Jesus and the Woman Caught in Adultery

Would not most of us who lurk here at SI agree that this is a message based on a spurious passage? How may of us would preach a message based on this passage? If so, why not preach from the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas?

When Jim informed me that Sharper Iron wanted to link to my post here, I grinned, forecasting that someone would raise the canonicity question. Touche.

Yes, I do recognize the debate, and I also recognize that my view is likely a minority opinion. That being said, I prepared my post having given serious consideration to the question. I am not a standard Critical Text adherent, preferring the Majority Text tradition instead. If I were a Critical Text guy, I could easily disregard the pericope. At the same time, I do not excoriate a Critical Text position due to the complexities of manuscript preservation; in fact, I respect it. If anything, perhaps this pericope is Lukan rather than Johannine.

As Jim pointed out, the pericope does have defenders, though they are admittedly in the minority. One example would be Gerald Borchert.

For most in the church, Protestants (including the present writer) and Roman Catholics alike, this pericope is regarded as being fully canonical, even though it has been understood by textual scholars for centuries to be out of place.

Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11, vol. 25A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 369.

I too favor the Majority Text tradition. I think Robinson’s arguments in The Case of Byzantine Priority surpass the typical Eclectic Text arguments.

When I taught through John a few years back, I did not hesitate to walk God’s flock through this passage.