Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
November 8, 2009
Free Newsletters:
RSS Feeds | Audio | Twitter

Home > 2008 > April (Web-only)Christianity Today, April (Web-only), 2008  |   |  
Is 'Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone' Biblical?
Scholars are cautious about the story of the woman caught in adultery.



ADVERTISEMENT

When Dallas Theological Seminary professor Daniel Wallace examined New Testament manuscripts stored in the National Archive in Albania last June, he was amazed by what he did not find.

The story of the woman caught in adultery, usually found in John 7:53-8:11, was missing from three of the texts, and was out of place in a fourth, tacked on to the end of John's Gospel.

"This is way out of proportion for manuscripts from the 9th century and following," Wallace said. "Once we get into that era, the manuscripts start conforming much more to each other. Thus, to find some that didn't have the story is remarkable."

Wallace called modern translations' inclusion of the famous narrative, in which Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and told the woman to "go and sin no more," the result of "a tradition of timidity."

The Roman Catholic Church requires this story to be considered Scripture, and Protestants have not broken with that tradition, even though it is missing from the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. During the 5th century, the church was sorting out what, exactly, should be in the canon of inspired Scripture. Pericope adulterae, as it is known, first appears in a Greek text during this period, although it is alluded to by Greek writers as early as the 2nd century.

Many scholars agree that the verses are not original to John's Gospel, pointing out that the story interrupts the flow of the verses that come before and after. The style is also noticeably different from that of John's usual writing.

But that doesn't mean that all Bible scholars want the story removed. Many of them disagree with Wallace and believe it relays an historical event and that it belongs in our Bible.

"There is no reason to pull this out," said Craig Evans, a professor at Acadia Divinity School. "Nothing about it says Jesus didn't have this encounter." All of the stories about Jesus began orally — it was a few decades before they were written down — so it is possible that this story just did not get written down until much later, Evans said.

Michael Holmes, a professor at Bethel University, doesn't consider the story inspired Scripture. But he said he would include the story in the Bible, because of its long history and because the verses bear the marks of an authentic story about Jesus.

"[Pericope adulterae] does offer us deep insight into how Jesus dealt with questions such as this, and in that sense is a great illustration to live by," he said.

Such judgments raise questions about what words like canonicity and inspiration mean for evangelicals. If we reserve the word inspired for the text in the earliest manuscripts, yet accept that other material (such as the pericope adulterae) should be included in our biblical canon, are we implying that select biblical passages may be canonical yet not inspired? If so, what should we do with this distinction?

Biblical scholars do agree on two things: The Bible story should be set apart with a note, and Christians should be cautious when reading the passage for their personal devotions.

Translation teams have struggled with how best to present the story. Some place brackets around the story (RV, NRSV, GNB, ESV), print it in a smaller font (TNIV), or place it at the end of the gospel (REB), all with notes of explanation, said Howard Marshall, professor at the University of Aberdeen. Textual notes are generally added when the traditional King James Version differs significantly from the texts of the Greek New Testament that today's English translations are based on.

share this pageshare this page



E-mail this pageWrite CTPrint this articlePost a comment





  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]
Average User Rating: 

Displaying 1 - 3 of 63 comments.See all comments
Jack   Posted: May 01, 2008 11:24 PM
> How can I reconcile my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture > with comments in Bible translations that state that a particular verse > is not 'in better manuscripts'? Simple: Change your belief to acknowledge that Scripture is not inerrant--which it isn't. That doesn't mean it's not scripture, however.

Clark Coleman   Posted: April 29, 2008 8:24 PM
2-part reply cont'd (space limitations). As the Pharisees often did, they tested Jesus' divinity claim by giving him a truly unsolvable dilemma. Jesus could advocate disobedience to the Romans (stoning) or not following the law strictly (not stoning). His answer amounts to: Your dilemma is caused by your own sins, which are the reason God permits heathens to rule over the Promised Land and you. If anyone here has no sin, he is not responsible for this dilemma, and he can cast the first stone. Of course, no such man existed. I do not believe that this was a simple message of forgiving all sins, consistent with the Sermon on the Mount, etc. Jesus would have to advocate a blanket amnesty from punishment under the law in order to be consistent with such interpretations. Why amnesty for one woman out of all sinners, while thieves, etc., continue to get the prescribed punishments? Why not ask where the offending man is, if that was his point? Jesus made a 1st century Jewish/Roman point.

Clark Coleman   Posted: April 29, 2008 7:50 PM
I believe that the proper interpretation of the verse resolves the tension between this verse and the rest of scripture. Though many here have denied that such tension exists, you don't have to look too deeply to find it. As some have pointed out, we are called to judge sins in the church, which is not the same as judging someone's eternal destiny. Furthermore, the law required death for adultery, and Jesus was not setting aside the law before his crucifixion. Leviticus 20:10 might prescribe death for both the man and woman in adultery, it is a leap of logic to infer that one party cannot be punished without the other. New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce explained the dilemma facing the Pharisees in this passage. The law required death, but Roman law did not permit a death sentence for adultery. The Jews lived under Roman law. If they stoned the woman, they would be prosecuted for murder by the Romans. If they don't stone her to death, they are not following the law.

The allotted time for commenting has ended.

sponsors 








[Browse More Christianity Today]

Search






















Search by Name
Or use Advanced Search to search by program, region, cost, affiliation, enrollment, more!

Search by:





Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Outcomes
Kyria.com
Your Church
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com