Discussion of the Pericope Adulterae
Of the many events associated with the story of Jesus that of the woman taken in adultery, also known as the Pericope Adulterae, stands out as a quintessential example of his teaching. The Pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery, citing the Law’s mandate to stone her to death (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22). This is a trap set by the Pharisees for Jesus who has been preaching the forgiveness of sin. If he says to forgive her he is denying the Torah, the sacred law handed down to Moses by God, but if he says to uphold the law then where does that leave his preaching of forgiveness.
Of course Jesus deals with the problem in his own fashion. Jesus responds, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone,” and ultimately tells her, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” The Pharisees knowing they are not without sin depart.
Very Jesus, a person who sees the Law as a principle to guide, not to follow slavishly as times and morals change. He is indeed not the first to take this line. A generation earlier Hillel the Elder said “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” This is mirrored by Jesus as “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
So, as I said, very Jesus. But is the story true, or is it a tale put into the mouth of Jesus by some early Christian writer to give it moral authority. It only appears in John 7:53–8:11, Mark doesn’t seem to know anything about it, it’s not in Matthew or Luke, or even Thomas for that matter. And it wasn’t originally even in John. It first appears in Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, a bilingual Greek-Latin codex dated to the early 5th century. This is the earliest certain Greek manuscript containing it, placed at the traditional location. Earlier manuscripts such as the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus in the 4th century omit it entirely. Furthermore it is stylistically different from the rest of John so that scholars now believe it is a late interpolation.
So where did the interpolator get the story from, and why does he attribute it to Jesus, and not for example to Hillel?
An allusion to the story of the woman taken in adultery first appears in Chapter 7 of the Didascalia Apostolorum (The Teaching of the Apostles a 3rd-century Syrian church treatise) which uses the episode to exhort bishops to show mercy and receive repentant sinners back into the community. It presents a version of the story that is similar but not identical to John referring to “elders” rather than “scribes and Pharisees” and there is nothing about casting the first stone.
“You have not obeyed our Saviour and our God, to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her, ‘Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter?’ She said to Him, ‘No, Lord.’ And He said unto her, ‘Go thy way; neither do I condemn thee.’ In Him therefore, our Saviour and King and God, be your pattern, O bishops.”
In the fourth century writings of Didymus the Blind an allusion appears in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes, specifically in the section commenting on Ecclesiastes 7:21–22. Didymus introduces the story while discussing the need for caution in judging others. He presents a version of the episode that differs somewhat from the standard Pericope Adulterae in John.
“We find in certain gospels a woman who was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned… The Saviour, when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her, said to those who were about to cast stones, ‘He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and cast it.’ If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her. And no one dared.”
Didymus does not explicitly locate the story in the Gospel of John. He says it is found “in certain gospels”, which scholars interpret as possibly referring to non-canonical or extra-canonical sources.
In his Ecclesiastical History (3.39.17, early 4th century), Eusebius writes about Papias (c. 60–130 CE, bishop of Hierapolis and author of the Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord):
“And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.”
Papias collected oral and written traditions from the “elders” who had known the apostles. Eusebius’s placement of the story with the Gospel according to the Hebrews suggests that this might be the origin of the story.
The Gospel of the Hebrews is an early independent non-canonical gospel. Most scholars place composition in the early decades of the 2nd century (some allow a late-1st-century possibility). It is associated with Greek-speaking Jewish-Christian communities, most often in Egypt/Alexandria (where its earliest clear witnesses - Clement, Origen, Didymus—were active). It shows no clear dependence on the canonical Gospels in the preserved portions.
So we can hypothesise a possible provenance of the story as:
Late 1st century Papias learns of the story from ‘elders’ who claim to have known the Apostles
Early 2nd century the basic story is recorded in the Gospel of the Hebrews
In the 3rd century it is recorded in The Teaching of the Apostles
By the fourth century Didymus claims it is in various gospels
By the early 4th century it is in John.
Presumably a scribe thought it was too good a story not to be in a canonical gospel. Was any of it true, or was it all an invention somewhere along the line to show how Jesus has brought a new law to replace the old, perhaps to reassure gentiles that the old Mosaic law no longer applied. Perhaps at some point Jesus did tell a woman that her sins were forgiven and the tale grew in the telling. Who knows.
Of course Jesus deals with the problem in his own fashion. Jesus responds, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone,” and ultimately tells her, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” The Pharisees knowing they are not without sin depart.
Very Jesus, a person who sees the Law as a principle to guide, not to follow slavishly as times and morals change. He is indeed not the first to take this line. A generation earlier Hillel the Elder said “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” This is mirrored by Jesus as “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
So, as I said, very Jesus. But is the story true, or is it a tale put into the mouth of Jesus by some early Christian writer to give it moral authority. It only appears in John 7:53–8:11, Mark doesn’t seem to know anything about it, it’s not in Matthew or Luke, or even Thomas for that matter. And it wasn’t originally even in John. It first appears in Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, a bilingual Greek-Latin codex dated to the early 5th century. This is the earliest certain Greek manuscript containing it, placed at the traditional location. Earlier manuscripts such as the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus in the 4th century omit it entirely. Furthermore it is stylistically different from the rest of John so that scholars now believe it is a late interpolation.
So where did the interpolator get the story from, and why does he attribute it to Jesus, and not for example to Hillel?
An allusion to the story of the woman taken in adultery first appears in Chapter 7 of the Didascalia Apostolorum (The Teaching of the Apostles a 3rd-century Syrian church treatise) which uses the episode to exhort bishops to show mercy and receive repentant sinners back into the community. It presents a version of the story that is similar but not identical to John referring to “elders” rather than “scribes and Pharisees” and there is nothing about casting the first stone.
“You have not obeyed our Saviour and our God, to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her, ‘Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter?’ She said to Him, ‘No, Lord.’ And He said unto her, ‘Go thy way; neither do I condemn thee.’ In Him therefore, our Saviour and King and God, be your pattern, O bishops.”
In the fourth century writings of Didymus the Blind an allusion appears in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes, specifically in the section commenting on Ecclesiastes 7:21–22. Didymus introduces the story while discussing the need for caution in judging others. He presents a version of the episode that differs somewhat from the standard Pericope Adulterae in John.
“We find in certain gospels a woman who was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned… The Saviour, when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her, said to those who were about to cast stones, ‘He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and cast it.’ If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her. And no one dared.”
Didymus does not explicitly locate the story in the Gospel of John. He says it is found “in certain gospels”, which scholars interpret as possibly referring to non-canonical or extra-canonical sources.
In his Ecclesiastical History (3.39.17, early 4th century), Eusebius writes about Papias (c. 60–130 CE, bishop of Hierapolis and author of the Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord):
“And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.”
Papias collected oral and written traditions from the “elders” who had known the apostles. Eusebius’s placement of the story with the Gospel according to the Hebrews suggests that this might be the origin of the story.
The Gospel of the Hebrews is an early independent non-canonical gospel. Most scholars place composition in the early decades of the 2nd century (some allow a late-1st-century possibility). It is associated with Greek-speaking Jewish-Christian communities, most often in Egypt/Alexandria (where its earliest clear witnesses - Clement, Origen, Didymus—were active). It shows no clear dependence on the canonical Gospels in the preserved portions.
So we can hypothesise a possible provenance of the story as:
Late 1st century Papias learns of the story from ‘elders’ who claim to have known the Apostles
Early 2nd century the basic story is recorded in the Gospel of the Hebrews
In the 3rd century it is recorded in The Teaching of the Apostles
By the fourth century Didymus claims it is in various gospels
By the early 4th century it is in John.
Presumably a scribe thought it was too good a story not to be in a canonical gospel. Was any of it true, or was it all an invention somewhere along the line to show how Jesus has brought a new law to replace the old, perhaps to reassure gentiles that the old Mosaic law no longer applied. Perhaps at some point Jesus did tell a woman that her sins were forgiven and the tale grew in the telling. Who knows.
