Does she belong in the Bible? Well, apparently, the recent consensus is she doesn't:
It certainly seems as if, somewhere along the way, a scribe added this story of Jesus into John’s Gospel in a place he thought it would fit well. Most likely, the story had been circulating for a long time—it was an oral tradition—and a scribe (or scribes) felt that, since it was already accepted as truth by consensus, it was appropriate to include it in the text of Scripture. The problem is that truth is not determined by consensus. The only thing we should consider inspired Scripture is what the prophets and apostles wrote as they “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).
Much as I like the old translations, this sounds quite convincing. I won't even talk about the theological implications of it.
Well, what do you think?
I have no problem believing it was added. I don't know that it changes anything theologically for any except those who believe that Jesus would have assented to the stoning of the woman. I'm not sure I agree, because He was careful to keep the law in fulfillment of it, and the law of Moses said both the man AND the woman were to be stoned. The man was nowhere to be found.
ReplyDeleteIf this is believed by most scholars to have been an actual occurrence that was simply not recorded by John, then theology isn't threatened. My Bible has a note saying it wasn't in the original, as does all my kids' and my husband's. I think plenty has been done to satisfy textual authenticity.
It's true, newer translations put it in brackets. I find it interesting that apparently that story became a part of the canon around the time adultery stopped being a capital crime in Western Europe (well, at least, in England).
ReplyDeleteThe point is, IF it's apocrypha then we have no real way to find out whether it happened and whether what did happen was recorded correctly. It's not so much about stoning, but "let the one without sin cast the first stone" which has been used pretty liberally throughout the ages.
let the one without sin cast the first stone" which has been used pretty liberally throughout the ages.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's been abused and twisted a lot. Almost, if not even more than "judge not lest ye be judged". As if we can or should go through life without making judgments about what is or isn't acceptable.
I think in "Anna Karenina" there is a guy who says that the only thing people remember out of the Gospels is the woman caught in adultery and that we should never cast stones.
ReplyDeleteI have never understood why He wrote on the sand with his finger, and then we are not told WHAT he wrote. Same thing when He cursed the fig tree, even though it wasn't proper time for figs. It is very bad metaphora to curse a tree for not baring fruit, when it is not time for that fruit.
ReplyDeleteThe older I get, the more I am drawn to catholic mystycism. I leave theology to priest and just try to surrender to His presence.
I nowadays feel that huge part of Bible is like zen koans: it serves to help your mind go still, so you can surrender to God's presence and His guidance. Then there is no more no need to understand intellectually; just surrender and obedience, which doesn't feel like obedience at all, but the greatest joy there is.
Blanka, I remembered your frustration when I saw this:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huXUJXpJBvo
:-)
Oh I believe that we can trust the Scriptures which are canonical. Apocrypha is another story, though they can be quite interesting. Book of Enoch anyone?
ReplyDelete