Overwriting of the NT Corpus [4] Is "The Woman Taken in Adultery" Scripture?

[Rebbe]

FUNDAMENTALS: THE OVERWRITING OF THE NT CORPUS [4]

IS THE STORY OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY SCRIPTURE?

Copyright © BRI 2014 All Rights Reserved Worldwide by Les Aron Gosling,
Messianic Lecturer (BRI/IMCF)

CAUTION: BRI Yeshiva notes are not available to the general public. They are not for distribution. They are not for reproduction. The notes may also bear little or no resemblance to the actual audio or video recorded BRI Yeshiva lecture.

I have pointed out over the last three lectures in this series that there are a number of texts appearing in our present Bibles which really have questionable origins, and for the most part (in my opinion) they ought to be eradicated from the NT codex. Over the next few weeks I shall be speaking of a number more which in some cases could see a resistance to the truth concerning their spurious nature due to sentimental attachment to them and association over a long period of time with them. Some texts have become quite loveable items we hang on to, like my beloved "yellow-boy" short sleeve sport shirt I hung onto for years (even though it had become dilapidated, tattered and torn). The Rebbetzin finally demanded I chuck it out! I dutifully, and sorrowfully, complied.

One of these questionable texts appears in Matthew 27.52,53.

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared unto many."

Certainly we should be suspicious as it seems entirely out of place with the flow of the narrative (as well as not appearing in the most ancient mss [manuscripts]). Read without this mechanical insertion, the flow is sequential. Consider:

"(51) And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth quaked and the rocks were rent into pieces. (54) Now when the centurion and they who were with him, watching Yeshua, experienced the earthquake and saw those things that were done [the rending of the temple veil], they were deeply effected saying, Truly this was a son of the gods [hyios theos]."

One other specific text that needs a close examination is Romans 8.1. We shall get to this corruption of the Pauline letter in due course. Mark 16.9-20 is yet another passage which has absolutely no right to be in the sacred codex, arguments against this proposition by Pentecostal Christians notwithstanding -- its a fraud. There have been well over 70 deaths recorded in the past hundred years due to the practice of "snake-handling" and drinking poison by "believers" who took these illegitimate texts seriously. The original Markan ms knew nothing of snake-handling. As to the surprising ending, Peter may have been relating his story to Mark on the eve of the lower Temple priesthood uprising against Nero. This could be the cause of his abruptly cutting his ms short without completing his account, with the words "for they were afraid..." Luke 22.43 is also an added literary achievement by some uninspired religious twerp.

All Christians of all denominations are familiar with the story of an unfortunate woman taken in the very act of adultery and who was rescued by Yeshua in the nick of time before she was stoned to death in accord with the laws of Moses. The story is usually called the Pericope Adulterae.

I am not unfamiliar with such an horrendous and violent practice as stoning to death. I have witnessed a couple of youtube videos which plainly show what women in Iran and other Islamic countries experience in the trauma of their last few moments before having their head shattered by rocks thrown by hypocrites. People who remain unmoved after watching such videos truly have need of the assistance of a fully qualified psychiatrist.

There are many traditions and accoutrements to this account, some of which have to do with the identity of the adulteress as being Miriam Magdalit but it's a tradition without any substance whatsoever. I am not in this place intrigued by traditions as are some folk of the Catholic persuasion.

Let us read the entire passage in question. It is located in John 7.53-8.11.

"And everyone went to his own house. But Yeshua went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him; and he sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to him, Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such women should be stoned. But what do you say? This they said, testing him, that they might have something of which to accuse him. But Yeshua stooped down and wrote on the ground with his finger, as though he did not hear. So when they continued asking him, he raised himself up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Yeshua was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Yeshua had raised himself up and saw no one but the woman, he said to her, Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you? She said, No one, Lord. And Yeshua said to her, Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

In this series we are discovering the extent to which the Bible (especially the NT codex) has been overwritten by pious hands who have attempted for one reason or another to insert their peculiar views, both private and politically state-oriented, into the existent text in order to shape or manipulate the majority of public opinion. Of course, such people invariably argue that it was always in the interest of the larger population to do so. People can justify themselves right into hell in my opinion. But I will not duck and weave around the truth. It has never been my intention to do so, and I will not start now.

Is this account a true one? If there are any doubts should it be included in the NT codex? Certainly all Christians have a love of this story for the account reveals the deep lasting compassion of a Messiah for a hapless humanity. Indeed, in the account Yeshua doesn't even condemn the hypocrites who wish to see the full extent of the law of Moses in operation; he merely reveals their hearts. Above all else the story reveals and revels in the Grace of God the Father and the love of God the Father toward sinners.

But scholars realise that it was never originally included in the Gospel of John. Marvin Vincent states:

"This verse [Jn 7.53] and the portion of Chapter VIII, as far as ver. 12, are generally pronounced by the best critical authorities not to belong to John's Gospel" (Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol.II, 1887, 166).

Notes George A. Turner (Professor of Biblical Literature, Asbury Theological Seminary) & Julius R. Mantey (Professor Emeritus, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary) in their The Gospel According to John appearing as Volume IV in The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, n.d., 188): "This interesting story is not part of the text, but it is included in the footnotes in Nestle's Greek New Testament, in the RSV, and in the NEB. It is omitted completely in C.B. William's translation... Goodspeed omitted it without even a footnote... A.T. Robertson... has stated that it 'is certainly not a genuine part of John's Gospel. The oldest and best manuscripts (Aleph. A B C L W) do not have it... Some [later] manuscripts put it at the close of John's Gospel and some place it in Luke' adding that it is 'probably a true story for it is like Jesus, but it does not belong to John's Gospel.'"

This enlightened Commentary continues, "B. F. Westcott's view... was similar: 'This account... is certainly not a part of St. John's narrative. The evidence against its genuineness... is overwhelming, but on the other hand it is beyond doubt an authentic fragment of apostolic tradition.'"

Turner and Mantey continue to quote from authoritative sources which reject its place in the canon, mentioning the "Bodmer Papyrus II... the oldest extant copy of this chapter does not include vv. 1-11."

In their very fine exposition these scholars, in discussing textual issues go on to say: "The episode of the woman taken in adultery is one of the few instances of the inclusion of deutero-canonical material in the text of the New Testament. The evidence against its having been written by the author of the rest of the Gospel is convincing enough to most scholars. It has a certain intrinsic merit, a consistency with the well-attested words of Jesus, which sets it somewhat apart from the 'sayings' of the New Testament Apocrypha. The story does appear consistent with what is known of Jewish practices at that time and of Jesus' characteristic attitude. The story creates interest because of the skilful sequence of plot, suspense, and surprising climax in which the accused is forgiven, the villains vanquished, and the hero glorified. The story is both wholesome and edifying" (ibid, 188).

The first actual manuscript of the Gospel of John to include the story is the Codex Bezae (D) which dates from the 5th century CE. The story itself seems more akin to the writing of Luke, certainly not John. This is why some earlier Bibles included the passage in the Gospel of Luke, after Lk 21.38.

Still, the story, or parts of it, emerge quite early in the history of the Ante-Nicene period. Papias is quoted by Eusebius and there is a similar instance found in the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum II 24.6. There is another story in Didymus and the Gospel of the Hebrews. There may well have been a conflation of the two into one account at an extremely early period (Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus and the Adulteress in New Testament Studies 34 [1988] 24-44).

Papias, according to Irenaeus, was a "hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time." Eusebius informs us that it was this early disciple who first "published another history concerning a woman accused of many sins before the Lord; and this history is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Ecc. Hist., iii. 39). Intriguingly, in the Codex Bezae (D) the sin of the woman is spoken of in a very general manner, "a woman seized for sin," and not the singular "a woman caught in adultery." So the probability of this passage under discussion in John's Gospel being identical with the historical story as shared by Papias strengthens. This is a reason why I would be ill-advised to reject the account out of hand as not being original to that period which we term the Second Temple, denominated by the Yeshua-oriented Messianic Movement.

The story, then, may well be genuine if it originated (as seems to be implied) with Papias. We do have to bear in mind though, that it does not appear in any early Greek ms, nor in the Old Syriac or Coptic mss. It's circa 900 CE that the story begins to make its appearance in the standard Greek text of John's Gospel but it does appear in ancient Latin texts of the NT centuries prior to this. Both Ambrose and Augustine insisted it be read in church services and Jerome incorporated it into his Vulgate.

Let me share with you why I think this story, although it has no place in John's Gospel, may well ring true.

Firstly, please note the strategy brought about by the woman's accusers when they confront Yeshua. Recall they were incessantly striving to trip him up with legalities. They even used lawyers with their expert legal knowledge to their advantage in using these legal eagles to trap Yeshua. On more than one occasion the Lord turned the tables on those who would have his reputation destroyed. In this instance with the woman accused (as it is believed) of being an adulterer, the authorities had laid a trap that was two-fold. Certainly they hoped to trap him through psychological stress because of the constant irritating query about his own conception and birth.

(1) If Yeshua dismissed the charge brought against her, the Jewish legal authorities could bring an accusation against him in relation to the Mosaic administration of justice. He would have offended Jewish religious law. He would have contradicted Moses outright.

(2) If Yeshua publicly admitted that an execution ought to take place, that she should indeed be stoned for violating the Torah, an accusation against him could be brought to Roman authorities that he was usurping the power of the Roman government of Judaea (which brought a charge of treason) which reserved the right of inflicting capital punishment and/or overseeing its implementation.

According to F.F. Bruce, "A Roman judge wrote down his sentence before pronouncing it; it was suggested by T.W. Manson that our Lord, discerning His questioners' intention, imitated a Roman judge (whose function he was being incited to usurp) by writing His sentence down (with His finger on the ground) before pronouncing it: 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her'" (verse 7)-- (F.F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, 1972, 70).

The side-step of Yeshua from the two extreme surface options (given above) is so very much authentic Yeshua, in my opinion. As an aside meditate for a time on Jer 17.13 where it is said that evil-doers will be "written in the dust" rather than (presumably) the scroll of life.

Indeed, scholar R.V.G. Tasker adds some insightful comments: "Jesus will not tell his questioners whether He approves of the law they invoke or of the action of the Roman power in preventing the Jews from enacting the penalty it prescribed; nor will He pass judgment on the woman, and displays His unwillingness to do so by stooping and scribbling with His finger on the ground.  The words as though he heard them not in verse 6, though probably not original, correctly interpret the meaning of Jesus' action. When the Pharisees press their question, Jesus sits up straight as though about to give a judicial decision, but His words instead of being a sentence upon the woman are like a sword driven deep into the hearts of her hypocritical accusers. He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her (7). 'Judgment,'  He seems to say, 'must begin at the house of God' (see 1 Pet. iv, 17). It begins with those who claim to speak in God's name, to be defenders of His justice, and to administer His laws, but who know not that their own vision is blinded by sin. And, as Jesus stoops down again and leaves His words to accomplish the task for which He uttered them, those who were tempting him, that they might have to accuse him (6) become themselves accused. They which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last (9). When Jesus sat up again and saw that all her accusers and would-be condemners were gone, He uttered the words with which the story ends, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more (11)" (R.V.G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary, 1960, 112).

Tasker also notes: "Jesus does not in fact imply that the woman's sin can be glossed over, or that it can be lightly forgiven without any payment of the penalty it deserved. On the contrary, Jesus Himself was going to pay that penalty, the penalty not only of the woman's sins, but of the sins of her accusers, and indeed the sins of all mankind, by suffering in her place and in theirs a criminal's death. In the meantime He gives this particular sinner an insight into the blessed truth proclaimed in I.17, "The law was given by Moses, but Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.' Only in Him are mercy and truth met together; only in Him do righteousness and peace kiss each other..." (ibid).

That this account of the woman taken in adultery does not belong to the Gospel of John is self-evident. That it is attached to John while its style of writing is more like that of the Synoptists and in particular Luke's style of writing is recognised by all biblical scholars. Papias believed the text was important because he very likely was its author. I am reminded of the scraps of parchment authored by Jeremiah which were retrieved by the Jewish authorities after their return from Babylonian Exile and attached to the prophecies of Zechariah because he spoke of similar prophetic expectations, and (after all) the scroll of Jeremiah was already in existence circulating with popularity among the Jewish people. Over a period of time those same people (and the authorities as well) forgot that Zechariah 9-14 was written by Jeremiah and not Zechariah. So, we really have something very similar here going on in the early Messianic Community immediately subsequent to the Second Temple Period and in the primitive Ante-Nicene age.

The story itself raises some observations in my own mind. For starters, the bringing of the adulteress woman to Yeshua occurs during the early part of the day and right in the sacred precincts of the Temple. (The fact that Yeshua is teaching in the Temple reveals that it was highly likely a Sabbath day.) Unless she was also a prostitute it seems hardly likely that the lynch mob accosted her in the middle of coitus during her and her lovers breakfast. If they were eating as well as having sex it would with little doubt have been quite a messy affair! Presumably, the copulation was taking place at night -- it is doubtful the accusers set upon her at dawn. They had captured her in the very act of sexual intercourse, so the story goes. If this is the case they had held her captive for the entire night.  Now my fertile imagination at this point begins to bubble with all kinds of possibilities involving her submissive situation! They had one aim: to set her before Yeshua in plain sight of a mob as well as the general populace in that holy area. This would have been a very humiliating situation for this woman to be experiencing.

Without any doubt deception is alive and well. Was she "set up"? Very likely, for the Sinai Torah specifically demanded the execution of both offenders, the man as well as the woman (Lev 20.10; Deut 22.22-24). But, where was he? There is much more to this unfortunate circumstance than immediately hits the eye.

Please take a note of the words "such women" in verse 5. Here we have the true motives of these contemptuous legalists. They are at once hypocritical male chauvinist pigs, and not only is this the case, they have avoided the rights of even women in regard to being given a fair trial as was expected by the Torah (see M. Sanhedrin 6.1-4). The poor woman must have been shivering with terror. If Yeshua nodded his assent to the Mosaic law he would be in deep trouble with the Romans for his assent to the forthcoming stoning. He would, in a word, have been held responsible for her death. See how manipulative and evil these religious leaders actually were? I see a repetition of the events of their forefathers at Massah and Meribah (Ex 17.2; Num 20.13 cf Deut 6.16; Ps 95.8,9; 106.14). Once again Yeshua as God in flesh was being tested.

Now consider this. I have mentioned already the likelihood that all this occurred on the Sabbath day. If this was the case Yeshua is writing in the dust. Isn't it intriguing that the Jewish traditions of the Second Temple Period forbade the writing of even two letters on parchment but the oral Torah acknowledged the permissible action of writing in dust (M. Shabbat 7.2; 12.5). This is an early recognition that Yeshua not only knew the Torah (back to front) but was also well versed in the oral law as well! All of these facts contained within this small fragment, which may have originated with Papias and penned for the purposes of safe-keeping of the circulating tradition (perhaps even shared as an incident with Papias by John himself), reveal a late Second Temple milieu. If this is indeed the case, and it appears to be, then the fragment deserves our respect and acceptance -- even with an "arms-distance."

No, its not part of the biblical canon and was never accepted as such by the early "church." And I have previously been hostile to this account because without warrant it has been transposed into John's Gospel. But, and this is most important, it was known to Papias, the writers of the third century Syriac Didascalia, the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae (D) of the late 4th or early 5th century, and a discovered cache of writings in 1941 in Egypt of Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398 CE) also included it. As to the latter, there is a reference to the pericope adulterae as extant in several copies. This latest reference indicates that some early Greek copies of the canon included the story, although it is not stated that they were to be located in John's Gospel. Those who claim such a thing are confidently leaping into the dark. Augustine, drawing on the Latin version of John, knew of it (Tractates on the Gospel, Tractate 33.4-6) as did Eusebius.

If the narrative did appear in some early Greek manuscripts then the question must be asked: why was it finally jettisoned and by whose authority?

Augustine himself suggests a plausible reason. "Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin" (Augustine, De Adulterinis Conjugiis 2:6,7. Cited in Wieland Willker, A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, Vol. 4b, 10th edition, 2013, 10).

Let me make another point which is often missed by commentators of the account. Nowhere does it actually say that Yeshua forgave the woman! This is assumed to be the case. But note carefully what Yeshua said. "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." Yes, of course forgiveness is implied -- but it is not stated. All that is stated is that Yeshua does not condemn her actions. But he quickly adds "Stop sinning!" As one writer has articulated, Yeshua "does not condemn her" but "mediates the forgiveness of God" and by so doing "is bypassing the temple and acting in a divine role."

With all these authorities in mind where should the narrative appear in the Bible? Or, should it be included in the Bible at all?

I would like to see a Bible created which has at least five divisions. The first section should be devoted to the Hebrew Scriptures just as it is at the present time in all Christian Bibles.

Then there ought to be a second section which includes not just the recognised Apocryphal writings but the Pseudpigraphic Scriptures with which the apostles were decidedly familiar. This would include the Enochian writings.

There ought to be yet another section which includes the sectarian writings of the Qumran Community.

Then in the fourth section we should have the NT Codex.

Finally we ought to have a section dealing with texts that were in circulation in the second century CE and which are seen not to be spurious, as such, but which may have had a proper placement in the Second Temple Christian community. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri sayings of Yeshua would be included here, along with the Gospel of Thomas and the writings of Clement and other sayings of Yeshua which are located in early second century apocryphal writings.

Only then will we have all the story before us, in one neat package, but it would be a very heavy volume indeed to carry around!