Joseph Knabenbauer's Commentary on John 8:1-11
The Pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery
1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 And at dawn He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and sitting down, He taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and placed her in the midst. 4 And they said to Him: "Teacher, this woman has just been caught in adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. What, therefore, do You say?" 6 But they said this to test Him, so that they might have grounds to accuse Him. But Jesus, bending down, began to write on the ground with His finger. 7 But when they persisted in questioning Him, He straightened up and said to them: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her." 8 And again, bending down, He wrote on the ground. 9 But they, hearing this, began to go out one by one, starting with the elders; and Jesus was left alone, with the woman standing in the midst. 10 But Jesus, straightening up, said to her: "Woman, where are those who accused you? Has no one condemned you?" 11 She said: "No one, Lord." And Jesus said: "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on sin no more."
Textual Criticism and Authenticity
Concerning this passage and its authenticity, see the arguments presented by Cornely, Introduction, vol. III, 2nd ed., p. 233 ff.
This pericope is found in manuscripts D, F, G, H, K, U, F, and with asterisks in E, M, S, A, Π, and about 15 others; in several minuscules and Armenian codices; in the majority of minuscules (over 300); as Jerome states, "in many Greek and Latin codices"; in b, c, eff², g, Aethiopic, Syriac (harklensis), Vulgate, Arabic, Slavonic, Persian versions; in the Constitutiones Apostolicae 2.24; and is cited by the 4th-century Fathers: Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Euthymius, the Synopsis among the works of Athanasius.
Tischendorf concedes that beginning in the third century this passage began to be read in Greek and Latin manuscripts; moreover, it is certain that among the Greeks, for many centuries, this pericope has been used in liturgical celebrations in memory of holy women—Pelagia, Theodora of Alexandria, Eudocia, Mary of Egypt, and others—as nearly one hundred evangelistaries testify.
In some minuscules it is found at the end of the Gospel; in others, appended to Luke 21:38. Indeed, some recent scholars suppose that it was once common to the Synoptics, or was originally attached to Mark 12:17 or Matthew 22:23 (Hitzig, Wittichen, Holtzmann, Weiss; cf. Schanz). For this reason, even most non-Catholic scholars generally concede that it flowed from apostolic tradition.
It is much easier to explain how this passage could have been omitted than how it could have been admitted and disseminated throughout the world. Augustine indeed says that "some of weak faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing that impunity for sin might be granted to their wives, removed this narrative from their codices" (De adulterinis coniugiis 2.7; Migne 40, 474). Similarly, Nicon affirms concerning the Armenians that "because it is harmful to most who hear it" (De impia Armenorum religione 2; Migne 1, 655).
It was read by Pacian (4th cent., Ad Sympronianum 3.20), Leo the Great (Sermon 62, alias 60), Chrysologus, Sedulius, Cassiodorus. That it was known among the Syrians is attested by Jacob of Serugh, who expounded it in a lengthy sermon (cf. Corluy).
Moreover, it cannot be conveniently detached from the text, as is evident from 8:20, where "teaching in the temple" would be entirely superfluous if this section (7:53–8:11) were omitted; for without this passage, Jesus does not leave the temple, and the entire action takes place on the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles, as stated in 8:2. Verse 15 may contain an allusion to this narrative.
However, the passage is absent in codices א, A, B, C, T, X, L, Ψ; a blank space is left in some; it is missing in many minuscules (over 60) and in many lectionaries (over 30); it is absent in the Old Latin (a, f, q), Gothic, Sahidic, Sinaitic Syriac, Curetonian Syriac, Scholz's group, most Coptic codices; and is not cited by Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Apollinaris, Cosmas, Basil, Ammonius, Nonnus, Theophylact, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, or Juvencus.
Against the authenticity of this pericope is also adduced the diversity of style: ὄρθρου ("at dawn") instead of πρωΐ ("early morning"); πᾶς ὁ λαός ("all the people") instead of ὁ ὄχλος ("the crowd"); ἐνετείλατο ("commanded") instead of a simpler verb; ἀναμάρτητος ("without sin") and κατακρίνειν ("to condemn") are rare in John; οὖν ("therefore") is absent and δέ ("but") is used in its place.
But observe: the original text cannot be discerned amid such variety of readings. For example, instead of ὄρθρου, manuscript Γ (272) reads καὶ ὅτε ("and when"); πᾶς ὁ λαός is also found in 11:50 and 18:14; instead of γραμματεῖς ("scribes")—a word John does not otherwise use—several minuscules, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts have οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ("the chief priests"), while others omit γραμματεῖς; instead of ἐνετείλατο, manuscript D has ἐκέλευσεν ("ordered"); moreover, ἐντέλλομαι is also read in 14:31 and 15:14, 17; instead of κατακρίνειν in verse 11, quite a few manuscripts offer κρίνειν ("to judge"). Furthermore, δέ is also read elsewhere (7:37, 44, four times), and in our pericope, among variant readings, δέ is frequently omitted and καὶ ("and") substituted in its place. Elsewhere too, hapax legomena are found (cf. 9:21, 22, 28: ἡλικίαν ἔχειν, συντίθεσθαι, λοιδορεῖν; cf. Corluy).
From the acts of the Council of Trent, it is unquestionably clear that the Fathers, in their decree on the canonical Scriptures, intended by the term "parts" above all to refer to fragments and particles of the Gospels, and framed the decree in such a way as to remove doubts concerning certain Gospel passages (cf. Theiner, Acta, vol. I, pp. 71 ff., 84 ff.). Therefore, it must be held that this pericope belongs to inspired Scripture. However, that it was written by John himself has in no way been defined.
Corluy treated the question—both dogmatic and critical—at length and with solid scholarship in the periodical Études religieuses, November 1876 and January–February 1877. In his commentary on the Gospel, he himself corrects an error into which he had been led by Le Hir, namely, that this pericope was more probably present in the Syriac [version/codex].
The
ancient commentators, in the catenae compiled on the Gospel of John,
offer no interpretation of this pericope concerning the adulteress. But
Cramer, who edited the catenae on the Gospels (vol. II, p. VI), rightly
notes: "Since, as it seems to me, all the catenae are adapted to the
interpretation of St. Chrysostom, so that they take his exposition as
their basis, this argument against the authenticity of the
pericope—namely, the silence of that Father—ought not to be extended
beyond that silence, however weighty it may be."
It
would be more to the point to review the opinions of anonymous
scholiasts who copied notes into the margins of very many manuscripts of
John's Gospel concerning this pericope. Cramer himself cites a scholion
from a codex apparently dating to the tenth century, in whose margin is
written: "These verses, together with the chapter concerning the
adulteress, are marked with an obelus in some copies" (ταῦτα μετὰ τοῦ
κεφαλαίου τῆς μοιχαλίδος ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων ὠβέλισται).
Barhebraeus notes that the section on the adulteress is found in an Alexandrian codex.
Moreover,
in its style of speaking, this narrative of the adulteress sufficiently
approximates the usage we observe in the vocabulary of the Evangelist:
for example, verse 5: λιθάζειν ("to stone")—a reading better supported
by manuscripts, as in John 10:31, 32, 33; 11:8; and μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε
("sin no more") as in 5:14. The verb ἐρωτᾶν in the sense of "to ask a
question" is very frequent in John (about 17 times) and is also found
here in verse 7 in that sense.
If
you examine the text of the narrative more carefully as it appears in
manuscript D, you will find other features that agree with the
Evangelist's manner of writing: there we find οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ("the Jews"),
as frequently in John; there in verse 4, κατηγορία ("accusation"), as in
18:29—a word not found in the Synoptics; there in verse 4, οἱ ἱερεῖς
("the priests"), as in 1:19.
The same narrative is found in that ancient Didascalia which has come down to us only in a Syriac version, but which forms the basis of the Apostolic Constitutions.
However, those who deny that this pericope belongs to the Evangelist
maintain that it was taken from the apocryphal Gospel of Peter into the Didascalia, and thence into the Apostolic Constitutions.
But very few fragments of that apocryphal Gospel have been discovered,
relating to the history of the Passion and Resurrection; and even if in
one place a slight allusion to the Gospel of Peter is detected, it
certainly does not follow that this narrative too—as Harnack
maintains—was derived from it. For, as Harnack himself admits, many
things occur in that Didascalia that cannot have been derived from that Gospel, since they are plainly opposed to it (cf. Harnack, Bruchstücke des Evangeliums Petri, etc., 2nd ed., pp. 41 ff.). Why, then, should that Didascalia,
originating in the early third century, not be counted among the
witnesses to this pericope in the Gospel? There is no solid reason (cf.
Funk, Die apostolischen Konstitutionen, p. 64), in which work the Didascalia is excellently treated (pp. 28 ff.).
That
this narrative is by no means foreign to the context of the Gospel,
some of the ancients already observed. Thus Bonaventure: "Because they
could not put Him to death, they sought to find an occasion to catch Him
in His speech"; and Rupert: "Because Nicodemus had placed an obstacle,
according to the Law, against their injustice, they now strive with
utmost effort to establish Him as an opponent of the Law, so that no one
thereafter would dare to mutter against their counsel." Among more
recent scholars, Keppler, Grimm, and others show that by this and the
following narrative, the character of the Jesus' opponents is prepared and
delineated. Therefore, the authenticity is also confirmed by the
context.
Textual Variants
- Verse 2: In manuscript D: "and sitting down, He taught them."
- Verse 3: In D: ἁμαρτία ("sin") instead of μοιχεία ("adultery").
- Verse 4: In D, an addition: ἐκπειράζοντες αὐτόν, οἱ ἱερεῖς, ἵνα ἔχωσιν κατηγορίαν αὐτοῦ ("testing Him, the priests, so that they might have grounds to accuse Him"), but this is omitted in verse 6. Also in D: "she spontaneously committed adultery."
- Verses 6, 8: "with the finger" (τῷ δακτύλῳ) in D and several minuscules; Jerome, Augustine, ff²; quite a few codices and the Vulgate read "on the ground" (in terram); E and about 20 others add to verse 8: "the sins of each one of them" (ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας). The same is found in a certain Alexandrian codex (cf. Assemani, Bibl. Orient. 2, 170) and in Jerome, Pelagius 2.17, and Barhebraeus.
- Verse 9: E, G, H, K, S add: "and being convicted by their conscience" (καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς συνειδήσεως ἐλεγχόμενοι).
- Verse 11: "from now on, sin no more" (ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι) in D, M, S, U, and about 140 others; "from this time forward" (ex hoc iam) in cdff²r; "henceforth now" (deinceps iam) in Ambrose, Jerome; "now" (iam) in Augustine.
Verse-by-Verse Exegesis
Jn 8:1
Iesus autem perrexit in montem Oliveti
"But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives."
Just as the others were going home, so Jesus betook Himself to the place where He was later also accustomed to spend the night (Luke 21:37). Euthymius thinks He did this to avoid nocturnal ambushes. The mountain was so called from the olive trees frequently planted there; it was situated to the east of the city, a Sabbath day's journey away (Acts 1:12)—i.e., two thousand cubits, or about a quarter of a league distant (Corluy). Between the city and the mountain lay the Kidron valley.
Jn 8:2
Et diluculo iterum venit in templum… et sedens docebat eos
"And at dawn He came again into the temple… and sitting down, He taught them."
τὸ ἱερόν (to hieron): by this word the entire temple precinct is designated—the whole complex of buildings, porticoes, and courtyards pertaining to the temple—whereas ὁ ναός (ho naos) signifies the sacred edifice itself, consisting of two parts (cf. Grimm, Lexicon).
Et omnis populus ("and all the people"): i.e., a great multitude. On that solemn feast, and with the Jews lying in wait for Him, the eyes of all were turned upon Him; indeed, the very diversity of opinions about Him attracted some to listen to Him.
Et sedens docebat eos: namely, in the courtyard or in some portico (cf. 10:23). It was customary for a teacher to teach while seated (Corluy). The last day of the festival was celebrated with great joy. But joy easily turns into licentiousness.
Jn 8:3
Adducunt autem scribae et pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam et statuerunt eam in medio
"Then the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and placed her in the midst."
Jn 8:4
Et dixerunt ei: Magister, haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio
"And they said to Him: 'Teacher, this woman has just been caught in adultery.'"
They address Him with the honorific title Magister ("Rabbi") to conceal their fraud; for it is not likely that those who call Him "Teacher" and confess themselves as His disciples are asking with evil intent (Maldonatus).
Haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio (ἐπ' αὐτοφώρῳ): i.e., "caught in the very act" (αὐτελέγκτως, αὐτοφανῶς, προδήλως—Euthymius). Properly, "caught in the very theft"; then, generally, "in the very criminal act." They add this so that no further proof may be required—the matter being certain and established, which not even the accused herself could deny (Maldonatus, Toletus).
Jn 8:5
In lege autem Moyses mandavit nobis huiusmodi lapidare. Tu ergo quid dicis?
"Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. What, therefore, do You say?"
Stoning is prescribed for a betrothed girl who commits sin (Deuteronomy 22:23-24); for an adulterous wife, only the penalty of death is stated (Leviticus 20:10). Therefore, she seems not to have been a wife but a betrothed woman (Calmet, Schanz, Weiss, and others conjecture from Ezekiel 16:40 that death was later inflicted on an adulterous wife also by stoning). But since they appeal not to a custom that may have prevailed at some time, but to the Law, we should assent to the former opinion.
Jn 8:6
Hoc autem dicebant tentantes eum, ut possent accusare eum
"But they said this to test Him, so that they might have grounds to accuse Him."
For they supposed that Jesus, because of His kindness and compassion toward sinners, would not sentence her to such a penalty, and thus would pronounce something contrary to the Law (Euthymius, Augustine, Rupert, Thomas, Toletus, Jansenius, Maldonatus, Corluy, Schanz, Fillion). For they were already slandering Him as a friend of tax collectors and sinners. By that accusation of Sabbath-violation because of the healing, they had certainly not gained much with the people; but a much greater hope shone upon them that they might render the people hostile to Him if He openly gave a judgment contrary to the Law in this matter. Therefore, from this aspect too, this narrative fits the context well. For the Pharisees know that a portion of the people thinks well of Jesus, indeed considers Him the Messiah (7:12, 31, 40-41); hence any opportunity to detract from His reputation was welcome to them.
According to others, they wished to seize this opportunity from a twofold source: if He said she ought to be stoned, He would be represented to the people as harsh and merciless, and to the Roman magistrate as one who arrogated to himself the right of the sword (cf. Bede, Cajetan, Lapide, Calmet, Schegg). But they who sought to catch Him were themselves caught.
Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum digito scribebat in terra
"But Jesus, bending down, began to write on the ground with His finger."
This is what those frequently do who do not wish to respond to those asking importunate and unworthy questions. Knowing their plot, He pretended (προσεποιεῖτο) to write on the ground and not to attend to what they were saying (Euthymius). He signifies that it does not pertain to Him to satisfy their question (Jansenius, Calmet); for public judges are present to punish crimes of this sort. Even if a certain penalty is prescribed by law for crimes, it is not for just anyone immediately to inflict that penalty on another; rather, a legitimate forum is established for applying the law. To that man who came to Jesus—not with a testing spirit—asking, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me," Jesus replied: "Man, who made me a judge over you?" (Luke 12:13-14). To that man, Jesus explained that such forensic matters do not pertain to Him. But to the scribes, who were testing Him and who certainly were not ignorant of the legitimate forum, He deigns not to give an answer; but by turning away, He shows contempt for them and indicates they are not worthy of a response or attention.
They sometimes ask how He could write on the pavement. If it was covered with dust, He could form characters; otherwise, it sufficed to trace letters as if forming them with His finger, just as one can form letters and outlines even in the air with a finger (cf. Maldonatus).
They do not wish to understand what Jesus intends to signify, being inflamed with the desire to test Him.
Jn 8:7
Cum ergo perseverarent interrogantes eum, erexit se et dixit eis: Qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem mittat
"But when they persisted in questioning Him, He straightened up and said to them: 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.'"
Sagaciously He thwarted their plots, both observing the Law and sparing the woman, since He permitted the one among them who was free from sin to begin stoning her—knowing that all were subject to sins (Euthymius). All marvel at the wisdom of the response: "a most prudent response, neither contrary to the Law nor alien to clemency, but a way to clemency without offense to the Law, together with the refutation of the malicious" (Cajetan).
They do not approach Jesus as a judge constituted by virtue of His office; they, private individuals, say: "Moses commanded us to stone such women," although Moses did not enjoin this on just anyone. They press importunately for a reply; they merit a reply by which not only are they suddenly cast down from their expectation of catching Jesus in His speech, but they are also overwhelmed with great confusion, publicly and before the people (verse 2).
Jn 8:8
Et iterum se inclinans scribebat in terra
"And again, bending down, He wrote on the ground."
With the sting of His response fixed in their conscience, He wished to give them space to depart quietly (Maldonatus). No one dared to profess himself free from sin—and wisely indeed, for they knew that Jesus also had insight into the secrets of hearts.
Jn 8:9
Audientes autem unus post unum exibant, incipientes a senioribus
"But they, hearing this, began to go out one by one, starting with the elders."
I.e., the more advanced in age—namely, the scribes and Pharisees (verse 3). For these, as being more prudent, perceived that the one thing remaining was to depart. Some add that these, as more conscious of graver offenses, withdrew first (cf. Toletus, Jansenius, Maldonatus, Corluy). They depart one after another, not all together, lest they seem to flee as conquered and confounded, but gradually and one by one, as if each were departing by his own counsel (Maldonatus).
They ask what Christ wrote. Maldonatus and Barhebraeus report the opinions of various authors: some think He wrote the same words He spoke, namely, "Let him who is without sin…" (Thomas, Bonaventure, Barhebraeus); others, the words of Jeremiah 17:13, or consider those words as the reason why He wrote: "Those who depart from You shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the fountain of living waters, the Lord" (Augustine, Bonaventure, Toletus)—by which action Christ simultaneously signified their perdition and destruction (cf. I. Grimm). Others are of the opinion that by that writing Christ wished to indicate that the Law was written by Him (cf. Rupert, Bonaventure, Cajetan).
But Maldonatus rightly writes: "What some say greatly pleases me: that He wrote nothing that could be read; for He formed no certain characters, but traced uncertain and meaningless figures, such as meditative men are accustomed to make." Add that if He had written something significant, the Evangelist would never have passed it over in silence. It is the part of a sober mind to be content with this opinion.
With them therefore departing, remanens solus Iesus et mulier in medio stans: "Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst." Two were left: the wretched woman and Mercy (Augustine). "Alone"—not by the exclusion of the disciples, but of the tempters (Cajetan); moreover, neither the crowd, which was frequently present and to whom Christ's response was not directed, but only the scribes and Pharisees are said to have gone out one after another (Maldonatus).
Jn 8:10-11
Erigit autem se Iesus et dixit ei: Mulier, ubi sunt qui te accusabant? Nemo te condemnavit. Quae dixit: Nemo, Domine. Dixit autem Iesus: Nec ego te condemnabo. Vade, et iam amplius noli peccare.
"But Jesus, straightening up, said to her: 'Woman, where are those who accused you? Has no one condemned you?' She said: 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said: 'Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on sin no more.'"
"Neither do I condemn you"—I alone, namely, am without sin. "What, Lord? Do you favor sins?" Not quite; attend to what follows: "Go, and from now on sin no more." Therefore, the Lord did condemn—but the sin, not the woman (Augustine). For this reason He suspended judgment, so that the sinner might have opportunity, with the fruit of repentance, to depart from sins. "Go"—this is of mercy; "sin no more"—this is of truth and justice (Rupert), so that it may appear how sweet the Lord is through gentleness, and how upright through truth (Thomas).
For neither was He bound to exercise the office of a public judge, nor did it pertain to Him to impose a penalty to be inflicted by sentence of a legitimate judge after lawful inquiry. For He came not to be an external judge of crimes, but a herald of paternal mercy. Just as, moreover, by all His other examples or precepts of His evangelical doctrine, the Lord wished to make no prejudice against what is fitting for each one by virtue of his office for the welfare of the republic, so neither by this deed of His. And what He said to the Pharisees, He did not wish to teach that no one else ought to punish who is himself a sinner—for thus all evils would remain unpunished—but He wished to afflict the deceitful and arrogant with the shame they deserved (Jansenius).
And Barhebraeus rightly notes that Christ could have answered what He said on another occasion: "Who made me a judge between you?" (cf. Rupert, Cajetan, Lapide, Calmet, Corluy, Schanz); for He was not sent to pass sentence in the manner of a judge.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment