Imagine something deeper in the layers to be stacked up against the shallower abstract ... which's black? Some say occult ... as they don;t see black ... it just isn't proper colouration ... but matter of the absent ... a hole in reality! Out of queue?
Does The Woman Who Committed Adultery Belong in the Bible?
- Thread starter Waterfall
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Imagine something deeper in the layers to be stacked up against the shallower abstract ... which's black? Some say occult ... as they don;t see black ... it just isn't proper colouration ... but matter of the absent ... a hole in reality! Out of queue?
On the basis of the story's absence from key early NT manuscripts, the scholarly consensus is that it is a later addition to the Gospel of John. The most commonly respected conjecture about its source derives from an allusion by Papias (c. 60-120 AD) to a story in the Gospel of the Hebrews (c. 105-125 AD) about Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins." That seems right to me, but the problem is that we don't have the whole Gospel of the Hebrews today, but only several fragments of it and must rely on early church Fathers like Eusebius who do have this Gospel and offer allusions to it. According to Eusebius of Caesarea (in his Ecclesiastical History, composed in the early 300s), Papias (circa AD 110) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which might refer to this passage or to one like it. Papias is early enough to claim access to the eyewitness testimony of a couple of Jesus' disciples and their immediate successors. So I think the story has an impressive claim to historicity.
But this issue leads to a broader and more interesting question. Oral tradition about Jesus' words and deeds survives well into the late 2nd century and many of these extracanonical sayings have an intriguing claim to authenticity. So I like to apply some of the criteria applied to the quest for the historical Jesus to these sayings to determine how this unknown material might shed more light on Jesus' teaching.
But this issue leads to a broader and more interesting question. Oral tradition about Jesus' words and deeds survives well into the late 2nd century and many of these extracanonical sayings have an intriguing claim to authenticity. So I like to apply some of the criteria applied to the quest for the historical Jesus to these sayings to determine how this unknown material might shed more light on Jesus' teaching.
Everything before us will be said again to get it reinforced out there ... even if we don;t understand reasonable repetition for a people that refuse to learn ... sworn to opinions about unattached essences ... in the surrounding night as dark Ness Falls as a pool! Is there really a lass in that Loch?
In this story he does appear to be looking out for her, but I've just found in Leviticus 20:10, that if a woman was caught in adultery then the man is be to brought with her to be stoned also.
Seeing that there was no mention of a man being brought with her (she couldn't be caught in adultery without one) possibly this is more reinforcement that this story was a later addition that promoted an unlikely scenario?
Papia's claim is somewhat sketchy seeing as the Gospel of the Hebrews is incomplete and only a small amount of fragments have been found....one of the fragments does mention a woman of many sins (does it say specifically adultery?), but it doesn't contain a complete story so it relies more on some scholars over speculating, does it not?
But I still question this about the "truth or truthfulness" of this story, whether it's historical or a story to convey a truth, it still causes me to question Jesus' teaching of it. For instance, when he tells the woman to go and sin no more.......1.)we don't know that she stops (after all she's human, she can't stop) 2.) Does this story tell us we humans can never try to correct (without using the death penalty) another's behaviour because we all sin anyway? and finally 3.) Does this teaching agree with Jesus' other teachings in the New Testament? In Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews, Gal., Col., has claims that Jesus abolished the law but it is in direct conflict with the more early book of Mathew that claims in Mathew 5, that upholds the law of Moses and seems to represent an older version of Christianity. So again, whether we claim "true story" or "a story about truth" are we discerning Jesus' nature accurately by using a story that may not align with his nature within other earlier books? And if so, are we not as guilty as the one who added the story by continuing with teaching this story that may not be really portraying Jesus as who he really was or taught, just because we've grown to love this Jesus?
Waterfall: "But I still question this about the "truth or truthfulness" of this story, whether it's historical or a story to convey a truth, it still causes me to question Jesus' teaching of it. For instance, when he tells the woman to go and sin no more.......1.)we don't know that she stops (after all she's human, she can't stop)"
But this concern is no reason to question the story's historicity.
First. Jesus issues the same command in the same words, "sin no more," to the man He heals by the pool in John 5:14.
Second, Jesus's commands don't necessarily imply the ability to perfectly comply: e. g. "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).
Waterfall: "2.) Does this story tell us we humans can never try to correct (without using the death penalty) another's behaviour because we all sin anyway?"
No, it tells us at least 2 things:
(1) Jesus expects the woman to end her adulterous relationship.
(2) The story illustrates Jesus' teaching that God will judge us by the standard we apply to other transgressors: "With the judgment you pronounce you will be judged and the measure you dish out to others will be dished back to you (Matthew 7:2).
Waterfall: "3.) Does this teaching agree with Jesus' other teachings in the New Testament? ...Romans, Ephesians,...Gal., Col., has claims that Jesus abolished the law but it is in direct conflict with the more early book of Mathew that claims in Mathew 5, that Jesus upholds the law of Moses."
First, Matthew is decades later than Paul's epistles. Paul writes from around 48 AD to his death around 64 AD. The scholarly consensus dates Matthew to the period 80-90 AD.
Second, Matthew 5:16 does not claim that Jesus "upholds the law;" on the contrary, He brings it to its fulfillment. In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount the repeated expressions, "you have heard that it was said,...but I say to you," Jesus both negates and upgrades portions of the Law. Paul believes Jesus was "born under the Law (Galatians 4:4)" but His atoning death signals "the end of the Law (Romans 10:4)."
But this concern is no reason to question the story's historicity.
First. Jesus issues the same command in the same words, "sin no more," to the man He heals by the pool in John 5:14.
Second, Jesus's commands don't necessarily imply the ability to perfectly comply: e. g. "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).
Waterfall: "2.) Does this story tell us we humans can never try to correct (without using the death penalty) another's behaviour because we all sin anyway?"
No, it tells us at least 2 things:
(1) Jesus expects the woman to end her adulterous relationship.
(2) The story illustrates Jesus' teaching that God will judge us by the standard we apply to other transgressors: "With the judgment you pronounce you will be judged and the measure you dish out to others will be dished back to you (Matthew 7:2).
Waterfall: "3.) Does this teaching agree with Jesus' other teachings in the New Testament? ...Romans, Ephesians,...Gal., Col., has claims that Jesus abolished the law but it is in direct conflict with the more early book of Mathew that claims in Mathew 5, that Jesus upholds the law of Moses."
First, Matthew is decades later than Paul's epistles. Paul writes from around 48 AD to his death around 64 AD. The scholarly consensus dates Matthew to the period 80-90 AD.
Second, Matthew 5:16 does not claim that Jesus "upholds the law;" on the contrary, He brings it to its fulfillment. In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount the repeated expressions, "you have heard that it was said,...but I say to you," Jesus both negates and upgrades portions of the Law. Paul believes Jesus was "born under the Law (Galatians 4:4)" but His atoning death signals "the end of the Law (Romans 10:4)."
JRT
Me on the left.
This and some other Biblical stories may not be true stories but they may be truth stories.
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.
Waterfall,
One aspect of the story's historical credibility is the unexplained detail that Jesus doodles on the ground, while reflecting on how He should respond. Was this a nervous twitch or a stalling gesture to reflect on how He should escape the trap that "the scribes and Pharisees" were setting for Him? In any case, I like how one feminist preacher responded to this detail. She preached: "And what did Jesus write on the ground? I suspect He wrote: "Where's the man?"" Of course, we can't know what He wrote, but I'm confident the double standard was on His mind. When I preached on this text, my sermon title was "The Doodling Jesus." I loved to create catchy sermon titles.
One aspect of the story's historical credibility is the unexplained detail that Jesus doodles on the ground, while reflecting on how He should respond. Was this a nervous twitch or a stalling gesture to reflect on how He should escape the trap that "the scribes and Pharisees" were setting for Him? In any case, I like how one feminist preacher responded to this detail. She preached: "And what did Jesus write on the ground? I suspect He wrote: "Where's the man?"" Of course, we can't know what He wrote, but I'm confident the double standard was on His mind. When I preached on this text, my sermon title was "The Doodling Jesus." I loved to create catchy sermon titles.
unsafe
Well-Known Member
Mystic ---your quote ----- I suspect He wrote: "Where's the man?""
You could be so right as Jesus knew that both needed to be presented to bring the charge forward in the first place ---the Pharisees would have known that as well --they were hoping Jesus would be in the not knowing and they could trap Him -----boy did they get fooled and walked away with their tail between their legs -------Jesus turned the tide quite quickly on them -----
You could be so right as Jesus knew that both needed to be presented to bring the charge forward in the first place ---the Pharisees would have known that as well --they were hoping Jesus would be in the not knowing and they could trap Him -----boy did they get fooled and walked away with their tail between their legs -------Jesus turned the tide quite quickly on them -----
But seeing as we have so little written on Jesus, and Jesus' name is attached to this story, doesn't it make you worried that we draw the characteristics of Jesus from a story that makes a "truth" point as much as Aesops fables would.
What if Jesus wouldnt have reacted this way at all but we're all just thinking, yeah that sounds like something Jesus would do.....maybe thats why it was inserted into the Bible in the first place?
I mean I could start a thread about stories we could make up about Jesus...would you preach on those stories?
If the man wasn't present maybe this is a more Hellinistic story with Jesus name inserted.....maybe he was writing "Im not Jesus"......
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Frankly, people preach on made-up stories about Jesus all the time. I doubt that even half of what is in the Gospels is literally true. That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it does mean we need to consider the possibility that the Jesus we 'know" isn't the historical person of that name and that nothing short of a time machine will allow us to fix that. The question becomes what any given myth/parable tells us about this figure that is central to Christianity.
qwerty
Rest In Peace
I'm going to admit up front that I am rushed here. I'm still in the office. Haven't read the previous comments. I go to church irregularly. Haven't read the Bible in the last year. You get the picture. But of course, I have an opinion on this particular matter. It is simply this. It is not possible to even prove that Jesus existed so the fact that the existence of a person Jesus is alleged to have met is not all that surprising ... or relevant. I have often said that if the story of Jesus ... his birth, life, death & resurrection is not true, well, it oughta be. There are lots of stories like this. If they didn't actually happen they still embody truth. Apparently the story of the adulterous woman is such a story. I never knew the history of its inclusion in the Bible but knowing that doesn't really change how I feel about the story. The story may be apocryphal but it illustrates a basic truth. We are all sinners (if you like to throw that term around) and (now this second part is a little more difficult) in view of this, we ought to refrain from passing judgements of others.
If the story is about things we'd rather not admit to ... we can rename it as mythological and hint that it is isle logical isolationism from the matter at hand ... the dirt produced by thinking that gets in the way of wild desires ... cats on roofs warming up, etc.