Did Jesus Forgive the Adulteress Woman?

[Suzie]

Except that punishments of death were administered by the Roman occupiers. An attempt to trap the Savior? Could that be part of the reason for HIS response?

I am not sure. Even though it was illegal for Jews to stone someone to death, it didn't stop them from doing it (Stephen's death is just one example) and the Romans apparently ignoring it. It seems to have been a matter of who was the person going to be stoned and whether or not it would have caused a riot among the people.

[Guest]

Anatess, livy is pointing out that very real likelihood that this much beloved story is not an actual account, and may not belong in scripture. LDS theology, even more than my own, bolster's this point--the Bible is true as far as it is translated correctly. Well, part of that would be including the right verses. The longer ending to the gospel of Mark has been questioned for decades. Even translations that include it, usually bracket it off, and include notations very much like what livy shared.

My sense is that the lessons of the story can be found in other passages. So I may use the story as illustration. However, I would not build foundational doctrine on disputed passages like this.

Why your illustration does not work is that you wrote both editions in your example, as well as the compilation. Livy is suggesting that the longer ending of Mark was not part of the original manuscript--that it was never something the author wrote.

Including the right verses has nothing to do with WHEN it got included. It only has something to do with AUTHORITY of the people who added it to the original collection. So that, saying, it's not true because it was added later doesn't hold water. Of course you can always say, the versions of the Bible past 1611 are all wrong because the authorship of the last chapters of John are in question, then sure. I'll take that. But, since I believe in the restored gospel, it doesn't matter to me.

And the authorship does not matter. If PC decides to add to my book on President Marcos 10 years later and somebody else compiled it into Marcos' biography that I originally wrote, it doesn't make PC's accounts any less true than what was included in mine.

[Maureen]

Bible.org offers this information about the woman caught in adultery story:

1tc This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë1 places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (Ë13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).

sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

NET Bible : The Biblical Studies Foundation

M.

[Convert55]

I came in late on this thread, but I did find that President Kimball’s Miracle of Forgiveness is on line in PDF format. In Google type in “kimball miracle of forgiveness pdf “

The quote from Miracle of Forgiveness has no page number but this is the quote:

... The woman's accusers were "convicted by their own conscience";

shamed and in disgrace they slunk away. ... They knew themselves to be unfit to

appear either as accusers or judges. ... "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."8 2

Note that the Lord did not forgive the woman of her serious sin. He commanded

quietly, but forcefully. "Go, and sin no more." Even Christ cannot forgive one

in sin. The woman had neither time nor opportunity to repent totally. When her

preparation and repentance there complete she could hope for forgiveness, but

not before then.

[prisonchaplain]

And the authorship does not matter. If PC decides to add to my book on President Marcos 10 years later and somebody else compiled it into Marcos' biography that I originally wrote, it doesn't make PC's accounts any less true than what was included in mine.

But what if my great great grandchild entered a poignant, but fictitious account of President Marcos' trip to the new mall in Salt Lake City? What if that insertion was made in 2142, and it is now 2218, and there is nothing in the text to indicate that my great great grandchild's section was an insertion--it all simply appeared to be part of your writing?

Unless the story was part of the original manuscript, there was no authority for the scribe to secretly insert it, without notation or explanation.

So, are you saying that because the Church has adapted the KJV, that whatever is in it is now authorized?

[Just_A_Guy]

I am not sure. Even though it was illegal for Jews to stone someone to death, it didn't stop them from doing it (Stephen's death is just one example) and the Romans apparently ignoring it. It seems to have been a matter of who was the person going to be stoned and whether or not it would have caused a riot among the people.

Perhaps; but you assume that the local political leadership would consider themselves to be morally prohibited from accusing someone of something that they themselves were guilty of.

That certainly isn't true of politicians today; and I doubt it was true two millennia ago either.

FWIW, I think Talmage (in Jesus the Christ) also bought into the notion that the whole thing was a trap to either get Jesus to dismiss the law (and paint Him as a traitor to Moses) or to demand its rigid enforcement (and paint Him as a traitor to Caesar).

[Guest]

But what if my great great grandchild entered a poignant, but fictitious account of President Marcos' trip to the new mall in Salt Lake City? What if that insertion was made in 2142, and it is now 2218, and there is nothing in the text to indicate that my great great grandchild's section was an insertion--it all simply appeared to be part of your writing?

Unless the story was part of the original manuscript, there was no authority for the scribe to secretly insert it, without notation or explanation.

So, are you saying that because the Church has adapted the KJV, that whatever is in it is now authorized?

Okay, let me refer you to the thread titled Willful Misinterpretation...

Okay, restate. The issue is not WHEN it got inserted or even that is inserted period. The question is whether the insertion was accepted by proper authority. So, as an Assembly of God chaplain (you believe in sola scriptura right?), your issue is the authority of the person/s who compiled the insertions into the Bible. If you don't accept that authority, then you go with the version of the Bible whose authority you put your faith on.

As an LDS member, we believe that the Bible is the word of God as long as it is translated correctly. So, we don't put faith in the authority of the compiler of the Bible - any Bible including the KJV. We put faith on the prophets who interpret the contents of it.

Edited July 19, 2012 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

Unless the story was part of the original manuscript, there was no authority for the scribe to secretly insert it, without notation or explanation.

Well, not necessarily. For all we know the story could have been part of a well-known oral--or even a written, but non-canonical and currently undocumented--tradition.

Just because we no longer know what the authority was for the story's inclusion, doesn't mean there was never any authority to begin with. Mormons have the luxury of doing an end-run around the scholarly process by simply having a modern prophet saying "yes, this scriptural story really happened" without delving into textual arguments or being subjected to peer review or other academic rigors; and that seems to be what has happened in this particular case.

[Carl62]

In light of the interpretations made about this story so far, did it ever occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, Jesus really did forgive this woman on the spot and, after forgiving her, told her to start her new life by going "and sin no more"? Why is this so hard to grasp? What I have a hard time wrapping my mind around is how somebody could confess their sin(s) to the Almighty Lord, face to face, and then this not be considered good enough and therefore have to confess their sins even further to authorities who in fact can't hold a candle to the authority that Jesus has, just in order to be truly forgiven.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Carl62

[prisonchaplain]

Both Anatess and J-A-G seem to have suggested that the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery is authentic because LDS prophets have said so. Two questions. Did they? Did a prophet actually say the story is part of the canon, despite the controversy? Or, is this assumed because prophets have taught from it?

[Guest]

Both Anatess and J-A-G seem to have suggested that the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery is authentic because LDS prophets have said so. Two questions. Did they? Did a prophet actually say the story is part of the canon, despite the controversy? Or, is this assumed because prophets have taught from it?

Not that I know of. I mean, I don't know of any prophet who claimed that the story of the adultress is an actual account. But, we do have the statements of the prophets that takes several lessons of that Biblical story to be in alignment with doctrine.

See, that's really the cool thing about LDS. We don't limit ourselves to the good things within the Church alone. We are open to virtuous, lovely, praiseworthy things from any and all sources.

[Dravin]

In light of the interpretations made about this story so far, did it ever occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, Jesus really did forgive this woman on the spot and, after forgiving her, told her to start her new life by going "and sin no more"? Why is this so hard to grasp?

Let's see...

To be fair I can see how one could come to either reading based strictly on the text.

I've sort of come around 180° on this issue. Not that many years ago (well, probably ten or twenty, so maybe it was that many years ago), I firmly believed that Jesus had forgiven the adulterous woman on the spot, seeing her true repentance and all that. I was actually rather indignant that some felt to deny the pure mercies of Christ to one he had seen fit to forgive.

On the other hand, in simply looking at the story, it does seem likely that she received the fullness of the atonement. After all, if Jesus says to you specifically, "Go and sin no more," to me it means I do not have to sin anymore--I am now spiritually empowered to live holy.

Christ DID forgive her. All that is required to be forgiven is to believe and repent. She was likely forced to be humble by the threat of the men seeking to stone her (note that only she was grabbed, and not the male adulterer).

Luke 5:23 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?

Matthew 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

Mark 2:9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?

The real question is, did she go and sin no more?

Now this last one is interpretation, skalenfehl doesn't say he believes she was forgiven but the scripture he quotes lead me to believe that is his position. I'd also include Maureen but I'm not sure if she's saying the woman was forgiven on the spot and thus clean of the sin like it'd never happened or if she's claiming the woman was fasley accused.

What I have a hard time wrapping my mind around is how somebody could confess their sin(s) to the Almighty Lord, face to face, and then this not be considered good enough and therefore have to confess their sins even further to authorities who in fact can't hold a candle to the authority that Jesus has, just in order to be truly forgiven.

1) Where in the narrative does she confess her sins? She's dragged in front of Christ and accused of committing adultery, but where does she claim that she's guilty of the sin and repentant for having committed it? I can see why one would infer that she did such if one believes she was forgiven but it's not anywhere in the text that she did so.

2) I do believe only Bensalem said it was an issue of confessing to priesthood authority (I'm open to correction either by quotation or post # reference), but he was doing so under the assumption that President Kimball was saying it was an issue. An assumption that was corrected by Anatess' quoting of the (or at least a, and baring competing citations I'm inclined to give it preference over uncited assertions) relevant section of the Miracle of Forgiveness.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

Both Anatess and J-A-G seem to have suggested that the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery is authentic because LDS prophets have said so. Two questions. Did they? Did a prophet actually say the story is part of the canon, despite the controversy? Or, is this assumed because prophets have taught from it?

That kind of gets into the old "how do you determine Mormon doctrine?" discussion. But Kimball embraces it; I'm pretty sure Talmage (an apostle who wrote the definitive Mormon study of the life of Christ) embraces it; Joseph Smith at least left it in his translation of the Bible; and the LDS Institute Study Manual and Sunday School Teacher's Manual both take the account at face value. From a Mormon standpoint, I think that the story itself is "pretty darned" close to "doctrine" even though one could probably quibble about whether it actually formed a part of John's earliest account.

[prisonchaplain]

It is a great story.

[volgadon]

I never thought of that, makes the snare all the more ingenious doesn't it? He says, "No, don't stone her." and he is rejecting the Law of Moses, if he says, "Yes, let's do this." then they can run to the Romans about him usurping their authority.

Perhaps, but it is not inconceivable that a blind eye might have been turned when it came to punishing adultery. Attitudes towards it were more or less the same throughout the known world. That is, far from favourable. Not only is discretion the better part of valour, it is also the better part of peace-keeping. Adultery threw the entire social fabric of a community into upheaval. It brought shame on the husband, wrecked marriage chances of children, and disgraced both relatives and community. If left unchecked, adultery might have spread to others, now undettered. It was a wise governor or administrator who interfered little in how a community handled such sensitive, volatile affairs. Of course it wasn't punished by death each time, even back then life came in many shades of gray.

[mrmarklin]

I suspect the whole thing was actually staged to put Jesus in an impossible position ("tempting him, that they might have to accuse him" in the KJV translation). Maybe the "adultress" was a party to it, or maybe she was a well-known neighbourhood "s*ut" whom no one had taken much notice of until she suddenly became useful. Either way, it's interesting nothing is said of the man she supposedly committed adultery with. The stoning - though prescribed by Mosaic law - would have been considered murder under the Roman system. (If you think otherwise, ask yourself why the Sanhedrin didn't simply stone Jesus for blasphemy, instead of handing him over to Pilate. If the highest Jewish court was not authorised to perform an execution, why should a bunch of common-or-garden Pharasees have such power?) Thus if Jesus had approved of the stoning he would have been party to murder, while if he had disapproved of it, his enemies could have accused him of defying the Jewish law in favour of one imposed by foreigners. Jesus - as in the "paying taxes to Caesar" episode - had an answer that took his opponents completely by surprise.

And here I always thought that this was the beginning of the rehabilitation of Mary Magdalene.:)

[Dravin]

Perhaps, but it is not inconceivable that a blind eye might have been turned when it came to punishing adultery. Attitudes towards it were more or less the same throughout the known world. That is, far from favourable. Not only is discretion the better part of valour, it is also the better part of peace-keeping. Adultery threw the entire social fabric of a community into upheaval. It brought shame on the husband, wrecked marriage chances of children, and disgraced both relatives and community. If left unchecked, adultery might have spread to others, now undettered. It was a wise governor or administrator who interfered little in how a community handled such sensitive, volatile affairs. Of course it wasn't punished by death each time, even back then life came in many shades of gray.

Would a blind eye have been turned if a point had been made to rub the Romans' face in it? I can understand the Romans not exactly chomping at the bit to take umbrage but I can see their arm being twisted so to speak. It is of course entirely possible that it wasn't part of any plan. We'll never know unless we manage to speak to those involved.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Dravin

[skalenfehl]

I came in late on this thread, but I did find that President Kimball’s Miracle of Forgiveness is on line in PDF format. In Google type in “kimball miracle of forgiveness pdf “

The quote from Miracle of Forgiveness has no page number but this is the quote:

... The woman's accusers were "convicted by their own conscience";

shamed and in disgrace they slunk away. ... They knew themselves to be unfit to

appear either as accusers or judges. ... "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."8 2

Note that the Lord did not forgive the woman of her serious sin. He commanded

quietly, but forcefully. "Go, and sin no more." Even Christ cannot forgive one

in sin. The woman had neither time nor opportunity to repent totally. When her

preparation and repentance there complete she could hope for forgiveness, but

not before then.

A careful study of an exchange between Alma and Zeezrom will shed light. Christ saves us not in our sins, but from our sins. Hence the reason for my previous post with reference to three scriptures. We cannot know what was in the woman's heart or in the heart of the man with palsy whom Christ healed. I agree with Spencer W. Kimball.

[Just_A_Guy]

And here I always thought that this was the beginning of the rehabilitation of Mary Magdalene.:)

Err . . . maybe not.

[volgadon]

Would a blind eye have been turned if a point had been made to rub the Roman's face in it? I can understand the Romans not exactly chomping at the bit to take umbrage but I can see their arm being twisted so to speak. It is of course entirely possible that it wasn't part of any plan. We'll never know unless we manage to speak to those involved.

It is one of those schemes which could have backfired badly. The majority of Jews were less than keen anyway on compatriots being turned over to the Romans, so imagine the reaction to those who who would have turned Jesus in for upholding traditonal values. This was the sanctity of the family, the honour of the husband, and the reputation of the community at stake. There would definitely have been deep unrest, fueled by myriad other upfronts to the Jewish community. The Romans were haunted throughout their empire by the spectre of revolt. The Jews were especially intractable. A mere hundred years after Christ, the Romans had to put down the Bar Kochba Revolt. One of the causes appears to have been deep-seated resentment of the way Romans high-handedly and ignorantly trampled on Jewish traditions and mores. There are stories of Roman soldiers who,needing spokes for their wheels, uprooted trees which had been planted by parents the for future use of bride and groom, as well as other Romans who requisitioned poultry intended for a wedding feast. The Romans could probably have prevented an uprising were Jesus arrested for upholding the traditional line against adultery, but they would have been hard put to save face. When it was over, why would they trust or find use for such fools as those that caused the incident in the first place?

Like you said, we can't rule out such a plan, dead men tell no tales, but I don't find it very likely.

[volgadon]

This has most of the ancient sources regarding the pericope adulterae. http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf