Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:13:27.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Save the Adulteress!’ Ancient Jewish Responsa in the Gospels?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Brad H. Young
Brad H. Young
Affiliation:
(Gospel Research Foundation, Box 35234, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74153, USA)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The gospel story of the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7.53–8.11), has captured the hearts of many listeners because it stirs up strong feelings of compassion for a human being in a vulnerable situation, even someone who has betrayed his or her marriage vow and committed a serious wrong. The love, acceptance and forgiveness of Jesus as well as his profound wisdom as a respected teacher come out of the narrated scene. Jesus answers a question that solves a very severe problem. These elements of the dramatic episode from the life of Jesus are clear. The Jewish people in the story, however, are viewed as antagonists. The Pharisees threaten the woman's life and seek to accuse Jesus. Silhouetted against the passion, this accusation might even be viewed by some readers as a charge to bring about the death of Jesus. Is this the only possible interpretation of the Pharisees' role in the gospel story?

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 1995 , pp. 59 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I am greatly indebted to David Flusser for his insights into this remarkable episode from the gospel texts. Without him this study would not have been possible. See also, Flusser, , Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988) 575–609Google Scholar and my work, Jesus and His Jewish Parables (New Jersey: Paulist, 1989) 282–316.Google Scholar The role of the Pharisees in Jesus' life merits greater attention in the discipline of New Testament research.

2 See Becker, U., Jesus und die Ehebrecherin (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1963) 56–8, 66–8, 73–4Google Scholar and Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St John (New York: Crossroad, 1987) 2.165–6 and 480.Google Scholar Here I wish to express my thanks to W. Yarchin of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont who has enabled me to use microfilms for the manuscripts of Beza, M, 1071 and 264.

3 Lietzmann, H., ‘H. von Sodens Ausgabe des NT: die Perikope von der Ehebrecherin’, ZNTW 8(1907)46.Google Scholar

4 Kurt, and Barbara, Aland, The Text of the NT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 227Google Scholar and cf. David, Holly, Comparative Studies in Recent Greek NT Texts (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1983).Google Scholar

5 Aland, and Aland, , The Text of the NT, 291.Google Scholar

6 Aland, and Aland, , ‘Introduction’, Greek-English NT (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1981)11*.Google Scholar

7 See Hedrick, Charles W., ‘Authorial Presence and Narrator in John’, Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings in Honor of James M. Robinson (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990) 75–93.Google Scholar

8 See Aland, K., Studien zur Überlieferung des NT und seines Textes (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967) 43–5.Google Scholar C. K. Barrett has pointed out the similarity of wording between John 7.53–8.11 and the language of Luke–Acts. I tend to think that at one point the story was taken from among the sources of Lucan writings which the third evangelist did not originally incorporate into his gospel. The narrative was inserted into John. Later editors believed it belonged to Luke and hence moved it after Luke 21.38. See Barrett, , The Gospel according to St John (London: SPCK, 1970) 492.Google Scholar

9 Bruce, Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1975) 220.Google Scholar

10 The removal of 8.6a overturns one (perhaps the) major objection that might otherwise be raised against the historicity of the narrated scene. Cf. Taylor, V., The Text of the NT (New York: St Martin's, 1963) 4Google Scholar, ‘Of two other or more alternative readings, that one is more likely to be right which most easily accounts for the origin of the others.’ Viewing verse 6a as an interpolation explains the scattering effect in the other readings. It is also supported by the rules of lectio brevior and lectio difficilior.

11 See Lake, K., trans., Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1980) 1.299, 3.96.16.Google Scholar On the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’, see Pritz, Ray A., Nazarene Jewish Christianity (Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes, 1988) 83–94.Google Scholar

12 Barrett, , John, 492.Google Scholar

13 Barrett, , John, 490.Google Scholar

14 Josephus Ant. 13.294 (13,10, 5).

15 See m. Makkot 1.10 (Ch. Albeck, , Shisah Sidre Mishnah [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1979] 4.222)Google Scholar and b. Makkot 7a. Compare Sanders, E. P., Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM, 1990) 19.Google Scholar He observes, ‘Josephus says that the Pharisees inclined to leniency (Antiq. 13.294), and perhaps we can see that tendency being continued in the work of their successors.’

16 See Num. 5.11–31 and m. Sotah 9.9, Albeck, 3.258, b. Sotah 47a and Kasher, M., Torah Shelemah (Jerusalem: Beth Torah, 1982) 36.400ff.Google Scholar See also the discussion by Abrahams, I., Pharisaism and the Gospels (New Jersey: Ktav, 1967) 1.72–4.Google Scholar See also Deut 22.22–4 and Lev 20.10 and Kasher, , Torah Shelemah, 32.149ff.Google Scholar

17 Against the old notion that the Pharisees were luring Jesus away into a place of danger, see, Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985) 1030.Google Scholar Cf. Bowker, J., Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge University, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 See David, Flusser, ‘… To Bury Caiaphas, Not to Praise Him’, Jerusalem Perspective (07–10, 1991) 23–8Google Scholar and also in Atiqot 21 (Jerusalem, 1991) 81–7.Google Scholar

19 Cf. e.g., Heinz, Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literari-sches und historisches Umfeld (l.-ll.Jh.) (Bern: Peter Lang, 1982).Google Scholar

20 See Shmuel, Safrai, ‘Introduction’, The Literature of the Sages, 10–11.Google Scholar Needless to say, not everything attributed to Hillel and Shammai in the rabbinic literature is dated from their time.

21 See e.g., b. Hullin 95b and Yebamot 105a.

22 See e.g., b. Gittin 60b and also Gerhardsson, B., Memory and Manuscript (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1961).Google Scholar

23 See Yaakov, Sussmann, ‘The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls – a Preliminary to the Publication of 4QMMT’, Tarbiz 59 (1990) 11–76 (Hebrew)Google Scholar; Qimron, E. and Strugnell, J., Qumran Cave 4Miqṣat Ma**se ha-Torah (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 123–77Google Scholar; and David, Flusser, ‘Some of the Precepts of the Torah From Qumran (4QMMT) and the Benediction Against the Heretics’, Tarbiz 61 (1992) 333–74 (Hebrew).Google Scholar

24 See j. Pes. 33a, chap. 6, hal. 1; tos. Pes. 4.13 (Lieberman, 165) and b. Pes. 66a. Cf. Urbach, E. E., The Halakhah: Its Sources and Development (Israel: Massada, 1986) 384Google Scholar note 25 and Epstein, J. N., Mevoot Lasifrut Hatannaim (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1957) 510.Google Scholar

25 See Urbach, E. E., The Halakhah, 100Google Scholar and also Shmuel, Safrai, ‘Halakha’, The Literature of the Sages (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1987) 160–1.Google Scholar

26 Urbach, , The Halakhah: Its Sources and Development, 108.Google Scholar

27 M. Hagigah 1.8 (Albeck, 2.393) and Safrai, ‘Halakha’, 124.

28 See Schnackenburg, R., John, 2.165–6Google Scholar and Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (London: SCM, 1972) 228.Google Scholar

29 Abrahams, Pharisaism, 1.74.

30 See Deut 17.7 and m. Sanh. 6.4 (Albeck, 4.187).

31 See b. Shabbat 31a and parallels.

32 See Luke 10.28, 37.

33 See Vermes, G., Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 178–214Google Scholar and Safrai, S., ‘Teaching of Pietists in Literature’, JJS 16 (1965) 15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar and idem, ‘חידיסחה העונחהו ושי’, PWCJS 10 (1989) 1–7.