Appendix — The Woman Taken in Adultery (7:53-8:11)
APPENDIX
THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY (7:53-8:11)
53Then each went to his own home. 1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you, "Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
The textual evidence makes it impossible to hold that this section is an authentic part of the Gospel.1 It is not attested in the oldest manuscripts, and when it does make its appearance it is sometimes found in other positions, either after verse 36, or after verse 44, or at the end of this Gospel,2 or after Luke 31:38. It seems clear enough that those scribes who felt it too important to be lost were not at all sure where to attach it. And if they could not agree on the right place for it, they could not agree on the true text for it either. The manuscripts that have it do not agree closely. The very large number of variants indicates that the textual history of this pericope is different from that of the fourth Gospel. In addition to the textual difficulty many find stylistic criteria against the story.3 While the spirit of the narrative is in accordance with that of this Gospel the language is not Johannine. The passage is too short for this argument to be completely decisive, but for what it is worth it does tell against Johannine authorship. There is also the fact that the passage does not fit well into the context, whereas 8:12 follows naturally after 7:52.
But if we cannot feel that this is part of John's Gospel, we can feel that the story is true to the character of Jesus. Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story is authentic.4 It rings true. It speaks to our condition. And it can scarcely have been com-posed in the early church with its sternness about sexual sin. It is thus worth our while to study it, though not as an authentic part of John's writing. The story is undoubtedly very ancient. Many authorities agree that it is referred to by Papias.5 It is mentioned also in the Apostolic Constitutions (2.24). But it is not mentioned very often in early days. The reason probably is that in a day when the punishment for sexual sin was very severe among the Christians this story was thought to be too easily misinterpreted as countenancing un-chastity. When ecclesiastical discipline was somewhat relaxed the story was circulated more widely and with a greater measure of official sanction.
53 This verse shows that the story was originally attached to some other narrative, but what that was we can only guess.
1 The Synoptic Gospels tell us that the pattern Jesus followed during the closing days of his life was to teach in Jerusalem during the day, and to retire outside the city to spend the night. Luke specifically says that he lodged on the Mount of Olives (Luke 21:37; cf. Luke 22:39).6 It would seem to have been one of Jesus' favorite places. On the occasion mentioned here he evi-dently passed the night there. The Mount of Olives is not mentioned in this Gospel, though it is in each of the other three.
2 "Again" indicates that the narrative from which this story was taken included a previous visit or visits to the temple. Evidently it also included a reference to teaching. So on this occasion Jesus went to the temple early in the morning. "Came" (NIV, "gathered") and "taught" (NIV, "to teach") are continuous tenses. When Jesus reached the temple courts people kept coming to him, so he sat down and engaged in teaching them.
3 The group is joined by some religious leaders bringing a woman they had taken in the act of sin. "Scribes (NIV, "teachers of the law") and Pharisees" is a conjunction found quite often in the Synoptic Gospels, but the scribes are never mentioned in John.7 The two terms do not mean the same people, for scribes were not necessarily Pharisees (though, of course, many of them were). In days when writing was far from universal the scribes were members of a skilled and important profession. Among the Jews the principal study was the law, and as this was the chief interest of the Pharisees, the two groups had much in common. Accordingly it is never strange to find the two acting in conjunction.8 Yet we should not overlook the other fact that the Synoptic Gospels also link the scribes very often with the high priests, who were Sadducees. In other words, the scribes had their links with the Pharisees, but also with others, notably the official hierarchy.
The woman these people bring had been taken9 in adultery. This means that the witnesses had seen the very act;10 compromising circumstances were not enough. If the conditions required by Jewish law were as stringent as J. D. M. Derrett maintains,11 this can scarcely indicate anything other than a trap deliberately set.12 All the more is this likely to be the case in that the man was not present. Why not? Since the woman was taken in the very act, there should have been two sinners, not one, before Jesus. But if the whole thing had been engineered, provision would have been made for the man to escape. Moreover, the witnesses ought to have warned the woman in accordance with the maxim, "No penalty without a warning." There is no hint that they did anything of the sort. All the indications are that the accusers had some special vindictiveness toward her. This is shown also in the fact that they brought the woman along publicly (cf. Knox, "made her stand there in full view"). There was no need for this. She might have been kept in custody while the case was referred to Jesus.
4 They address Jesus with the polite "Teacher," and explain the circumstances. "Teacher" is appropriate in a context where Jesus is to be asked to decide a point of law. "was caught" is again in the perfect tense. The woman's guilt is plain.13 She was taken "in the act."14 The word puts some stress on her part of the affair.
5 They put to Jesus the question of what should be done with the woman, first pointing out that the law of Moses specifically provides for the death penalty in such cases. It is perhaps worth noticing that they slightly manipulate the text of the law. They say "such" are to be stoned, where their word is feminine, "such women," whereas both relevant passages (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) say that the man as well as the woman is to be put to death.15 The accusers are also a little more specific than the Old Testament, for they speak definitely of stoning, whereas the passages cited do not indicate the manner of execution. Stoning is prescribed for the guilty pair when the woman is "a virgin pledged to be married" (Deut. 22:23-24).16 It seems fairly clear that they were envisaging a lynching. There is no mention of a trial,17 and it would seem that this group proposed to take the law into their own hands. Their "you" is emphatic. The law, they infer, is plain: now what do you say? The next verse makes it clear that they were not sincere, but the exact nature of the trap is not certain. Most interpreters accept the view that Jesus faced a charge under either Roman law or the law of Moses. If he said "Stone her," he would lay himself open to the charge of counseling action contrary to Roman law, which did not provide for a death penalty in such cases.18 If he said "Do not stone her," he could be charged with offending against the law of God. The question was a loaded one. Either answer would involve Jesus in difficulties. This may indeed be the dilemma his opponents had in mind, though evidence does not seem to be strong that the Romans would, in fact, have taken strong action in such a case. Another possibility is that a verdict for stoning would, have set those who favored leniency against him,19 while one against stoning would leave him out of favor with the legalists. The objection to this is that verse 6 looks for a definite charge, not a shift in popularity. In any case Jesus' views were clearly well known and the accusers almost certainly felt that they could count on him not to endorse the provision of the law, but to take the lenient view. We need not concern ourselves unduly with looking for the consequences of the alternative answer. Jesus could, of course, have refused to give a decision. There was no compulsion, and he would have been safe. But in that case the woman would certainly have been lynched.
6 Their motives are made clear. They are not really seeking guidance, but "testing" him (NIV paraphrases). The word is often translated "tempt"; it signifies putting to the test with a view to the tested person failing. They wanted a legal basis on which to accuse him. Jesus' reaction was to ignore them.20 He simply stooped and made marks in the dust. There is no hint of why he wrote or what he wrote. It is not even certain that he wrote, for the verb used can mean "to draw."21 But in this context the word more naturally signifies "to write." A not unlikely suggestion is that Jesus wrote the words he later spoke. In other words, he wrote his sentence as well as pronounced it.22 Derrett is of the opinion that he will have written some words from the law (thus showing on what he would rely if he were to give a decision), and that he will have used unpointed Hebrew. This would haven enabled him to suggest all the meanings associated with the various possible pointings. This gives a motive for writing, whereas if the words were spoken then the speaker was committed to one interpretation. Derrett thinks the writing was the open-ing part of Exodus 23:1b: "Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness." This was a reminder that the whole affair was unsavory,23 and it carried a warning lest innocent men contract guilt by association with evil witnesses. But this is uncertain; we do not know what he wrote.
7 Evidently the accusers felt that Jesus' silence arose from an ina-bility to evade giving them the opening for which they were looking. So they pressed their question ("they persisted in questioning him," BAGD). But Jesus stood up and invited any one among them who was sinless24 to throw the first stone (normally the witnesses were to initiate a stoning, Deut. 17:7). This answer completely disarmed them. It could not possibly be construed as a rejection of the law; Jesus specifically enjoined that a stone be thrown. But his limitation on who might throw it effectively prevented any harm coming to the guilty woman. The saying "does not deny that she may be stoned, but insists upon the innocency and therefore the competence of whoever stands forth against her as accuser and witness."25 If, for example, the witnesses were guilty of not giving a warning (as the facts of the case make almost certain), then the woman could not be convicted on their evidence. For anyone to take part in a stoning on the basis of such evidence would be to incur the guilt of "joining with the wicked." The words of Jesus are both an appeal to conscience and a warning to the hearers that their own lives might very well be at stake. If they stoned the woman, they must be very sure of the witnesses.
8-9 Jesus stooped again and resumed his writing.26 But as the significance of his words sunk in, the men went out. The continuous tense in this last verb gives the thought of something like a procession. They kept on going out. The exodus began with the elders, who would naturally be expected to give a lead and whose greater experience would enable them to grasp more quickly the implications of Jesus' words. They, moreover, would have a certain responsibility to see that justice was done. If the witness was false, or not legally valid, and the woman was killed, the oldest men present would have a major share of the responsibility. So they went out. But the action was not confined to them. The consciences of all were touched, and all went out.27 The woman was left alone. "Left" is a strong word, and might be translated "abandoned."28 When the force of Jesus' words struck home they were no longer interested in her sin, but in their own. They made no attempt to interfere with her, for she was left "still standing there."29
10 Jesus addresses the woman. "Woman" is not a harsh form of address. It is used by Jesus on the cross as he addresses his mother (19:26). Now he asks the adulteress where her accusers are, and goes on to inquire whether no one has condemned her. She assures him that this is indeed the case.
11 Jesus' answer brings the incident to a fitting conclusion. He, too, will not condemn her. But that does not mean that he condones her sin; he tells her to sin no more. The form of the command implies a ceasing to continue an action already started: "Stop your sinful habit."30 And "no more" (NIV paraphrases with "leave your life of sin") points to the thought of no return. She is to make a clean break with sin. Jesus does not refer specifically to adultery (though there cannot be any doubt but that that is primarily in mind). His words are perfectly general. He is calling the woman to amendment of life, the whole of life. It should not be overlooked that he says nothing about forgiveness. The guilty woman had as yet given no sign of repentance or of faith. What Jesus does is to show mercy and to call her to righteousness.31
—————————————
1. There is a convenient summary of the evidence in Hoskyns, pp. 563-64. The most considerable support for it is D, but the evidence against it is overwhelming. It is not found in any of the oldest MSS apart from D; its only attestation is Western or late, and it is omitted even by some of the Western witnesses. It is generally said that it is not referred to by the Fathers other than Western ones, but Bart D. Ehrman, on the basis of recently discovered MSS, has shown that it was known to Didymus the Blind, a fourth-century Alexandrian (NTS, 34 [1988], pp. 24-44).
2. In this position it may be intended as an appendix to the four Gospels rather than specifically to this Gospel.
3. ote such things as the frequent use of δέ instead of John's οὖv; πορεύομαι εἶς (v. 53) where John prefers πρός (14:12,28; 16:28, etc., though he uses εὶς in 7:35); όρθρου (v. 2) as in Luke 24:1, whereas John uses πρωΐ (18:28; 20:1); λαός (v. 2) is used often in Matthew and Luke, but only occasionally in John, who prefers ὅχλος; άπό τοῦ νῦv (v. 11) is not found in John, though it is frequent in Luke (Luke 1:38; 5:10, etc.). Stylistically the passage belongs with the Synoptics rather than with John.
4. Tenney speaks of "its ancient character and undoubtedly historic truthfulness." Most scholars would accept this as a fair statement.
5. Eusebeius reports Papias as having "expounded another story about a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains" (HE 3.29.17; cited from Loeb edn.). Though Papias speaks of "many sins" and our narrative of but one, it is not impossible that Papias is referring to another version of this story. No other is known of a woman accused before our Lord of sinning.
6. Mark mentions Bethany as the place to which Jesus withdrew (Mark 11:11-12). but, as C. Ε. B. Cranfield says, Luke "does not contradict this, since Bethany could be regarded as the Mount of Olives" (on Mark 11:11).
7. γραμματεύς is found 22 timses in Matthew, 21 times in Mark, and 14 times in Luke, so that John's total omission of the term is striking.
8. For a useful account of the scribes and Pharisees see W. Barclay, The Mind of Jesus (London, 1960), pp. 158ff. He neatly sums up the differences between the two: "It was the scribes who worked out all these rules and regulations; it was the Pharisees who devoted their whole lives to the keeping of them" (p. 161).
9. The perfect, xατειλημμένην, indicates "taken with her shame upon her"; it points to her continuing character as an adulteress.
10. Cf. R. Samuel: "In the case of adulterers, they (sc. the witnesses) must have seen them in the posture of adulterers" (B. Mes. 91a; Soncino edn., p. 524).
11. In his very valuable article on this incident in NTS, X (1963-64), pp. 1-26, he stresses that the witnesses must have seen the couple in coitu. "There is absolutely no question of their having seen the couple in a 'compromising situation', for example, coming from a room in which they were alone, or even lying together on the same bed. The actual physical movements of the couple must have been capable of no other explanation, and the witnesses must have seen exactly the same acts at exactly the same time, in the presence of each other, so that their depositions would be identical in every respect" (pp. 4-5). He points out that conditions were so stringent that they could have been met only on rare occasions. Thus provision was made for the ordeal (sotah) when the husband was suspi-cious, but had not the proof required.
12. There is more than one possible motive. A good one is the material one. If a man divorced his wife she would take her property with her. But if she died he would succeed to it.
13. DF takes μοιχευομένη as a middle in accordance with Attic use (101); the active would be used of the man. BAGD, however, reminds us of the use of the accusative of the object τινά (γυναίκα) after the active, which "explains the use of the passive in the case of the woman." It cites a number of examples, including this passage. Cf. also Matt. 5:32. LS cites the passive as classical.
14. The word is αυτόφωρος. From φώρ, "a thief," it properly denotes "caught in the act of stealing," but it comes to be used of other offenses. It leaves no room for doubt.
15. In Jewish understanding a man was guilty of adultery only if he had sexual relations with a betrothed or married woman, but a woman was guilty if she had sexual relations with anyone other than her husband.
16. Strangulation is the penalty for adultery according to the Mishnah (Sanh. 11:1), though stoning is the method of execution when the woamn is betrothed (Sanh 7:4). But there does not seem to be evidences of the use of strangling in Jewish penal procedure before the fall of Jerusalem. See P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), pp. 67-74; he notes that Herod had certain people strangled (p. 188, n. 21), but denies that Jewish penal procedure knew this form of execution until the second century. Derrett says, "We know now that the traditional punishment for adultery by a married woman was stoning" (p. 11).
17. It is possible that there was no properly constituted Jewish court to conduct such a trial. See the evidence in Derrett, p. 9, n. 4. Lynching would then be the only way of securing execution, for the Romans would not order death for such an offense.
18. Cf. Bernard, "although the Roman authorities were lax on occasion about such acts of violence (as in the case of Stephen, Acts 758), there would have been a good pretext for handing Him over to them to deal with." J. Jeremias similarly argues that the Jews had no right to put anyone to death, so that an answer affirming the death penalty could be construed as usurping the functions of the Roman authorities (ZNTW, 43 [1950-51], pp. 145-50).
19. There is some evidence that a large number of people did view the death penalty as too severe. The main reasons for thinking this are that the death penalty seems rarely to have been carried out, although the offense was common. I. Abrahams speaks of "the great prevalence of adultery" (Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, I [Cambridge, 1917], p. 74); demanding the death penalty would imply a readiness for many executions. He also says that the death penalty for adultery "can never have been frequently enforced" (p. 73). It was apparently much more usual for the husband to divorce his erring wife and receive compensation from the man. The Mishnah tractate Sotah seems to take it for granted that the punishment for adultery would be divorce, and it does not look for the death penalty. For example, it provides that an adulteress is forbidden both to her husband and to her paramour (Sot. 5:1), which indicates that neither party was executed,
20. ome think that he did not wish to look at the hideous sight of professedly godly men hounding the woman. Cf. Temple: "But the Lord is tortured with the horror of it all. He will not look at them or at her. He stoops down to hide the burning confusion of His face and relieves His agitation by tracing patterns in the dust." Calvin is of the opinion that the gesture is to show that Jesus despises them.
21. The verb is xατέγραφεν, not found elsewhere in the New Testament. The uncompounded ἕγραφεν, however, is found in v. 8, that points to meaning here of "was writing" rather than "was drawing" (the imperfect tense points to a continuing activity). Godet and others see in the action "a meaning analogous to that of the saying of Jeremiah (xvii.13); 'Those who turn aside from Me shall be written in the earth.'" The gesture would mean that the accusers had "turned aside" from God.
22. T. W. Manson is of this opinion: "the action of Jesus might be explained from the well-known practice in Roman criminal law, whereby the presiding judge first wrote down the sentence and then read it aloud from the written record.... Jesus by this motion says in effect: 'You are inviting me to usurp the function of the Roman Governor. Very well, I will do so; and I will do it in the approved Roman manner.' He then stoops down and pretends to write down the sentence, after which he reads it out: 'whoever among you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.'. . . Jesus defeats the plotters by going through the form of pronouncing sentence in the best Roman style, but wording it so that it cannot be executed" (ZNTW, 44 [1952-53], pp. 255-56). Against this, it is unlikely that Jesus would act in accordance with Roman rather than Jewish law. An ancient opinion is that Jesus wrote the sins of the accusers (cf. Job 13:26).
23. quot;Now if one reads 
instead of ... the result is impressive. Jesus is then considering joining with Evil in the abstract, associating in an evil matter" (Derrett, p. 20). If Jesus did in fact write this, those who read it might be uncertain whether he was warning others about associating with evil witnesses or with an unsavory deed, or whether he himself was refusing to have any contact with a case that involved immorality. This would give a reason for them to press him to speak.
24. ome interpreters have thought that the word means "innocent of that particular sin." ἁναμάρτητος is not found elsewhere in the New Testament, but its use in LXX shows that it is not specific. It can denote innocence of various kinds of sin. It was not their indulgence in one particular sin but their general sinfulness that disqualified them from arrogating to themselves the position of God's agents in punishing the sin of others.
25. Derrett, p. 22. The well-known case of Susanna stood as a reminder of the fate of false witnesses.
26. Derrett thinks that this time Jesus wrote, "Keep thee far from a false matter," which the readers would complete with the rest of the verse: "and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty" (Exod. 23:7; but could it be said that this woman was "innocent or honest"?). In the apocryphal book of Susanna Daniel used this very text to condemn the false elders (v. 53). It had thus been the means of bringing wicked men to their death, and the text might well arouse memories of.the incident.
27. "One at a time" is εἶς xαθ' εἶς. BDF explains the curious nominative after xατά as a development from the distributive use of this preposition, "since xαθ' ἕνα xαστον became fixed as καθένα ἕx. and a corresponding nom. was created." They add, "not many example of this vulgarism are found in the NT" (305). GT says that "either κατά is used adverbially, or εις as indeclinable" (sub ες).
28. The word is xατελέφθη. It is used of Levi's abandoning his position as tax collector to follow Jesus (Luke 5:28), and of a man's dying and leaving his wife (Mark 12:19).
29. carcely a translation of ἐν μέσω ούσα. The meaning may be that the entire accusing party went out and the woman remained "in the middle" of the group Jesus had been teaching (v. 2). Augustine in a telling phrase says. Relied sunt duo, misera et miser-icordia (33.5).
30. μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.
31. Cf. Hoskyns, "Here then the mercy of God and His truth meet. For only in the mouth of the sinless Jesus can the full condemnation of sin, and the full demand for the righteousness of God, march with the authoritative pronouncement of His mercy and charity."