A Believer's Commentary on John 8:1-11

[Nazaroo]

We have split off our 'World Watch' page on the Pericope de Adultera Website.

The reason is, that we want all Christians to have access to our important articles on the authenticity and interpretation of John 8:1-11.

In order to do this, and so that other Christian sites will be able to link to OUR Webpage (the Pericope de Adultera Homepage), we have removed all material that is controversial, potentially shocking or offensive, and suitable only for mature adults.

We believe only mature, educated adults can interpret properly the significance and context of critically important world events and issues. In fact, some of the material is so shocking and upsetting that strong resolve and inner strength is needed to bear examining it.

This then is our solution: To have TWO websites, one for current political events and news, and to keep the other PURE, covering only the scientific evidences and arguments for authenticity and interpretation, and application of John 8:1-11.

We will only give the link to the 'G' rated MAIN site here. Those ready and able to deal with the more difficult problems of current news events and political discussions dealing with violence against women and injustice can reach the other site by a secondary link from the main site, but which is protected from accidental activation by minors.

The main (and safe) site is:

The Pericope de Adultera Homepage <-- Click Here.

This we feel, after much discussion as to the need to balance the importance of current political and ethical issues with the need for a pure Bible study site, is the best solution.

We welcome input however from other Christians as to managing the issues and the materials appropriately.

Peace,
Nazaroo
​

 

[Nazaroo]

Previously we had mentioned O'Day as a new commentator on John 8:1-11.

She provides a modern academic and also a woman's perspective on the verses.

The primary importance of O'Day's work is that she critiques previous interpretations of the verses, showing some of the bias that has historically occurred in expounding these verses.

She also offers her own 'reading' of the passage, in which she attempts to show that Jesus and John reflect or imply sexual equality (between men and women), by Jesus treating both parties (the woman and the Pharisees) as equals in status.

We will explore how well O'Day succeeds in convincing the reader that Jesus intended a 'gospel of equality' here.


The first issue is how O'Day re-organizes the division of the text.



O'Day's "Rhetorical Shape" Explained

By this "Rhetorical Shape" O'Day means a structural skeleton based literally on the 'rhetoric' within the narrative: The rhetorical performance of Jesus.

In Jesus, O'Day finds the following pattern (twice):

1. Jesus bends down and writes (on the ground).
2. Jesus stands up to address the conversation.
3. Jesus speaks (a pronouncement).

It is on this basis that O'Day ignores the strong and natural division of the passage offered by categories that O'Day herself has already accepted (i.e., Jesus dealing separately with the accusers and the woman).

For the moment we only want to observe that in order to embrace this new framework for the division of the text, O'Day must ignore the obvious content of each 'episode' as a guide.

O'Day must still somehow keep the separate categories:

1. 'Jesus deals with accusers' and
2. 'Jesus deals with the woman' ,

at least in the abstract, in order to even credibly compare Jesus' treatment of each party.


O'Day's "Rhetorical Shape" Framework Examined

Division of Part II by simple content (participants) would result in the following: Section 2 = (8:3-9) and Section 3 = (8:10-11), with 8:9b acting as a bridge or intro to the last section in the same manner as 8:3a does for the previous section. A comparative chart will help in visualization:

We will discuss this new structure of O'Days (on the right of the diagram) shortly.

As promised, We will now analyze O'Day's proposed "Rhetorical Shape", a parallel structure she wishes to impose upon the text of John 8:1-11:



Analyzing O'Day's "Rhetorical Shape"

(1) Lack of Scope and Completeness: The first thing we note is that O'Day's structure does not encompass the entire passage. In fact, it can only legitimately be extended from 8:6b to 8:10. (in light yellow on right of diagram) The pattern doesn't start until Jesus begins to move, bending down to write, and effectively ends after the first address to the woman.


Jesus continues the conversation with her, but this second exchange breaks the pattern, and makes no match in His exchange with the accusers. The parallelism, the very core of the new "Rhetorical Shape" is in fact only partial and breaks down at a critically important point in the story.


O'Day's "Rhetorical Shape" does cover an important section of the story: Jesus' exchange with the accusers and at least part of His exchange with the woman. However, it offers no obvious connection to or explanatory power over the other parts of the text.


(2) Lack of Alignment with Content: The second thing we note is that O'Day's pattern has no correspondence whatever to the natural divisions of the text. None of its borders line up with either the content or focus of the various easily identified sections.


This "Rhetorical Shape" offers no support or reinforcement of the clear and simple scenes or steps in the story's movement, which seem well established and recognized.


(3) Clash with Other Poetic Structures: It needs to be acknowledged by O'Day (and the originator of this idea) that the text actually goes strongly against the pattern suggested. Both times Jesus writes in the sand appear strongly connected to His exchange with the accusers. The 2nd writing is not easily split off and grouped with His dealings with the woman.


In fact, the text already has a strong chiastic structure (A-B-A) built around Jesus' first Pronouncment, already that suggests it is actually being deliberately surrounded by the acts of writing. These form a kind of 'housing' or brackets protecting and emphasizing Jesus' dramatic speech.


This previously existing structure is well-recognized by commentators and textual critics, and seems to contradict the alleged parallel structure here proposed by O'Day. It certainly offers no support for it.


(4) Proliferation of Divisions: Perhaps most problematic for O'Day, is that the new "Rhetorical Structure" introduces at least two, probably three, new divisions into the text that have no other literary support whatever, while obliterating the one reasonable and well recognized division: namely that between Jesus' dealings with the accusers, and His dealings with the woman.


These new textual divisions appear to serve no purpose. O'Day certainly doesn't explain them. Her analysis simply consists of "Here's a pattern. Jesus does the same thing with both parties." Precisely where such a discovery should inspire new insight or explanatory power, O'Day drops the ball.


(5) "Rhetorical Shape" is Nonessential: The new concept also appears unnecessary, calling it into further doubt. Christians have got by without it for 2000 years, without the lack causing any really severe errors. Even though O'Day has complaints about previous interpretations, she fails to trace such 'misreadings' directly to the lack of this 'insight'.


The significant faults O'Day does find with Christian interpretation have more to do with cultural bias and political concerns than any oversight in reading the textual structures.


(6) "Rhetorical Shape" Fails to Support Gender Equality: "Rhetorical Shape" itself contributes little to O'Day's argument for gender equality, and 2/3 of this supposed pattern seems virtually irrelevant to Jesus' treatment of the various parties.


Does it really matter if Jesus wrote in the sand before both parties, if as O'Day claims, he wrote nothing significant? If writing was just an avoidance strategy, or a signal of non-participation, how does this apply to the woman?


And is it even credible that in the 2nd act of writing on the ground Jesus was also avoiding any interaction with the woman, when it is actually Jesus who then initiates the conversation? If not, then how are the two acts of writing 'equivalent'? The second act doesn't even appear to be directed at the woman at all.


Does Jesus' straightening up or standing before speaking really indicate the equality of the two parties, or is it just a postural habit or a gesture of ordinary politeness?

Nor do the two speeches appear equivalent: With the accusers, Jesus seems to stare into space and attempts to summon a fictional 'sinless' character, ignoring them entirely. When he turns to the woman, he appears to talk to her directly, perhaps without malice, but he interrogates her all the same, and his final pronouncements appear stern. It seems like apples and oranges once again.


O'Day fails to explain how any of the three gestures demonstrate or even hint at 'gender equality'.


(7) "Rhetorical Shape" functions as a Smokescreen: It has all the appearance of a 'fad'. - A fashionable novelty picked up in passing from a recent obscure study, which O'Day uses as something like a magician's wand: it seems meant to amuse and distract while serious sleight-of-hand is performed elsewhere during the discussion.


As we shall see, O'Day's arguments are no better or worse with or without "Rhetorical Shape", and she must be aware of this. So what function does it really serve? It appears only to add novelty and distraction from the serious issues at hand.

We want to stress that we are not against 'gender equality' or even O'Day's agenda of searching for support for it in the Holy Scriptures.

The main problem with O'Day is that on the one hand she dismisses all previous interpreters' efforts as 'misreadings', while insisting that her own anachronistic feminist reading of the passage is the 'true reading'. However, commandeering Holy Scripture for any private agenda is easier said than done.

 

[Nazaroo]

Analyis of Gender Equality

As we noted previously, O'Day extends the meaning of the passage to include an intentional statement regarding the equality of men and women. This is a more ambitious thesis than the observations in her initial sketch can sustain by themselves .


What might the author have intended in recording this story in the form it takes? What issues might have been important? Here are some obvious possibilities:

(1) People over Law: to challenge attitudes regarding the relative importance of people in comparison to legalism (i.e., the "letter" of the law versus compassionate and appropriate application of it).
(2) A Change of Law: to challenge legal codes at the time of Jesus or their interpretation, and replace them with different standards (i.e., less stringent enforcement of adultery codes).
(3) Equality of Men and Women: to challenge ideas regarding the inferiority or lower status and/or power granted to women.
​

Any or all of the above issues might have been intended as the focus, and perhaps even others.

For example, we could draw supporting evidence from John and other Gospels for
(1) People over Law, as in Jesus' statements in John 7:22-24, or in His famous statement regarding the Sabbath in Mark 2:27 (cf. Luke 13:15f etc.). For the more extreme (2) Change of Law, we could cite John 7:19, or Matt. 12:8.



Corroborating Evidence for Equality of Men and Women

Yet O'Day's thesis falls under (3) Equality of Men and Women, and we should at least expect supporting evidences to be cited such as Paul's famous statement in Gal. 3:28. One would also wish for evidence closer to the mark, such as Jesus' handling of the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:5 fwd, esp. 4:27b), or the honor granted Mary brother of Lazarus (Jn 12:1-8, cf. Mark 14:9), or the value given the testimony of Mary Magdalene (Jn 20:12 fwd, esp. 20:18).

However, O'Day's method prevents her from citing any corroborating evidence whatsoever. The novelty in her approach is that she takes the text in total isolation, on its own merits. This is both the strength and Achilles' Heel of her program. For there are two weaknesses here:

(1) She abandons legitimate evidence that would support her argument.
(2) She fails to compete with alternate interpretations of John 8:1-11 on a level playing-field.
​

Nonetheless, as independant investigators, our goal is ultimately not any one interpretation or agenda, no matter how attractive. It is our responsibility to ask an important question not overtly stated by O'Day:

What was the author's intent here?
​

This is in fact what O'Day herself appears to seek by her very approach: She initially rejects popular interpretations that largely ignore the text itself in isolation. She ignores the Johannine context, and application of the passage to the Gospel (an obvious and purposeful activity of either the Evangelist or the "interpolator/inserter"). And she begins by appealing directly to the text.

O'Day finds in the text plenty of fodder for a modern feminist interpretation. So the question before us then practically becomes:

Does the text support O'Day's take on its intent?
​

The question initially resolves to this because O'Day's argument is based upon a premise that (all) other interpretations are "misreadings", because they don't follow the text. And so we must carefully appraise the claim of O'Day that she has followed the text and that it does support her own interpretation.

 

[Nazaroo]

Part of the effectiveness of O'Day's claims will depend upon how she disposes of previous competing interpretations of John 8:1-11.

Its worthwhile to examine then this portion of O'Day's article separately.

The misreadings of John 7:53-8:11 on which I would like to focus form three clusters:
(1) readings that define the pericope in terms of the exchange between Jesus and the woman - readings exemplified, and, as we shall see, determined by Augustine;
(2) readings that are governed by a fear of and a resistance to Jesus' perceived antinomianism - readings exemplified by Calvin;
(3) readings that locate the key to the text in what Jesus wrote on the ground - no single commentator has held sway here.

------------------------------


(1) There is no question that Augustine's writings on John 7:53-8:11 have had the most decisive shaping influence on how this text is interpreted (at least in the Western church). Augustine's classic formulation on this text is found in Homily XXXIII on the Gospel of John:

"There remained alone they two, a wretch and Mercy (miseria et misericordia)." 5​

This line has been seized on by subsequent commentators as the perfect summary of the text. Rudolf Schnackenburg, for example, calls Augustine's words "a theologically precise lapidary phrase" 6 Raymond Brown supports his view that "the moment when the sinful woman stands confronted with the sinless Jesus is one of exquisite drama" by referring to Augustine. 7

Is John 7:53-8:11 really this bipolar, however? Does the shape of the story itself support locating the full weight of the drama in the final exchange between Jesus and the woman?

By highlighting the woman's sin, and hence her unworthiness as a candidate for grace, the rest of the text is reduced to prolegomena. The larger social questions of Jesus' relationship to the religious establishment and the challenge he presented to the status quo are lost to the woman's sin.

Jesus is grace and mercy in this text, but his mercy is not exclusively visible in contrast to the woman's sin. To summarize the story as sin (woman) and grace (Jesus) is to objectify and dehumanize the woman the same way the scribes and Pharisees do in v. 4.
It is to define her away because of her sexuality rather than to treat her as a full person as Jesus does in vv. 10-11. It is to accept the scribes and Pharisees' definition of the woman (and the issues) rather than Jesus'. It is to ignore the invitation issued by Jesus in v. 7 and to cast a stone.

-------------------------------------------


(2) The 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.

-------------------------------------------

(3) John 7:53-8:11 becomes completely malleable in the hands of interpreters who seek to discover what Jesus wrote in the ground. The text changes shape in accordance with what words one assumes Jesus wrote.

Jerome suggested (Contra Pelagium 2.17) that Jesus was writing the people's sins on the ground. J. D. M. Derrett, in a most elaborate argument, identifies Exod. 23:1b as Jesus' text the first time he writes, and Exod. 23:7 as Jesus' text the second time he writes. (Derrett reminds us that the Hebrew Jesus wrote would be unpointed, which would allow for some latitude in interpretation by the onlookers). 11

Some commentators propose that Jesus writes words from the story of Daniel and Susanna (v. 53) on the ground. 12 In a recent treatment of John 7:53-8:11, James Sanders suggests that when Jesus first bends down he writes the first five commandments of the Decalogue, and when he bends down the second time he writes the last five commandments. 13

Yet the shape of the story makes clear that Jesus' conversation partners, both the scribes and Pharisees and the woman, respond to what they hear Jesus say, not to what he writes. 14

Attempts to find the interpretive key to John 7:53-8:11 in something outside the given story reveal a dissatisfaction with and distrust of the story as it is written. Such interpretations constitute a refusal to take the text seriously. 15

They serve, once again, a need to rescue Jesus from himself. If one can discover a biblical precedent or external rationale for what Jesus does in this story, then Jesus' actions become less dangerous and objectionable.


Original Footnotes:
5. Augustine, Homily XXXIII, Hom. On John & First Epistle (Oxford: J. H. Parker; 1848) 1. 477.
6. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel Acc.to St.John (NY Crossroad 1982) 2. 167.
7. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel Acc. To John (AB 29; Doubleday 1966)
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.
11. Derrett, &quot;Law&quot;, 18-23
12. R. E. Osborne, Pericope Adulterae CJT 12 (1966) 281.
13. James Sanders, &quot; 'Nor Do I...': A Canonical Reading of the Challenge to Jesus in John 8,&quot; in The Conversation Continues: Studies in John and Paul (ed. R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa; Abingdon, 1990) 337-47.
14. Sander's comment is revealing in this regard: &quot;Hearing on the part of the Pharisees includes also seeing what Jesus wrote; it might be understood as heeding&quot; (ibid 339). In order to support this argument, Sanders has to rewrite the text.
15. The tradition that associated Jer 17:13 with Jesus' writing on the ground is an exception to this statement, because Jer 17:13 is used to explain the significance of the act of Jesus' writing, not to supply the text that he wrote.

 

[Nazaroo]

Problem 1: O'Day's Categories

O'Day does not explicitly state that ALL previous commentators are buffoons, but on the other hand, she would likely deny any charges that she set up a 'straw-man' to attack either.

She admittedly selects a fair sample of popular commentaries and authors to examine, which indeed spans 1500 years of mainstream interpretation of the verses.

The sample size should be perhaps much larger and broader, but she can't really be faulted as misrepresenting the status quo regarding interpretation of John 8:1-11.

These apparent 'misreadings' are severe and widespread enough to be a serious issue for O'Day.

But are they really 'misreadings'?



Comparing 'Misreadings' to the Text Itself

O'Day would have us emphasize the 'equal treatment' which both parties (Pharisees & co., vs. the woman) receive from Jesus.

But could her apparently anachronistic feminist 'reading' of John 8:1-11 be as bad a 'misreading' as that of say Calvin (1550), or even Augustine (c. 400 A.D.), labouring under the biases of their own era? The verses after all are actually 400 years older than the oldest surviving commentary!



Category (1): Those Who Focus on the Woman

Augustine characterizes the scene as "misery" (the caught adulteress) versus "grace" (Jesus the Saviour), but is this Augustine's fault, or that of the text itself?
O'Day claims Augustine's eyeview clones that of the Pharisees and scribes: 'objectifying and dehumanizing' the woman, it 'defines her away', and fails "to treat her as a full person like Jesus does". It is to accept the scribes and Pharisses definition of the woman and the issues', and finally, it ignores the invitation of Jesus, and "casts a stone"!



How the Text actually presents the Pharisees and Scribes

From a literary standpoint, the Pharisees and scribes begin as a faceless gang only identified by their profession. They have a spokesman, who starts out with a voice but this fades out into vague references to speech (8:7a).

The gang itself becomes a disorganized and defocussed group, performing even more vague actions (8:9), until they virtually fade away, drifting off like separating swirls of smoke.

Jesus never even addresses them directly either as a group, or as individuals. Instead He appeals to a hypothetical but unlikely candidate (the sinless one) somewhere out in the crowd, who's absence becomes quickly apparent.

In some sense at least, Jesus however reluctantly, acknowledges a kind of peership with the Pharisees and scribes, by assenting to their request for a ruling or teaching. He accepts the title of "Teacher" (Rabbi), and cooperates at least formally, taking the honour from them (however insincere), and standing with them in their Jewishness.

Likewise, they assent to His ruling/teaching, however slowly, grudgingly granting Him the status they had offered from the beginning. His honour and status is derived straight from His words, and they are received solemnly as evidence. Like badges of identity and coats of arms, they mark Jesus with a stature and greatness.

And by acknowledging His words the Pharisees and scribes partake of His honour and status. They choose to accept rather than argue, and like the fool silently standing beside the wise man they appear wise also. The woman has no such opportunity.


The Woman as Portrayed in the Story

The woman on the other hand has no such comradery to latch onto, no mutual respect, no feeling of membership in an elite group of 'teachers' and 'lawyers'. She has no opinion to be sought. Her only title is 'adulteress', a label equal to "death-row inmate". She has no freedom to walk, or even speak unless spoken to. No hope of anything like the status of a man in ancient Jerusalem, much less a comfortable 'sexual equality'.

She moves from an unidentified culprit, to a legal and moral concern, and becomes simultaneously an unwanted interruption. Then she changes remarkably into an 'object' of contemplation, but not in the negative feminist sense.

She finally evolves for Jesus into someone with whom to make inquiries of without any apparent malice, and perhaps surprisingly, someone to hear some testimony from.

Ultimately she receives personal attention from the Son of God. She receives a reprieve, freedom, an individualized warning, and a command.

Its extremely difficult to see how Jesus treated these two parties "equally". If anything, He clearly favours the woman, even if this favour is pure 'grace', and wholly unmerited from all appearances of the circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, this 'favour' from Jesus never raises her to any credible status that could be called "equal" to that of the Pharisees and scribes. They retain their priviledged and exclusive status, while she retains the status of an adulteress, not even the rank of an ordinary Jewish woman.


The Centrality of the Woman Rises with the Climax

We must also note from the literary viewpoint that as the obvious climax of the story rises (the question of her guilt and future), the Pharisees and scribes, even the crowd hanging upon Jesus' every word, fade away in presence and significance completely, while the woman indeed becomes the complete center of attention.

Even Jesus Himself reluctantly takes the stage, only to deliver one terse line and then return to the sidelines awaiting the actions of others. How is this text supposed to be read as a paradigm for equality?

After all this, its hard to see any fault with Augustine, or with Ray Brown's characterization of the final scene: "...the moment when the sinful woman stands confronted with the sinless Jesus is one of exquisite drama."

We may grant some substance to O'Day's complaints. We may acknowledge the ever-present danger of being distracted from the heart and soul of the passage by legal details or misplaced emphasis.

But when all is said and done, Augustine and his hermeneutical heirs seem hardly guilty of much more than an emotional over-fascination with Jesus' treatment of a sinful woman. Is this the great error? Can it be called a 'misreading' to focus on what the text itself seems also to underscore?

Isn't the story about a woman taken in adultery after all? Shouldn't we expect the spiritual doctors to emphasize the subject of sin and forgiveness, rather than minimize it in order to highlight peripheral issues like gender equality?

 

[Nazaroo]

Category (2): Fear of Fear of Antinomianism


Here is one place where a person might be initially inclined to think that O'Day has pulled a straw-man out of a hat to chop down. Calvin (writing in 1550), complete with Papist Conspiracy theories, and his all too human (read Paul's "natural man") fears of being cuckholded, is a frightening spectacle of "anti - antinomianism".


The Danger of Extreme Calvinism and Legalism (Phariseeism)

Extreme Calvinism, or at least "Ultra-Calvinism" is in fact Christianity turned inside out to such a degree that it becomes a cruel caricature of the real thing, a kind of "Satanic counterfeit" of the Gospel.

This line of theology swung the pendulum too far the other way in its knee-jerk reaction to the corrupt Roman Catholicism of the Middle Ages, with its Inquisitions, pogroms, heretic exterminations, anti-science, and witchhunts.

Add to this, the fact that Calvin himself was apparently personally responsible for having at least one man burnt at the stake for disagreeing with his doctrines, and you have such a repugnant character and teaching that it is hardly conceivable that anyone would follow his absurdities for very long today.

Only the incredible thing is, thousands still flock to Calvin's books and doctrines, seemingly oblivious to the errors, dangers and sorry history of this sad aberration within Protestant Christianity. So it turns out O'Day isn't just dredging ancient skeletons when she attacks the pompous self-serving "commentary" of Calvin.

There are thousands of Calvinist extremists, preaching all kinds of nonsense. And its the kind of perenial problem the Church will always have. Legalists and others who latch onto the bible and read it just deep enough to think that the New Testament is really essentially a revival of "old-time Judaism".


Commentators need Freedom to Discuss Issues

But again O'Day exaggerates the problem and the error. It is perfectly right and within the mandate of a commentator to discuss the Old Testament Law (Torah) in regard to Adultery, and the issues of Law Enforcement and obediance to government when expounding a passage like this.

Calvin's error wasn't simply in being against "antinominianism". Calvin held a LOT of erroneous doctrines, and this skewed his understanding and exposition of John 8:1-11. But Tertullian was also in the same boat, and perhaps to a degree Augustine as well.
Calvin's main fault is simply that he didn't read the text properly or study it well enough to give a proper and deep exposition of the verses. Calvin's "misreading" lies in what he didn't do, rather than what he did do.

Many laws and doctrines are involved when treating a typical Biblical legal case. Its wrong to call expounding even a half-dozen ideas while commenting on certain tough scriptures inappropriate. And John 8:1-11 is one of those cases. It begs for a thorough treatment, not a myopic one-sided approach.

 

[Nazaroo]

Category (3): Sweeping the Others Under the Carpet

Perhaps O'Day's small sample is part of the problem, but her third category is a mirage, simply scooping up all the other commentators that don't fit in the first two categories. In reality, the common thread, that of trying to discover what Jesus wrote on the ground, is a thin one. The range of opinion and interpretation for this group is wide and diverse.

Yet O'Day finds the same fault in all of them:

Just daring to seek "the interpretive key...in something outside the story reveals a dissatisfaction with and distrust of the story as written" and "constitute a refusal to take the text seriously."
For O'Day, "they serve...a need to rescue Jesus from himself." The explanation is simple: "If one can discover a biblical precedent or external rationale for what Jesus does...then Jesus' actions become less dangerous and objectionable."
​

O'Day groups them all together and tars and feathers them with the same brush. Perhaps sensing how preposterous this claim sounds, she qualifies it with an exception in a footnote:

"The tradition that associated Jer 17:13 with Jesus' writing on the ground is an exception to this statement, because Jer 17:13 is used to explain the significance of the act of Jesus' writing, not to supply the text that he wrote."
​

Yet even here the reasoning is completely non-sequitous. She allows the supporters of the "Jer.17:13" application to escape her scathing condemnation, because they don't dare to guess what Jesus actually wrote, but only its significance.

But this is merely convenient to her own theory that Jesus' writing signifies nothing at all. She fails to explain why these men would be any less bigoted or inclined to 'misread' the text. But this is sorely needed since she condemns all other attempts to discover Jesus' writing so harshly.




What the Commentators are Really Like

But O'Day's claims regarding all such commentators is scarcely believable. Most Christians don't view Jesus' actions "dangerous and objectionable", even in John 8:1-11. Its only liberal agnostic scholars who do this. O'Day is projecting herself onto the most unlikely targets.

She analyzes them like a pop psychologist: their attempt to discover what Jesus wrote "reveals a dissatisfaction and distrust of the story as written". Yet a majority of commentators in the past were strict conservatives with strong opinions in favour of accepting the story "as written".

And the most active group of modern interpreters, namely evangelicals, mostly commit to extreme doctrines like 'biblical inerrancy' and 'Divine Inspiration and Preservation' of the text! Again O'Day in her agnostic university setting appears completely out of touch with current trends in biblical scholarship, and who these people really are.

If she can't even penetrate the thinking and motivation of modern commentators, how can she be trusted not to 'misread' John 8:1-11? With wild claims like this, O'Day seriously undermines her own credibility.

Here O'Day's investigation falls on its face. Literally thousands of conjectures as to what Jesus wrote have been made over two thousand years. They range from brilliant proposals to absurd suggestions.

For O'Day to present a few lame examples, such as Sanders' Decalogue in two parts, Derrett's Exodus 23:1/7 or the improbable quotation from Susanna is totally inadequate. To follow this with a mean caricature of bumbling and embarrassed apologists seeking to legitimize a 'rogue Jesus' borders on mere clowning.

Why waste our time with the worst examples? It is O'Day's obligation to go and find the best, and critique those.




A Mystery that Deserves a More Convincing Treatment

The problem of Jesus writing on the ground remains unsolved. Most honest investigators will admit a number of possibilities. This doesn't make them "dissatisfied apologists for a 'crazy Jesus' who are desperately trying to legitimize embarrassing episodes".

Rather than alienate all other investigators and commentators by painting them as loons, O'Day should simply get on with the business of presenting a convincing case for her own position, if one can be made at all.

O'Day's complaint is that if interpreters seek to discover what Jesus wrote, then the text changes shape according to what we assume Jesus wrote. The concern over subjectivity is moot however, unless O'Day can show that her own approach can escape this same charge.

If all the main lines of exposition in the past were subjective 'misreadings' anyway, where's the danger? Why not experiment: perhaps someone will stumble upon a better interpretation.

The one claim O'Day makes about the passage in Category (3) is this:

"...the shape of the story makes clear that Jesus' conversation partners, both the scribes and Pharisees and the woman, respond to what they hear Jesus say, not to what he writes."
​

But is this even true? It is true that the Pharisees and scribes appear to ignore Jesus' first writing on the ground. But what about the second writing? If the Pharisees are reacting only to what Jesus said, they seem to be taking a long time to react to it.
What if however, they had to react to BOTH Jesus' speech (8:7b) AND what He wrote the second time (8:8)? Even as they are mulling over Jesus' spoken words, they stare down at what begins to appear in the dirt under Jesus' finger, as they crowd around him.

There seems to be a real potential there in explaining why they took a significant amount of time to grasp Jesus' message(s), and why they went away one by one as each got the idea.

To this day, no one has adequately explained how Jesus' speech alone could have had the unique effect upon the crowd of Pharisees and scribes that it apparently did according to the story. And this includes O'Day.

Interestingly, this is actually a repeatable experiment! We could easily ask a group of orthodox Rabbis or students of the Torah to respond to Jesus' teaching in a 'double-blind' experiment, and see if they indeed react similarly to those in the text. O'Day has not done this, yet that is precisely what is needed to support her claims about Jesus' speech versus His writing, in the story.

If O'Day wants to convince other interpreters to abandon the search for what Jesus wrote, then she must show how Jesus' spoken word could have credibly accomplished what it did, at least in the eyes of the author of the text. This O'Day fails to do.

In fact, she fails to perceive the subtlety of the actual problem here.

As it stands, O'Day has made sweeping and unreasonable assertions about the motives of commentators and the meaning of the passage, rather than providing solid evidence and argument for ignoring the content of Jesus' writing on the ground. Nor does she make any convincing arguments for abandoning the search for Jesus' written words.

 

[Nazaroo]

Apples and Oranges?


Its important to make clear the distinction regarding whether one is pursuing John's sources or pursuing the intent of the Evangelist.


Here's why:


O'Day leads us to believe that previous commentators fall into three categories of "misreading". That is, all previous commentators have misunderstood the passage, in one of three ways.

O'Day would persuade us that her interpretation of the passage is the correct one. The problem is, O'Day is clearly not even doing the same thing as what the other commentators are doing.
In practical terms, O'Day appears to be analyzing and interpreting John's (or the interpolator's) source, whereas most commentators are interpreting what John the Evangelist himself is trying to tell us by including this story and giving it the form he does.

So there is obviously a huge difference between the two goals and their results. Is it fair to call other interpreters "wrong" because they have a different purpose in hand?




Johannine Context is Still Important


Even if O'Day and others are correct in classing the passage as a later interpolation, we still have the problem of what the passage is doing in John.


It is an important line of investigation to consider what purpose is served by its insertion in its present location. This can hardly be avoided, nor can it be said to be "wrong" to analyze the question:

What is the meaning of the passage in its present location?

And we may reasonably ask, what really is the task of a commentator on John when handling these verses? The majority of Christian scholars feel that the story is authentic tradition, even if it is not John's work.


And so they must take the position that it somehow belongs in John: i.e., that its current location is inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit. But if this is true, then its meaning must also in part derive from its location and presentation in its current form in John.




O'Day is Simply Not a 'Christian Commentator'


But O'Day's alternate interpretation of the passage is derived from treating it as a foreign intruder having no connection to or significance in its current location. While this may be a bona fide scholarly experiment, it cannot be a bona fide Christian interpretation.

Even a very liberal Christian stance might well acknowledge the passage is an interpolation, but would also allow its historical potential and accept the means by which it comes to us.


Surely then O'Day's dismissal of other commentators' efforts as "misreadings" is too extreme; - and is in fact a false portrayal of the case.


It would be better to say that even when other commentators diverge into three different groups, with different results, they are at least trying to achieve the same goal, the interpretation of the verses in their current context.


O'Day's purpose is quite different: She is trying to interpret the passage as an independant "source document" of some kind, and she even passes over the purpose and role of the "interpolator" who gave us the story in the first place, in its current locale .

By completely separating the passage and attempting to interpret it in isolation, O'Day is engaging in Source Criticism, not normal biblical commentary, exegesis, or even hermeneutics.

How then can she be 'right' and all others 'wrong'? Its a case of apples and oranges.
O'Day's own scholarly activities may not be illegitimate, but any claim that only her activities are legitimate would not be scholarly.

 

[Nazaroo]

Separate but Equal Treatment?

O'Day speaks as though the woman and the Pharisees are on equal footing with Jesus:

The problem with O'Day's interpretation here of the last third of the story is as follows:

The woman actually cannot go "just as the rest of the crowd did."

She must remain under arrest under threat of death, and await her disposal, while the Pharisees and crowd are free agents, who may come and go at their leisure, whether they comprehend Jesus' pronouncement (Jn 8:7b), or not.



Jesus' First Pronouncement (Jn 8:7)


Whatever the first pronouncement of Jesus (Jn 8:7) does do, it cannot find her accusers legally deserving of a mandatory death sentence or hold them prisoner, while they await a ruling over their own possible stoning.

They are always free to walk away. Jesus attempts no "citizen's arrest". Their status as free men is only endangered by some potentially foolish choice like provoking the Roman authorities with an unlawful stoning.

Her status remains in doubt until the end, an intolerably long wait under such conditions.

Nor is this difference "just". It quickly becomes apparent that her accusers are equally guilty, yet suffer no similar consequences. They may retreat out of guilt and perhaps fear, but undergo no ordeal.



Unequal Treatment of Parties


And the first and second pronouncements are not equivalent. The first pronouncement may convict the heart, but it is not really equivalent to the stinging humiliation and public recrimination of "Sin no more." (Jn 8:11), addressed to the woman alone and vulnerable before the hostile crowd.


Jesus' words find her guilty of the very accusation she is released from, even as He sends her off. And she is not 'free'. The words will follow her everywhere, along with the eyes of the crowd. They will be chained to her, while she herself is branded 'adulteress' and scorned. And she is 'sent' from Jesus' presence, not embraced. This terse dismissal has no resemblance to the tender story in Luke 7:36-50.


The Mob of accusers however retain their anonymity even as they scurry off under a heavy cloud. They remain nameless faces in a lynch mob, and can hide indefinitely in their priviledged society. But to escape further stigma and guilt, they only need retire, to bask in their accumulated wealth and status.



New Testament Context

In the context of John's Gospel, the second statement recalls Jesus' warning to the cripple "...lest something worse happen to you!" (Jn 5:14).


O'Day would have us ignore the 'outside', even passages in John a few pages away; but these are the only two places this expression occurs in the whole NT. To say this is a mere coincidence strains credibility to the breaking point. It is more plausible that our author knew exactly what he was doing in referencing Jn 5:14.


Acknowledging this reference allows the text to more plainly note the difference in actual predicament between the woman ( 'guilty' under law, but being freed on a technicality) and her accusers ('free' under the Law, but guilty in reality). With or without the external reference, "Sin no more." continues to find the woman guilty of some unspecified but serious sinful behaviour in the past.



By contrast, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." is a conviction of a different kind and quality, more in keeping with the (probably later) teaching in Matthew:

"Whoever even looks upon a woman with desire has committed adultery with her already!" (Matt. 5:28, cf. Matt.7:1!). ​

And again in both cases, strongly connected extra-textual references underline the meaning, and are hard to imagine as mere coincidences in a carefully written story about Jesus.

Its easy to understand why O'Day downplays extra-textual connections like these, which underline the differences between the accusers and the woman. But even without them, the two cases may be parallel, but they are not "equal".

 

[Nazaroo]

Not Much of a Break for the Woman


While some compassion has been granted to the woman through reluctant intervention by Jesus, this hardly addresses the obvious differences in status and power between the parties.

The woman remains constrained by the conventions of Jewish society, and worse, will suffer extra penalties via public recognition as a 'previous offender'. She doesn't have the priviledge of challenging Jesus on a point of Law or doctrine. She is 'sent off', apparently without even a concern for where she may now go.


The Pharisees on the other hand continue in their priviledged status, never brought to justice for their obvious impropriety. They remain wealthy and powerful, in a position to abuse their power over other unfortunate women.



They are repelled, but not defeated; - not even punished.





The Dark Side: Not 'Susanna' by a Long Shot


The ending is utterly unlike the Story of Susanna in this respect. Jesus is not the young hero who saves a damsel in distress, and who exposes the wickedness of the evil rulers and brings them to justice. Instead, the evil rulers wander off shamed but escape judgement entirely.


The woman similarly is apparently no 'innocent' victim. The whole story is remarkably and realistically ugly in contrast to the virtual fairytale of Susanna.

John 8:1-11 may be a drama, involving law, politics, sin, danger, and life-and-death action, but it is no Sunday School story: it is an R-rated 'adult thriller' with complex, dark and mysterious characters, including Jesus.


The woman is reluctantly 'rescued', but left on probation, her trial suspended, her reputation left uncleared, her future uncertain. She escapes, but it is no happy ending. Rather its the suspenseful brooding 'ending' of an unresolved drama that imposes the expectation of an immediate sequel, which may be even 'darker' than Part One.




Equality Remains Elusive Here as a Principle


While the realism is strong evidence for a historical incident in the life of Jesus, it is extremely weak as evidence of a "doctrine of equality of sexes", even a secret one.


On the surface at least, Jesus is plainly reluctant to even judge the woman's case. Would He have actually preferred to leave her in the hands of her accusers? Or is He counting on their persistence?


In any case, Jesus acts by appearances as an incredible "anti-hero" here. Rather than enthusiastically championing her cause, He plays the part of a 'Pilate', openly unwilling to participate, and seemingly preferring to wash his hands entirely of her judgment!


Is this really what a 'Defender of Gender Equality' would do here? O'Day fails to show how the story as we actually find it supports her Gender Equality interpretation.


She makes no credible case that either the story action or the author/narrator is guided by principles of Equality over other motivational factors.

And if we admit other factors or issues were overriding in this case, O'Day's interpretation of the passage as a 'sleeper' for sexual equality seems to go right out the window!


We may fairly ask whether Gender Equality is the true or even main purpose of this story: Why couldn't it have been written less ambiguously, or even more to the point, why couldn't Jesus have just stood up and given a sermon or parable on this topic? He certainly had no reluctance in doing so on other equally controversial subjects!


It may be that it is really Jesus, John, or an unknown author who has disappointed us here in terms of providing support for Gender equality, and not O'Day.


Yet its O'Day who makes the claim, (and no one else), and the claim remains very weak if not ambiguous. While not incompatible with the text, which is at least something, the case has yet to be convincingly fleshed out by O'Day.

 

[Nazaroo]

O'Day begins her own Interpretation of the verses by reiterating her view on previous interpreters:

All three misreadings have in common that they reshape the text away from Jesus' treating the woman as a social and human equal of the scribes and Pharisees.

By narrowing the focus of the story to Jesus and the sinful woman, for example, the woman's situation is isolated from the situation of the other characters. Her sin thus becomes the pivot in contrast to Jesus' grace.

In the [anti-]antinominan misreadings, the text is reshaped in order to reclaim and reassert the stability of the social order. If the woman and the scribes and Pharisees are treated equally by Jesus, then social reordering is required, a reordering that some may perceive as social chaos.

In the search for the words that Jesus wrote on the ground, an explanation for Jesus' actions is sought outside the world of the text, so that Jesus' relationship to the woman can be made less threatening.

O'Day claims previous interpreters have twisted the text away from its natural purpose, which is to show Jesus treating both parties as a social and human equals.

But O'Day hasn't shown yet that the text itself even does this. Unless the text really shows Jesus treating the two parties equally, previous interpreters are innocent of this charge.

While O'Day is surely right in her assessment of Calvin, who ignores the text, her criticism of Augustine is unsupported, and her accusation against those who seek what Jesus wrote in the ground is simply ludicrous.


Can Augustine really be accused of "objectivizing" the woman in the same way as the Pharisees?

The accusers want to kill her. They carelessly use her as a foil to trap Jesus.

Augustine may agree with her accusers as to her guilt (rightly or wrongly), but this is also how the text itself presents her. From this point on, the two parties diverge quite rapidly.

Augustine's compassionate concern for her is the very opposite of her accusers. Unlike Calvin, Augustine is less concerned with questions of "law and order", and more concerned with the operation of the Grace of the Christ upon a sinner.

Does Augustine "narrow" the issue to the woman, isolating her from the others, and focussing on her sin, or does the text itself do this?

Most people who have given it a fair reading don't think Augustine is "seeing ghosts" of Christian dogma, but that its a real human story that confronts sin, and its consequences in the world of Jesus, squarely in the face.

If sin is real, and its consequences risky and serious, then this story seems firmly planted in reality, or at least in the same worldview that the rest of the Gospel of John offers.

With or without Augustine, it still looks an awful lot like a story about sin and reprieve, not about "gender equality".

Nor has O'Day in any convincing way shown how Augustine and others with a similar take on the verses have "objectified" the woman in the same way as the accusers of the story.

What actually dehumanizes a person, turning them into an "object", and what grants them dignity and humanizes them?

In part it is our own attitude that does this.

Those who degrade and mistreat people, making them valueless and 'expendable', permitting abuse and denying the "sin" of such behaviour, are the real "objectifiers".

Those who care for others, who have concern for their future, and abhore injustice, mean treatment and abuse, and who believe in sin and personal responsibility are the "anti-objectifiers".

O'Day's problem is that philosophically she seems unable to allow the reality, even the 'category' of SIN. For modern agnostic academics, this is an "outmoded" way of thinking.

O'Day wants to analyze the human condition by way of psychology, seeking for human motive and its assessment in evolutionary theories, and animal instincts.

But people are not animals, and they have motives and feelings higher than mere animals. The value of humanity is in its distinction from lower animals. In its social values that transcend the material world and the "law of the jungle".

By denying the reality of sin, it is O'Day who "objectifies" the woman and all the characters. She seeks explanations for their behaviour in myopic worldly philosophies that allow her to avoid categories of "right and wrong", of "sin", "guilt" and personal culpability.

But Augustine rescues us from BOTH the "objectification" of the Pharisees, who value the woman only as a means to attack their enemy, AND the "objectification" of those who deny the reality of sin and the predicament of humanity.

Augustine reminds us that the woman is really all of us, people with weaknesses, real human frailty and who have real need: the need for a saviour, someone who can and will rescue us even though we may not deserve it, even when we got ourselves into some predicament or other common to all people.

Is it 'objectification' to do what is natural? To identify a person by "their fruits", their works, their reputation? How do men prefer to identify and describe themselves? This man is carpenter, that one an engineer. This woman is an educator, and that one an actress. People are proud, and sometimes ashamed of what they do, and what they are.

But that is still how we know one another. Not just for mere "identity", but so that we can empathize, sympathize, have compassion, fall in love. Its what humans do. Its not "objectification" of a person to relate to them by their accomplishments and their experiences, good and bad, their personality and behaviour, their luck and misfortunes.


O'Day's complaint against Augustine and Christian interpreters in general who focus on sin and redemption is ungrounded.

 

[Nazaroo]

Part II of O'Day's Interpretation of John 8:1-11 begins with her previously described "Rhetorical Structure".

We have already examined the main flaws in this new structural framework to be imposed upon the text in the above posts.

What we'd like to point out here, is that this structure appears to be a mistaken 'reading' or actually a misuse of elements that make up an entirely different structure in this narrative, one which is much sharper and more clearly defined:

Here one can see the obvious [A-B-C-D-E-D-C-B-A] reversing chiastic structure of the story. It appears designed to emphasize and centralize the main pronouncement of Jesus.

But it makes O'Day's (or rather her source's) "Rhetorical Shape" very doubtful. Elsewhere John makes very little use of simple "parallel" patterns, but plainly prefers these reversing chiastic "mirror" patterns instead.

And even if we accept this flimsy parallel "shape" of O'Day's, it is incredibly difficult to see how it supports her claim that Jesus treated the two parties "equally". We have already carefully examined the passage story elements above, and noted that Jesus treats the two parties quite differently, from beginning to end.

How are we supposed to ignore the obvious, to embrace a scheme that has no apparent basis?

Yet O'Day speaks as though it was a foregone conclusion:

The verbal similarities and undeniable parallels of these two scenes constitute the narrative strategy of the text through which the scribes and Pharisees and the woman receive equal treatment from Jesus.

There is one pattern for Jesus' actions: he bends down and writes on the ground; he stands up to address his conversation partner; and he speaks. By writing on the ground and not responding immediately or directly to the question put to him, Jesus nullifies the presumed control of the scribes and Pharisees and places them on the same level as the woman.

In this text Jesus will address neither party according to conventional social expectations but will speak to each in his own time, in his own way.

Undoubtably some of O'Day's statements are true to an extent:

There are undeniable parallels in the two scenes.

There is a pattern to Jesus' actions.

Jesus does seem to nullify the presumed control of the accusers, although it seems more like they surrendered this control to acquire Jesus' cooperation.

Jesus indeed apparently fails to address either party according to conventional social expectations.

But unfortunately, none of this is evidence that Jesus or the narrator intended to cast upon the two parties equal 'social' or 'human' status.

Rather, Jesus' treatment of each party creates disturbing problems regarding 'social' and 'power' status throughout the proceedings.

And Jesus' unconventional behaviour creates its own problems as to His attitude toward both parties also:

Although reluctant, he cooperates with the accusers, granting them a credibility that seems unwarranted.

Although benevolent, Jesus leaves the woman with a very dubious social status and an uncertain future.

How is this "equality"?

 

[Nazaroo]

Next, O'Day pulls another "rabbit out of a hat" seemingly out of nowhere, to support some kind of complimentary parallelism between the two speeches, that which Jesus pronounces to the crowd in response to the accusers' pressure, and that which Jesus pronounces to the woman at the end.

This new interesting parallel comes from Rousseau. O'Day pronounces Rousseau and her other reference, Genuyt as acceptable in her footnote, because they "took as their starting point what the text was doing rather than trying to reconstruct what Jesus was doing".(note 20).


O'Day, finding two interpreters who don't guess what Jesus wrote, calls them "exceptions to the misreadings discussed in this paper".

Yet misreadings they are, according to O'Day's footnotes, since Rousseau "gives a different meaning to the ...chiasm than I do." and, "He moves in a very different theological direction...he locates the key in Jesus' bending down and standing up, acts that Rousseau sees as symbolic of the crucifixion/resurrection." (note 16,17).


In other words, O'Day acknowledges (quietly in footnotes) that the originators for the structures she is using don't agree with her interpretation of them at all! They also are "misreaders" of John 8:1-11!


But this appears moot however, since she fails to connect this parallelism between the speeches of Jesus to her claim regarding "social equality".

"The woman is invited to participate in a new future for herself that will allow her to live not as a condemned woman but as a freed woman. The scribes and Pharisees are invited to give up the categories by which they had defined and attempted to control life." ​

This language O'Day uses, such as "invited" and "acquital" seems to stretch the evidence suspiciously.

Are the accusers really "invited", or simply humiliated and embarrassed to the point they must flee?


Is the woman "invited" to the life of a "freed woman" (whatever that means), or simply sent away in shame as an adulteress, left to fend for herself in a primitive and violent society?

Are the "offers" to each party really equal?


Jesus has already "refused to walk openly among the Jews, because they were trying to kill Him." (John 7:1).


Has Jesus really extended a hand of friendship to His enemies? This seems extremely implausible in light of what immediately follows (Jn 8:44 etc.).

 

[Nazaroo]

Section (d): Character Movement / Events

Here we have perhaps the most desperate segment of O'Day's argument. She proceeds to describe the "movement of the characters" as a kind of parallel ballet, flowing from "the old ways of judgement and condemnation" to the "possibility of freedom and new life".

In the "transformation by Jesus of condemnation into acquital", the scribes and Pharisees' objectivization of the woman (and of Jesus) is also dispelled, with Jesus "thus treating all parties as equals".

But just saying it don't make it so. O'Day is able to paint this rosey picture by completely avoiding any real discussion of the details of the text. (She has already done this somewhat inadequately, but safely in an earlier part of the paper where she is not constrained to use the text to support her thesis. There she only makes passing observations and "suggestions".)

Here O'Day actually avoids the text, in imitation of the previous commentators she has condemned.
We however, don't have that luxury, and have already examined the text critically for evidence either supporting or contradicting O'Day's thesis. And there is plenty of problematic and conflicting evidence which casts O'Day's claims in serious doubt.

We have examined the text in detail in previous posts (last page) in this thread.

 

[Nazaroo]

Unconvincing Dismissal of Previous Interpreters

Right from the outset, O'Day attempts to explain the remarkable textual history of this passage as a result of misunderstanding and prejudice. She is not wholly successful in this attempt however, because on the one hand, she has too broadly and too easily dismissed previous interpreters of the passage, while on the other hand, she has failed to offer a convincing and viable alternate understanding of the verses.

That having been said, O'Day has usefully cleared away the more implausible and subjective interpretations of the passage, such as Calvin's anti-antinomianism approach, which ignores the text, and the speculative adventures of amateurs who have so far unfortunately failed to convincingly explain key problems of the passage, such as Jesus' writing on the ground.




Unusual Intuitive Insight

By far the most stunning and intuitive insight in O'Day's paper is the following observation:

"Interpreters have the propensity to operate out of the scribes' and Pharisees' valuation of the woman's sin rather than Jesus'. When the text speaks in its own voice, it is regarded as too dangerous for the interests of the interpreters, and so has been misread against the woman."​

Remarkably, although O'Day herself has missed the most profound evidence from the text supporting this statement, it is certainly there, in the original Greek, without significant textual variation. As we have pointed out in our own commentary long ago, John in the narrative indicates the woman may be innocent of the particular crime her accusers frame her for, by carefully contrasting his own description of the situation with the claim of the Pharisees:

John in the narrative, says 'taken in an adultery':​

(Greek: - &#949;&#957; &#956;&#959;&#953;&#967;&#949;&#953;&#945; &#954;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#953;&#955;&#951;&#956;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#951;&#957; )​

But the Pharisees say, "committing adultery"(!):​

(Greek: - &#949;&#960;' &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#966;&#969;&#961;&#969; &#956;&#959;&#953;&#967;&#949;&#965;&#959;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#951;&#957; )​

Both agree that an adultery has taken place; but John, guided by the Holy Spirit, condemns no one. (Matt 7:1)​

The Pharisees, on the other hand, accuse the woman. (Acts 10:28)​

O'Day's "suggestion" regarding the cause of the omission of the passage has been well known to defenders of the authenticity of the passage for nearly 200 years.

Because O'Day's investigation into the textual criticism aspect of the problem doesn't seem to have delved much past the overquoted and near-useless summary of Bruce Metzger, its not surprising that she seems unaware of the vast and varied evidence for the passage's authenticity in the sense that it belongs to John's Gospel.



Less than Useful Textual Discussion

O'Day's summary of the textual evidence is too brief and misguided to be of any serious use to biblical students, and the bibliography is also a dry well. Those interested should look at other more thorough articles on-site here.
We will content ourselves with noting a few of the more severe gaffs. The "important early Greek textual witnesses" are only important in the eyes of those with the agenda of promoting the ecclesiastical text found in these 4th century heavily edited church productions (Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus).

The "manuscript evidence" (Family 1, 13) locating the passage in other places than the traditional position are all late, (post 12th century) and their archetypes cannot be traced earlier than the 9th century. Most of the manuscripts containing the passage place it after John 7:52, and this position goes back to the 4th century:

The alleged high number of "variants" in the text of this passage is a 19th century guesstimate using an unscientific methodology (including such abberant texts as Codex Bezae, and the Lectionaries), which is not the procedure used for tabulating significant variants elsewhere. Its just disinformation. This misleads O'Day into thinking Sanders assessment that the text is stable is "hard to understand" (note 22).

Her assessment of the quality of the variants is also off, because a proper assessment requires a textual history and a stemmatic reconstruction, which O'Day has not undertaken.

That "most scholars" reject the text is understandable when we realise O'Day is limiting those counted to university scholars who have no belief in the historicity of the text or any real interest in Christianity. Polling Christian scholars, commentators and apologists would give a very different statistic.

One thing O'Day helpfully does, is stay neutral about the passage's authenticity herself. This again is good intuition in spite of the biased evidence available to her.
Her observation that claims regarding historicity of the text play no role in resolving authenticity is ironic but insightful.

In summary, those seeking textual critical information must go elsewhere, and not rely upon O'Day or her references.



Causes for the Omission

In contrast to the previous section, O'Day's discussion of the causes of corruption of the text is remarkably detailed and insightful, as these summaries go. She manages to cite at least two early fathers (Ambrose/Augustine), although thoroughness would require a half-dozen, including Didymus the Blind and Jerome.

Riesenfeld's observation is important although he misinterprets the meaning of the evidence, posing a false history of the text (assuming it is an insertion).



Male Gynophobia and Patriarchal Prejudice

This last section is probably closer to the mark than most scholars would allow, and so it is one area where O'Day not only has useful insight but also contributes importantly to the problem of understanding the textual history of the verses.

For this final discussion we can be grateful, because the nature of the case almost guarantees it will not likely be given even a proper hearing elsewhere.

Continuing Fear from Male Interpreters

"The interpretive community thus freely acknowledges that embarrassment and anxiety about Jesus' actions in John 7:53-8:11 contributed to silence about and de facto censoring of this text.

Even where there is some skepticism about this embarrassment as the full explanation for the troubled canonizing process of this text, 30 scholars do not acknowledge the embarrassment or its source. There is no acknowledged shame among such interpreters, no sense of scandal about the way the story testifies against a male-dominated status quo.

In fact the narrative evokes men's fear of what Jesus' teaching might suggest to their wives, of what would happen if women's sexuality pass out of men's control.

I submit that even when unacknowledged, these fears are real and have dominated both the canonizing process and the history of intepretation. As a result, this text is kept on the margins of the tradition by the canonizing process and on the margin of theological and ethical reflection by the interpretive community.

Patriarchal prejudices thus contributed to, perhaps caused, the canonical marginality of John 7:53-8:11. Within the story, the scribes and Pharisees attempted to marginalize the woman. The early church and the interpretive community then attempted to marginalize not only the woman but her story as well."

 

[Nazaroo]

Conclusion:
O'Day's Contribution to
The Interpretation of the Passage

The purpose of this final section is not to merely disparage O'Day's contribution to the interpretation and textual discussion. On the contrary, much of her work should be praised and highly valued.


O'Day has offered new insights and approaches to a difficult passage of Holy Scripture, which presents itself as a virtual Gordian Knot. Any assistance to this problem ought to be appreciated.



High Points and Valuable Contributions


(1) O'Day certainly clears away a lot of 'dead wood'. Her modern feminist viewpoint allows her to penetrate a large amount of the farcical patriarchal baggage accumulated over the centuries. That she goes too far, jettisoning virtually "all" previous interpretations should not detract from this plainly valuable service.


(2) Reading the text in total isolation was a necessary experiment, long overdue. Although not intended by O'Day, it could provide a much needed "worst case scenario" useful in assessing claims regarding non-Johannine authorship of the passage. It cannot substitute for a thorough commentary on the verses, but examining texts in isolation remains a useful tool in NT studies, which could be utilized more often.


(3) O'Day's intuition is often sound. O'Day's methodologies may be lacking in rigour and consistency, but her basic insight (which is what really guides her) remains sound and on the mark much of the time. She is surely right in identifying patriarchal prejudice as an importance source of problems in transmission and interpretation of the verses.


(4) Gender discrimination is a key element in this story. O'Day rightly identifies "objectification" in the way the accusers of the story abuse the woman, and use her as a pawn in an entrapment scheme. The over-extension of this theme of "objectification" to others not credibly implicated, such as many modern commentators, does not take away from the fresh insight into the motivations of the parties her perspective provides.


(5) Interpretation and Exegesis needs to be firmly connected to the text itself. This insight and complaint against commentators by O'Day is surely well-founded. Too often commentators bring to the text a prefabricated agenda unconnected to the text. That O'Day herself was unable to succeed at grounding her own interpretation firmly to the text does not negate her point.


(6) Literary structures need to be searched for and analyzed. The NT texts have been repeatedly demonstrated to be sophisticated literary texts with conscious and intentional structures built into them, which convey important meaning. That O'Day's examples fail to survive careful analysis doesn't remove the need to look and take seriously the plan and construction of NT authors. Her approach (literary criticism) is important for biblical exegesis.


(7) We must look past the viewpoints of the characters in the story. Again O'Day's insight penetrates into the heart of many interpretational errors. It is not the "Pharisee eye-view" or even necessarily that of Jesus, an apostle, or the evangelist /author's eye-view that should dominate and guide the interpretation. All these viewpoints need consideration, including modern view-points such as feminism, which can give us added perspective and understanding in assessing the message of the NT.

O'Day has actually for the most part raised important questions, rather than provided adequate answers. But O'Day has made an important and lasting contribution to the advancement of the assessment and interpretation of John 8:1-11.

 

[Nazaroo]

Mr. Scrivener has created an html page fully indexed with hyperlinks that encompasses the discussion on O'Day's article on John 8:1-11.

You can browse it here:

O'Day on John 8:1-11 Reviewed <-- Click Here.


Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Steve Petersen]

Thousands of hits and only three comments. Out of over a hundred posts. Everything else is yours.

My guess the interest here is to see how much you can say about a few verses.

Your interest seems to be hits.

 

[Nazaroo]

Thousands of hits and only three comments. Out of over a hundred posts. Everything else is yours.

My guess the interest here is to see how much you can say about a few verses.

Your interest seems to be hits.

I suppose that might be your impression.

In fact, one does not post 800 pages of detailed material simply to "get hits" for their own sake.

Obviously I have dedicated about two solid years worth of research and work into these verses.

The real reason sadly, is that no one else has really done the work, and made it available to ordinary Christians in a form that they can easily understand, and have for virtually no cost.

Our goal is to give other Christians a good education on these verses, and also give them confidence about both the reliability of the verses and the meaning of their content.

This is one of the most heavily attacked parts of the Bible, and this is no accident. These verses are not 'neutral' but form an integral part of the complete Gospel of Jesus the Christ.

We are overjoyed that both the technology is in place, and also the will of other Christians, like those supporting us on this board, so that Christians everywhere can have the true facts about these verses at their fingertips, and study them with confidence in their inspiration and joy regarding their content, along with the rest of the Gospel.

Others have dedicated their efforts to defending other parts of the Bible and other doctrines. We felt a calling to deal effectively with this passage, since its story has been neglected in the past.

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

We've been discussing J. B. Jordan's online article about John 8:1-11 in our Previously Unconsidered Evidence Thread Here:

J.B. Jordan on John 8:1-11 - PUE Thread msg #265 forward (pg 27).

There we were concerned with his internal evidence for authenticity. We place his commentary section here for convenience, and because it presents a great and unified vision of this passage, as Jordan sees it.

In the other thread we critiqued his article on the basis of its relevance for authenticity, but here we are concerned instead with his understanding and interpretation of the verses.

...
Jesus' Writing on the Ground

The question of why Jesus wrote on the ground is an important aspect of the story. 3

Some have suggested that marking in the dust should be related to the dust drunk by the woman suspected of adultery in Numbers ch. 5, but that will not do, because in this case the woman was already known to be guilty. 4

Others have tried to come up with what Jesus might have actually written, but since the text does not tell us, it cannot be important to know for certain what He wrote. Rather, we have to ask why He wrote (v. 8) or drew (v. 6) on the ground. 5

The clue lies in the statement that He wrote with His finger, which points to the previous two times God so wrote. The Ten Words were written with the finger of God, as was the phrase "mene mene tekel upharsin" at Belshazzar's feast (Ex. 31:18; Dan. 5:5). 6


Connection to Previous Context (John 7)

John 8:2 tells us that Jesus was in the Temple courts when the woman was brought before Him. The day before Jesus had also taught in the Temple ( John 7:14-53). Several aspects of the previous day's discussion lead into John 8.

For one thing, Jesus compared Himself to Moses as lawgiver (7:16-19), and some of those in the multitude recognized Him as the promised Second Moses (7:40). Thus, for Jesus to write with His own finger in the ground (= stone floor) carries forward the theme that He is not only a Second Moses, but Yahweh Incarnate.
Also, when the Pharisees considered arresting Jesus at the end of John 7, Nicodemus objected:

"Our law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?" (7:51).​

This leads directly into the John 8, as an instance of a true judge sitting in judgment. The Pharisees plotted to judge Jesus without Biblical due process, but Jesus used due process to judge them.




The Temple Setting

The Temple context is, however, more specific also. Mount Sinai was the archetype of the Tabernacle and Temple complexes. The Law given within the cloud was enshrined in the Holy of Holies, the Tabernacle being a symbolic cloud. The altar in front of the Tabernacle and Temple symbolized the mountain itself, and was anticipated by the altar built at the foot of Mount Sinai.

The people gathered at the foot of Mount Sinai were, thus, gathered in the courts of the Tabernacle/Temple.


Recall now that the people committed spiritual adultery with the golden calf while they were gathered in the courts of God's house, at the foot of the Sinai Temple.

On that occasion ( Exodus 32), an inspection of jealousy was conducted, as the people were forced to drink water in which were mixed the calf and the law of God (compare Numbers 5). On that occasion, then, the people were condemned in the courts of the Temple for committing spiritual adultery.

The Pharisees wanted Jesus to condemn the sinful woman in the courts of the Temple, but instead Jesus condemned them for adultery. Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin among you be first to throw a stone at her"; after which they all departed one by one.

We might assume that Jesus was accusing them all of actual sexual infidelity, and that each of them was guilty of it. If any of the men had actually been sexually chaste, he might have cast a stone. This interpretation does not do justice to the passage, however.



Temple Court versus Civil Court

Remember that the setting is the Temple. If this had been a civil law court setting, in the "gates of the city," then it would have been conducted as a civil proceeding. In that case, Jesus would have replied, "Man, who made Me a judge over you?" as He did in another case (Lk. 12:14). Jesus would simply have refused to act as a civil judge.

In the Temple, however, Jesus was a teacher and in that sense a judge. But since this was a religious rather than a civil context, Jesus rightly pointed to the fact that only God can pass a true judgment in the Temple, because only God is without sin. Any sin – any sin at all – disqualifies us from passing ultimate judgments, Temple judgments as it were.

Jesus reminded the Pharisees of this, and each of them, one at a time, became aware that he was not sinless and perfect, and therefore unworthy to remain. They all left, but Jesus did not leave! Jesus remained behind, because he was indeed without sin. Jesus was able to pass judgment, and He did so. Jesus is the Man who is entitled to sit in the Temple (8:2).

To sum up this point: John 8:1-11 does not comment on judgments that must be administered by human civil courts. Rather, the locus of the discussion is the ultimate judgments that come from God's Temple. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" does not apply in civil society, but it does apply to the Last Judgment.




The Temple Typology in Daniel

The Temple location also points us back to Daniel 5. Belshazzar's feast took place in the Temple. This is clear from both the larger and the immediate contexts.

As regards the former, Daniel 1 begins by telling us that the implements of the Temple were taken to Babylon. Just as the Ark was taken to Philistia in 1 Samuel 4-6, and there defeated the Philistines, so the Temple implements make war on Babylon in Daniel 1-5.

In Daniel 1, the youths (implements) emerge victorious over Babylonian foods.

In Daniel 2, the stone cut without hands (altar of God; Ex. 20:25) defeats the apostate statue of humanity.

In Daniel 3, the entire setting is of an outdoor temple, with an obelisk (temple), a fiery furnace (altar), and an orchestra (Levites).

In Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar is defeated through conversion.




The Golden Lampstand from the Temple

And so we are not surprised when, in the immediate context, Daniel 5:1-5 tells us that the Temple implements were used in Belshazzar's feast, and that the Lampstand was present. This creates a Temple environment, which judges Belshazzar.

Notice that it is God's Lampstand that casts the shadow of the Hand on the wall:

Suddenly the fingers of a man's hand emerged and began writing opposite the Lampstand on the plaster of the wall of the king's palace, and the king saw the palm of the hand that did the writing. ​

(Dan. 5:5)​

Now, in the Tabernacle and Temple, the lamps were positioned on the front of the Lampstand (Ex. 25:37), which was designed as a symbolic watcher (almond) tree. The Watcher Lampstand watches over the twelve-loaved Table of Facebread. The configuration represents God and His priests watching over Israel.

In Daniel 5, the thought is that the Watcher Lampstand is watching over Babylon, and has judged it. They have been weighted in the balance and found wanting; their kingdom will be taken from them and given to others (Dan. 5:25-28).



'Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin'

In John 8, Jesus' finger writes on the ground in plain view of the Pharisees. Because of their unrighteousness, they are weighed in the balance and found wanting, and their kingdom will be taken from them. Now, in John 8:1-11, the Lampstand is not mentioned, but it is mentioned immediately in verse 12:

Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying,​

"I am the light of the world." ​

Notice the "again" and the "therefore," both of which connect this discourse with what precedes.

Jesus' self-presentation as the Lampstand of the world continues without a break until 10:21, to wit:

1. As Lampstand, Jesus judges the wicked but forgives sinners (8:1-11).​

2. As Lampstand, Jesus is the Light of truth and glory (8:12-59).​

3. As Lampstand, Jesus makes the blind to see (ch. 9).​

4. As Watcher Lampstand, Jesus is the Good Shepherd (10:1-21).​

Jesus' Message on the Ground

Thus, just as the Lampstand cast a hand on the wall in Daniel 5, so Jesus as Lampstand puts His hand on the ground in John 8. If we may hazard a guess as to what Jesus wrote, the most obvious would be:

'mene mene tekel upharsin'​

So ends the commentary portion of Jordan's article.