In John 8, when religious leaders bring a woman caught in adultery before Jesus, He bends down and begins writing on the ground with His finger.
The passage never tells us what He wrote, which has led to centuries of speculation.
Why do you think John included this detail? Do you think what Jesus wrote was important, or was the act of writing itself significant?
What does this encounter teach us about judgment, mercy, and wisdom?
I am surprised that no one has addressed this topic yet. Perhaps it’s because we really don’t know the full story. Here are some possibilities to consider. Was Jesus refusing to play their game? The scribes and Pharisees were trying to trap Him. If He had said, “Stone her,” He would have violated Roman law, which reserved capital punishment for Roman authorities. Conversely, if He had said, “Let her go,” He would have violated Mosaic law. By bending down, Jesus physically breaks the confrontation and chooses not to respond on their terms.
Is He pausing the situation for them to reflect? By stooping down, He alters the spatial dynamics; instead of being looked up at by angry accusers, Jesus lowers Himself below everyone present. This dramatic silence creates space for conviction to settle in.
What did He write? Could it echo Sinai? In Exodus, the Law (including the Ten Commandments) was written by the “finger of God” on stone tablets. By writing with His finger, Jesus subtly signals His divine authority as the Lawgiver Himself.
Old Testament Allusion (Jeremiah 17:13): Jeremiah writes,
“Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the Lord.”
Stooping to write in the dirt may have been a silent prophetic warning to the accusers.
Was He writing a list of their sins? A prominent early tradition suggests Jesus began writing out the secret sins or transgressions of the accusers themselves, starting from the oldest to the youngest. Another view is that He was writing out the Levitical legal requirements. Pointing out that the law required both partners in adultery to be brought forward (Leviticus 20:10), exposing their hypocritical selective prosecution.
I really am interested in any other thoughts on this.
Be blessed. Be a blessing.
Peter
Apart from the comments that the greek used hints that this passage might be an addition?
There are two possible reasons why Jesus wrote in the dust.
To cover his embarrassment or to give the women time to finish dressing.
c This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë1 places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (Ë13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence.
J.
And here…I am going to step on toes @Who-me
TEXTUAL BACKGROUND TO 7:53-8:11
The account of Jesus with an adulterous woman recorded in John 7:53-8:11 was not part of the original Gospel of John. It surely sounds like Jesus, but it was not from the pen of John the Apostle.
Evidence for this passage (one sentence in Greek) being omitted from the Gospel are
External evidence
absent from the oldest Greek manuscripts
(1) papyrus — P65 (early third century), P75 (third century)
(2) uncials — א (fourth century), B (fourth century), probably absent from A and C. These are damaged at this point in John, but when the surviving leaves of the manuscript are measured there is no room for this passage.
many of the later Greek manuscripts that include it mark it with a special sign or symbol, like an asterisk, to show it was not original
it is found in several different locations in different later manuscripts
(1) after John 7:36
(2) after John 7:44
(3) after John 7:25
(4) in Luke after 21:38
(5) in Luke after 24:53
absent from the ancient translations
(1) the old Latin
(2) the old Syriac
(3) the early copies of the Peshitta (later Syriac)
there is no comment on this text by any of the Greek fathers (until the twelfth century)
it is present in codex D (Bezae), a western manuscript of the sixth century, the Latin Vulgate, and the later editions of the Peshitta.
Internal evidence
the vocabulary and style are more like Luke than John. It was placed in some Greek manuscripts after Luke 21:38 and in others after Luke 24:53
it totally breaks the context of Jesus’ discussion with the Jewish leaders after the feast of Tabernacles, 7:1-52; 8:12- 59
there are no parallels in the Synoptic Gospels
For a complete technical discussion see Bruce M Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 219-221.
SPECIAL TOPIC: TEXTUAL CRITICISM
This account may be genuine oral tradition from Jesus’ life. However, there are many accounts of Jesus’ life that Gospel writers chose to not record (John 20:30-31). It is the Gospel writers themselves who were inspired. Later scribes had no right to include an account of Jesus’ life, even if authentic, that was not included by the inspired original author. The original authors alone had the insight under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to select, arrange, and adapt the works and words of Jesus. This passage is not original and, therefore, not inspired and should not be included in our Bibles!
I have chosen not to comment on this passage because I do not believe it is from the pen of John and, therefore, not part of an inspired text (even if historical). Inspiration ceases with the death of the Apostles.
SPECIAL TOPIC: INSPIRATION
J.
The tradition that He was writing the secret sins of the mob has always been a fascinating idea to me. We obviously just don’t know, but I’ve always found it interesting.
Whatever He wrote, and for whatever reason though, you’re right that He basically interrupted everything. He didn’t play into their game. He denied the bullies, and broke them–leaving them empty-handed (quite literally, as they all dropped their stones).
It is an awesome story of how God’s mercy interrupts the world.
You also mention how the mob was actually in violation of Torah, which is very important. Torah required both guilty parties be present, and further, they were to be tried before the court (Sanhedrin). Where was the man? Why wasn’t he being charged? Where was the court? The mob pretended this was justice according to Torah, but they were nothing more than a lynch mob.
Jesus denies them their game. Jesus turns the tables on them, their hypocrisy on full display. Mercy interrupts the world’s perverted and false sense of justice, and brings real justice: When Jesus says “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more” to the woman, that isn’t just mercy, it’s justice, Jesus restores the woman and blesses her with a new life to live.
Justice isn’t always “punish the bad guys”. Justice restores what is lost, it mends what is broken. Justice is about setting wrongs to rights, making things right. Jesus makes things right here, not by condemning–but by showing the guilt of the hypocritical mob and by giving mercy to the woman. With the benediction, “Go and sin no more”.
“Go and sin no more” too isn’t “you better watch yourself” it’s a release. It reminds me of the Dismissal at the end of the liturgy (where the pastor gives the benediction and the sending of the Faithful). The woman had an encounter with Grace and is left changed, transformed by the encounter, her life is different now. She is no longer a slave to her old ways, but a new person having encountered the Son of God face to face. And so she can go back out there with a new life, one not identified by her sin, but by the mercy and love which she has found in Jesus.
In this way WE are the woman caught in adultery. Each of us is that woman, having been living lives of unfaithfulness and sin, defining who we are; and then Jesus finds us on the ground. The Law does indeed justly call us sinners, the devil with his flaming arrows ready to be hurled upon us, the world’s perverted ideas of justice and broken virtues, and Jesus turns to us, grants us mercy, and then changes us by that encounter. “Go and sin no more”. Not because we are perfect. Not because we will become impeccable–but because our lives are now to be defined by mercy, by forgiveness, by the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I dunno, maybe he wrote:
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
He wrote that at least once before
(Daniel 5:25 )
(smile)
KP