From Midrash to Manuscript

History of the Narrative

The Story of the adulterous woman(Also called the Pericope Adulterae) is one which many are all too familiar with. It’s often utilized by teachers and pastors in Christendom as the quintessential example of Yeshua as a merciful messiah. Briefly summarized, The narrative outlines an encounter Yeshua had with some Pharisees in which they brought him a woman they claimed had been caught in the act of adultery and attempted to trap him by asking what should be done with her after having explained to Yeshua that the law commands she be stoned. 

Yeshua then writes in the ground with his finger, They persist in demanding an answer from him and he says to them the famous words-”Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” and continues to write with his finger. Being convicted by Yeshua’s verdict, the accusers all drop their stones and leave the woman alone with Yeshua who then turns to her and asks where her accusers are. She responds explaining they had all left and there was none there to condemn her. To this Yeshua responds with equally famous words-”Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.”

This brief Narrative takes place between the verses of John 8:1-11 and it is beloved by Christians worldwide with sermons and lessons being derived from every aspect and detail from Yeshua's mysterious writing in the ground with his finger spawning many hypothesis on what he wrote, to the simplicity of the act of the accusers leaving their stones behind, this passage has made its way into every movie, play, and a myriad of songs depicting the life of Yeshua within Christianity. It is a cornerstone of Christian teaching and understanding. So it may shock some to learn that this passage is part of a larger section between John 7 and 8 that is likely a later addition to the text.

John 7:53-8:11 are not in any of the earliest manuscripts of John's Gospel. The absolute oldest being Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 the dating for which is a matter of dispute among scholars and textual critics who collectively give a window from the early second century to the mid third century in the case of P66, and from the late second century to the early fourth century in the case of P75.

This section of scripture is also absent  from the codex Sinaiticus which is dated to the mid 4th century (Approximately 325-360 AD) which is the earliest complete New Testament manuscript. It’s also not in the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament into Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian which began as early as the late second century and reached completion in the early 5th century. 

The earliest manuscript to include this beloved narrative in Greek  is the Codex Bezae which is a bi lingual manuscript of the New Testament in Greek and Latin dating to the 5th century. There are also 23 Latin manuscripts used for this compendium and of those, only 17 contain elements of this narrative delineating as many as 3 streams of transmission at the very least. 

Aside from this, many scholars assert that there are even internal reasons which suggest the narrative of the adulterous woman is a late addition to the text.

Such things as writing style, word choice, and phrasing which are inconsistent with the rest of the manuscripts that make up John's Gospel. There is also the contention of continuity. It has been suggested by some scholars that this narrative breaks the continuity of John's Gospel and assert that it would read much smoother and more naturally to jump right from John 7:52 to John 8:12.

The question may cross one's mind as to why this information which can be found with any simple web search, is being stressed and strained at. Is it really being suggested that a narrative about an event in Yeshua’s life was added to the text and that this event may not have even happened or have been intended to be included in the Gospel of John? 

Well….Yes. Not that the information above isn’t enough to strongly suggest this to be the case, but there is one more reason to suggest this narrative was added and may have never even occurred in reality. That is the inherent problems within the narrative.

Problems? What Problems?

For anyone who has been studying Torah for a while and especially for those who accompany their Torah study with Rabbinic literature, there are a hand full of problems in this narrative which suggest the author may not have been familiar with Jewish culture of the first century and for many this may be the nail in the coffin for the historicity and historical accuracy of this story of the adulterous woman.

1- The missing man

The first problem which immediately jumps out at many even for the average Christian reader is the problem of the absence of the man in question, with whom this woman was committing adultery. 

The Pharisees in this story claim that she had been caught in the act. That means they found her with a man. Why is this man not being brought to trial also?

Some may chalk this up to ancient pharisaic misogyny but that's not something there is really any basis for in rabbinic literature. In fact the Talmud suggests the opposite might have been a more plausible scenario and that more leniency might have been shown to the woman over the man as even the wording of the Torah treats the woman as a passive participant. 

“‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, even he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”-Leviticus 20:10

The wording above paints the man in this act as the primary perpetrator and that the wrong he is doing is to another man. It makes no sense to suggest that misogyny is the reason these Pharisees seemingly just let the man in this story off the hook. 

The absence of the man in this “trial” is a gaping hole in the plausibility of this account being a historical reality. 

Note here also, that the written Torah in Leviticus does not say to stone them. It simply says they shall be put to death. That stoning is mentioned is a very interesting detail more so than a problem. 

Side note: Many Christian pastors have suggested that no one knows whether or not it was this woman who was married, or the man she was found with. That's actually not true. 

Aside from the fact that the written Torah allows a man to have multiple wives and intercourse is a means by which one could get married and therefore it’s biblically impossible for a man to commit adultery unless it’s with a married woman. The mention of stoning as the punishment is a direct clue to inform the reader that it was in fact the woman in question who was not exactly married, but betrothed.  

Targum Jonathan on Leviticus 20:10 renders the passage-

And the man who by adultery defileth the wife of (another) man, or who committeth adultery with the wife of his married neighbour, shall be verily put to death, by strangulation, with the hard towel in the tender part (?): and on account of a betrothed person, by the casting of stones: both the adulterer and the adulteress (shall die).

Mishnah/Talmud also inform in regards to Leviticus 20:10 on who is executed by stoning and agree with Targum Jonathan.

Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 53a:14(Citing Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4)

These transgressors are those who are stoned to death: One who engages in intercourse with his mother; or with his father’s wife, even if she is not his mother; or with his daughter-in-law; or with a male; or with an animal; and a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal. And one who blasphemes, and one who engages in idol worship. And one who gives of his offspring to Molekh, and a necromancer, and a sorcerer. And one who desecrates Shabbat, and one who curses his father or his mother, and one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, and an inciter who incites individuals to idol worship, and a subverter who incites an entire city to idol worship, and a warlock, and a stubborn and rebellious son.

Furthermore any Pastor who would like to suggest that it cannot be known whether it was the woman in the story who was married or the man who is missing need only read Deuteronomy to know that this woman was betrothed. 

While Deuteronomy 22:22 echoes Leviticus 20:10 in only saying the two “shall be put to death”, the very next verse states that in the case of one who is promised to be married to another man(aka betrothed) both of them are stoned. Meaning the man should have been standing there with the woman for judgement. 

The problem of the missing man is easily the most obvious and noticeable. The second is equally as obvious but somewhat less noticeable.

2-The missing court 

Even for those learning Torah sometimes the detail is missed and the question of why they are bringing this woman to Yeshua rather than the actual Sanhedrin where such a court case belongs, simply goes unasked. 

Many lay Christians might even think this detail is irrelevant, but it isn’t. It’s a common assumption that people must have just gotten stoned on a regular basis back then. The imagined world of first century Judaism in the mind of many a pew-sitting Christian seems to be one where if you witnessed a crime you simply picked up stones and started chucking them. Under that premise this story makes perfect sense. But that depiction of ancient Judaism is not accurate. In Judaism of the ancient world, if you caught someone committing a crime worthy of the death penalty they would be brought to the Sanhedrin court and the court would rule on their guilt and only after that would execution be carried out.

In fact this exact model is observed multiple times throughout the New Testament, particularly in the book of Acts and namely in the case of Stephen. The frequency of people being brought to the Sanhedrin for trial before punishment in the New Testament only makes this narrative in John stand out like a sore thumb even more. The notion that not only was this woman brought to Yeshua instead of the proper court, but also that men were already standing with stones in hand ready to pelt at her on Yeshua’s word without regard for due process makes this story seem rather far fetched. Almost like it’s made up and never actually happened. 

Their having stones ready to throw which they left behind as they left the scene after hearing Yeshua’s words is a direct transition to the third problem with this story. 

3-The missing stones

Specifically the cause for the Pharisees to drop their stones. Yeshua’s words “He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her.” tend to be viewed in a very similar light as “Judge not lest you be judged.” and “Remove the beam from your own eye before removing the spec from your brothers eye” & its this last phrase from Matthew 7:5 which often gets most misunderstood and reduced to a simple “Judge not” lesson. The main point derived by many is that you never know if the sin in your life is greater than what you have witnessed another doing(beam verses spec) so it’s not your place to judge someone else's sin. This is then transposed onto John 8 as the reason the Pharisees dropped their stones. Because “since they also had sin in their life they weren’t in a position to judge her by stoning her.” 

This rather simplistic take tends to miss one the main point to Yeshua's contrasting a plank of wood to a speck of sawdust. Most hone in on the clear size differential and focus on that so much that they miss the fact that both items are wood. They are the same substance. For those now thinking “Yes because all sin is the same to G-d.”, That is very simply untrue. That the Torah prescribes different corrective measures for different infractions makes plain that not all sin is equal in G-ds economy. Furthermore, it is not the wood that represents sin in this analogy of Yeshua's. It is the fact that the person has something in their eye which is analogous to sin. The relevance of both items being wood indicates that the two people in question are struggling with the same sin. The parable very simply is saying that if you struggle with lying, then you are in no position to judge someone else for lying. 

This teaching in no way means that you cannot judge someone for committing adultery because you struggle with lying. Which brings this all back around to the problem of the Pharisees dropping their stones. This makes no sense. The notion that G-d gave Israel a law which demands that they carry out certain judgements and penalties for certain sins but that they were subsequently incapable of rightly doing so due to the fact that everyone sins is absurd on its face. It’s like saying G-d gave Israel a law he had no intention for them to enforce in spite of the law's mandate to enforce the law. Or that G-d gave Israel a law which he would later judge them for enforcing since they enforced it on sinners while themselves being sinners. 

All this to point out that the Pharisees had no reason to drop their stones. The fact that they may have had their own sin in their life does not disqualify them from stoning an adulteress if the judge rules that she should be executed. Unless it is the same sin according to Matthew 7:5. In which case they also should be brought to trial and receive the same sentence. 

4-The missing obedience

The question that often escapes the modern reader is Why did the Pharisees care what Yeshua said?

If they truly had caught this woman in the very act of adultery, then obedience to Torah would necessitate that they bring her to the Sanhedrin for judgement. Not doing so constitutes violation of Torah on the part of everyone involved. Assuming this scenario was a reality and actually did occur, they might have stopped to question Yeshua about it on their way to the court, but regardless of what Yeshua said they’d have continued taking her to the court. 

The Antinomian Christian reader might disagree and inject the claim that the Pharisees listened to Yeshua because deep down they knew he was right. 

It’s a popular idea in Christianity. That the wisdom of Yeshua was just so lofty that the pompous and legalistic Pharisees just couldn’t deny it regardless of how they felt.

This position is simply ignorant of Pharisaic culture or first century Jewish culture in general. That's why this is a huge problem for the historical legitimacy of this narrative. Had the Pharisees actually caught a woman in the act of adultery, not only would they bring her to the court for judgement, they'd bring the man as well, and they’d bring them to the court regardless of what any random rabbi on the way said. Even if they agreed with what that rabbi said. Ultimately it doesn’t matter. It is for the court to decide their fate. Specifically the judges of the court and Yeshua was not a judge. His opinion, no matter how wise, was irrelevant to the fate of the accused. The Pharisees would have made a mental note of his words(perhaps even to present to the court in the trial) and then continued escorting both offenders to the court. That would have been proper obedience. That would be more consistent with what is known about the Pharisees and first century Jewish culture. That is how the narrative should read. But it doesn’t.

In addition to all the textual problems regarding this passage of scripture, these three narrative problems present more than just a little reason for doubt regarding whether or not this story actually occurred or that John actually wrote it. 

However, there is a frame to view this narrative through which reconciles the problems of narrative and could be well explained by its being a late addition to the text.

Narrative as a Midrashic Parable(Problems gone)

Suppose for a moment that the narrative of the betrothed woman, caught in the very act of adultery, brought without the man she committed adultery with, by a Judgmental religious rulership to Yeshua for judgement, is not recounting an event that occurred in Yeshua's time. Suppose perhaps, that instead it is recounting something that would occur after Yeshua’s time. Beginning in the lifetime of John perhaps, and continuing to this very day. 

Suppose this entire narrative is parabolic. That it is a type of early Christian Midrash. One that addresses anti-semitic and supersessionist sentiments that may have been seedlings among congregations which John was a leader over towards the end of his ministry, but were fully blossomed by the 5th century when this narrative made its way into the manuscripts of John's gospel. Which does indeed continue to this day. 

It could even serve as indicative of an eschatological reality which most Christians aren’t quite ready to discuss yet and will have to square when they witness it occur. 

This, by the way, is not inconsistent with the entire Johannine Gospel's style generally speaking. The Gospel of John is very much not one of the synoptic gospels and its genre is more that of a theological expansion rather than a record of historical facts. This is very common in the ancient world and even Luke himself does some of this, where Luke likely authored some of the various speeches given in Acts, and credited the words to the speaker as though it is the exact words from the speaker. This style aimed to capture the essence of the speeches rather than try to recreate an exact word for word record of an impromptu speech from more than 20 years ago. John's Gospel is replete with very long winded and theologically complex/sophisticated Greek speeches attributed to Yeshua that are very unlikely to be exact word for word recreations but are likely authored by John as an amplified version of the words of the Master.

In other words: While the synoptic gospels likely record the closest to the actual historical words of Yeshua, John records what Yeshua meant by those words and expands on them in a much more sophisticated and well thought out thesis, addressing much more complex and higher philosophy and mysticism that would be later developed as John pondered and studied the words of the Master. it is very likely that the story of the adulterous woman is likely an early Christian oral tradition from John's school that wouldn't be written down till a little later in an attempt to preserve the tradition from being lost, while having maybe already lost its understanding as being a parable story and not an event of history.

Multiple elements of the narrative are consistent with the narrative being a parable if examined in light of Rabbinic understanding from the fact that the woman in question is betrothed and not married, to the Pharisees dropping their stones due to their introspection on their own many sins. But how does framing the narrative as a parable deal with the problems within the narrative?

Beginning with the first aspect of the narrative, The woman is brought without the man with whom she had committed adultery. The sentence to be carried out is death by stoning. Which as illustrated above is indicative of the woman being betrothed rather than fully married. 

Israel: The Betrothed Woman

All throughout Tanakh, Israel is spoken of as a woman  who is either a bride or betrothed to G-d. 

Very quickly a handful of examples. 

As a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so your God will rejoice over you.-Isaiah 62:5b

I will betroth you to me forever. Yes, I will betroth you to me in righteousness, in justice, in loving kindness, and in compassion. I will even betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know Hashem.-Hosea 2:19-20

Hashem’s word came to me, saying, “Go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Hashem says, “I remember for you the kindness of your youth, your love as a bride, how you went after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown.-Jeremiah 2:1-2 

“Return, backsliding children,” says Hashem, “for I am a husband to you. I will take one of you from a city, and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.”-Jeremiah 3:14

In addition to these the covenantal language Hashem uses with Israel in every covenant is the language of a marriage covenant.

The case for Israel as a bride/ betrothed woman and the relevance of that to this narrative as a parable is more easily made than disputed, it is only amplified by the way G-d characterizes Israel's idolatry.

Israel: The Adulterous Woman

In addition to being spoken of as a bride/woman betrothed to G-d, in some of the very same passages which mention this fact, Israel is also spoken of as an adulteress or their idolatry is directly compared to adultery. 

“I saw when, for this very cause, that backsliding Israel had committed adultery,”-Jeremiah 3:8a

 “Behold, the days come,” says Hashem, “that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant of mine they broke, although I was a husband to them,” says Hashem.-Jeremiah 31:31-32

When Hashem spoke at first by Hosea, Hashem said to Hosea, “Go, take for yourself a wife of prostitution and children of unfaithfulness; for the land commits great adultery, forsaking Hashem.”-Hosea 1:2

Hashem said to me, “Go again, love a woman loved by another, and an adulteress, even as Hashem loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods, and love cakes of raisins.”-Hosea 3:1

“Adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband!-Ezekiel 16:32

The totality of Ezekiel 16 is actually in the context of Israel's idolatry equating to adultery within marriage. 

Each of these instances of Israel's Adultery represents times when the nation of Israel fell into Idolatry. 

At this point it is worthwhile to re-examine the Citation from the Talmud Bavli mentioned before. 

Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 53a:14(Citing Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4)

These transgressors are those who are stoned to death: One who engages in intercourse with his mother; or with his father’s wife, even if she is not his mother; or with his daughter-in-law; or with a male; or with an animal; and a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal. And one who blasphemes, and one who engages in idol worship. And one who gives of his offspring to Molekh, and a necromancer, and a sorcerer. And one who desecrates Shabbat, and one who curses his father or his mother, and one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, and an inciter who incites individuals to idol worship, and a subverter who incites an entire city to idol worship, and a warlock, and a stubborn and rebellious son.

Suffice it to say, Idolatry is equated with adultery many times in the biblical text as well as in rabbinic literature. They two are so synonymous that they warrant the same punishment. 

Hashem: The One and Only

Thus far, in light of Israel's Idolatry,  Israel as the adulterous woman fits this parable perfectly right down to the specific details of Israel being betrothed and the punishment being stoning. 

So what of the first problem? Where is the other man?

There is no other man because there is no other G-d. Hashem is the only. To expect another man to be put on trial would be to accept that there is another G-d besides Hashem. How does one put an Idol on trial? Idols are not real. Those gods do not actually exist. 

This may confuse some, because how can Israel be judged for worship of other gods if those other gods don't exist? 

Well, to use a bit of a crude example any husband should be able to relate to. Romance novels are very popular in modern western society and romance novels are essentially little more than feminine pornography. Its effect on the female brain is identical to the effect video pornography has on the male brain. And much more than the way that women in video pornography aren't “real”. The men in romance novels which encapsulate the female romantic fantasy are even less real in that they are entirely fictitious. Wholly made up out of thin air. There is literally no substance to them at all. 

If a wife read and enjoyed a particular novel series and then began to alter her behavior and habits around the male figure in that series. Celebrating his birthday, singing songs to and about him, speaking to him and expressing her affections for him. All while forgetting about you, her husband. You as her husband would be pretty upset. You’d feel cheated on. You’d be jealous. Because that is performative adultery of the heart. 

But you could never bring the male figure from the novel series to court. Because he is not real. That doesn’t diminish the adulterous nature of the wife's behavior. It just means that if such a trail were ever held over such a thing, that no man would be present. 

Thus as no other gods exist, there are no gods for Hashem to carry out judgement on for the idolatry of Israel. Only an adulterous woman stands before him. There is no man to judge beside her. 

So then what of the missing court? Wasn’t it established that Yeshua was not a judge?

In first century Israel, no he was not a judge. In the grand scheme of the cosmos, Yeshua is the final judge. 

“Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”-Matthew 25:32

“For the Father judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son,”-John 5:22

“For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself. He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.”-John 5:26-27

“He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that this is he who is appointed by God as the Judge of the living and the dead.”-Acts 10:42

“in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Good News, by Jesus Christ.”-Romans 2:16

“For we must all be revealed before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may receive the things in the body according to what he has done, whether good or bad.”-2 Corinthians 5:10

“From now on, the crown of righteousness is stored up for me, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give to me on that day; and not to me only, but also to all those who have loved his appearing.”-2 Timothy 4:8

“Hashem will judge the ends of the earth. He will give strength to his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed.”-1 Samuel 2:10b

The precedence of scripture portrays the messiah as the ultimate judge and ruler over nations. It is ultimately to him that any such case of any nation against another could be brought, especially during the messianic era.

The Nations as the Pharisees?

This actually fits Yeshua’s modus operandi when it comes to parables. 

It wasn’t exactly uncommon for teachers to draw attention to the lesson of a parable by casting someone who might otherwise be considered a hero as the villain or someone who would otherwise be a villain as the hero. 

Yeshua’s parable of the good Samaritan does both at once by portraying both a priest and a Levite(both extremely holy men in the culture of Yeshua’s audience and literally "neighbors" to them) as passing by the injured man without trying to help him and subsequently making a Samaritan(whom Jews had much animosity towards) as the hero who stops to actually offer assistance to the victim of the story. 

Johns use of the Pharisees to symbolize the nations in this hypothetical parabolic narrative makes sense in this light but there is a bit more to it. 

By the 5th century when this story found its way into biblical manuscripts, the Christian church predominantly made up of gentiles would have a well established anti pharisaic inclination which had been growing for centuries by that point. 

Their disdain for Pharisees was not limited to Pharisees alone. It was ultimately projected onto all Jews(most likely due to Pharisee-ism being the only sect of Judaism to survive the destruction of the temple)

This attitude towards Pharisees and broader Jewry can be seen in the writings of the early Gentile Church.

“If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place.”-John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos, Homily 1, section 3, paragraph 3

“But you might say that the Word of God, leaving the synagogue of the Jews as adulterous, departed from it, and took a wife of fornication, Hosea 1:2 namely, those from the Gentiles;”-Origen, Commentary on Matthew-Book 12, Ch.4

Thus casting the nations(aka the gentile Christian church) as the Pharisees served the purpose of casting the Christians in the role of someone they would have considered a villain and in this way equate them and their attitude towards the Jews with their own negative frame of Judaism. 

Yeshua's Ruling

“He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her.”

Yeshua here gives an answer that resembles the test of Solomon in the case of the two mothers. He seems to be willing to grant the accusers what they desire provided that certain conditions are met. Those conditions being that those railing the accusation are themselves innocent. 

Remembering the parabolic elements of the narrative thus far: 

-Yeshua is the cosmic Judge

-The adulterous woman is Israel

-The man she committed adultery with doesn't exist just like false idols

-The accusing Pharisees are the Gentile Church(aka the nations)

-The accusation of adultery is an accusation of idolatry

Within this frame the parable not only eliminates the problems that are inherent in a literal interpretation of the passage, it illustrates a lesson to the gentile church which they certainly needed to hear. 

There isn’t a single nation or people on the face of the earth(Christian or otherwise) who is in a position to point the finger at Israel or the Jewish people and accuse them of Idolatry. 

Yes Israel has had their times of backsliding when they would flirt with and ultimately fall into idolatry but Hashem always promised to redeem them and bring them back to him. This cannot be said for any other nation or people. Every other nation and people have been idolatrous from their inception and in Johns day brand new baby Christian gentiles were still green and wet behind the ears and in utterly no position to judge the Jews for any perceived idolatry considering they themselves may have just visited their local pagan temple only a few weeks ago prior to receiving the gospel or possibly even after. 

This ultimately arrives at the final question that might have occurred to some reading this now. 

Did the author of John write this narrative? Or was it added by later Christians?

The general scholarly consensus is that it is very unlikely that the author of John wrote this narrative, however in its parabolic interpretation it seems just as unlikely that this would have been invented during the 5th century when it was added. The lesson this narrative teaches as a parable is utterly lost on the Christian Church of the 5th century and even the later Church moving forward in time. 

The explanation of 5th century Christians inventing and inserting this narrative into John's gospel could potentially offer an alternative explanation for the problems of the narrative. This would highlight the degree of separation between the 5th century Church and the Judaism of Yeshua’s time and underscore the lack of knowledge regarding Judaism on the part of 5th century Christians. Thus the narrative wouldn’t make sense to any Jewish audience in any context due to the problems of the narrative which are only there because a 5th century Christian who knew very little(if anything at all) about first century Judaism made the narrative up. 

This could be true but seems unlikely given how beautifully the narrative functions as a parable. It also beautifully captures a common practice among Pharisees that 5th Century Christians would not have known anything about, and that is how they often attempted to dismiss as many witnesses as possible in order to avoid having to rule in favor of a death penalty. If a witness could be discredited in any way so as to create a "shadow of a doubt" their testimony was inadmissible, and if least 2 credible witnesses could not be produced then the court can rule a much lighter sentence and punishment, if any, and avoid the death penalty if at all possible. The way in which Yeshua dismisses the "witnesses" is exactly the kind of technique a Pharisee would have used to grant mercy to the accused.

So while the details of the story leading up to the main event appear to be made up by somebody entirely ignorant of Israeli Judaism in the first century, the main event, the core of the story and its teaching moment contain within it details that later Christians would also not know enough to have fabricated it.

It seems plausible that the reason the narrative was added by  the Church of the 5th century is not because they invented it but rather because it is a teaching which was original to John or possibly one of his oldest disciples which was preserved and passed down orally through the centuries and ultimately became confused as being a true event and was therefore added to John's gospel. 

The anti-Jewish sentiment of the early church began to develop sooner than would be expected. Hints of it can even be observed in parts of John's gospel and are likely the result of John's Gospel being relayed to its author by one of the predominantly gentile congregations of John. The “We” of John 21:24

This is the disciple who testifies about these things, and wrote these things. We know that his witness is true.

It seems plausible that either John or one of his oldest disciples saw the seedlings of this attitude beginning to sprout and therefore this parable was intended to restore a sense of humility to the church and extinguish the flames of this judgmental view of the Jews. 

If this were true it is understandable how by the 5th century when the attitude the parable was intended to deflate ultimately prevailed, the understanding that this was a parable and not a real event that ever occurred was ultimately forgotten and it was therefore taken as literal and added to John’s gospel. 

Before concluding this topic it is worthwhile to address contrary arguments. 

Naysayers will often contest that early church fathers reference the Pericope Adulterae and insist it was in the original manuscript of John. This line of argumentation focuses on a handful of citations from early church fathers beginning with an old favorite, Papias. More specifically Papias as cited by Eusebius. Nothing Papias wrote has survived history so his works can only be known via their citation from others, namely Eusebius. Eusebius refers to “A woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord.” In addition to this, some may insist that Papias is the author of John's Gospel and these two together prove that the story was in Papias original manuscript which he would have written in the second century and would now be lost to time only to be removed by the time of the earliest known manuscript from later that same century only to then be added back in the 5th century with no unanimous agreement as where this story even belongs(not all placed it in John 8). This hypothesis mainly hinges on the fact that the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John’s Gospel names Papias as John’s Disciple and scribe and therefore author of the Gospel of John. 

“The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body, just as Papias of Hieropolis, the close disciple of John, related in the exoterics, that is, in the last five books. Indeed he wrote down the gospel, while John was dictating carefully. But the heretic Marcion, after being condemned by him because he was teaching the opposite to him (John), was expelled by John. But he (Marcion) had brought writings or letters to him (John) from the brothers which were in Pontus.”

An obvious problem with this hypothesis is that John 8 in modern bibles expounds on a woman accused of adultery. Not Many Sins, just adultery. The element of a woman under accusation being brought to Yeshua is the only commonality this reference from Eusebius has with the story of the adulterous woman in John 8. This is hardly a precedent for insisting the story is true and original to John's gospel on the basis of the Criterion of Multiple Attestation alone. This law generally supports that the gospels record true accounts on the basis of the gospels all being slightly different and therefore independently sourced due to their differences. Their differences serve to highlight their commonalities which for purposes of historicity suggest the commonalities must be true.

However the claim here is that the narrative we know was originally authored by John based on a reference to a completely different narrative by the scribe who allegedly wrote John's gospel account. If anything, this actually more strongly suggests that the two accounts necessarily come from two different sources with Johns being the one which is NOT found in his own Gospel. The account of the woman accused of Many sins.

Furthermore, disunity between accounts which supposedly refer to the same event based on the vaguest of similarities actually further supports the hypothesis of the narrative being a parable rather than an actual event. A parable which fell on deaf ears. A lesson that went over the heads of its intended audience (similar to even some of Yeshua’s own parables) and therefore the details of the narrative became subject to the rules of the telephone game and became abstracted and obfuscated into the more broad and vague woman accused of many sins among other variations of the story. 

The next early reference to a narrative similar to that of John 8 is found in the Didascalia Apostolorum. A formal systematic work of early Church order. The document's dating is disputed with some dating it to be as early as the 3rd century and others pushing its dating later into the 4th century. Inspired by the Didache, the document purports to be written by the 12 apostles during the timeframe of the Jerusalem council of Acts 15. Obviously this is not true and gives reason to cast further doubt as to the authenticity of accounts it contains which are not in any early manuscript of John. 

Be that as it may, in the last paragraph of chapter 7 of this document is a small reference to something which is vaguely similar to what exists in John 8 of modern bibles, yet still different in enough ways to distinguish it as either a different account entirely or a variant from another source (not John).

“But if thou receive not him who repents, because thou art without mercy, thou shalt sin against the Lord God; for thou obeyest not our Saviour and our God, to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgement in His hands, departed. But He, the Searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her:? Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter? She saith to him: Nay, Lord. And he said unto her:? Go thy way:? neither do I condemn thee.?”

While this account is closer to John 8 than the reference from Eusebius citing Papias. The key differences from the account in John 8 are the mention of “Elders” in place of Pharisees. This may seem an insignificant distinction to some but the title “Elder” in context of first century Judaism is not inconsequential and will been discussed more at length in a future article.

Also different in this account is(again) the vagueness of “her that had sinned” as opposed to the more specific “Woman found in the very act of adultery”. 

If the account of John 8 was in an original manuscript relayed by John himself it seems rather strange that a detail such as the specific nature of the sin of this woman might be forgotten and obscured into the much more vague reference to some general sin in all of the earliest references. Especially when it was more common for such men as the authors of this document to take care to quote scripture more accurately when they were actually quoting scripture. 

Also missing from this account are the stakes of the woman's sin. There is zero mention or indication of the severe death penalty from John 8 looming over this woman in Didascalia's account. Furthermore in John 8 the woman is brought to Yeshua for judgement and the Pharisees only leave once Yeshua has made his judgement. Whereas in Didascalia’s account the woman is brought to Yeshua and left for him to judge. Additionally the difference of him asking if the elder had condemned her rather than asking where her accusers were is a pretty noteworthy difference in narrative form. Then the absence of the final words Yeshua spoke to her “go and sin no more” is a pretty big ball to drop in the way of scriptural citation, especially in a document intending to inform on how to properly deal with repentant sinners. 

The next claim to evidence one might find in a chronology of argumentation about the origin of this story is a claim that Cyprian wrote Latin Chapter summaries to many biblical books and that in his chapter summary for John 8 he wrote:

“Ubi adulteram dimisit et se dixit lumen saeculi et de testimonio suo et patris; ibi ait :  si me nossetis, et patrem meum nossetis, loquens in gazofilatio et quod non eum inuenientes in peccatis suis morituri essent, et quod illi essent de isto saeculo, ipse non esset et quod quaerentibus quis esset respondit : initium, et de patre locutus est non cognoscentibus quia cum illo est qui eum misit.”

Translation:

“Where he dismissed the adulteress and called himself the light of the world and of his testimony and of the Father; there he says: if you knew me, you would know my Father, speaking in the gazofilation and that those who did not find him would die in their sins, and that they were of this world, he would not be and that to those who asked who he was he answered: the beginning, and he spoke of the Father to those who did not know that he is with him who sent him.”

While many claim this source as evidence yet fail to provide sources for the information, The AltarnateMedia research team searched high and low for any form or shred or proof of its accuracy. Nothing on these chapter summaries turned up. The closest found is a reference to a book in French by Donatien De Bruyne who claims to have collected these summaries in 1914. The title of this work is Sommaires, divisions et rubriques de la Bible latine. The claim regarding this written work is that this summary is found on page 304, and is a summary of chapter 30(XXX). 

That it is a summary of Chapter 30 already presents a problem for it being a summary of John 8 and suggests that even if true. Cyprian didn’t have the book of John numbered the same way as it ultimately would be and therefore to argue this is about John 8 is a bit misplaced. More than that though. This book is the oldest reference to any such documents. No evidence or mention of these chapter summaries from prior to 1914 exists that could be found by the AM research team. That such relevant documents or the book which compiled them has not been translated into the most common language in the academic world(English) is rather suspicious as well as the absence of any further studywork on these mysterious Latin documents. 

What could be found is that in Cyprian's Epistle 51:21 He speaks about prior bishops' opinions on whether or not Adulterers should be offered opportunity for repentance. The context is that it was feared that if adultery was not treated as a severe infraction with a heavy punishment that people would simply commit adultery with impunity(based on modern western society it seems they were correct in at least that  much) and simply trust they could just repent later. The relevance of this should be obvious but in case it isn’t, this discussion would be the most ideal place for Cyprian to mention the Pericope Adulterae if he was in fact aware of it and had even written a summary of it. The absence of early evidence for these summaries paired with his failure to mention the Pericope in a work where it is most relevant cast extreme doubt on the actual historicity of these summaries and therefore their ability to serve as evidence of early church knowledge of the Pericope Adulterae.

Lastly, granting that these summaries are legitimate(a huge grant), this would be the first time that adultery is mentioned but the entire rest of the narrative is missing. To simply say that Yeshua “Dismissed the adulteress” can be understood a number of ways and does not inherently connote the story we are all familiar with. This is being stressed now because up to this point one might assume that these different accounts truly could be different tellings of the same event yet with different and varying degrees of detail. And that could be true. But the next claim of evidence throws a bit of a monkey wrench into that hypothesis.

The Constitutiones Apostolorum(Aposolic Constitutions) is an 8 book work of the 4th century(375AD-380AD) among those concerning Church Order Similar the Didascalia Apostolorum. In fact books 1-6 are essentially a rephrasing of the Didascalia and it is in this rephrasing that the next source of evidence for early knowledge of the Pericope Adulterae is found. 

Book 2, Section 3, Part XXIV states:

“He says also to another, a woman that was a sinner: Your sins, which are many, are forgiven, for you love much. And when the elders had set another woman which had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and had gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of the hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being answered No, He said to her: Go your way therefore, for neither do I condemn you.”

Here is a citation regarding 2 different women, both of which fit the criteria of most of the above citations. The subject of adultery still being absent, the primary distinction is that one of these women is mentioned as having many sins while the other is mentioned as having sinned more generally. Yeshua’s statement to this first woman as cited by this document, matches those he spoke to a woman in Luke 7:47 regarding the woman who anointed Yeshua’s feet while sobbing after having barged into a Pharisees home at meal time. It also better matches the narrative in the earlier mentioned Citation attributed to Papias by Eusebius about a woman accused of many sins brought before Yeshua. But that suggests this statement from Papias(if he did indeed say it) more likely refers to this instance in Luke rather than John 8 and therefore Papais statement is not evidence for John 8. 

Now it could be entirely possible that this story in Luke is another variant of the parable given that the oldest manuscript containing the story is also Papyrus 75(P75) which also contains John 1-15 and yet is absent the Pericope Adulterae. 

The next claim of evidence is quite a stretch to say the least but will be included for completeness sake. 

The claim is that a diacritical mark in the Codex Vaticanus(300-350 AD) serves as evidence that a scribe knew and understood that the Pericope belonged in John 8 but chose to omit it anyway. 

It should be obvious that this is pure speculation and extraordinarily biased speculation at that but again for completeness sake. Diacritical marks do not indicate alterations in manuscript content. They indicate differences in pronunciation. Many readers who have ever tried to read another language which uses the same alphabet as English will be familiar with all the extra squiggles, dashes, and dots that often appear above and sometimes below the letters of whatever foreign text they are reading. To extrapolate from this not just omission, but motive also, borders on the absurd. 

Next it is claimed that a 4th century theologian named Didymus the blind(313-398 AD) wrote a commentary on Ecclesiastes which mentions the Pericope. The problem is the only papyri known to contain this commentary(The Tura Papyri) dates to around the 6th or 7th century respectively. 

But the Papyri does contain a narrative as similar to John 8 as any of the other sources above. 

Dr. Bart Ehrman actually quotes the narrative in his “Jesus and the Adultress,” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 25-

“We find, therefore, in certain gospels [the following story]. A woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where it was customary to happen. The savior, it says, when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her, said to those who were about to cast stones, ‘He who has not sinned, let him take up a stone and cast it.’ If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her. And no one dared. Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things, they did not dare to strike her.”

Note here the commentary states this narrative is found in Certain Gospels rather than a certain gospel or even simply stating it is in Johns gospel. This would indicate that if one grants Didymus did write this commentary, that even in his time which was right on the heals of the Pericope first appearing in a manuscript(Within 100 years of it), Didymus was unsure of which Gospel this narrative belonged to or if it belonged to more than one gospel. This detail fits well within the hypothesis that the narrative is parabolic and variants of it which contain enough similarity to convey the same message exist between accounts found in both John and Luke(Luke prior to being added to John). 

In the late 4th century within the timeframe just prior to the addition of the Pericope to Johns gospel in the 5th century knowledge of this periscope appears to become more wide spread with more frequency of mention. This alone would support the idea of it being a parable originally and later confused as being true and therefore debated as to whether or not it belonged in the gospel narratives and if so, which it would belong to. 

Examples of this would be a mention by Pacian of Barcelona in his third letter to Sympronian: Against the treatise of the Novatians in Paragraph 39 which he writes

"Why delay ye, O Novatians, to ask eye for eye, tooth for tooth, to demand life for life, to renew once more the practice of circumcision and the sabbath? Put to death the thief. Stone the petulant. Choose not to read in the Gospel that the Lord spared even the adulteress who confessed, when none had condemned her; that He absolved the sinner who washed His feet with her tears;"

Interesting that here Pacian also seems to equate both the adulteress woman and the woman who anointed Yeshua’s feet.

The parabolic element of the ointment/perfume/fragrant oil being offered at Yeshua’s feet serves as allegoric for acts of obedience on the part of Israel which is rather common symbolism in the bible and Rabbinic literature.

In the Babylonian Talmud in Sanhedrin 108a:17-18, Noah is compared to Perfume due to his righteousness(aka obedience). Likewise the righteousness(aka obedience) of Abraham is compared to perfume in Midrash Bereishit Rabbah 39:2. Smell is seen as the most spiritual of the senses and that it connects the physical and spiritual as even torah expresses that Hashem breathed life into Adams nostrils and not his mouth. a persons actions may draw them close to Hashem when they are good(as a good smell is enticing) and bad actions push one farther away from Hashem(as a bad smell is repellant). Even certain offerings in Torah are said to be sweet smelling to Hashem. In 1 Cor 2:15 Paul Equates a believers emulating of Messiah's obedience as a Sweet Aroma.

Given this frame the judgement of the Pharisees Yeshua is eating with and his response to them serve the same function as in John 8. It may very likely be inspired by true events as the story of a woman anointing Yeshuas feet is recorded in Mark, Matthew, and John also though in these accounts the story goes very different from Luke's account. The primary differences between Mark, Matthew, and John is that John says it was Mary who anointed Yeshua’s feet and both Mark and Matthew simply say “a woman”. In all three accounts Jesus is eating dinner with his disciples and the only fuss made is over the fact that the ointment might have been sold for the purpose of giving the money gained from the sale to charity. While in Lukes account Yeshua is eating with Pharisees and the fuss made is over the many sins of this woman. Not that she could have sold and given the money to charity. Lukes in this aspect is an outlier in that where it differs from the other three it actually shares details with the account in John 8 and the many variants that are cited by early Christian sources. That these two so often pair together among sources which are in striking distance of the timeframe when the narrative was added to John strongly supports both being variants of the same parable. 

The last examples of claims for an early existence of this narrative in Johns gospel are that Jerome(342-420 AD) wrote the Latin Vulgate in 383 in which he included the Pericope Adulterae. This claim also states that later just into the 5th century Jerome also wrote 3 books Against the Palagians claiming the Pericope existed in many Greek and Latin manuscripts of his time. The specific citation is Against the Palagians 2:17

This is less of a problem due to there being far more Latin manuscripts of the time in which the Pericope is absent making Jerome an outlier and his claim unverifiable. Again being within such close proximity to the time period of it being added his work actually serves as better evidence that this was a matter of dispute which was more recent in his own time which further supports the idea that it was first a parable(possibly inspired by or drawing elements from true events) which over time became confused as being a historical event.

And finally the last claim is a citation from Augustin in 419 AD from a writing called De Adulterinis Conjugiis(On Adulterus Marriages) in which he claims that earlier scribes removed the pericope and later added it back in. This though, Given Augustine's lifetime only began at the very beginning of what could reasonably be considered the origin of the dispute over the inclusion of this passage, serves only as Augustine trying to make an excuse for its late addition post hoc.

The fact is that all of the above sources may represent earlier variants of a parable more likely than a historical event. This tends to be the case even with folk tales vs accounts of historical heroes of legend. While certain historical figures might have some degree of variance in accounts about them. It is nowhere near to the same degree as variance in folktales. The primary difference is folk tale is parabolic and intends to convey a lesson or teaching of wisdom. Details can either be more vague or specific and as long as the message gets across it makes no difference. Too much variance in accounts about historical events calls into question the historicity of the event. The criterion of multiple attestation can support such historicity when the main crux of the events are the same with minor variance in detail. Major variance in detail with only the most vague of similarity in account is another thing altogether.

In conclusion, while there is very little reason to believe this event actually occurred in Yeshua’s life, and contrarily there is substantial evidence to suggest that the story is made up to the degree that even evidence submitted to support the originality and historicity of the account actually further supports it's being a later addition, that doesn’t mean that John didn’t author it or there isn’t a valuable lesson that can be learned from it. In fact, it's very possible that this passage actually is the remnant of an oral tradition from the early Christian movement that eventually found its way to written form and miraculously preserved for us now.

Remembering that one's attitude towards Hashem's people should always be one of humility and grace and that any accusation that can be applied to them is doubly applicable to one's own tribe is a lesson which seems not to have taken root with its original intended audience, but it is a lesson which can and should be taken to heart by every Christian and Torah pursuant believer today.