Does The Woman Who Committed Adultery Belong in the Bible?

[Redbaron]

Interesting how your article assumes, that even though the oldest Greek copies of John do not include the story, that someone removed it; rather than the more logical assumption that after so many years of the story NOT being there in the original copies, that someone added it. Is there some reason the article makes that assumption? None that I can see.

 

[Waterfall]

Here is an article to refute the theory of it not being included ----so we can go back and forth on what is and what isn't included in God's word but the real truth of the matter is ----We will believe who and what we want to believe we have free will to do just that -----

I am only posting the pertinent part of this article which refutes the notion that this was left out -----

read all here ----
https://www.compellingtruth.org/John-7-53-8-11.html

Now, those who do believe this story is part of inspired Scripture make the argument that so many Greek manuscripts included it that it cannot be ignored. As for why it doesn't appear earlier, some say it was removed by those who feared women would feel freedom to commit adultery since Jesus forgave the adulteress in this story. Later, scribes who knew the story essentially overruled that decision and reinserted it.

All this leads to some people questioning the inerrancy of the Bible. If this passage is under question, maybe others are, too. We believe the original autographs, the first writings biblical authors made under the inspiration of God, are without error. We have none of those original autographs, but have recreated them from literally thousands of ancient documents and citations. Theologians acknowledge that some phrasing or words may come under scrutiny, but no important doctrine is in doubt. Scholastic review may be one method God uses to ensure His Word stays pure.


I say -----Scripture gives Grave warnings for anyone who removes or adds to God's word ------so wouldn't want to be one of the ones who removed it or added it back in ------tampering with God's word is a big NO NO ----just saying

The words Some Say in the article ---some say it was removed -------says it all for me -----People wanting to cast doubt and fear as to the truth of God's word ----a bunch of hoop la


Satan still rules in this world and his main concern is to make people doubt God's word -----some say this and some say that -----what it really boils down to is what each person wants to believe about what Some Say ------

Some Say --- Jesus was gay ----Some Say ----Jesus was married and had children ----Some Say ---- Mary Magdalene is the woman caught in adultery -----Many Say ---- there were 3 wise men that went to see Jesus ---

We have a choice to believe what Some Say ---or what God Says -----


God will always win in my choice

The article doesn't say who these "some" people are....are they just people that want it to be true perhaps without any facts to back it up?

 

[Ritafee]

We will believe who and what we want to believe we have free will to do just that

We have a choice to believe what Some Say ---or what God Says -----

We also have freedom to 'think'.

Do you 'think' your 'God who Says' might have inspired the scripture of 'autographs' such as Darwin's ...

Darwin did mention a Creator and God in the last edition of The Origin of Species.

In the last sentence of the sixth, edition Darwin placed the Creator at the beginning of life on earth:

• There is grandeur in this [natural selection] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.[ix]

Critics of Darwin's work are then attacking him for not believing the same thing they believe, rather than for what he actually wrote.


@Waterfall ... not trying to derail your thread ... it is just the way that I process conflicting 'stories' and whether or not they can 'accurately lead to belief'.

So ... what part of the Bible did Jesus 'write' ...

Is the Adulterous woman the story where Jesus wrote something in the sand but nobody 'knows' what he wrote?

 

[GeoFee]

Adultery is a primary symbol in the biblical narrative. It signifies the collusion of church and state in service to profit. The story of the woman taken in the act of adultery and brought before Jesus symbolically expresses the historic dynamic of the day. Jerusalem was in bed with Rome, her priests and scribes living decadent lives while God's people languished under their jurisdiction. Jesus holds no judgement against Jerusalem. He does instruct her to turn away from her adultery.

This is my subjective perspective. I have no clue what the bible says objectively.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Or adultery is as old as life itself. Some bonds last. Some don't. Who is the judge here? Jesus says "not me".

 

[Ritafee]

 

[unsafe]

Worth the read

https://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm
The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

The Integrity of the New Testament - Special 2013 Series

[From The Editors: This article is one of a series we are running this year. The 2013 series is called "The Integrity of the New Testament" and deals with textual criticism. Can the New Testament be trusted? Has it been corrupted through time? Can we know what God has said? It should be obvious how important this topic is. This is especially so given the climate of society today and its attitudes toward the Bible. We wish this series to help everyone understand the process of the Bible's history as a document and why we can have confidence in its message.

 

[revjohn]

1.) Is this story about Jesus true IYO?

By true do you mean "factual" or "accurate?" There is a difference between the story being a historical account of an actual meeting or the story being a fiction designed to convey a truth.

2.) If not should it still be used in church as a "Jesus" story? Why or why not?

Does this particular text paint a picture of Jesus than never should have been painted? What does this particular text teach and are we better with or without that particular teaching?

3.) If it's not true and we continue to relate this story as true because it teaches us something.....shouldn't it be stated it is a fictional story to demonstrate how we picture Jesus' grace to be?

Part of the problem is expecting the part to resemble the whole. If this isn't true what can we trust to be true? If it isn't true then maybe Jesus would have been the first to throw a rock. Hard to find anywhere in scripture where adultery is spoken of fondly.

If we start to exorcise text from the Bible that doesn't pass a factual truth test. We can get rid of the psalms and any other portion that is poetic.

Ultimately I don't think Jesus' character suffers for the inclusion or the exclusion of this particular text.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Ultimately I don't think Jesus' character suffers for the inclusion or the exclusion of this particular text.

I was right with you until this phrase. I would say that the character of Jesus would be just a fraction less without this particular story. It paints a picture of radical community forgiveness of a woman who had clearly violated community standards. I don't think there's another story quite like this; can you think of one?

 

[Luce NDs]

Asclepius would ruin altruism with a single swipe ... without the feedback ... thus the reverse cut and something is lost on both sides of Ca deux is!

Ca is the essence of crow'n ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@ Mendalla and @Ritafee, we should keep the "story" even if the "story" isn't true? What if this has led us to believe something about Jesus that isn't accurate?
To me the full nature of Christ would have included a response to the men she had committed adultery with.....among other things.
What is to keep us from creating stories that contradict God's nature but line up with our own?

I suppose part of the problem is that this is such a beloved story about Jesus, but at the same time the minister at the church I attend has a real gift for bringing in the younger crowd....we're up to 3 services a Sunday.....he teaches and preaches more or less a familiar gospel we've all heard, but why start these young people with an untruth when it will eventually have to be undone and explained in their later years, much like "a woman shall remain silent in church", or misinterpreted scriptures on homosexuality, etc......

it tells a truth whether it literally happened that way or not...

 

[Waterfall]

it tells a truth whether it literally happened that way or not...

It does appeal as a truth for it's time.......that the woman was shown grace because she apparently needed it, even if the males that committed "the sin" with her, were not included. Which is more or less reflective of what would have happened in that day and age.....even if it isn't necessarily a teaching about a "moral" truth, the other "truth" of the story is that the men who committed adultery with her, did not require grace or forgiveness for the act of sleeping with her."

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It does appeal as a truth for it's time.......that the woman was shown grace because she apparently needed it, even if the males that committed "the sin" with her, were not included. Which is more or less reflective of what would have happened in that day and age.....even if it isn't necessarily a teaching about a "moral" truth, the other "truth" of the story is that the men who committed adultery with her, did not require grace or forgiveness for the act of sleeping with her."

The men were chastised in the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" comment. The more I think of it, the more I wonder if Jesus was looking out for her...like, "Get away from your current partner. He's doesn't love you. He doesn't treat you well. You're not committed to one another."...etc.

 

[revjohn]

I was right with you until this phrase. I would say that the character of Jesus would be just a fraction less without this particular story. It paints a picture of radical community forgiveness of a woman who had clearly violated community standards. I don't think there's another story quite like this; can you think of one?

I think that Jesus repeatedly centering out the marginalized qualifies.

Healing the paralytic, the leprous, the possessed and such demonstrate a quality of compassion most Christians fail to emulate.

Jesus going outside of the "chosen" community to outcast Samaritans or commending the faith of an oppressor Centurion also scandalizes many on accout of the grace inherent in those encounters.

By comparison forgiving someone nobody had the righteousness to condemn not really that big an effort.

And it is clear she is a pawn in the encounter, a weapon fashioned against Jesus to bring him low. It fails spectacularly.

Not because Jesus employs an new form of compassion but rather because he employs an exacting standard of self-righteousness which the woman's accusers cannot match.

 

[Luce NDs]

Jesus is the spectre that sinks into the writ and sometimes forms Eris in chaos ... a kind of storm on the brae 'n!

Da siluminant ... the un douzable ... flare! Once grasped your seized ... seared? Picture weals ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Imagine that hummer beyond the line ... scales of what's off base ... bohemian? Ol ord imagine th' din ... darker chords as minor item ...

 

[JRT]

Rabbi Brian Zachary Mayer wrote ~~~ I do not take the Bible literally. But I take it seriously.
To take it literally would mean that I believe that every word, as it is written, was spoken by God. I cannot do that. But I can and do take it seriously. To take the Bible seriously means to examine it in its time and for the culture in which it was written. I want to offer up a very handy distinction that can help in our understanding of the Bible. That distinction I would like to make is revealed in the two words: true and truth. True is if it actually happened. It is a fact of history. Truth is the moral. It is the actual essence of things. I do not believe that most of the biblical stories are true stories. But I sure do believe that they are truth stories. It doesn’t matter to me if the Red Sea parted or if Noah had an ark. I don’t care if Jonah was swallowed by a whale or if that’s not necessarily factually so. To me, the great meaning of these stories has nothing to do with whether they’re historically accurate or not. Whether Jonah slept or didn’t sleep for three nights in the proverbial halibut hotel does not take away from the moral of the story – that it is human nature to run away from the things that we don’t want to do. I don’t believe this historically happened. I don’t believe Jonah was swallowed by a great fish and brought to the bottom of the sea-world after not doing what he knew he had to do. This is a truth story. Not a true story. This is a story about humanity, about me, about the troubles we get into when we don’t do what we should do and about how it will bring us down to the very bottom of our existence. It’s a truth story, not a true story. And if we look at the miracles in the Bible as truth stories, what we learn from these stories will be liberative for us. In this important way the Bible can be a very liberating force in our lives. If we read the Bible in this way we will probably fight less with what we read in the Bible. Moreover, seeking the "truth" of the stories can allow us to have meaningful conversations with people who might read the stories to be true stories rather than truth ones. The truth aspect of the story offers a place of connection between myself and those who read the words literally.

 

[JRT]

Hopefully he will tell us, although the Catholic church once (or still does???) thought it was Mary Magdalene because she never said to have married or a widow and she financially helped support Jesus....so they assumed she was a prostitute....or something like that....Any Catholics out there that know the reasoning for sure?

The first suggestion that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute was in a sermon delivered in the sixth century by Pope Gregory. Incidentally there is an ancient tradition in the south of France that Mary Magdalene was the first missionary to the area. The cathedral in Marseilles has a stained glass window depicting her consecrating the first bishop.

 

[Luce NDs]

How does a prostitute 'd person consecrate anything? An upstanding item ... alas ... of concern! Like ANIS ...

 

[Waterfall]

Rabbi Brian Zachary Mayer wrote ~~~ I do not take the Bible literally. But I take it seriously.
To take it literally would mean that I believe that every word, as it is written, was spoken by God. I cannot do that. But I can and do take it seriously. To take the Bible seriously means to examine it in its time and for the culture in which it was written. I want to offer up a very handy distinction that can help in our understanding of the Bible. That distinction I would like to make is revealed in the two words: true and truth. True is if it actually happened. It is a fact of history. Truth is the moral. It is the actual essence of things. I do not believe that most of the biblical stories are true stories. But I sure do believe that they are truth stories. It doesn’t matter to me if the Red Sea parted or if Noah had an ark. I don’t care if Jonah was swallowed by a whale or if that’s not necessarily factually so. To me, the great meaning of these stories has nothing to do with whether they’re historically accurate or not. Whether Jonah slept or didn’t sleep for three nights in the proverbial halibut hotel does not take away from the moral of the story – that it is human nature to run away from the things that we don’t want to do. I don’t believe this historically happened. I don’t believe Jonah was swallowed by a great fish and brought to the bottom of the sea-world after not doing what he knew he had to do. This is a truth story. Not a true story. This is a story about humanity, about me, about the troubles we get into when we don’t do what we should do and about how it will bring us down to the very bottom of our existence. It’s a truth story, not a true story. And if we look at the miracles in the Bible as truth stories, what we learn from these stories will be liberative for us. In this important way the Bible can be a very liberating force in our lives. If we read the Bible in this way we will probably fight less with what we read in the Bible. Moreover, seeking the "truth" of the stories can allow us to have meaningful conversations with people who might read the stories to be true stories rather than truth ones. The truth aspect of the story offers a place of connection between myself and those who read the words literally.

Nicely said.