A Textual History of this Passage

The pericope of the “woman caught in adultery” is beloved and well-known. And yet, it does not appear in the oldest manuscripts of John’s Gospel. When it is found in older manuscripts it is located in other positions, either after verse 36, or after verse 44, or at the end of this Gospel, or even in another gospel: following Luke 21:38. 

We are left to conjecture that the biblical scribes thought it too important to be lost but had little clue as to its proper location. Further complicating the provenance of the passage, the different manuscripts do not agree on the text either. In addition, some scholars hold that the style of writing is not consistent with the remainder of the gospel. Other don’t disagree, but hold that the passage is too short with limited vocabulary to make definitive judgements about the stylistic quality. But most, if not all, would agree that the spirit of the narrative is compatible with the Johannine message. It is also noted that the passage does not fit well into the context of Chapter 7 while noting 8:12 makes for more logical continuation following 7:52.

Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story is authentic. It is referred to by the late 1st century bishop Papias who was a student of St. John the Evangelist. It is also mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions (2.24). 

If you look closely at your bible you will likely see brackets ([ ]) surrounding the passage with accompanying footnotes referencing its uncertain manuscript history. The Catholic Church has long held it to be part of the Canon of Scripture.


Image Credit: Detail of “Christ and the Adulteress” Rembrandt, 1644 | National Gallery London | PD-US

A Reflection from Pope Francis

Reflecting on the story in John’s gospel of the woman caught in adultery, Pope Francis says: “the Gospel says that everyone went away, one by one, beginning with the elders: it is evident that they had a big debt against them in the bank of heaven.” Then comes “the moment of Jesus, the Confessor”. He was left alone with the woman standing before him. “Jesus was bending down and was writing with his finger on the ground. .. Then “he got up and looked” at the woman, who was “full of shame, and he said to her: Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? We are alone, you and I. You are standing before God, without accusations, without gossip: you and God”.

Continue reading →

Jesus’ Response to the Leaders

This coming Sunday is the 5th Sunday in Lent and our gospel is the “women caught in adultery.” When Jesus heard what the teachers of the law said, Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. There is no hint of why he wrote or what he wrote. One scholar offered that Jesus wrote out Ex 23:1 “You shall not repeat a false report. Do not join the wicked in putting your hand, as an unjust witness, upon anyone.”  Another suggested: “O Lord, the hope of Israel, …those who turn away from you shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living water.” (Jer 17:13 ESV)  The suggestion is that “written in the earth” is the polar opposite of being written in the book of life (Ex 32:32; Dan 12:1).  But already mentioned, there is no hint of why he wrote or what he wrote. 

Continue reading →

The Challenge of the Jewish Leaders

This coming Sunday is the 5th Sunday in Lent and our gospel is the “women caught in adultery.” Today we consider  the challenge presented to Jesus by the Jewish leaders. It is a challenge which also includes a callus and demeaning treatment of the women. If she had committed adultery the previous evening , then have these opponents been holding her during the night and waiting for Jesus to show up in order to use her to test him? Has been apprehended in the early hours of the morning? In either case her fear would have been palpable.  Putting her in the midst of the crowd would have added public humiliation. 

Continue reading →

Son of Moses? Son of God?

This coming Sunday is the 5th Sunday in Lent and our gospel is the “women caught in adultery.” In the previous post we introduced some preliminary background on the Law of Moses pertaining to this circumstance. It is also clear that the intention of the scribes and Pharisee was to simply use the woman and her circumstances “so that they could have some charge to bring against [Jesus]” (v.6) in order to fulfill their own murderous intent against Jesus (7:1). Their immediate goal is to trap Jesus between the requirements of the Law and his teaching of forgiveness and reconciliation. Will Jesus show himself to be a true son of Moses and do what the Law requires, i.e. agree that stoning the woman is the God-intended course of action? Will he defy the law and offer forgiveness?

Continue reading →

Contention in Jerusalem

The gospel for the 5th Sunday in Lent, lectionary cycle C, is the story of the woman caught in adultery. The placement of this pericope falls between Jesus’ contentious encounter with religious leadership during the Festival of Tabernacles and  Jesus’ dialogue that begins, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12) – which begins another contentious encounter. As many commentators have noted, the John 7 dialogue seems to flow more smoothly into the “Light of the World” discourse than the story of the woman caught in adultery. More on this later.

In any event, our gospel is another point of contention with the religious authorities in Jerusalem. Jesus has already sensed that “some” meant to kill him (Jn7:12) which to be the rumor on the street (v.25). The Pharisees, concerned about the rumbling of the crowds, send guards to arrest Jesus (v.32). Failing on that point, they will seek to engage him on other matters and at other times.

Continue reading →

Repentance

The parable of the Lost Sheep ends with: “I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.”  The parable of the Lost Coin ends with: “In just the same way, I tell you, there will be rejoicing among the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” On one hand, that presents an absurd image. The idea of a sheep repenting is only slightly less absurd than the idea of a coin repenting.

Richard Jensen (Preaching Luke’s Gospel, p.167) suggests “The only possible action in this story that could constitute repentance is the finding of the lost. Repentance, therefore, may be defined as our acceptance of being found. Jensen goes on to write, “Repentance is our acceptance of the reality that God has found us in Jesus Christ. This means, of course, that we acknowledge our own “lostness.” [p. 169].  He points this out specifically in the case of the prodigal son: “The father simply gives him back his sonship as an act of grace. The son accepts. He repents: he accepts being found!” [p. 175]

Continue reading →

The Older Son Who Stayed at Home

The story would be complete as it stands with the return of the prodigal son and the father’s open-armed acceptance. But another story interlocks with this one. The elder son’s anger and self-righteousness make him resentful; not even the return of his brother will make him share the family celebration. The tragedy here is that while the older son has never left home, never disobeyed, and has “slaved” faithfully – he has also never felt rewarded and thus resents the father’s joy at his brother’s return. In contrast to joy, the older son feels anger or rage which is freely expressed in every gesture (refusal to enter the house) and word (his responses to his father). The anger he feels for his father is transferred to his brother. The older son has not only failed to recognize his privileged position with his father, but he is also blind to the fact that his father offers him the same constant care and concern – the father comes out to him also, seeking what is being lost.

Continue reading →

The Homecoming

Calamity finally brings him to his senses and the story pivots in v.17. He concocts a plan that has him returning to his home and engaging as a hired servant. He carefully rehearses his speech: “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers.”  He expects to be treated with cold reserve and suspicion. But his father still loves him. 

Tashjian notes “As Westerners we cannot really understand what the father has done unless we put ourselves in the context of Eastern culture and way of thinking. The son had dishonored his father and the village by taking everything and leaving. When he returns in tattered clothes, bare-footed and semi-starved, he would have to get to the family residence by walking through the narrow streets of the village and facing the raised eye-brows, the cold stares, the disgusted looks of the town people. So when the son is still far off, before he has entered the outskirts of the village, the father sees him and decides immediately what he must do. In compassion for his son and to spare him the pain of walking through the gauntlet of the town alone, he runs to him, falls on his neck, and kisses him.”

Continue reading →

Inheritance

The parable, the longest in the Gospels, consists of three main parts: (1) the departure of the younger son to a distant land where he squanders his inheritance (vv.11-19), (2) the homecoming of the son and welcome by his father (vv.20-24), and (3) the episode between the father and the older son who stayed at home (vv.25-32).  How this parable differs is that what is lost is a human person – one who has existing human relationships with his father and his brother.  The younger son’s metanioa is not simply a change of his mind in absence of these relationships. Repentance necessarily involves those relationships. 

Continue reading →