-20 Min Read
Introduction
The story of the Woman Caught in Adultery has to be one of the most beloved stories. It is a story that Christians say highlights Jesus’ compassion towards sinners in a dramatic fashion. Jesus draws in the sand, and tells the mob that “he who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” The scene is intense, Jesus is calm, and the result is no condemnation. This text is often referred to by its Latin name, the “Pericope Adulterae.”
The Pericope Adulterae is found in John 7:53-8:11, and odds are it is bracketed in your Bible. Most translations will place brackets around it because they recognize this story is not found in the earliest and best manuscripts. In other words, there is much question over the canonicity and inspiration of this story. Is the Pericope Adulterae Scripture, or is it not?
“Textual Variants”
Many Christians are unaware of how the Bible got in their laps. We do not have the original autograph of the Gospel of John or any other book of the Bible. What we have are copies of copies of copies of manuscripts (mss). A “manuscript” is a hand-written copy. Scribes would be trained to make copies of everything from the New Testament to Plato. But unlike Islam, Christianity had no central control over the transmission of its Scriptures, therefore, we have an “open transmission.” This means anyone could make a copy of Paul’s letter to the Philippians.
Because of open transmission, we have thousands of what we call “textual variants.” Sometimes the copyist would make mistakes. They may double a word or skip a line of text because they lost their place. This is very rare and easy to see when we compare it to other manuscripts. Sometimes the language would develop and one scribe in 1400 A.D. spelled a word differently than a scribe in 400 A.D. There is no real change or difference, for languages do evolve, but there is now a textual variant in the lineage.
Other forms of textual variants can be seen in commentary in the margins. Scribes would sometimes write their commentary or notes in the margin of the manuscript and then the next copyist would include that in his copy so as not to leave anything out. The motive of these scribes throughout history was not to alter the gospel, remove the deity of Christ, or corrupt the inspired Word of God; no, it was to include everything they could so as not to leave anything out. They approached their task conservatively. Again, this is easy to see, for we can find where the manuscripts picked up a particular reading and trace it back in its family tree.
A great example of this is the Comma Johanneum in the King James Version of the Bible. Comma Johanneum is Latin for “the clause, (or short phrase), of John.” It is the name scholars assign to 1 John 5:7.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
– 1 John 5:7-8 (KJV)
Compared to the rendering of the NIV, NET, RSV, ESV, NASB, LSB, and all other modern translations this is quite different. See below;
For there are three that bear witness: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement
– 1 John 5:7-8 (LSB)
More than likely, this was a commentary written in the margin of a manuscript of 1st John and then was copied into other manuscripts that came after it. Again, this is not that scribes wanted to alter the Bible, but they simply did not want to leave anything out. Some theorize that scribes felt compelled to add this clause to the text because of the rise of Arianism and their wish to defend the deity of Christ.
The Comma Johanneum popped up sometime around the 7th century in Latin copies of the New Testament, it is not an early Greek reading, therefore it should not be in our Bibles. Translators recognize this and have our best interest in mind when removing it from our modern translations of the New Testament.
But to a King-James-Only-Fundamentalist who sees modern translations remove “Father, Word, and Spirit” from the Bible, it is not only alarming but blasphemous. You can rightly see how upset this could make someone who simply does not know anything about textual transmission or the original languages. The truth is, there is no proof text, or gotcha text, in the Bible that verbatim says that God is a Triunity of Father, Son, and Spirit. But for the KJV to have one, makes it seem like all other English translations of the Bible are lesser than holy.
This is also the case with the Pericope Adulterae. Many people who read the KJV become upset when they see that our modern English translations put the Pericope Adulterae in brackets and attach footnotes to it. The NET attaches a lengthy footnote (I will not quote all of it) to the Pericope Adulterae and says;
This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel.
The ESV’s footnote explains a different problem with the Pericope Adulterae;
[Some manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11; others add the passage here or after 7:36 or after 21:25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations in the text]
The ESV Translation Committee is right to note this. It is not only unclear as to where the Pericope Adulterae is placed in John’s gospel, but if it even belongs to John’s gospel at all. In some manuscripts, it appears in Luke’s gospel and not in John’s. A common complaint about the Pericope Adulterae is that there are 13 Greek words used in its story that are not found anywhere in John’s vocabulary. In fact, the literary style of writing resembles more of Luke’s writing than John’s. On top of all of that, this story does not appear until the 12th century [1].
Without a doubt, all of this data is the reason the earliest version of the RSV omitted the Pericope Adulterae completely from the text and just relegated it to the footnotes. As Dan Wallace, (professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts) says; “This is my favorite story that is not in the Bible.” [2]
“Reading The Story”
[7:53 Everyone went to his home.
– John 7:53-8:11 (LSB)
8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have evidence to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go, and from now on sin no more.”]
It is no wonder that this is a favorite story for some people. Many say that this story represents the gospel so well. They believe it to be a story of forgiveness of sins and a symbol of salvation instead of condemnation. But this hardly seems to be what the story is conveying. A careful reading of the story leaves us with other things in mind.
What is also different about the story is how the roles seem to be reversed. The scribes and Pharisees cite a law from the Book of Moses and Jesus seemingly ignores it at first. He goes back to drawing in the sand until they badger Him again, to which Jesus “straightened up” and then declares that the women should be stoned first by a man who is without sin. It is quite bizarre.
There is no clause in the Law that only sinless men can carry out the punishment of adultery.
If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel. 23 If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them, and they will die; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
– Deuteronomy 22:22-24 (LSB)
This law is also repeated in Leviticus 20:10. The man and the woman are to be put to death. For many reasons we can assume that the man is not brought forth; either he overpowered the mob to escape, or they simply were not concerned with him because of the cultural bias towards women at this time, (I will add more to this later). But what is fascinating is that the woman was “caught” (John 8:3) in the act of adultery and the witnesses are bringing her forward as a prop to challenge Jesus’ allegiance to the Law of Moses.
Although D. A. Carson believes the Pericope Adulterae is not Scripture [3], he argues that the story is nonetheless true. Carson quotes (Deut. 13:9; 17:7; Lev. 24:14) in his argument on behalf of the story by stating that Jesus is indeed adhering to the Law [4]. He states;
“Jesus’ saying does not mean that the authorities must be paragons of sinless perfection before the death sentence can properly be meted out, nor does it mean that one must be free even from lust before one can legitimately condemn adultery… It means, rather, that they must not be guilty of this particular sin.”
– D. A. Carson [5]
The problem is the texts Carson cites are about capital offenses that are worthy of death and that the witnesses of the crimes are to be the first to carry out the death sentence. It does not excuse people who have sinned privately and not been caught from carrying out the death penalty of another individual who sinned publicly. Carson’s efforts to explain “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” leaves one confused and unsatisfied.
But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. – Deut. 13:9 (LSB)
The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. – Deut. 17:7 (LSB)
Bring the one who has cursed outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head; then let all the congregation stone him. – Lev. 24:14 (LSB)
We know that Jesus affirmed the death penalty based on His words to Peter the night He was betrayed; “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). But we also can say that He affirms it in this story. Jesus does not tell the mob to not stone the woman, in fact, He says the opposite. In the story, Jesus ends v.7 by saying “stone her.”
Some say that Jesus is simply refusing to engage or give an answer because of the current Roman rule. Meaning, that Jesus acknowledges that the Romans are in charge and not the Jewish people, therefore, it would be inappropriate to condone the carrying out of Israelite capital punishment laws under Roman occupation. This kind of trap was tried on Jesus before and He famously answered “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25).
This view, however, also doesn’t make sense because the Gospel writers confirm that the Romans, at least Pilate, were not concerned about the Jews carrying out their own laws and customs.
So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” – John 18:31 (LSB)
So when the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out saying, “Crucify, crucify!” Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him.” – John 19:6 (LSB)
So, then what are we to think of the story? Does this story have Jesus rejecting the Law of Moses or affirming the Law of Moses? What kind of trick or trap is this? What exactly are they doing to test “Him, so that they might have evidence to accuse Him” (John 8:6)? What does Jesus mean by “he without sin cast the first stone?” Is this a story of forgiveness and compassion or is it something else?
“Honest Motives”
A better way to understand this story would be to focus on v.6 where the author of the story, (whoever that may be), adds that they sought to test Jesus “so that they might have evidence to accuse Him.” If we hypothetically were to treat this story as true, it would best be understood as the scribes and Pharisees were seeking to see if Jesus would go against the Law of Moses.
Jesus had already healed a man on the Sabbath and told him to “Get up, pick up your mat and walk” (John 5:8), to which the “Jews were saying to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to carry your mat.”” (John 5:10). The religious leaders would still be upset about this, so much so that Jesus addresses it in chapter 7.
If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? 24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”
– John 7:23-24 (LSB)
If the story is true, then it would best be understood as a setup for Jesus because the religious leaders were still upset about His apparent Sabbath-breaking. But what is fascinating is what Jesus tells them in 7:24; “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” This seems to be what Jesus is bringing up in this questionable story.
In the story, Jesus’ answer to the mob presupposes the guiltiness of the woman. Jesus’ response to the woman at the end of the story does as well, for He tells her; “Go, and from now on sin no more” (John 8:11). The claim that she is an adulterer is a true claim. In the story, Jesus acknowledges that. He also affirms that she is to be stoned. But what He appears to be pointing out is that the motives and conscience of the mob should be pure before executing judgment on the woman. Michaels notes;
If the woman has indeed been “caught in the act of committing adultery” by the requisite two witnesses, and if the witnesses are indeed present (as would seem to be the case), then Jesus is inviting one of them to do what the law requires. If for any reason the actual witnesses were not present, then anyone who picked up a stone in response to Jesus’ words would in effect be taking on himself the role of witness against the woman. The law required that such witnesses not be “malicious” or “lying” witnesses (see Deut. 19:16-18). Jesus’ version of that requirement is that this person be “without fault,” a term denoting not so much abstract “sinlessness”,… [but] as simply personal integrity before God in the matter at hand.
– J. Ramsey Michaels [6]
In other words, what Michaels is getting at, is that more than likely none of these people who formed the mob actually witnessed the adultery. They were more than likely informed of the adultery but they themselves were not eye witnesses. Jesus, being omniscient, binds their conscience to another Law of Moses knowing that none of them can rightly stone her. The truth is, none of them cared to stone her, she was simply a prop in the hopes of tricking Jesus to advise against upholding the Law. Their real intent was to discover “evidence to accuse Him” (John 8:6).
As Michaels adds, the meaning behind what Jesus says is that “whoever takes on himself the role of witness-executioner must be confident before God that he is doing the right thing…” [7]. What appears to be a better understanding of the story is a continuation of what Jesus said to them back in 7:24; “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”
We can look deeper into this by examining the fact that the man who was caught in the act with the woman was not brought forth. Again, this very well may be because the religious leaders were not interested in punishing adultery but were mainly concerned with ruining Jesus’ reputation. The whole scene is a mess when we stop and think about it.
There is no mention of her trial, or witnesses being called forward to testify. If indeed this did already take place, there is no mention of it from the angry mob. They simply tell the truth they received that the woman was committing adultery and Jesus likewise receives that as the truth of the matter. The problem is, that no one is obeying the Law of Moses here.
The woman is not obeying the Law, the scribes and Pharisees are not obeying the Law, and now the mob is on the cusp of disobeying the Law. If the story is true and Jesus really was drawing in the sand and ignoring the mob, it could be because of His utter disappointment in Israel. And so, His response to them is “If you really want to obey the Law then obey the Law! Stop playing around and using the Law as a prop to ruin me! Go ahead, stone her!“
We also should not understand this as a story of forgiveness, for forgiveness is never offered to the woman. In the story Jesus says; “I do not condemn you, either.” He is simply referring to the fact that He Himself will not take the place of the eyewitness or the executioner. Jesus indeed said He “did not come to judge the world, but to save the world” (John 12:47), but this is not the judging or condemning He is referring to in the Pericope Adulterae.
There is no indication that she believes in Jesus nor is there anything in His response to her that resembles what He said to others. We see what He says to the woman with bleeding after her healing; “Daughter, your faith has saved you; go in peace and be healed of your affliction” (Mark 5:34), and the paralytic after his healing; “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven” (Matt. 9:2). But for this woman caught in adultery, there is no mention of her faith, the forgiveness of her sins, or any repentance on her part.
Of course, considering the overwhelming evidence, this story is to be treated as apocryphal. The Pericope Adulterae becomes more perplexing the longer one looks at it. The evidence is too great against it being Scripture and the content of the story is tricky for most readers to navigate. If there is a point to be taken away from the story it is that we must judge with honest motives and pure consciences.
Conclusion
The Pericope Adulterae is certainly not Scripture and should not be viewed as such. However, we as Christians must have some understanding of it because our English translations contain the story. We also must help our other brothers and sisters sort it out, especially those newly converted. Understanding the transmission of our Bible is very important. We need not be experts in the field of textual criticism but should feel responsible for having a basic understanding of how we received our English translation of the Bible. We can rest assured that men have not corrupted our Bibles, but have made sure to not leave anything out. They have included everything for us to consider and have given us great footnotes to educate us as to what we have. The task for us is to study the Bible carefully and when the editors of the translations make notes we should pause and consider what they are telling us.
Works Cited
[1] John MacArthur, One Perfect Life: The Complete Story of the Lord Jesus, (Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, Tenessee, 2012), 256
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cobVbGs5yXM
[3-5] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1991), 333, 336
[6-7] J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2010), 498, 499