(15 votes, average: 4.53 out of 5)
Loading...Among the most popular stories about Jesus that you will find in the King James Version is one that, alas, was not originally in the Bible, but was added by scribes. This is the famous account of Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery. The story is so well known that even most modern translations will include it – but place it in brackets with a footnote indicating there are doubts about its originality or, in some translations, making an even stronger note that it probably does not belong in the New Testament.
In fact, even though it is technically true that the passage “probably” does not belong in the New Testament, the reality is that it is not a debated point among textual scholars and translators. The passage was not part of the Gospel of John originally. Or any other Gospel. People know it so well principally because it appeared in the KJV
Here is what I say about the passage in my book Misquoting Jesus.
******************************
The Woman Taken in Adultery
The story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is arguably the best known story about Jesus in the Bible; it certainly has always been a favorite in Hollywood versions of his life. It even makes it into Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, even though the movie focuses only on Jesus’ last hours (the story is treated as one of the rare flashbacks). Despite its popularity, the account is found in only one passage of the New Testament, in John 7:59-8:12, and it appears not to have been original, even there.
The story line is familiar. Jesus is teaching in the temple, and a group of scribes and Pharisees, his sworn enemies, approach him, bringing in tow a woman “who had been caught in the very act of adultery.” They bring her before Jesus because they want to put him to the test. The Law of Moses, as they tell him, demands that such a one be stoned to death; but they want to know what he has to say about the matter. Should they stone her, or show her mercy? It is a trap, of course. If Jesus…
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM! It doesn’t cost much to join and every penny goes to help out those in need. Everyone wins!
Since what made it into the biblical canon was arbitrary to start with (and the Protestant canon is different than the Catholic one), and most people would say leave it in, obviously it should be in the New Testament.
Whether it should be in the Gospel of John is a different matter. The author of that gospel did not include the story, may not even have been aware of it. As a purely literary matter, it is an interpolation into what is otherwise most likely the work of one Christian, with a vision quite distinct from those of the other gospel authors.
My solution would be to collect these and other stories about Jesus from the gospel era and put them at the end of the New Testament, as an addenda.
Around what year do we start seeing the Woman Taken in Adultary appear in manuscripts?
The first time it appears in a Greek manuscript is the fifth century Codex Bezae.
Hello Dr Ehrman,
Hope you and family are safe and well and doing okay during these crazy, challenging times we are currently facing
I’m interested to know whether you have a read book by James Snapp Jr. – ‘A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11: With a Tour of the External Evidence’ ?
https://www.amazon.com.au/Fresh-Analysis-John-External-Evidence-ebook/dp/B01HBC8EGQ
Snapp’s thesis aims to substantiate that John 7:53-8:11 was original in Gospel of John:
> ‘Because John 7:53-8:11 (the pericope adulterae — the passage about the adulteress) is not found in some early manuscripts, some scholars have called for the removal of the passage from the text of the Gospels. In response, textual critic James Snapp Jr. offers this informative defense of the genuineness of the passage, with a detailed analysis of external and internal evidence (much of which is hardly ever mentioned in popular commentaries). Snapp offers a definitive explanation of why the passage, originally part of the text of the Gospel of John, is not in some early manuscripts, and why, in some other manuscripts, the passage is found in different locations in the Gospels-text’
What are you thoughts on Snapp’s thesis?
Regards,
MIchael
It’s one that to my knowledge no one else holds, at least I don’t know of any Bible scholars who hold it. Fundamentalist Christians certainly do. But even when I was a fundamentalist at Moody Bible Institute I didn’t think it was original. Either did my teachers, as I recall.
The Codex Bezae is the earliest existing Greek manuscript that contains the story. But both Augustine and Jerome, writing in the 4th century, say that some Greek manuscripts contained the story and others omitted it. Surely that’s evidence it was in Greek manuscripts (now lost) considerably earlier than Bezae.
Where are you finding that in Augustine? In the Greek tradition the first to mention it was Didymus the Blind (one of my first scholarly articles was on his reference, since before then it appears not to have been known to Greek commentators until the 12th century)
Augustine was obviously not a Greek, but I thought the quote was fairly well-known. Here it is: “Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given immunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress …” Note the phrase “removed from their manuscripts”, indicating that manuscripts containing the pericope existed. It’s reasonable to suppose that at least some of those manuscripts were in Greek. Jerome wrote: “In the gospel according to John, there is found, in many of the Greek, as well as the Latin copies, the story of the adulteress who was accused before the Lord.” The pericope is also mentioned by Ambrose.
Are scholars able to determine or make a reasonable guess when the story was first added to a manuscript, eg, 2nd century? later than that? Are the style and words used (and point of view) similar to any of the other NT writings or to any of the early non-canonical writings?
It first occurs in the fifth century Codex Bezae. It probably occurred earlier, but it’s hard to know when.
I wonder how Jews at the time would have understood this story, or how contemporary Jewish critical scholars would understand it. I’ve read a little bit of Jewish (NT?) scholar Amy Jill-Levine. My impression is that she thinks Christian scholars often don’t understand these stories the way Jews in Jesus’s time would have understood them. Did Jews “(almost) always” stone adulterers? Was it typical for Jews to recuse themselves from a stoning if they happened to reflect on their own sins first? Is there anything in the Mosaic law to suggest they should? From a literary if not historical or religious standpoint what is the point of Jesus’s doodling? Just to fill an interlude that prompted the accusers to think about what they were doing?
Just trying to find a different angle from which to look at the story.
It’s hard to know how often Jews actually implemented the justice required by the law of Moses. One of the very strange things about this story is that this woman was caught “in the act” of adultery. The law says both people are to be stoned. Where’s the man?
There’s an interesting passage in Josephus’ “Life” where Josephus, as leader of the Jewish resistance in Tiberius, orders a thief’s hand to be cut off. If this is any reflection on how justice was meted out by Jews in 1st century Palestine, then I’m sure the occasional adultress was stoned to death now and then. Justice worked the same way in ancient times as it does now; if you’re a rich, powerful, influential person, you’re afforded due process (e.g. a trial before the Sanhedrin, or before the Roman Governor — cf. Paul’s trial before Felix — or if you were a particularly influential Jewish leader, a trial before the Roman Emperor himself), but if you were a poor, powerless nobody, you would have been lucky to even get a fair hearing from the local leaders. I think Jesus was arrested, “tried” and executed within a 24 hour period because he was pretty much a nobody.
I might mark Josephus’ tale as a special circumstance. He was in the middle of an armed conflict. In a military unit, discipline must be preserved so more draconian punishments would be favored to signal to the other soldiers that anything disrupting unit cohesion (i.e. stealing from each other) would not be tolerated.
How early are the manuscripts that do contain The Woman Taken in Adultery?
It first occurs in the fifth century Codex Bezae. It probably occurred earlier, but it’s hard to know when.
When it comes to some of the things that got into the Bible, apparently “alternative facts” go wayyyy back. What some people want to believe often trumps the truth.
Kudos!
Well, it is a great story. It will always be part of my Bible. Yes, we need the work of the scholars to reveal it was not part of John’s Gospel, and it may well be something that never happened. We do need to know that. However, we also need to know that beyond the possible fiction is a tremendous truth. That is the power of forgiveness and compassion. Put the story in a footnote if that helps to clarify what it is, but please keep the footnote in the book.
Dr. Bart, 3 questions.
1) are there any parallel story similar to this earlier than this insertion in recorded history before the insertion of this story?
2) do historians know the source of this story?
If there are no other parallels do *you* think it is probable that the story is true?
1. Not really; 2. It is rooted in stories told by word of mouth about Jesus; 3. Do you mean do I think it actually happened? No. But it certainly is “true” in the sense that it strives to convey a “truth” that I agree with.
Rufinus’ 4th century translation of Eusebius seems to equate the story of the woman caught in adultery with the story of ‘a woman accused of may things before the Lord’ that Papias mentions from the gospel to the Hebrews. Thus it may be that it was just too good of a story to not include somewhere somewhere in the canonical gospels. Like the longer ending of Mark, it would not have been originally part of any of the canonical gospels as written, and may have even been part of a gospel eventually judged to be heretical, but it nonetheless becomes canonical.
I have an article on this, if you’re interested, “Jesus and the Adulteress” in New Testament Studies, 34 (1988) 24-44.
Do any of the early dialects contain the periscope de adultera, such as the Sahidic, Bohairic, Fayyumic, or others prior to the 5th century?
Latin, definitely — none others that we know about.
Fascinating as is the ending of Mark. Thanks.
This is one of those stories that I’ve always found irksome because there’s no mention of the man involved. She didn’t commit adultery by herself!
Exactly! One of the strangest and most troubling parts of the story!
I don’t believe the story is true. But when I get into discussions about the man, I find the silence about the man just opens to a lot of possibilities. Maybe the man was already stoned. Maybe she was married and he didn’t know that, so he was spared. Maybe when they were caught he got away. Just saying that for all the speculation that “nothing happened to the man” there are plenty of ways to answer since nothing is said about it at all. I’ve heard it ssaid it was unfair because nothing happened to the man, but in fact it doesn’t say.
The silence, to me, is what’s so disturbing. The focus of the story is entirely on her.
The Christians that I know will never accept that this passage doesn’t belong in the Bible. They read right past the note in their Bible saying that the passage was not in the oldest manuscripts. How do your students usually respond to being told that this passage was not originally in the Bible?
With some surprise!
Do they accept that the story was not originally in the Bible? The Christians that I know think that people who say that something was not originally in the Bible are wrong. They do not accept reality about the Bible.
Fundamentalists tend to think the story originally was in the Bible.
Years ago I dated a Mormon woman who, when confronted with the obvious lies that Joseph Smith had told (the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook plates, etc.), she told me that even though Smith may have believed himself that he was lying, he was in fact being inspired by God. The same could be said about the scribe who penned the fictional Adulterous Woman tale in John — he may have thought he was making it up, but he was actually inspired by God, so it really does belong in the Bible. Wiggle room to spare!
I’ve searched in vain for a description of this kind of “truth lying.” Is it called agnatology?
I don’t know! Very interesting (and unusual)
In a footnote in the New Oxford Annotated Bible version of the New Revised Standard Version it is stated that”This account, omitted in many ancient manuscripts, appears to be an authentic incident in Jesus’ ministry, though not belonging originally to John’s Gospel.” What evidence is there that this is an authentic incident in Jesus’ ministry?
Would this be the opinion of Bruce Metzger since he is the head editor of the NRSV?
Yes, this was Metzger’s personal opinion. I think he just couldn’t bring himself to think that this beloved story didn’t really happen.
This is what the people I know also think.
I couldn’t find a topic to ask this question but I was told the Babylonian Talmud, which tends to be anti Christian, contains a part in it that mentions ‘On the eve of Passover Christ was hung(presumably on a cross) and was known for his works of sorcery.’ Would you know if this is true? If so could this be used as extra biblical evidence for his existence?
Yes, that (basic) line is found in the Talmud.
Thank you.
Would you be able to use that as extra biblical evidence Jesus existed?
INteresting idea. Sure, why not! Then again, unless it is near to the time of Jesus himself — instead, say, late second century — I suppose it would not be *good* evidence….
Thanks again. I’m such a fan of yours because you teach me so much on actual biblical history. Your knowledge on these issues is priceless.
The Rabbis who compiled the Talmud did believe that Jesus existed, but they also believed that Jesus was a false prophet and a fraud. They also believed Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier named Panthera, and that Jesus worked miracles via evil spirits (i.e. he was a sorceror). Considering that the Babylonian Talmud was compiled at least 400 years after Jesus, and that the story of Panthera and the sorcery are probably malicious rumors, it’s also safe to say that anything else the Rabbis had to say about Jesus can also be called into question.
Your having explained textual issues in “Misquoting Jesus” in a clear, concise, balanced way that non-experts can understand was a HUGE contribution. Thanks!
One of my big problems with Christianity is that the whole doctrine of atonement doesn’t make sense. Somewhere I read the suggestion that the crucifixion came first and then the idea of atonement was trundled out to interpret it in order to explain why something as mind-shattering as the Messiah’s ignominious death had to take place. Is this view common among critical NT scholars?
Also, somewhere I read the suggestion that there is a difference between understanding the crucifixion as expiation and as atonement. I don’t have a good handle on the distinction. In expiation Jesus “absorbed” all the punishment that sinful humanity had coming. In atonement I think Jesus’s death is more of a “sign” of God’s forgiveness of humanity’s sins. Forgiveness came first and then a sacrifice, Jesus, was offered as a sort of “celebration” and sign that forgiveness had in fact already taken place. And I think that some sort of continuity with Jewish atoning animal sacrifices is seen. Something like two estranged friends reconciling and then going out to dinner to celebrate. Furthermore, I seem to remember something to the effect that in Jewish animal sacrifices it was not the actual death of the animal that was important but of obtaining the animal’s blood (life force?) to sprinkle on the altar. Of course it would be difficult to get the animal’s blood without first killing it but the death itself was secondary to having the blood.
Do many scholars see this kind, or any kind, of distinction between expiation and atonement?
Yes, I should stress that the doctrine of the atonement doesn’t make sense to a lot of Christian theologians either! There are of course different understandings of how the doctrine needs to work, but about all of them think it requires Jesus to shed his blood and die. I’m not sure about the distinction you’re describing. The one I’m more familiar with is the difference between propitiation and expiation (both of them explaining how the atonement works). Propitiation means the satisfying of God’s wrath (he takes it out on Jesus instead of others) and expiation means the “covering over” of sins (the blood allows God to overlook the sins of others). I may be wrong but my sense is that propitiation is often held more often among conservative Christians and expiation by others.
Thanks for the distinction between propitiation and expiation-though my understanding of expiation was the same as your understanding of propitiation. It gives me more to think about.
I’d thought that my distinction came from a book entitled “Catholicism” by (fairly liberal?) Catholic theologian Richard McBrien. When I went back to check I couldn’t find it-despite multiple tries. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised my memory failed after all I’ve read recently-including your latest book-about the deceptions of memory.
Here again my memory may be failing me but I think even CS Lewis said something that to the effect that if you find the doctrine of atonement helpful then hang on to it but it wasn’t necessary to accept it (at least not in its more sadistic versions) in order to be a Christian.
It’s good to know that many Christian theologians have problems with the idea of atonement as do I. Yet it seems like any traditional and biblical understanding of Christianity (not just fundamentalist and evangelical) would have to put atonement right at or very near the core of Christian belief. I think you’ve written that Luke’s understanding of the crucifixion might be different (martyrdom as an example for Christians?) but, overall, atonement just seems to be an overwhelming idea in the NT.
I’m amazed at the complexity of these doctrines. Can’t help remembering that I’d thought what we were supposed to believe was just that Jesus let himself die in the most public of ways, so when he was *resurrected* – the resurrection being all-important – no one would doubt he’d been dead. (The resurrection was all-important because it proved he was divine, and therefore, everyone should take his teachings seriously, and lead the good lives he’d urged them to live.)
Hi Bart,
To your point, theologian Stephen Finlan has written a short, incisive book on this subject entitled “Problems with Atonement.” Also, there’s another good book entitled “Convictions” by the late theologian Marcus Borg, which includes a refreshing and respectful critique of traditional atonement ideas. And finally, there’s “Paul on the Cross” by theologian David Brondos, who turns some of the tradition upside down while also (he claims) staying true to St. Paul’s original writings.
Like these authors and some of your blog followers, I too have long struggled to embrace traditional atonement theology. Indeed, the various independent lines of historical, theological, scientific, and logical evidence against it seem quite compelling, especially once I compiled the counter-evidence into a single essay, strictly for my own amazement. What if anything to do with this 32-page, fully-referenced compilation (including my own commentary) is another question, of course. But it’s a fascinating topic, for sure.
I tend to think that this beautiful story actually reflects a story told by Jesus himself and saved in oral tradition. It may have been left out of the official gospel texts because it is too radical. Any challenge of the Mosaic law could throw doubt on Jesus status as Messiah or son of God.
It is worth reminding people that the law around adultery was based on property rights which were owned by men. Women offered their owners rights to their children, rights to their labor, and rights to their sexual services. They represent a valuable property and would be vigorously defended. I imagine if the owner of the woman refused to place her life at risk she would not be executed. This might not be true of the man who was involved but I am not sure about all this. I imagine that since religion was crafted by men it would be designed to protect their property rights.
The important thing is that, quite remarkably, Jesus saw and treated women with respect as individuals from his mother onward. Where can you find such an attitude in Greek, Roman, Jewish law and practice? I much prefer Jesus as an exceptional person rather than some God or other. Unfortunately so many religious authorities liked power. And still like power! The emotional and spiritual appeal of religion is unfortunately so often used in the pursuit of power. For instance Christianity was a convenient tool in the hands of the Emperor Constantine helping him to consolidate his Empire. In the following 1000 years Christianity was the major authority. It was extremely brutal. It fell into the hands of a masculine celibate hierarchy who substituted their passion and sexual drive with the lust for power! Their claims to Christianity seem to have no relationship with the life and example of Jesus. I reached this conclusion from carefully reading the Gospels and ignoring most of Paul who clearly had little respect for women!
The absence of respect for women throughout the history of Christianity which still permeates our society leaves me with little respect for what is now official Christianity. The United States is more than half Christian who largely vote for the Republicans. This most powerful country in the world has continuously used violence in their treatment of most other countries. They might easily destroy the earth if they decided to flex their nuclear muscles. In the meantime the industrial world is destroying our earth more quickly than a lot of people imagine! The Christian church claims that Jesus saved us from our sins by his death on the cross! It is clear to me that he died in vain. In fact his death seems to have encouraged a lot of people to use it as justification for their violence!
‘By their fruits shall ye know them!’ This was mentioned by Michael Brown in your debate with him. He may be a fine man but his idea of the Bible seems to exist largely in his own imagination. Personally Bart I think that he was quietly undermining you by a process of what I will call one up man ship!
Final point: if Jesus saved us from our sins how can Michael Brown keep on saying that we are a ‘fallen’ people.
I’m not sure exactly how he reconciles those two statements, but one can imagine a variety of ways (Christians are saved but still sinful, e.g.)
When did the Church first acknowledge that this passage was not originally part of the Gospels? Prior to the Reformation?
Earliest Christians would have all thought this, since it *wasn’t* in their Bibles!
“… in John 7:59-8:12 …”
This seems to be a clear case of misquoting Misquoting Jesus. John chapter 7 stops at verse 53 !
Ha! Scribal corruption of the text!
HI, Bart. It is very interesting to read these last few posts. A couple of questions. Is there a website that explains when the first known written bible books were written? Since I am reading the story about the adulterous women, do you know when the first written copies of John came out?
Do you mean New Testament books? The first was almost certainly 1 THessalonians around 49 CE. The first written copies of John would have been in circulation right after it was written, possibly in the mid 90s. The first manuscript with the adulterous woman in it was from around 400 CE
Do we know the origins of this inspiring story before it’s inclusion in the Bible? Why would a scribe have included it? It simply boggles and stuns that someone somewhere decided to add a story that was not inherently sacred doctrine and again to what purpose? I think you’ve addressed this before. Isn’t this lying?
My guess is that some scribe at one point wrote the story out in the margin of his manuscript to illustrate the point the text was making, and a later copyists who copied that copy thought the first scribe meant to put it in the text, and so he himself did so. From then on it was copied as part of the text.
Bart,
B: “The reality is that it is not a debated point among textual scholars and translators. ”
I am fairly sure that it *is* a debated point, inasmuch as there was a significant 2014 conference about the passage at SEBTS in 2014, featuring Chris Keith, Jennifer Knust, and some others. Maurice Robinson was there and did extremely well (with a home-court advantage) — at the end of the conference, when David A. Black asked those in attendance if the passage was authentic or not, the overwhelming majority affirmed that it was authentic.
B: “Probably most scholars think” —
Already there’s a problem with your explanation. Most scholars, when it comes to the pericope adulterae, don’t think. They just digest Metzger’s obsolete comments and then regurgitate them.
B: “Other scribes inserted the account in different places of the New Testament – some of them after John 21:25” —
A moment please! You must be referring to the family-1 group of MSS. But in those cases, it is not as if (contra Metzger) the passage was just floating around; the note that prefaces the passage in MS 1 states specifically that the passage had previously been found in a few MSS after John 7:52. Not only is this detail worth mentioning, but to *not* mention it is to risk conveying a false impression about the transmission-history involved.
B: “For most textual critics, the answer is No.”
How do you know this? Is there a poll somewhere in which only textual critics participated? At the 2014 conference, all of the speakers — even those arguing against the genuineness of the passage — affirmed that it should be preached and proclaimed.
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman:
How then did it come to be added?
Steefen, Author of The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy (2nd Edition, in Progress)
English: A Lame Person
Latin: Claudo Vicinus
Julius Caesar “Heals Clodios”
Jesus Heals the Lame
Healing the Lame/Clodios
In order to maintain the parallels between the life of Julius Caesar and the Gospels, proper names turn into generic names. One Claudius stands out: Publius Clodius Pulcher.
Julius Caesar’s Biography
There was a house, Julius Caesar’s house.
Clodius entered the house but not through the front door.
He entered with the help of servants.
He wanted to commit the sin of making his lay with Julius Caesar’s wife.
Julius Caesar told him to take what you did laying a bed in my house and walk free.
Julius Caesar forgave the man which also cleared Julius Caesar’s wife, but he divorced her also.
Accusers were horrified at the forgiveness.
The Gospel of Mark
There was a house.
A man entered the house but not through the front door.
He entered the house by the help of servants lowering him through the roof.
The lame man, on his mat, lay on the floor–on his mat of a bed.
Jesus said your sin is forgiven. Arise, and take your mat and walk.
Scribes were horrified at the forgiveness.
FOLLOW-UP
Julius Caesar forgives the woman (his wife) caught in adultery (or the appearance of adultery).
Jesus Christ forgives the woman caught in adultery.
This is why the Woman caught in adultery can be added later into the New Testament: because the biography of Julius Caesar is the standard.
Dr. Ehrman, to my knowledge we have at least 100 mss. containing the text of John ch. 7 & 8 before the 5th century which omit the Pericope Adulterae. Is this accurate?
No, I”m afraid not. We only have a few manuscripts of John before the 5th century.
What would you say is the best way I can identify each ms. of the gospel of John before the 5th century?
Do you know any Greek at all? Easiest thing to do is to get the UBS Greek New Testament and look at the appendix in the back on Principal Manuscripts and Versions and you will see the date of every manuscript used to reconstruct the text.
Well, it seems to truly know anything for myself about Christian origins I have to know Greek so I just started learning. So ya I’ll do this, thanks. Do you think the Nestle-Aland “Novum Testamentum Graece” would offer me more mss. to look at, and does that book have a handy appendix section as you’ve described? I wanna make sure I am able to look at all extant mss.
Bart, this is a very old post to be responding to, but I do it precisely for that reason, since I’m really just writing to you–you can erase this, or post it. My membership ends on 5/2, and I’ve decided not to renew for the present time, for no reason other than that I feel like I’ve discussed this subject enough for now–it’s been a great learning experience, and I may well return in future–my hope is that if I start a new membership, I’ll be able to post from my office computer (I would hope I’ll be back at my office by then). I’m the type who looks for signs, and your book coming out just before my membership ending seemed like one.
I know I’ve been one of your more argumentative members, but just to be clear, that was never because I had any serious disagreements with you on scholarship–I lack the qualifications to do much more than quibble. Our differences are more philosophical than theological, and honestly, there are no qualifications required for a philosopher (or how could Socrates ever have been one?)
(I will admit, the 200 word a post thing is irritating.)
Now, about the Pericope Adulterae. You really got me thinking about this one, and reading other sources, particularly Roger David Aus (“Caught in the Act”). My personal conclusions are several.
1)This really did happen. More or less as the story relates it. But to remember what happened and to understand it are two different things. So we have to look past the surviving account, read between the lines.
2)The man caught in adultery was not a Jew, and they didn’t dare lay hands on him (amazing more people don’t think of this, as Aus did). City was full of Roman soldiers at Passover.
3)The woman stood accused not of adultery (which wouldn’t have been a stoning offense) but of betraying her people.
4)The men who took her, in a rage, were starting to have second thoughts about whether they really wanted to kill her.
5)They were not especially hostile to Jesus–they were as hostile to the collaborationist temple authorities as he. They were curious to know his response, and just possibly hoped he would talk them off the ledge they were on. Have to finish tomorrow.
6) As we have it now, the story is assuming this is all a plot to trap Jesus somehow (a pattern seen in other gospel stories), but this doesn’t really make any sense. All he has to do is speak of mercy and forgiveness, and point out (correctly, see Aus) that this isn’t the traditional punishment for a married woman caught with another man, and her husband could simply divorce her. But will this save her life? Probably not. Will it prevent these men from committing a terrible sin, that will keep them from entering the Kingdom? They are going to stone her for sex with a foreigner, quite possibly a Roman soldier, at the Passover, when Jews are inflamed with the desire to take their country back from the Romans. She was caught in the act, en flagrante, betraying her country, and the reasons she might have done this (are there children to feed? is the husband sick, or absent?) are irrelevant. They have become a mob, and mobs can’t be quieted with such arguments. His concern is entirely for them. Not himself. How can he save them?
7) So to conclude, in “Caught in the Act” Aus believes he knows what words Jesus scratched in the dirt. Malachi 2:11 and Hosea 4:14. Not the entire verses. Just the first few words. Some of these men are teachers of the law. They only need the first few words. The verses refer to an earlier occupation, and Jews–men and women–consorting with unbelievers. And in Hosea, God says he will not judge women alone for the sins men are equally guilty of. You cannot judge others until you get the log out of your own eye. And to make his argument clear, Jesus (who has been quiet until now) says a few words, that no one who heard them could ever possibly forget. He doesn’t know by magic what sins they’ve committed. He just knows they’re men. The elders (who understand the argument) walk away first–perhaps relieved? In any event, it’s a good argument, well-tailored to the jury Jesus addressed. The younger men, confused, embarassed, follow. Jesus asks nothing of the woman but to do better. She leaves before someone changes his mind.
It all makes perfect sense. I believe it. And I can see him. The real him. The man, Jesus. And I believe in him. Stay safe.
One last observation to squeeze in, and this isn’t from Aus (I have my own ideas sometimes).
“Then neither do I condemn you.”
The whole point of this lesson he is teaching all present is that there is no greater sin than to condemn the sins of others while ignoring your own. We punish others, in a very real sense, for our own failings. We project our disappointment with ourselves outward, because it’s too painful to see ourselves clearly.
Jesus is telling her he’s a sinner too. He knows how hard it is to be good. Life is not constructed in such a way as to make righteous behavior easy–at times it can be near-impossible.
He would never have condoned killing her–the dead can never repent–but he could still have reproached her–except that he has also sinned. So all he can do is forgive.
If this was a made-up story, she would have become his follower (some later retconned her into Mary Magdalene). She would have at least thanked him. But this really happened. So she just leaves. And we never learn anything more about her. Because nobody knew. A memory, half-understood–but haunting.
Actually, stoning was the required legal procedure for someone caught committing adultery, and to urge them not to stone her would have been to urge them not to follow the law of Moses.
I’m going by Aus’ article here, and what he says is that stoning was the recommended punishment for a young betrothed woman found not to be virgin at the time of her marriage. (This obviously begs some questions with regards to the Nativity Story, but let’s not go there now). Not for an already married woman who was unfaithful.
If by the Law of Moses they mean Leviticus and Deuteronomy, all I can find is quotes about how a man who commits adultery and the woman he commits it with must be killed. Nothing about stoning.
Even if that was the accepted practice, if they had enforced this strictly, nobody could go for a walk in Jerusalem without getting hit by a stray rock. That’s not what this woman is in trouble for. She’s there for sleeping with a gentile, probably a soldier or official. Aus is right about that. She’s on trial for being a shonda for the goyim. And this explains why the man isn’t there. They’d never make it to the place of stoning. They’d get crucified before Jesus did.
No, there is nothing in the passage about her partner being a gentile. I don’t know where Aus is getting his information about a “betrothed woman not a virgin” from. Not the Bible, I guess; is he referring to later rabbinic laws? If so, he would have to show that they were in force centuries earlier in Jesus’ day.
Now I don’t assume the Pericope is a verbatim transcript of what was said–it certainly isn’t. Nobody would have forgotten the words Jesus says (he might have said other things as well), but the rest would have been clouded by foggy memory and transmission error. Maybe these scholars of the law didn’t say precisely what they’re recorded as saying. As Plato makes Socrates win every argument he was ever in by making his opponents dumber and oddly willing to agree with him, the gospel stories make the Jews depicted as hostile to Jesus stupid and bigoted, when of course many were neither. But they are, in this instance, wrong. There is no basis for stoning this woman.
However, they have no alternative (Aus argues) because the Romans have reserved the death penalty for themselves. Only by stoning her immediately (in the temple courtyard) after catching her in the act can they hope to get away with it–the Romans, wanting to keep civic order, may look the other way, consider it an internal Jewish matter.
But as I argue (not Aus), they might have been harboring doubts. And then they see Jesus.
So for one last time, Jesus was in no danger, and had many answers he could have given, that would have avoided any serious discomfiture. Many Jews would have disagreed with stoning her–hardly a common occurrence for an adulteress. That was a later interpretation of what happened, lumping them in with others who had (perhaps) tried to catch Jesus out. (But seriously, why didn’t HE ask “Where’s the man?” He probably knew.)
They were not trying to trap him, as I interpret this story–they genuinely wanted to know if he had an answer to the problem they had themselves created. And he wanted to find an answer, based on the Torah, that would convince them they were in error, and could let her go without violating their religious principles. Thus saving both her and them.
If you want to know Aus’ arguments (and don’t run into him again in the near future)–
https://books.google.com/books/about/Caught_in_the_Act_Walking_on_the_Sea_and.html?id=YoGFQgAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
But again, some of what I’ve said is my own extrapolation, influenced by him, and other scholars, yourself included (he does mention your own article on the Pericope in “Caught in the Act.”)
And I think that’s it. I left a hundred in the collection plate. I hope to converse with you again in future. Best not to count on anything these days, though.
Yes, it’s an interesting argument. But you would think there would be a hint of it in the text. The absence of the man is usually seen as better explained as driven by the logic of the narrative and the fact that it is set within the context of a patriarchal culture, where it was the woman’s fault. Men’s sexual immoralities were almost always passed by, and for a very good reason. It was the men who were concerned with heirs and pure bloodlines; women were the way to have them. that is, they were tools and utensils for providing men what they wanted. If a woman got pregnant by another man it was a disaster; but not for the man who got her pregnant — he wouldn’t be punished. This is well documented.
OK, sorry to see you go!
I will leave a donation on my way out. Oddly, more flush than usual, since there are so few frivolous entertainments left to fritter away the paycheck on (at least I still get one).
It was a bit mean, in our present situation, to bring up the advice of Ecclesiastes, you know–to eat and drink with friends. Now we only see each other through a mask darkly. Or through texting. Meh.
Even once my gang can all can mingle freely again, dogs and humans alike, a lot of our favorite restaurants will be gone–some already are. Our favorite Indian place isn’t even doing takeout/delivery. A beloved local bar has shut its doors forever.
Ah well, those too are vanities.
Well, here is what I want to understand a litle bit more about it and I would love to have you share your thoughts on it. Why was it added within the Gospels and by whom and around what time in history? What was the purpose of it? I mean, why would someone add this story? since it seems that all the evidence shows that this never happened.
You may want to look at my older posts on it. If they don’t give you what you’re looking for, let me know!
Prof. Ehrman,
Thanks I have looked at it.
If you don´t mind, just a few things.
The manuscript evidence does not show that it did not happen. The evidence shows that it was not originally part of the gospel of John, is that correct? Also, I have reasearched that this story, or something like it, was reportedly part of the now mostly lost gospel to the Hebrews, according to Eusebius, perhaps relying at least in part on a lost writing of Papias. I don´t know but I think that since the synoptics omit this, I think this episode never happened. Do you?
No, I don’t.
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
Generally as far as I know, Moderate Christians say that John 7:53-8:11 is historically accurate but it is not holy inspiration. I think it is a very serious problem to call something historical today what we called holy inspiration yesterday. Because tomorrow, the possibility of calling the holy writings historical comes to the fore.
Mr. Ehrman, is there a part of the Gospels that is sure to have no historical basis but is accepted as inspiration?Is there anything in the Bible that is academically certain that never happen, that it was never say? It’s possible that John 7:53-8:11 is also unhistorical, but if you know, is there any part of the Bible that is definitely unhistorical and is included?(Maybe Mark 16:17-18)
In the meantime, I’m looking forward to your Debate with Mike Licona. I hope it is going to be a chalitely debate.
I’d say that there is no uniform view on any of htese matters among Christians. Most don’t know the adulterous wooman was not original; those who do know are split on whether it should be considered canonical; those on both sides of the split can consider it inspired. I’d say there are many parts of the Gospels that are not historical; whether someone accepts that view is one thing; whether they think non-historical materials can be inspired is another thing. Different Christians (at least those who are not conservative evangelicals) would have different views about that.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Can we say with *CERTAINTY* (100%!) that the “Woman Caught in Adultery” pericope in the Gospel of John is *not historical*?
The oldest and best manuscripts don’t have this passage. The first time it appears in a Greek manuscript is the fifth century Codex Bezae.
-Why would a copyist have overlooked it if it had not originally been in the text?
Thanks
No, we defintely can’t say that. Whether something was originally in the Bible or not has no bearing on whether it happened.
Professor Robinson has made a thorough study of the ms evidence and thinks the story was taken out for liturgical reasons. What are your thoughts? I’m no fundamentalist but I love the story!
There is very little evidence to support the view and masses to oppose it, so apart from those who in principle prefer the Greek text lying behing the King James, it hasn’t swayed many people (actually, I don’t know that it has swayed anyone; but who knows?)
Robinson doesn’t prefer the Greek text lying behind the King James (the textus receptus). He and William Pierpont produced their own version of the Byzantine text that differs from the TR.
Yes, I know. They provide the “Majority Text.” Their motivation though is the same: the modern critical editions based on older manuscripts is deficient. I dn’t think their Byz text is actually hugely different from the TR; it differs in places, but it’s the same *basic* kind of text.
Nestle-Aland tends to favor the Alexandrian text-type, which is generally sparser, less harmonized, and not as pretty as the Byzantine text-type behind both the Textus Receptus and Robinson-Pierpont. For all of its faults, the King James is a masterpiece of English writing. The lack of comparable beauty in most modern translations, partly attributable to their reliance on Nestle-Aland, may be the major reason so many Christians prefer the King James.
I’d say it’s more commonly because it’s what they grew up with as the Word of God, and so are accustomed to its rhythms. When the Episcopal church adopted a new prayer book in the late 1970s (?) the old time faithful were completely incensed. Didn’t approve of the modern language. Wasn’t powerful or worshipful. I agreed!
I’m sort of a “cafeteria Catholic”, but I’ve long believed the Catholic Church could take a lesson from the Anglicans in how to create a vernacular liturgy. The original Book of Common Prayer is absolutely beautiful. If I was getting married, that’s the kind of ceremony I’d want.
Yes, many people think the 1978 revision was a disaster. The older versions went through multiple editions of their own, of course, but the 1928 one (which I grew up on) was a real winner.