Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 181:722 (Apr 2024)
Article: "Aenigma Adulterae", Part 1: Ambivalence And Assumption
Author: Eric J. C. Ellison

BSac 181:722 (April-June 2024) p. 200

Aenigma Adulterae, Part 1: Ambivalence And Assumption

Eric J. C. Ellison

Eric J. C. Ellison is a pastor serving in the Iglesia Adventista de Monteverde in Costa Rica.

Abstract

This study introduces the text-critical and interpretational issues of John 7:53–8:11 and examines the textual arguments for its canonicity, origin, and placement within the canon. It evaluates the multitudinous interpretations centered on the nature of the trap, Jesus’s verbal and nonverbal responses, and the moral of the story. In Part 2 it concludes by asserting that an understanding of Mosaic law clarifies both the meaning of the pericope and its traditional placement.

John 7:53–8:11 is arguably the biblical pericope most beset with speculations, opinions, and entrenched positions. The widely disparate conjectures swirling around this text relate to its origin, legitimacy, canonicity, and location in the canon, as well as opinions about the interpretation of its elements, such as the nature of the trap it recounts, the significance of Jesus’s nonverbal actions, the intended meaning of his short verbal response, and the proposed moral of the story. This article contends that much of this confusion can be enlightened or even resolved through careful attention to the few details provided and through a reminder of their significance, which has been all but forgotten. This two-part study will begin with a survey of the secondary literature on each of the issues listed above, followed by an examination of the text itself and a review of the underlying principles. A follow-up article will examine all-but-forgotten details of Mosaic law and show how this information illuminates the questions raised above.

BSac 181:722 (April-June 2024) p. 201

Origin And Authenticity

The disparity of opinions surrounding the canonicity and location of the story of the woman taken in adultery is readily apparent with a brief survey of commentaries on the topic. Some completely omit the story from their treatment of the Fourth Gospel.1 Others do not cover it in its canonical position but relegate its discussion to a side article, often an appendix.2 Still others place their arguments about the story’s textual issues and interpretation in the traditional canonical location between John 7:52 and 8:12.3 The decision made by this third group does not e...