James (1979) on Jn 8:1-11 and the Death Penalty

In the 1980s an amazing but very bad thing happened.

Christians were exposed to radical thinking about John 8:1-11, in vigorous arguments in favour of the Death Penalty in the USA.

For the first time in history, clever proponents for the Death Penalty were using John 8:1-11 in scriptural arguments in FAVOUR of killing prisoners.

This had a serious negative impact on American Law, and we witnessed many states adopting or reinstating the Death Penalty, with Christian Americans standing idly by, bamboozled by flawed arguments and scripture twisting.

I have decided to document some of the more serious and dangerous arguments made to foist this "Nomist" agenda upon both Western Protestantism and the American legal system.

__________________
"Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)

INTRODUCTION

At the time of publication (1979) Stephen A. James was a recent graduate of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.

James and John 8:1-11

James' interest is not in the authenticity or interpretation of the Pericope de Adultera (Jn 8:1-11) per se, but rather in its use in arguments for or against Capital Punishment.

The importance of his article rests in his own personal interpretation of our passage (Jn 8:1-11) and his practical application of it to modern ethical and political issues, such as the question of Capital Punishment (e.g., the appropriateness and legitimacy of the 'death penalty' as imposed by the modern state.)
James interprets the Pericope de Adultera in a Nomist ("Law-ist" i.e., pro-Law) manner, and he uses this interpretation both to negate any application in support of the abolition of the Death Penalty, and also to support his own pro-Death-Penalty position.

Because his points are not by any means crude or easily seen to be erroneous, but are actually very sophisticated legalistic and hermeneutic arguments, they must be examined very carefully and fully weighed against both the traditional Mainstream understanding and in the light of proper hermeneutic principles as well.
]
We believe that properly interpreted, the passage cannot be used in support of either the death penalty or even generally in the sense of a "God-given" mandate for modern governments to enforce law.

Because James' paper has been widely read and is available to both Christians and American lawgivers, its arguments are not insignificant or without influence, both among Christians and non-Christians.

It is imperative then, that his arguments be carefully examined and corrected, so that life-affecting policies and decisions are not mistakenly made on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of Holy Scripture.

__________________
"Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)

James on Jn 8:1-11


Review: S. A. James, The Adulteress and the Death Penalty, JETS 22/1(1979) 45-53


James' Introduction: A Survey of Modern Apologists

James begins by reviewing other apologists on both sides of the modern death-penalty issue, who have referenced Jn 8:1-11. This is important, because as he himself notes, even those in favour of the death penalty have accepted the common interpretation that Jesus in this Scripture has abolished the death penalty at least in the case of adultery:

'...one must agree with those opponents who charge that proponents [of the death penalty] have failed to interact significantly and dynamically with the implications of the text for application to the modern controversy concerning capital punishment.
Richard H. Bube, for instance, in arguing in favor of capital punishment for murder accepts that

"Jesus Himself in His treatment of the woman taken in adultery indicated the negation of the death penalty for that offense [adultery]," 5

and Charles C. Ryrie similarly argues that while the incident may be used to teach that adultery should not be punished with death, abrogation of the death penalty cannot fairly be extended to the crime of murder.' 6
5. R. H. Bube, "New Testament Christianity and the Morality of Capital Punishment," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 13 (December 1961) 115.

6. C. C. Ryrie, "The Doctrine of Capital Punishment," BSac 129 (1972) 214.

- S. A. James, intro, pg 1

The Uniqueness of James' Interpretation

Thus it needs to be noted that even proponents of the death penalty have historically conceded that this passage has given strong moral force and ethical motivation to abolish the death penalty at least in the case of previously death-penalty crimes like adultery/fornication.

S. A. James' pro-death-penalty interpretation then was an extremely novel one at the time of publication, and he stands alone here against nearly 2,000 years of history of interpretation of these verses. Even if others have since been swayed to join him in his position, it remains a historical innovation with no precedent in either law or historical Scriptural interpretation.

This critically important fact cannot be ignored, since the verses have been on display and available for public interpretation since at least the 3rd or 4th century A.D., and deal with common domestic issues of great interest to a majority of people (adultery, divorce). Some of the greatest theologians and brilliant thinkers of the last two millenia have wrestled with these verses from many angles, but have never drawn the extreme conclusions that James does in his paper.

The best that can be said is that during the Post-Reformation Era, a number of "Nomists" or Protestants with 'legalistic' tendencies have made cautious statements or warnings meant to prevent the undermining of civil authority by a too liberal interpretation of the passage. (We'll see this in the next section.)

__________________
"Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)

History of
Interpretation:

(A) Early Writers

The Early Church Fathers (400 A.D. - 1600 A.D.)

James claims to have made a survey of 'prominent interpreters throughout the history of the Christian Church', but lists only the following, prefaced by "such as...":

James' List of 'Prominent' Early Writers

Augustine (c. 400 A.D. )
Chrysostom (c. 350-407 A.D. )
Theodoret ( c. 393-457 A.D. )
Tertullian (c. 160-220 A.D. )
Martin Luther (c. 1500-1546 A.D. )
John Calvin (c. 1520-1564 A.D. )

We must immediately become suspicious of James' survey however: Three out of Four named Early Fathers NEVER discuss John 8:1-11! How then can they be included in a list of 'prominent interpreters'?

Perhaps worse from a scientific research standpoint, dozens of important early Christian writers who DO comment upon the verses are left entirely out of the loop. In fact these verses were popular and frequently commented on between 400 and 1500 A.D., by such fathers, theologians, and Christian apologists as:

The Real List of Early Writers

The Didache (c. 60-120 A.D. )
Papias (c. 100 A.D. )
The Didaskalia (c. 250 A.D. )
Apostolic Constitutions (c. 350 A.D. )
Ambrosiaster (c. 350 A.D. )
Didymus the Blind (c. 360 A.D. )
Pacian (c. 370 A.D. )
Jerome (c. 384 A.D. )
Ambrose (c. 388 A.D. )
Epiphanius (c. 350-400 A.D. )
Faustus (c. 380-400 A.D. )
Augustine (c. 400 A.D. )
Rufinus (c. 408 A.D. )
Sedulius (c. 425 A.D. )
Mara (c. 560 A.D. )
Bede (c. 700 A.D. )... etc.
...

All of these early Christian and non-Christian writers quote the passage (Jn 8:1-11) as Holy Scripture, and James is certainly right in noting that they are "unanimous in interpreting the pericope of the adulteress as being indicative of Jesus' forgiving grace applied to the woman." But...

One problem with James' poor methodology is that the list of 'modern commentators' is made to look about the same size and importance as the list of early Christian writers. But this is hardly the case. On the one hand you have a long consistent tradition involving many dozens of church teachers and theologians and spanning almost 2000 years, while on the other we have a handful of modern amateur commentators (modern Protestants) whose work spans a mere 50 years.

Another anomaly in James' grouping is that he includes Luther and Calvin (16th century Protestant reformers) in the ancient list, whereas they really should be included in the 'modern' list of Protestant commentators who break away from traditional church teaching. The reason for James' grouping appears to be because these two founders of modern Protestantism have views quite different from the supposedly "unanimous" view of 'modern commentators'.

As James notes however,

Luther asserts that the woman was forgiven, 8 while Calvin ...notes that the text does not specify her forgiveness. 9
___________________________________________________

8. M. Luther, Luther's Works (ed. J. Pelikan; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1959), 23. 310.

9. J. Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries: New Testament (ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance, trans. T. H. L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 4. 206-209.

- S. A. James, I. Hist. JETS, p. 46

__________________
"Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)

Sudden Reversal of Interpretation
during Reformation

This seems to indicate an important "crossover-point" in the history of interpretation beginning with Calvin, but James gives no adequate explanation at all as to why 1500 years of "unanimous" interpretation would suddenly be struck down by a Protestant reformer. But clearly, such a stunning reversal in the meaning of the passage at least in some minds demands a full investigation.

Sure enough, this change can be linked to another innovation, the 'Nomism' (Legalism) of Calvin. G. R. O'Day explains:

'...The history of interpretation of this text demonstrates the power of interpretive interests to read the text against its own shape.
...The misreadings of John 7:53-8:11 on which I would like to focus form three clusters:
...(cluster 2) readings that are governed by a fear of and a resistance to Jesus' perceived antinomianism - readings exemplified by Calvin; ...
This second type of misreading is characterized by a fear of antinomianism. Calvin's commentary on this text clearly reveals what is at stake in this misreading:

"It is not related that Christ simply absolved the woman, but that he let her go free. And this is not surprising, for He did not wish to undertake anything that did not belong to his office. Those who deduce from this that adultery should not be punished by death must, on the same reasoning, admit that inheritances should not be divided, since Christ refused to arbitrate between two brothers. Indeed every crime will be exempt from penalties of law if the punishment of adultery is remitted, for the door will then be thrown open to every kind of treachery..."

Calvin then reinforces why adultery should be punished, including the threat that property will be passed to an illegitimate child, and the "chief evil is that the woman disgraces the husband..."
Calvin precludes finding grace in this text:

"Yet the Popish theology is that in this passage Christ has brought in the law of grace, by which adulterers may be freed from punishment...Why is this, but that they may pollute with unbridled lust nearly every marriage bed with impunity? This is the result of that diabolical celibacy..."

Calvin concludes that "although Christ remits men's sins, He does not subvert the social order or abolish legal sentences and punishments." 8

I have quoted Calvin at length because he provides an excellent example of the power of vested interests to reshape a text. What actually occurs in John 7:53-8:11 is secondary to what Calvin will allow to take place.

Calvin may be the most explicit in stating his views, but he is not alone among commentators. Many commentators hedge in their conclusions about this text and cannot allow Jesus' grace toward this woman. For example, Barnabas Lindars writes that Jesus' word to the woman "merely shows that he, too, dismisses the case." 9

E. C. Hoskyns writes, "In some sections of the church the supposed leniency of the words 'neither do I condemn thee' which are, however, not lenient at all, must have occasioned scandal." There is "no condoning of adultery, for the woman's action is roundly denounced as sinful, here also is no forgiveness of sin, for the woman expresses neither faith or repentance." 10

The possibility that in John 7:53-8:11 Jesus subverts the social status quo, particularly with regard to a woman's sexuality, is too dangerous for these interpreters. The need to depict Jesus as the maintainer of the social order (and it seems, to protect Jesus from himself) results in interpretation that reshapes the text.'
________________________________________________
8. John Calvin, The Gospel Acc. St John (transl. T.H.L. Parker, Eerdmans 1959) 209.
9. Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (London 1972) 312.
10. E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (2nd rev. Ed F. N. Davey, Faber & 1947) 570.

G. R. O'Day,
A Study in Misreading,
JBL 111/4 (1992) pp. 631-640

Clearly what we learn from a closer examination of the change in interpretation during the Reformation is this:

There was no 'breakthrough' of insight or brilliant discovery regarding the text at all.

Rather, the text was systematically ignored in favour of vested interests: That is, 'law and order' issues were given priority and overriding authority AGAINST the authority of Holy Scripture and its 1500 year long traditional interpretation.

Calvin did not discover the 'true meaning' of John 8:1-11, but actually subverted it in order to promote his personal views on Law and Order and his pet theories regarding the origin of the traditional interpretation (Papal corruption due to celibacy). We can look backward with calmer, sober hindsight and see that Calvin's theories regarding passage are fatally flawed.

O'Day's investigation clearly shows that others followed Calvin down this road for the very same reasons: They were not interested in the proper interpretation of the passage, but were acting out of a paranoid fear that the traditional interpretation would lead to the corruption of society. They sacrificed the traditional understanding of Jn 8:1-11 to promote a 'law and order' agenda alien to the actual Jesus of the Gospels.

The irony here is that Augustine had given this fear of encouraging adultery as the very reason that some had omitted the verses in the 4th century! Now the post-Reformation Protestant commentators were doing something quite similar for the very same reasons. This shows that Augustine's 'conjectural' explanation was well founded, and based on a solid understanding of human nature.

O'Day firmly establishes that the "Nomist" interpretation of John 8:1-11 originates with Calvin, and that it is not based at all on any new Spiritual insight into or even attention to the text, but rather based on the 'law and order' agenda that James (400 years later) is in fact promoting; i.e. the legitimizing and reinstatement of the Death Penalty.



...to be continued...

peace,
Nazaroo

__________________
"Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)

__________________
"Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)

History of
Interpretation:

(B) Modern Commentators


James' List of 'Modern Commentators'
Next James tells us:

"Modern commentators, such as Bernard, Godet, Hoskyns, Morris and Westcott, are unanimous in noting that the text does not say that Jesus forgave the woman."
- James, The Adulteress..., p 46

Again the list is so skewed and flawed that it amounts to a 'forgery'. There have been literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of 'modern' commentators published in the English language since the publication of the Bible (c. 1550s), and perhaps dozens of personal and novel interpretations of this passage. Every 'modern' commentary on John has been obliged to comment on these verses, since they stand in the text in spite of the arguments of 19th century German critics to expunge them.

This list appears to be an act of desperation:

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) French theologian and reformer
Frédéric Louis Godet (1812-1900), a Swiss Protestant theologian
Sir Edwyn Clement Hoskyns (1884-1937) a priest of the Church of England
Leon Morris (1914-2006) Australian theologian
B. F. Westcott (1825-1901) English bishop and theologian

Although admittedly famous, these crusty old dinosaurs of yesteryear are not famous for solid Biblical doctrine, or even an Evangelical perspective, but rather they are famous for adopting and promoting the views of 19th century German Higher Critics who shipwrecked a whole generation of English speaking Christians.

Westcott for instance was one of the conspirators who foisted the infamous "Revised Version" of 1882 upon the British public, in which some 200 verses of the traditional text of the NT were removed or relegated to footnotes casting doubt upon their authenticity.
We have reviewed the sad performance of many of these commentators here:

Crackpot Commentators on Jn 8:1-11 < - - Click here for details.


None of these commentators are "modern" in any reasonable sense of the word, and it appears that James has had to search far and wide to come up with five people who agree "unanimously" on the minor point that the woman is not explicitly pronounced "forgiven".

Even though these (Protestant) legalists of yesteryear were reserved about forgiving the adulteress, they are not "unanimous" on the meaning of the text, or even committed to any one interpretation.

Many other "prominent commentators" could have been consulted, even if we were restricted to Protestants, such as Raymond Brown (1960),
C. Bushnell (1925), W. Barclay (1956), Z. Hodges (1979).

And the result would not be any kind of "unanimous" verdict that the woman was unforgiven, but it would at least be an honest reflection of truly 'modern' Christian commentary on the verses prior to 1979.

So James is also wrong about the "unanimity" of modern commentators, and the reason appears to be either his lack of even an attempt at adequate research, or perhaps deliberate bias in order to present a simplified and convenient picture for his thesis.

Most readers would not have the time or skills to properly check James' points and these would go unchallenged with unfortunate results.

__________________
"Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)

James dismisses the "modern" commentators in any case with the following claim:

"None of the persons mentioned above seriously examines the words and actions of Jesus in the light of Jewish legal procedures regarding the capital crime of adultery."

- S. A. James, p.46

This may be true regarding James' short list of 5 commentators, but it is plainly a straw-man attack.

The fact is, that ever since critics noticed the verses were omitted in a handful of old copies, they have been exhaustively analyzed and critiqued on the basis of Jewish tradition and Rabbinical interpretation, beginning with the Torah and Talmud, and ending with the most sophisticated discussions surrounding Old Testament Law and ancient and modern jurisprudence and practice over the last 4,000 years.

Good examples of the level of depth in analysis and commentary are the some dozen pages on Jewish historical and legal background presented to the public by Samuel Davidson in his Introduction to the New Testament (1848) pp. 356-369.

Consideration of the Jewish historical and legal issues began as far back as the early 1800s, with Bloomfield's Annotations Sacrae (1826), Rosenmuller's Scholia (1827), Tholuck's commentary (1833, transl. 1842), Alford's Greek NT, (1849-1863), Trollope's Critical Commentary (1842), and Meyer's many revised editions. Tregelles, J.B. Lightfoot, Philip Schaff, F. J. A. Hort, Nestle, all had their analysis of the content of John 8:1-11 in light of Jewish history and practice.

James' remark is simply false. Almost every European, British and American scholar of note throughout the last 200 years has carefully considered the historicity of the passage in the light of Jewish Law and historical background, drawing on everything available from the Babylonian Talmud to Josephus.

Christian scholars have been the most prolific writers on this Jewish/historical aspect of the verses for the last hundred years. Some of these scholars were masters of ancient languages such as Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Syriac and Latin, as well as church history, dogma, and apologetics. Remarkably, none of them concluded that John 8:1-11 taught that the woman wasn't forgiven.

What is unanimous among commentators, is that the woman was probably guilty, and Jesus mercifully defended her by forcing the witnesses to examine themselves, and then He let her go with a warning.

And this is not surprising to anyone without a preconceived agenda regarding Capital Punishment.

__________________
"Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)

Perhaps most remarkable is that one of the first Reformer's Commentaries on John's Gospel, that of John Lightfoot (1675) was based almost entirely upon the Talmud and other Judaic literature.



John Lightfoot (1675) on Jn 8:1-11 < - - Click Here to review

__________________
"Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)

The list of Protestant commentators (if we so choose to limit ourselves) interpreting the passage as an example of pardon and forgiveness is long and prestigious:

Martin Luther(1530) asserts the woman is forgiven;
Dr. Mill, Dr. Whitby, Heumann,
Michaelis, Storr, Languis, Dettmers, Kuinsel, (older commentators) all accept the passage and interpret it normally;
Staudlin alone has Jesus refuse to judge the case,
Bp. Middleton, notes legal precision of "THE stone",
John Lightfoot (1675) expounds with Torah Num 5:17-23
S. T. Bloomfield (1826) sees writing as a Jewish gesture
Trollope (1842) sees Jesus (Jn 8:7) include all sin, not just adultery;
Horne (1856) holds the passage & interpretation authentic
Godet (1865) grants the woman a path to repentance/salvation
Nolan (1865) sees her pardon as necessary to Gospel message
Kelly (1888) sees truth & light in Jesus' convicting grace
Bushnell (1925) says she was repentant, from Jesus' testimony (8:11)
Barclay (1956) calls the story "so gracious men were afraid to tell it"
Hoskyns says it fits the theological theme of judgment in ch 8
Raymond Brown (1966) accepts it as authentic tradition
F. N. Jones (1999) a strict Nomist(!), still confirms her as forgiven
etc.

James fully admits the preponderance of interpretation in his final remark while reviewing ancient and modern commentators:

'The fathers and Luther uniformly supposed that Jesus' motives for action were his desires to grant mercy to the woman and to escape legal entrapment by the Jews, and the modern commentators do nothing to indicate disagreement with this view.'

- James, p. 46

Combining what we have discovered about commentators ancient and modern, with James' own admissions, we must conclude the following basic situation:

(1) Early Christian writers and later commentators were not deficient in examining the Jewish legal and historical background for the passage, and the issues raised by its interpretation.
(2) Early Christian writers and later commentators were overwhelmingly in favour of interpreting Jesus' actions as merciful and forgiving, leading to the woman's repentance and salvation.
(3) The combined expertise and experience of nearly 1,500 years of Christian analysis and commentary and its resultant conclusions cannot be dismissed with an unsupported accusation that they didn't understand the Jewish historical and legal background of the passage.

__________________
"Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)