John 8 - The Woman Caught In Adultery

In John 8:1-11 we find the story of the woman caught in adultery. I have found some statementments indicating that this may have been Mary Magdalene. Can anyone refer me to any Logos materials that might shed some light on this. Do you have any suggestions for studying this passage or for studying Mary Magdalene?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Room4more

In John 8:1-11 we find the story of the woman caught in adultery. I have found some statementments indicating that this may have been Mary Magdalene. Can anyone refer me to any Logos materials that might shed some light on this. Do you have any suggestions for studying this passage or for studying Mary Magdalene?

Luke 8.2 /cf Mark 16.9

Hope this helps..

MJ. Smith

The identification is questionable but certainly part of the folk interpretation. There is a bit on it in Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor by Susan Haskins. There are competing proof/disproof bible studies on the web.

David Ames

The identification is questionable but certainly part of the folk interpretation. There is a bit on it in Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor by Susan Haskins. There are competing proof/disproof bible studies on the web.

[[Happy 10000 just a tad early]

One thing is that many of the people in the NT writings may have been still alive so their names may have been keep silent so the powers that be would not track them down. [maybe] also that story may not have been written by John. On the other hand some say that it might have been the first story about Jesus ever written. [don't know how long it will take me to find the references if any one asks me to prove that] I THINK that several of the stories of the different Marys and that one were of Magdalen. But I am not ready to preach it and have no proof.

DMB

One of the problems in early Palestine, is that mothers named all their daughters 'Mariam'. (Actually an unusually high percentage for some reason.) That's why 'Mary' is so closely associated with doing bad things (and even ending up in the 'Jesus Tomb').

A good summary was in Answer.com. I didn't know she'd been cleared and even complemented:

'The New Testament never describes Mary Magdalene as an adulterer or a harlot. That (undeserved) reputation was the result of a sermon in 591AD, delivered by Pope Gregory the Great. Gregory intentionally mixed her up with the unnamed "sinful" woman who entered Jesus’ presence as He dined with a Pharisee (an event which occurred before Mary is introduced, in the Gospel of Luke. But even in the case of that sinful woman, there is no evidence in any Gospels that her sins were those of the flesh - in the first century, a woman could be considered "sinful" for talking to men other than her husband or going to the marketplace alone). Yet, they are clearly different women, and Gregory created the prostitute persona from thin air. In 1969, the Vatican quietly but officially cleared Mary Magdalene of the accusation of prostitution. In 1988, in an official church document, Pope John Paul II noted that during early Christianity's "most arduous test of faith and fidelity" (the Crucifixion), Mary Magdalene "proved stronger than the Apostles.'

The 'intentionally' above is arguable due to the latin word used. And sooooo .... illustrating the need for a good Latin resource in Logos!

revrari

A good principle of biblical interpretation was once laid out by the Classical scholar ER Dodds. He said: "What does not exist in the text, does not exist."

rari

Room4more

A good principle of biblical interpretation was once laid out by the Classical scholar ER Dodds. He said: "What does not exist in the text, does not exist."

rari

[Y][Y][:D][;)]

George Somsel

A good principle of biblical interpretation was once laid out by the Classical scholar ER Dodds. He said: "What does not exist in the text, does not exist."

rari

Generally, that is a good rule, but one might add "or CLEARLY deducible from the text."

Mitchell

Generally, that is a good rule, but one might add "or CLEARLY deducible from the text."

That doesn't roll off the tongue quite so nicely.

David Wilson

A good principle of biblical interpretation was once laid out by the Classical scholar ER Dodds. He said: "What does not exist in the text, does not exist."

Which might bring up the controversey about whether this passage was part of the Gospel John wrote or not, given it apparently did not exist in the earliest available manuscripts ....

DMB

There's no controversy. It's clearly right there in the KJV. Most scholars today believe early manuscript copyists removed it from the KJV. Besides, how could Mary Magdalene be the adultress, if it wasn't in the KJV?

George Somsel

A good principle of biblical interpretation was once laid out by the Classical scholar ER Dodds. He said: "What does not exist in the text, does not exist."

Which might bring up the controversey about whether this passage was part of the Gospel John wrote or not, given it apparently did not exist in the earliest available manuscripts ....

Not only is the passage missing from the earliest mss, it was inserted in other locations as well which would appear to indicate that it was imported from elsewhere. I suspect that it was part of the no longer extant Gospel of the Hebrews.

There's no controversy. It's clearly right there in the KJV. Most scholars today believe early manuscript copyists removed it from the KJV. Besides, how could Mary Magdalene be the adultress, if it wasn't in the KJV?

[:D] Need help removing your tongue from your cheek?

David Wilson

There's no controversy. It's clearly right there in the KJV. Most scholars today believe early manuscript copyists removed it from the KJV. Besides, how could Mary Magdalene be the adultress, if it wasn't in the KJV?

Are we talking the original authorized (by KJ) version of the KJV or a more recent colonial imitation ?

David Paul

A good principle of biblical interpretation was once laid out by the Classical scholar ER Dodds. He said: "What does not exist in the text, does not exist."

rari

Generally, that is a good rule, but one might add "or CLEARLY deducible from the text."

I disagree with Dodds for the the reason George gives...and will up it further:

Failing to make logically supported deductions results in bad...even failed...interpretation.

DAL

Though there are many lessons that can be gleaned from it, that story is not found in the oldest manuscript, so I wouldn't really worry about it. Why would I worry about the woman's identity? Or why would I worry about what did Jesus write on the ground? Nobody knows. The only time I've ever taught on that passage is to dismantle the abused phrase "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Many have used that as a blanket for sin and say that nobody has the right to say anything to someone else about their sins unless he himself is without sin which totally contradicts what the Bible teaches on telling others about their faults (Matt. 18:15-20, John 7:24, James 5:19-20, 1 Cor. 5; etc.).

But anyway, if you're looking for practical lessons on the text, here's a good article on it: The Current Perversion of John 8:1-11

Blessings!

DAL

David Ames

is not found in the oldest manuscript, so I wouldn't really worry about it.

Maybe we should WORRY!

Search for |book NEAR burning| in |Textual Criticism Collection| ZERO HITS

Search |crusades| in |Textual Criticism Collection| ONE HIT

And that was about a book taken as booty during

There is NOTHING in the books that I have on Textual Criticism that cover the history of Book Burning and the Burning of Byzantine during the Crusades.

If there were any second or third century texts of the Byzantine type is it not most likely that they would they have been kept in Byzantine? What happened to Byzantine during the Crusades? It was sacked and burned. What happens to books that are burned? They are not longer to be found. What is THE MAJOR ASSUMPTION of Textual Criticism? Textual Criticism ASSUMES that all versions have the same chances of being found. Is that assumption true? That assumption is NOT true. And thus there is a BIG hole in the core theory of Textual Criticism.

The OLDEST Manuscripts are all of the Alexandrian type because Alexandra is a DRY place. And Byzantine is a wet place. Once more the theory falls.

Did find this on Climate:

""Is the accident of circumstance—that papyrus survives almost exclusively in the hot climate and dry sands of Egypt—to dominate and determine how we ultimately write our textual history?"" from: Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 119

Would someone please point out a Textual Criticism resource, that is in Logos, that does deep scholarship on the effect of Book Burning, the Crusades and Climate on the availability of ancient manuscripts.

George Somsel

is not found in the oldest manuscript, so I wouldn't really worry about it.

Maybe we should WORRY! … The OLDEST Manuscripts are all of the Alexandrian type because Alexandra is a DRY place. And Byzantine is a wet place. Once more the theory falls.

Not so fast, Gunga Din. There was a ms containing, among other works, the Didache discovered in 1873 by the metropolitan Bryennios in Constantinople which was finished June 11, 1056 which still survives in reasonably good condition. It is not the case that that the mss simply rotted away due to humidity.

David Ames

in the Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulcher discovered in 1873 [That covers climate now what about the other two?]

[[I have the Edward D. Andrews Collection (8 vols.) on order - ships 2/25]]

I did ask if: Would someone please point out a Textual Criticism resource, that is in Logos, that does deep scholarship on the effect of Book Burning, the Crusades and Climate on the availability of ancient manuscripts. [[When do we get to bid on Yours??]] [[And thanks, as always, for keeping me on my toes]]

MJ. Smith

Textual Criticism ASSUMES that all versions have the same chances of being found.

Really? That is odd because it is so unlikely to be true. It could only be a simplifying assumption to make the data manageable. How many ancient manuscripts do we have from the Mar Thoma church in India? [Trick question - use of banana leaves as a writing surface has seriously limited the number of old manuscripts in a bug infested environment.]

DMB

MJ ... you lost me. In the quote from David, he opines that 'Texual Criticism' (whoever that is) makes an argument that assumes that all versions (of mss) have an equal likelihood of discovery (which of course assumes there's known undiscovered mss).

You duplicate his argument (but in the reverse) using the banana leaf manuscripts that don't exist as well.

Are you playing logical tricks on us? (I'm sure George is watching.)

David Wilson

How many ancient manuscripts do we have from the Mar Thoma church in India?

Probably only a few thousand left and require a good deal of expertise to translate....
http://www.srite.de/index?id=2&cikk=90 and http://marthoma.in/mar-thoma-theological-seminary

... and while there are significant rumours of rivalry between John and Thoma, given the distance between them after Thoma headed east, it is unlikely that they felt much need to keep in a heated debate...

BUT you could have a point: it might be that followers of Thoma subsequently headed west and inserted the story about "that woman" into later manuscripts of John....