Sunday January 30, 2005
And every man went unto his own house. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
(John 7:53-8:11)
Before we continue with John chapter 8, we must note here that many have questioned the authenticity of this portion of John: 7:53-8:11. The New International Version notes: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."
The problem is that this passage has been omitted in "the four oldest manuscripts-the newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus (s), the Alexandrian (A), the Vatican (B), and the Ephraem ... As well as upwards of fifty Cursive manuscripts." (JFB Commentary, p. 400-401)
But these Bible critics only present their view. The JFB Commentary also gives us the rest of the story:
First, two of these older manuscripts have, "a blank space, as if something had been left out." They also go on to say: "Of the four most ancient manuscripts which want (lack) this section, the leaves of two at this place have been lost - of A, from 6:50 to 8:52; and of the Ephraem from 7:3 to 8:33. We have, therefore no certainty whether those manuscripts contained this section or not. It is found in above three hundred of the Cursive manuscripts, and above fifty more with an asterisk or other mark of doubt. Of versions, it is found in the Old Latin...and it is found in the Vulgate; while Jerome, to whom we owe that revision of the venerable Old Latin, states that in his time-the fourth century, and we have no manuscripts of an older date than that-this section was found 'in many manuscripts both Greek and Latin'."
"Turning now from external to internal evidence in favor of this section, it appears to us to be almost overpowering. Requesting the reader to recall the exposition of it, we confidently ask if historical authenticity is not stamped upon the face of it-admitting that some such incident as this might not be beyond invention-whether the very peculiar and singularly delicate details of it could be other than real. And if the question be, whether supposing it genuine, there were stronger motives for its exclusion, or if spurious, for its insertion? No one who knows anything of the peculiarities of the early Church can well hesitate. The notions of the early Church on such subjects were of the ascetic description, and to them the whole narrative must have been most confounding. Augustine accordingly says, 'Some of slender faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, have removed it from manuscripts, fearing, I believe, that an immunity to sin might be thought to be given by it." Nor was he alone in ascribing the omission of it to this cause. Such a feeling in regard to this section is sufficient to account for the remarkable fact that it was never publicly read along with the preceding and following context in the early Churches, but was reserved for some unimportant festivals, and in some of the service-books appears to have been left out altogether. In short, to account for its omission, if genuine, seems easy enough; but for its insertion, if spurious, next to impossible." (ibid., p.401)
They go on to say that some scholars try to place it following Luke 21:37-38 instead of in John 8.
One thing is absolutely certain: The One Who said the following, would never excuse or condone adultery.
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Mat 5:27-28)
As it says in our passage:
“This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.”
I heard it suggested that what he wrote on the ground the first time was the actual law, that both the man and the woman were to be stoned. Then the second time He wrote the man’s name, perhaps even one of them among them.
It is curious that they, “went out one by one, beginning at the eldest” The older ones should have known not to have involved themselves in this.
Excusing adultery? No;
Seeing through and exposing their con-game? Yes.