Scriptures (note the part on inerrancy):

We believe the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments to be the full record of God’s self-disclosure to mankind. Different men, while writing according to their own styles and personalities, were supernaturally moved by the Holy Spirit to record God’s very words, inerrant in the original writings. Therefore, those applying themselves to study its literal, historical-grammatical context can accurately understand God’s Word. Scripture is fully trustworthy as our final and sufficient authority for all of life (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

The fact that we have thousands of ancient texts that all agree gives ample evidence for the validity of scripture. And it is these ancient texts that help in translating the Bible we have today.

4. What if God used this story to change my life or the life of someone I know?

Then praise God! Though there is a textual problem with this story (in that it isn’t found in the earliest copies of the Bible), there isn’t an historical or theological problem with the story. In other words, it is possible that the story happened as it is held traditionally. Furthermore, there isn’t anything heretical in the story. In other words, there is nothing about the story that disagrees with Christian doctrine.

This is a very “Jesusy” story. It does help us to understand something about the heart of Jesus for sinners and his style in dealing with ALL sin, including those who don’t see it in themselves.

We hope this article is helpful as we all seek to submit to the authority of the Scriptures together and let the power of God’s word transform us and lead us to the truth. If you have any questions about this topic feel free contact us.

Footnotes

[1] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 333–334.