Friday 3 January 2014

Thoughts and Summary: The Adulterous Woman (John 7:53-8:11)

I recently scored a free copy of Kenneth Bailey’s Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes from Manna Bookstore and its inspired me to take a closer look at some of the stories and parables of Jesus. Here is my first post of the story of the woman caught in adultery.

Thoughts and Summary: The Adulterous Woman (John 7:53-8:11)

“The scene...is...described with a perfection of skill: not a word to few or too many”-Rudolf Schnackenburg




Should it be in the bible?
Firstly, I ask a question that is common in scholarship but not so common for everyday Christians reading the bible. Should this passage be in the bible?
No matter how highly or inspired you regard the bible, when you turn to this passage it will most likely be sectioned off and say “The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53- 8:11.]”-as the NIV study bible does. This text is completely absent from the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of John’s gospel. None of the Eastern church fathers mention it at all and is seems to be a largely western tradition that recognises the story.

The author of John did not record this story and it is not original to the gospel. There is simply no possibility whatsoever. However, some scholars (e.g Metzger, Brown, Bailey, Burge) suggest that this might be a part of an oral tradition that told a legitimate and historical record of Jesus, and was later inserted into John’s Gospel on these grounds (agrapha). This sounds like an evangelical cop-out but it actually holds some weight and has been argued well by some. I lean this way, although it enters into territory I am not skilled enough to robustly argue in. Not everyone shares this view though. I have a very good commentary on John by Kostenberger who devotes a few pages as to why this section of text should be considered apocryphal. He offers no commentary on the text as we have it today and even notes that it should “be omitted from preaching in the churches (not to mention inclusion in the main body of translations, even within square brackets).” Augustine thought that early scribes may taken this story out of the gospel out of fear that it lessened the sin of adultery. Calvin acknowledged the issues but generously judged it to be “containing nothing unworthy of the apostolic spirit” (Bruner). 

The Story
This story, that is called often called “The Woman Caught in Adultery” actually has very little to do with the woman, and more to do with Jesus’ response to her. While they teachers of the law could have brought the woman before Jesus privately, they want to make a scene of it- putting Jesus on trail. The Pharisees had set up a trap for him to which, as Bailey notes, they expected one of two outcomes

1.       He could have agreed to have her stoned, caused a commotion and been arrested by the Romans because of both the commotion it and the subversive act of execution outside of the Roman legal system (remember in John 18:31 we hear only the Romans have the power to execute)
2.       He could reject their clear application of the law, be discredited and seem like a coward.

As the ECB puts it, “Either he must appear to be against the Torah [Jewish law] or against Roman law.
But Jesus manages to turn these loaded expectations into their rightful place and respond in an unexpected and powerful way. His response “let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone” challenges the mob to reverse their judgement and recognize their own fallen humanness, outside of the religious and judgemental mob they hide behind. These religious leaders and followers belong to a tradition that recognizes human sinfulness. Ecclesiastes 7:20 comments that, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” And yet the Pharisee’s cannot claim that Jesus endorsed or refused to respond to the woman’s sin, with Jesus commanding “Go now and leave your life of sin”.

So, by the end of the story what Jesus has achieved is astounding (some of these adapted points from Bailey).
·         He has not, in this instance, been so subversive towards the Romans that he has been arrested, as the Jews would have desired at this time.
·         He has not shown a lack of understanding or care of the law.
·         He has not been discredited or had his authority successfully challenged .
·         He has not shown indifference to the sin of the woman, but did not let that get in the way of saving her (in fact he is the only one that seems to show any kind of compassion towards the woman).
·         He has not show indifference to the unwarranted hypocrisy and condemnatory motives steaming from the accusers.
·         Both the Woman and the accusers leave with a challenge to reform and adapt their lifestyles.
Of course this whole situation also points to something bigger as well- the cross, where undeserving sinful people are shown grace, love and compassion and are given a freedom that results in a different life direction.

Other interesting thoughts from the story:
  • ·         Where is the man caught in adultery?
  • ·         Deuteronomy 13:9 and 17:7 states that the accuser is to be the one to cast the first stone. Could Jesus be making reference to this in his response of casting the first stone? On this Witherington suggests that by “without sin” actual means, “without moral responsibility.”
  • ·         What did Jesus write in the dust?

Burge- possibilities: buying time, a Hebrew verse that shapes his response, traditional view [endorsed by ancient interpreters such as Ambrose and Augustine] is Jeremiah 17:13 “those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the LORD, the spring of living water”. Thus some have said Jesus was writing the sins of the accusers in the dust.
Derrett says Exodus 23:1 “Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.”
Bruner- thinks that Jesus was drawing attention away from the woman and/or buying time.
Bailey- Bailey comments that he is convinced that Jesus wrote , “death”, “kill her” or “stone her with stones.” Showing that Jesus knew the punishment- but who would be righteous enough to carry it out?
In Roman law a judge would write down a verdict before making it know, thus Jesus may have written an acquittal (Ridderbos discusses but thinks unlikely)
  • ·         This passage has also been found inserted into some manuscripts of Luke’s gospel after Lk 21:38.
  • ·         Some have argued that the method of stoning most likely indicates that the woman was engaged to be married rather than married (Deuteronomy 22:23), but this is not clear.
  • ·         The nature of the story and the shortness of it may indicate that it once belonged to a longer collection of lost writings.





No comments:

Post a Comment