What made this so controversial?

by iamwhoiam 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  iamwhoiam

  What was so controversial about this that it was left out of more than one manuscript?

  This is taken from John 8:1-11 of the NWT

  * Manuscripts ?BSy s omit verses 53 to chapter 8, verse 11, which read (with some variations in the various Greek texts and versions) as follows:

  53 So they went each one to his home.

  8

  But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At daybreak, however, he again presented himself at the temple, and all the people began coming to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 Now the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught at adultery, and, after standing her in their midst, 4 they said to him: “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of committing adultery. 5 In the Law Moses prescribed for us to stone such sort of women. What, really, do you say?” 6 Of course, they were saying this to put him to the test, in order to have something with which to accuse him. But Jesus bent down and began to write with his finger in the ground. 7 When they persisted in asking him, he straightened up and said to them: “Let the one of YOU that is sinless be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And bending over again he kept on writing in the ground. 9 But those who heard this began going out, one by one, starting with the older men, and he was left alone, and the woman that was in their midst. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her: “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said: “No one, sir.” Jesus said: “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way; from now on practice sin no more.”

  One reason I like these verses is that no condemnation could be given on the basis of Jesus reasoning (brings to question the doctrine of disfellowshipping). This in the true essence is what it means to be Christ-like (if one chooses to adopt Christianity as thier belief system).

  The other reason is that he told her to "practice sin no more". That is a very philosophical statement in my opinion. He knew no one could be sinless, all we can do is practice (do the best we can in order to sin less).

  Thoughts anyone?

  iawia
• 

  baltar447

  This is agreed by almost every scholar to be a spurious scripture. Read Bart Ehrman, he references this and others.
• 

  Leolaia

  The main problem with this is that is not omitted from John but that it is a non-Johannine pericope that was inserted into the gospels in various places (it is also found in Luke). In fact, there are two distinct versions in the MS tradition. I recently read a rather interesting hypothesis by Rius-Camps that the two versions are Markan and Lukan in style respectively, and that the original Markan version appeared in Mark (placed immediately after Mark 12:12), then was redacted by the author of Luke into the Lukan version (which appeared after Luke 20:19), then the Markan and Lukan versions were omitted from the respective gospels, and finally the two verisons were variably inserted into Luke and John at a host of different narrative locations. It was inserted at ch. 8 in John because contextually it has loose relevance to what is stated in John 7:51. The omission of the pericope of course was motivated by the increasing strict moral climate of the proto-orthodox church which regarded Jesus' response to adultery as too lenient or tolerant. The reincorporation of the story (if Rius-Camps' analysis is accurate) however indicates that other scribes transmitting the manuscript tradition valued the story and its lessons and sought to restore it.
• 

  PSacramento

  I think the "bending down to write" with his finger part, very interesting.

  Why would thewriter even mention that? what significance could it hold? if this was something "added" later by an editor, why mention something that alluded to an act that was witnessed ?
• 

  Leolaia

  The use of katagraphein "write a record, register, delineate"instead of graphein in this verse might suggest that Jesus was writing down specific sins that the accusers were guilty of (cf. Job 13:26 LXX). That would make good narrative sense. But no one really knows for sure.
• 

  PSacramento

  Leo,

  Yeah, I read about that too and indeed that would make or some nice drama.

  The thing is, if the event never happened and was something added on later, why add that part?
• 

  journey-on

  PSac....As I read that, I envisioned him doodling in the sand while the rest of the quick-to-judge types mulled it over...sort of like a good writer painting the picture for you with those little additions that help you understand the mood of the moment.
• 

  Leolaia

  I don't quite see what the problem is you refer to. By asking "if the event never happened", if you mean in the event the story is fictional or parabolic, it is certainly not out of place to have details or plot elements that advance the narrative. In order to write in the dust, a person would have to stoop down and then get up. If you are asking if the detail about stooping and writing is an addition to the pericope de adultera, I don't know of anyone claiming that. Rius-Camps' text-critical survey of the variants indeed shows that the passages pertaining to writing in the dust are found in both PA MK and PA LK .
• 

  PSacramento

  Leo,

  You misunderstood, there is no problem for me, I just found it interesting that the writer wrote that passage that way, as if he had been there.

  It makes me think that he indeed had been there and that the event did happen and that there was perhaps even more to it, but that (like other parts of John) it was "misfiled" out of place in the original edition ( or subsequent edition) and later added back but out of place, giving the allusion of being a later "add on", as some think it to be.
• 

  Curtains

  One reason I like these verses is that no condemnation could be given on the basis of Jesus reasoning (brings to question the doctrine of disfellowshipping). This in the true essence is what it means to be Christ-like (if one chooses to adopt Christianity as thier belief system). The other reason is that he told her to "practice sin no more". That is a very philosophical statement in my opinion. He knew no one could be sinless, all we can do is practice (do the best we can in order to sin less). Thoughts anyone? iawia

  excellent point iawia and I agree with your conclusions. I wonder if it is left out of some manuscripts because it so freeing and particularly as the adulterous woman would have been a marginalised member of society. And perhaps it would also have challenged authoritarian structures of the day. Jesus seems to give the woman autonomy and dignity not condemnation