Why I’m Not Preaching Part of John 8
One thing you might notice in this week’s sermon is that I’m starting in John 8:12, skipping the passage in John 7:53–8:11.
Why would I do that?
The straightforward reason is that the best historical evidence shows this passage was a later addition to John’s Gospel and that John himself didn’t write it. (Unless you’re reading the KJV, your English Bible notes this with brackets and a footnote.)
Now, although this story isn’t original to John, it doesn’t mean the event never happened. Many scholars think it did. Nothing in the story is inconsistent with the character of Jesus. It’s beautiful, actually — and that’s probably why it was later added.
But this raises some big questions: one about the reliability of Scripture, and another about the relationship between the biblical text and redemptive events.
On the Reliability
The New Testament authors, as you’re likely aware, wrote in common Greek. Their original writings are what we call the “autographs” — imagine here the very papyrus documents that John held in his own hands.
Those autographs began to be copied very early on, and it is those copies — not the originals — that we have today. And we don’t just have a few, but thousands, copied and circulated in the first centuries of the church — more than any other ancient text by a long shot.
In the case of John’s Gospel, the earliest manuscripts do not include John 7:53–8:11. This story doesn’t appear in copies until the 5th century, and even then it shows up in different places within the text. In one manuscript, it even appears in Luke. The likely explanation is that the event really happened, was remembered and retold for centuries, and eventually a well-meaning scribe decided to include it. Scholars think those scribes probably knew it was questionable, but it stuck — and when the King James Version was published in 1611, the translators rolled with it.
Since then, many more older manuscripts have been discovered, and the evidence is overwhelming: John 7:53–8:11 is not original.
And therefore, in my view, it doesn’t belong in the Bible. This is how our doctrine of inspiration works.
We believe that God “breathed out” the original text contained in the autographs (2 Timothy 3:16). That text, and only that text, is fully inspired, inerrant, and infallible. The abundance of manuscript copies of that text, though not inspired in the same way as the original, is an aspect under God’s providential preservation of Scripture. And it is truly wonderful.
We can have rock-solid confidence that when we open our Bibles to Philippians, for example, we’re reading precisely what Paul wrote while in lockdown. His original text was faithfully copied and preserved for centuries. And that confidence holds all throughout the New Testament — except for a couple of rare passages like John 7:53–8:11 or the longer ending of Mark (others are extremely minuscule, and none affect Christian doctrine). But in those places where there’s less confidence, we should recognize that. This article is the case in point.
Event or Text?
Another big question is the relationship between the biblical text and redemptive events.
Back to the story of the woman “caught in adultery” added to John 8 …
John didn’t write this story, but he does tell us at the end of his Gospel, in 21:25: “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did” (the Gospels are sufficient but not exhaustive). Jesus very likely did more than what is written, and this story may well be one of those true events.
If so, couldn’t I preach it?
My answer is no.
Here’s why: my charge as your pastor is to “preach the word” (2 Timothy 4:2). It’s not to preach redemptive events. This goes for events to which historical sources may accurately attest, and even for events to which Scripture itself may describe.
For example, take the baptism of Jesus. All four Gospels include it (Matthew 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22; John 1:32–34). Now, should I try to reconstruct the event by blending all these accounts? Should I major on the extra-biblical historical context to really get a sense of what that day was like? Maybe I should study the Jordan River more or First Century weather patterns? Perhaps I should mine Jewish sources to really grasp the significance of that moment?
The question is: should I use the Bible (among other sources) to preach the event or should I preach the Bible?
There’s a difference. Scripture is not just a record of revelation; it is revelation. God breathed out a Book, and it is to this Book we must attend.
My task is not to use the Bible to get to the “real stuff,” but to preach the Bible as the real stuff.
This has always been my conviction behind preaching. I believe what it means to preach the word — the Holy Scriptures in its final form, a closed canon of sixty-six books written in three different languages on three continents by about forty human authors over the course of 1,500 years, all united around the central message that the God who created everything is a God who has sent his Son to save.
Jesus may have been making that truth known when he reportedly started writing with his finger on the ground, but the Spirit didn’t inspire John to tell us, so it’s out for Sunday.
Further Reading
Peter J. Williams – Can We Trust the Gospels? (Crossway, 2018)
Richard Bauckham – Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans, 2006; 2nd ed. 2017)
F.F. Bruce – The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Eerdmans, 2003)
Michael J. Kruger – Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Crossway, 2012)
John D. Meade & Peter J. Gurry – Scribes and Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible (Crossway, 2022)
