John 7:53-8:11, The Woman Accused of Adultery.

[alon]

John 7:53-8:11 (CJB), "Then they all left, each one to his own home. But Yeshua went to the Mount of Olives. At daybreak, he appeared again in the Temple Court, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The -teachers and the P'rushim brought in a woman who had been caught committing adultery and made her stand in the center of the group. Then they said to him, "Rabbi, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in our , Moshe commanded that such a woman be stoned to death. What do you say about it?" They said this to trap him, so that they might have ground for bringing charges against him; but Yeshua bent down and began writing in the dust with his finger. When they kept questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "The one of you who is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Then he bent down and wrote in the dust again. On hearing this, they began to leave, one by one, the older ones first, until he was left alone, with the woman still there. Standing up, Yeshua said to her, "Where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, sir." Yeshua said, "Neither do I condemn you. Now go, and don't sin any more.""

My NASB in the footnotes says this is a "later mss" addition to the original text. It is considered an “orphan text”, as in different manuscripts it is seen in different parts of the Gospel of John, sometimes in other gospels, or not at all in the earliest Aramaic manuscripts. While it is true that Yeshua would have known her heart, and whether she was truly repentant, He typically was not as lax with either sin or, if it was the case, with false accusers. The required witnesses to the accusation, as well as both the accused parties. If she was guilty, the harmed party, not the accusers, would be the first to cast a stone.

So how should we take this story? Should we ignore it as a false addition to the gospel; or should we accept it with the understanding that there are apparent errors as well as that it is probably not authentic?

Dan C

[Frank T. Clark]

I believe it is reasonably accurate and authentic. I could make comments about modern Biblical so-called scholars (critics) and their attempts to reshape the Bible but I will address the accuracy by comparing it to some other scriptures. I will do so without additional comment so that the Holy Spirit may be free to guide the humble and willing. I happen to use the KJV. I hope this does not offend anyone.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[alon]

Frank, well said. However we can't deny the existence of "errors" such as this- things that may have been added by scribes or others. Showing as you did that the story is in fact in agreement with many of Yeshua's teachings a good way to deal with it.

Sometimes as Messianic believers we are predisposed to just throw out these passages which, when we were Christians we would have defended blindly. I tend to think maybe we should look openly and honestly at these types of passages. God's Word will stand up to honest scrutiny.

My ESV Bible, which uses the oldest existing manuscripts for their translation, has the story but with this footnote: "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." I'm not a scholar, so I'll take their word for it that the text is "orphaned." However I do think God is capable of protecting His Word. I think the event, which probably did happen in some form, though possibly not witnessed by the author, is there for a reason. And there are probably reasons it was "orphaned".

Yeshua knew the woman had done it, because He told her to "go, and don't sin any more." He also, as I said, knew her heart and, as God He could forgive sin. However He knew the hearts of the religious leaders as well, who in their zeal to catch Him in a mistake had themselves perverted the law; bringing with them neither the witnesses nor her husband or family, the wronged parties. They wanted to make Yeshua a party to summary justice, without due process.

So there are lessons here. As you pointed out, scripture upholds these lessons. Was the text "orphaned" to make the point that the law is still more important than our own interpretations of the law? I don't know- I'm still working through this one, looking for input.

Dan C

[Frank T. Clark]

My simple belief. God preserves His Word. We believe God is omnipotent (all-powerful). Therefore, He has the ability to preserve the truth He intends and we need. The Holy Spirit will guide us to ALL truth through the Word.

I will also make a simple observation about the value of the newly found and "older" manuscripts. Consider this thought. Those manuscripts that were treasured and promoted by the power of God, were copied and preserved by multiple copies and general use. The original manuscripts would also be used up and therefore in poor condition and would not endure.

Those that were not treasured would not be copied and preserved in multiple sources and general use. They would be less used and in better condition to endure.

Ask yourself some questions and investigate for truth. The first example question: How many copies of these "older" and therefore supposedly better manuscripts are there? What does this mean? Is it God who has suddenly "revealed" supposedly new truth we need through these manuscripts?

Pray and meditate on God's Word to provide guidance on evaluating these new "older" manuscripts.

[alon]

I think I see what you are saying. However I wouldn't reject a manuscript out of hand just because it is older but survived in good condition. There are many examples of this happening. Furthermore, the oldest manuscript, recently found, seems to back up the "newer" ones finally used in most translations.

This is another text that has recently come up for me in discussion. These are out there, and denying their existence only leaves us unprepared to deal with objections, accusations or misinterpretations.

I personally have no problems questioning scripture. If I hadn't questioned, I wouldn't be Messianic.

God's Word will stand on its own. It's there, and for a reason. And like you pointed out, it is in alignment with scripture. The supposed "inaccuracies" in the story turn out to be the very reasons Yeshua was able to let the woman go without violating . There were no witnesses, no cohort, and no aggrieved party. That plus her heart condition and that of the religious leaders meant He could say to her "go and sin no more." (KJV)

What puzzles me though is the fact that it is "orphaned." God doesn't do anything without reason. Why is this text apparently second hand and certainly all over the place?

Dan C

[jimmie]

The story of the birth of Christ as found in the Gospel of Luke is left out of The Gospel of the LORD composed by Maricon (some what of a Gnostic leader). Should we throw out the birth story because it is not contained in Maricon’s early transcript? Or is it safe to assume that Maricon edited Luke’s transcript (which is lost) to suit his Gnostic leaning? There were false teachers/wrighters around when the Gospels and other texts were composed.

Prov. 25: 19 Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint.

[alon]

Uhhhh, I'm gonna say "NO."

If you know he is a gnostic, trained in the Greek school of thought and mythological interpretative system, why would you accept anything he writes, copies or says at face value?

Yes, there were false teachers at this time. Yeshua authored seven letters dealing with this problem in Revelation.

As for the Gospel of Luke being "lost," I believe the entire B'rit Chadasha was "lost," stolen or destroyed by Constantine and the Roman church. This is because it was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. They needed it in Greek so they could "sanitize" it, removing the "taint" of Judaism from their "New" religion.

Dan C

[Tuviya ben-Chesed]

Dan, you asked: "So how should we take this story? Should we ignore it as a false addition to the gospel; or should we accept it with the understanding that there are apparent errors as well as that it is probably not authentic?"

I've long felt that the story of the woman accused of adultery is canonical, even though we may not be sure who penned it and where it belongs in Scripture. The story also seems free from error.

If the woman was caught in the act of adultery as her accusers claimed, the man caught with her should've also been brought forward for execution. By not condemning her, Yeshua showed that God does not condone the sexually discriminatory use of the death penalty. What He wrote on the ground likely reminded the accusers of their violation of the so that they were shamed into leaving.

This passage has given me much to think about when I hear of people on death row who claim to be victims of discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, etc. I wonder what Yeshua would do. Surely He must disagree with the discriminatory use of the death penalty in Muslim lands.

You believe that the B'rit Chadasha was inspired originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, then was destroyed under Constantine and replaced with a Greek translation that removed the taint of Judaism. I've heard that theory and run into some people who believe it, but I've never seen any evidence for it. Another possibility is that the Greek in the B'rit Chadasha is heavily influenced by Hebrew and Aramaic since it comes from Jewish writers with a Jewish worldview.

Dan Gruber's book The Separation of Church & Faith notes that the B'rit Chadasha, like the LXX, contains unusual grammar and syntax that seem borrowed from Hebrew. Brother Gruber calls it Jewish Greek.

[Tuviya ben-Chesed]

Jun 16, 2013 6:59:20 GMT -8 Frank T. Clark said:

My simple belief. God preserves His Word. We believe God is omnipotent (all-powerful). Therefore, He has the ability to preserve the truth He intends and we need. The Holy Spirit will guide us to ALL truth through the Word.

I will also make a simple observation about the value of the newly found and "older" manuscripts. Consider this thought. Those manuscripts that were treasured and promoted by the power of God, were copied and preserved by multiple copies and general use. The original manuscripts would also be used up and therefore in poor condition and would not endure.

Those that were not treasured would not be copied and preserved in multiple sources and general use. They would be less used and in better condition to endure.

Ask yourself some questions and investigate for truth. The first example question: How many copies of these "older" and therefore supposedly better manuscripts are there? What does this mean? Is it God who has suddenly "revealed" supposedly new truth we need through these manuscripts?

Pray and meditate on God's Word to provide guidance on evaluating these new "older" manuscripts.

Brother Frank, what's your opinion of the NKJV and its textual notes? Apparently you prefer the Received Text to the Nestles/UBS type of text. May I ask what your opinion is of the Majority Text? The MT often sides with the RT against the NU in the Gospels, Acts, and the epistles, but then sides with the NU against the RT in Revelation.

A textual difference at Mark 7:19 raises the question whether Yeshua "declared all foods clean" (NU) or simply said foods in the stomach are eliminated, "thus purifying all foods" (RT & MT). We've had some discussions about this during fellowship meals after our services.

[alon]

Jun 17, 2013 18:25:02 GMT -8 Tuviya ben-Chesed said:

I've long felt that the story of the woman accused of adultery is canonical, even though we may not be sure who penned it and where it belongs in Scripture. The story also seems free from error.

Agree about its being canonical. The same "problem" (if indeed it is a problem) occurs in the itself. Jewish scholars often comment in my TNK Study Bible that many passages were apparently "priestly" later additions to the text. However neither they nor I think this invalidates the . I don't think I ever thought the was "written" by Moses. I'd say it was compiled under his authority and instruction.

If the woman was caught in the act of adultery as her accusers claimed, the man caught with her should've also been brought forward for execution. By not condemning her, Yeshua showed that God does not condone the sexually discriminatory use of the death penalty. What He wrote on the ground likely reminded the accusers of their violation of the so that they were shamed into leaving.

Absolutely in agreement. Good point about "discrimination" also. Yeshua often spoke against that in any form.

You believe that the B'rit Chadasha was inspired originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, then was destroyed under Constantine and replaced with a Greek translation that removed the taint of Judaism. I've heard that theory and run into some people who believe it, but I've never seen any evidence for it. Another possibility is that the Greek in the B'rit Chadasha is heavily influenced by Hebrew and Aramaic since it comes from Jewish writers with a Jewish worldview.

Dan Gruber's book The Separation of Church & Faith notes that the B'rit Chadasha, like the LXX, contains unusual grammar and syntax that seem borrowed from Hebrew. Brother Gruber calls it Jewish Greek.

LOL, I like the term "Jewish Greek". I've thought of this possibility, however I still go with the original language theory. They were Jews, not Greeks. The writings, when converted into Hebrew make much more sense. There is also the fact that most of the Greek NT is in a lower form of Greek used for translating from other languages. Oddly, the one book that was almost certainly penned in Greek is the book of Hebrews. It uses a higher, poetic form of Greek, and the idioms and word plays are decidedly Greek in nature. (note: I'm no scholar, so in fact rely on others for this information. I am, admittedly, prone to accept this theory also; so not arguing from authority or saying I'm absolutely right. It's just the way I see it).

The historical facts bear out that both Constantine and the Roman church were anti-Semitic, and engaged in "sanitization" of their "New" religious document. Whether this included the destruction of Hebrew texts or not I leave to you. I will say that if God allowed it, then it was for a reason. Ha satan's schemes never seem to work out, poor devil. That Greek version ended up evangelizing the world- the gentile obsession with pork notwithstanding!

Dan C

[Frank T. Clark]

I think my comments were slightly misunderstood. I am not for or against any translation. I believe they are all God's Word. I am absolutely against the idea of using any translation to criticize another translation. All translations (or the TNK for that matter) need to be studied carefully with potential problems addressed by the content and context of the entire Bible. I prefer to promote study and understanding rather than criticism of any sort. I am uncomfortable with any claim of outright error in God's Word. There is certainly confusion, uncertainty, and difficulty in understanding God's Word. I maintain this is not the same as outright error. We are told very clearly that careful, diligent study is required and in fact requires our complete commitment of all our heart, mind, and soul.

I will confess I am most comfortable with the KJV simply because I have studied, memorized, and read it for over 50 years. That is not a promotion of the KJV or a criticism of any other translation. I would hesitate to make a blanket recommendation of any particular translation. I would certainly not recommend the KJV because I acknowledge it is grammatically awkward and archaic. My familiarity leads me to see the words as very beautiful but only because I know it so very well.

[alon]

Frank, thanks for the clarification. This is how I saw your posts any way, but it's good to be clear.

So maybe I should clarify as well: notice that when I use words like "error," I usually (if not always) put it in quotation marks or comment on it (or both). This is because I am not saying the Bible itself is in error. Always it is either a translational error, or our understanding is in error. There are minor inconsistencies to be sure, however these always end up validating rather than repudiating scripture.

This passage is a good example. Those "discrepancies" (note the quotes), as both myself and Tuvia point out, are the very reasons Yeshua was able to not condemn her without violating the !

As I've said before, the Word will stand up to scrutiny and honest questioning. However I'd rather practice this with you all than get blindsided by some demoniac who wants only to discredit the Word. Apreciate that you keep things grounded.

Dan C

[alon]

A little more on "Jewish Greek"!

Let's say for sake of argument that the entire "NT" was originally written in Greek. The problem is that the vast majority of conversations and speeches, especially in the gospels, were made by Jews to Jewish listeners and Jewish audiences. Their native tongue was Hebrew and/or Aramaic, so it stands to reason this is the language that would have been used. So the idioms, word-plays and turns of phrase were Jewish, which is (as I'm told) vastly different than those of Greek. Why then would Jewish witnesses record these events in Greek? Why destroy the gist of what was said by the man you recognize as the Messiah just to use a lower form of a foreign language- the language of a fairly recent oppressor?

As it turns out, when the B'rit Chadasha is back-translated into Hebrew, in most books the idioms and word-play is restored. So right off the bat we have a huge translational problem, wherein God's Word may have been compromised by use of a pagan tongue. Fortunately the solution appears simple; back translate where applicable.

To be clear, the basic message is still there, whether we translate to English from Greek or back-translated Hebrew texts. I believe most modern translators look at several texts to get the gist of what is said as accurate as possible.

Dan C

[Tuviya ben-Chesed]

Jun 19, 2013 10:56:24 GMT -8 alon said:

A little more on "Jewish Greek"!

Let's say for sake of argument that the entire "NT" was originally written in Greek. The problem is that the vast majority of conversations and speeches, especially in the gospels, were made by Jews to Jewish listeners and Jewish audiences. Their native tongue was Hebrew and/or Aramaic, so it stands to reason this is the language that would have been used. So the idioms, word-plays and turns of phrase were Jewish, which is (as I'm told) vastly different than those of Greek. Why then would Jewish witnesses record these events in Greek? Why destroy the gist of what was said by the man you recognize as the Messiah just to use a lower form of a foreign language- the language of a fairly recent oppressor?

I've wondered if the Jewish Greek used fulfills the prophecy that "by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue the LORD will speak to this people" (Isaiah 28:11 cf. 1 Corinthians 14:21). For a long time, most of the witnessing that believers have done with Jewish people has been in languages other than Hebrew. In fact, the Hebrew language was dead until it was revived in the late 1800s.

Jun 19, 2013 10:56:24 GMT -8 alon said:

As it turns out, when the B'rit Chadasha is back-translated into Hebrew, in most books the idioms and word-play is restored. So right off the bat we have a huge translational problem, wherein God's Word may have been compromised by use of a pagan tongue. Fortunately the solution appears simple; back translate where applicable.

To be clear, the basic message is still there, whether we translate to English from Greek or back-translated Hebrew texts. I believe most modern translators look at several texts to get the gist of what is said as accurate as possible.

I'm confident that God can communicate His word in any language. As we know, on Shavuot devout Jews from many foreign lands heard God's word preached in their native tongues (Acts 2:11).

I don't think a good translation compromises Scriptural truths, but it does lose some subtle things such as plays on words. Understanding these truths in the original language is probably like looking at a color photograph versus a black and white one. The colors don't change the objects in the photograph, but they do bring out subtle shades that may be missed in black and white.

[alon]

Jun 20, 2013 22:10:20 GMT -8 Tuviya ben-Chesed said:

Jun 19, 2013 10:56:24 GMT -8 alon said:

A little more on "Jewish Greek"!

Why then would Jewish witnesses record these events in Greek?

I've wondered if the Jewish Greek used fulfills the prophecy that "by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue the LORD will speak to this people" (Isaiah 28:11 cf. 1 Corinthians 14:21). For a long time, most of the witnessing that believers have done with Jewish people has been in languages other than Hebrew. In fact, the Hebrew language was dead until it was revived in the late 1800s.

Good observation, and I'm guessing you're probably correct. Regardless of the original language, it was the Greek that survived to be translated into other tongues; and these were the languages that everyone was witnessed to with, including the Jews.

I'm confident that God can communicate His word in any language. As we know, on Shavuot devout Jews from many foreign lands heard God's word preached in their native tongues (Acts 2:11).

I don't think a good translation compromises Scriptural truths, but it does lose some subtle things such as plays on words. Understanding these truths in the original language is probably like looking at a color photograph versus a black and white one. The colors don't change the objects in the photograph, but they do bring out subtle shades that may be missed in black and white.

I agree. There are some translational errors, but the truth is still there and not too hard to find if we engage our minds. God gave us discernment, and He'll give us a spirit of discernment as well if we ask and exercise what we're given.

Dan C