John 7:53-8:11 records the famous and well-loved account of a woman caught in adultery.

This text is ‘troublesome’ because of the high level of doubt about whether it belongs in John’s Gospel, or, indeed, whether it belongs in our Bibles at all.

The earliest manuscripts do not contain this passage, and it is very rarely mentioned by Christian teachers during the 1st millenium AD.

Few scholars would argue that even if it is canonical, it belongs to this particular place in John’s Gospel.  Not only does it interrupt the flow of John’s narrative, but its style and vocabulary are distinct from the rest of that Gospel.

Augustine thought that it was original, but surmised that it was suppressed who thought that our Lord’s ready forgiveness of an immoral woman would encourage sexual licence.

Roman Catholic scholars such as Schnackenberg and Raymond Brown judge that the passage is inauthentic, but are compelled to note that their Church recognises it as canonical.

Proponents of ‘KJV-only’, Textus Receptus and the Majority Text also accept the canonicity of the passage, based on the authority of their favoured textual tradition.

Klink thinks that although the text is inauthentic, its place in Scripture is assured by centuries of acceptance by the church.  Burge agrees: ‘The story edifies the Church and has often become a vehicle through which the Holy Spirit works. Are these the grounds of the Protestant canon? If so, the passage should remain firmly anchored in the NT.’

Others argue that the passage should be accepted because it contains nothing that can be shown to be unhistorical or unorthodox.  F.F. Bruce, for example, thought that the passage contained a ‘genuine remembrance of Jesus’ ministry’, and that it is is therefore ’eminently worthy of being treated as canonical.’  Kruse, similarly: ‘It is very unlikely that this attractive story was an original part of the Fourth Gospel. It is not found in the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. Nevertheless, it has what Professor Metzger describes as “all the earmarks of historical veracity”.’  Carson: ‘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.’  Morris: ‘if we cannot feel that this is part of John’s Gospel, we can feel that the story is true to the character of Jesus. Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story is authentic. It rings true.’

Millar judges this ‘sounds like Jesus’ argument to be rather weak, since it relies too much on subjective opinion.  Does the record of Jesus becoming angry (Mk 3:5), or his speaking negatively to a Gentile woman (Mt 15:26) ‘sound like Jesus’?

Still others maintain that the passage should be regarded as inspired and canonical even though it does not belong at this point (or any point) in John’s Gospel.  Sproul, for example, defended his preaching on this passage by saying: ‘The overwhelming consensus of text critics is that it was not part of the original Gospel of John, at least not at this portion of John. At the same time, the overwhelming consensus is this account is authentic, apostolic and it should be contained in any edition of the NT. I believe it is nothing less than the Word of God. Whether it belongs here in John’s Gospel or at the end of the 21^st chapter of Luke, or somewhere else in John’s Gospel, I leave to the ages. But I am treating it as nothing less than the very Word of God.’

Michaels’ view is that ‘though it is undoubtedly a true incident in Jesus’ life, the story of the adulteress does not belong in the New Testament and specifically does not belong here, where its presence divides one day’s action into two and interrupts the narrator’s development of Jn 7:37–8:20.’  Michaels thinks that Lk 21:37f offers a more appropriate historical setting (and, indeed, a few manuscripts place it there).

A further view is that represented by Piper, who believes that the passage is non-canonical, but that it contains valuable illustrative material.  We do not derive biblical doctrine from the text, but take established biblical doctrine to the text, to see it illustrated there.  Miller concludes his lengthy discussion (from which much of the above is drawn) with the same point, adding that it is appropriate for a preacher to skip this text, and to explain why, on text-critical grounds, he has done so.

In summary: this pericope probably does not belong as part of John’s Gospel, and may not belong in any of the other canonical Gospels either.  We cannot therefore confidently regard it as part of inspired Scripture, and should not base any key doctrine upon it.  Happily, however, we do not need to, for, ‘Christ’s behaviour…comports well with the core of historical Jesus material, which so consistently paints him as compassionate towards the outcast, while rebuking the religious establishment: of his day.’ (Blomberg)