What was Jesus writing on the ground when they brought the woman caught in adultery?

[Hey_Jude_1994]

I always thought St. John included that line to laugh at us from heaven as we try and decipher it

 

[glendab]

Oh Tim! Bravo Bravo! :clapping:

Jesus writing in the sand was a reference to several places in the Old Testament.

The hand of God wrote words on the wall which no one except Daniel could read in Daniel 5.

And this is the writing that was inscribed: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN. This is the interpretation of the matter: MENE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; TEKEL, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; PERES, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians. (Daniel 5:25-27)

King Nebuchadnez’zar exalted himself and his kingdom was given to others more worthy. God’s hand wrote the words on the wall as a message. The author of the Gospel is trying to bring our attention back to the events in Daniel 5. This is what happened to the Pharisees and temple authorities - their kingdom was given to others who were worthy. Jesus wrote with his finger. The author is trying to tell us that Jesus is God and that he is going to pronounce judgement.

And the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them; as the LORD had said. (Exodus 8:19)

The authorities were invoking the Old Testament law in order to stone the woman. God in the person of Jesus Christ was reminding them of the real meaning of the law - mercy and forgiveness for one who repents.

And the LORD gave me the two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them were all the words which the LORD had spoken with you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. (Deuteronomy 9:10)

We can’t interpret Jesus’ words or actions outside of the Old Testament. We have to always look back to the Old Testament to be able to understand what Jesus was doing or saying. Whether there was a sandy area in the temple or not is not the point. John was drawing our attention to the hand and fingers of God in the Old Testament.

-Tim-

I guess the only thing that needs adding to this discussion at this point is this, those who had brought the woman to Jesus for judgment asking Him to stone her in effect were trying to trap Him and trick Him into doing what no Jew at that time could because of the Roman occupation. The Romans didn’t allow the Jews to try their own cases and carry out their own judgments. All cases had to be tried before the Roman authorities. The Law said she had to be stoned and since there were sufficient witnesses, it could have been tried right there and she should’ve been stoned, then the Romans would have blamed Jesus and taken Him away. That is the real trap laid as it were, at Jesus’ feet, not the guilt or non guilt of the woman. I tend to think she was quilty of the crime but God removed the judgment and the punishment. Scott Hahn has used this story several times in his stuff and he goes very deeply into it. I like what he says.

I gotta admit though, sometimes it is difficult not to wonder what He wrote in the dirt that day. It really doesn’t matter though if you think about it. It has nothing to do with my salvation. It distracts me from the message in the story.

Glenda

 

[TimothyH]

Oh Tim! Bravo Bravo! :clapping:

I guess the only thing that needs adding to this discussion at this point is this, those who had brought the woman to Jesus for judgment asking Him to stone her in effect were trying to trap Him and trick Him into doing what no Jew at that time could because of the Roman occupation. The Romans didn’t allow the Jews to try their own cases and carry out their own judgments. All cases had to be tried before the Roman authorities. The Law said she had to be stoned and since there were sufficient witnesses, it could have been tried right there and she should’ve been stoned, then the Romans would have blamed Jesus and taken Him away. That is the real trap laid as it were, at Jesus’ feet, not the guilt or non guilt of the woman. I tend to think she was quilty of the crime but God removed the judgment and the punishment. Scott Hahn has used this story several times in his stuff and he goes very deeply into it. I like what he says.

I gotta admit though, sometimes it is difficult not to wonder what He wrote in the dirt that day. It really doesn’t matter though if you think about it. It has nothing to do with my salvation. It distracts me from the message in the story.

Glenda

You are onto something very important. Many times the Pharisees, Sadducees and Temple authorities try to trap Jesus. We see this most clearly when they ask him if it is lawful to pay the tax - if he says that it is not lawful then he is against the Romans and if he says that it is lawful then he is against the Jews. Jesus answer is sublime and time and time again he escapes their trap by not taking the sides. He is not for the Romans nor for the Jews but is on God’s side.

These enigmas in the scriptures are wonderful to meditate upon, to pray about at length and imagine that we are there, in the story, hearing it and feeling the sand between our toes and smelling the smells as if we are right there. I ask God for light into these passages then let it go. Sometimes, very long after, it will come to me like an epiphany - a true gift from God out of the blue.

I also just found this…

O LORD, the hope of Israel,
all who forsake thee shall be put to shame;
those who turn away from thee shall be written in the earth,
for they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water.
(Jerimiah 17:13)

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Dear Tim, but that is why I said that Jesus was writing the Ten Commandments, the must important words from the Old Testament. And if you were right that ‘John was drawing our attention to the hand and fingers of God in the Old Testament’, that does not explain why the elders started to go first one by one.

Gloria

.

Here is something to consider. Not all Bibles agree on the wording of that verse. Not all of the oldest manuscripts are in agreement.

But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. (John 8:9 RSV)

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. (John 8:9 KJV)

Some of the manuscripts add that they were convicted of their own conscience. It could be that the oldest has better formed consciences or that they were aware that they had committed more sins. I don’t know. I’m only offering up the suggestion for what it is worth.

I really like the site scripture4all.org for stuff like this. It shows the Greek/Hebrew, literal word for word translation and what appears to be the KJV English equivalent all side by side.

scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh8.pdf

The literal translation is something like…

The yet ones-hearing and by the conscience being-exposed they-came-out one according-to one beginning from the seniors to the last and was left the-Jesus and the woman in the midst

Yikes! :hypno:

-Tim-

 

[glendab]

Maybe God was pointing to the dust on the ground to remind folks that to dust we all return as in ashes to ashes and dust to dust. From the dust of the ground God raised up Adam. An enigma? Maybe. It does remind me that someday I’ll be in the ground and all my deeds will be before God to be judged by Him. It took some bravado for the Pharisees there to actually ask God to judge. If He had begun, the world would’ve ended right there! They had no fear of God at all. And that IS the source of wisdom. This is not the first time in Scriptures that God is actually asked to judge. Think about it. Could you ask God to judge you if He was standing right in front of you? :bigyikes:

There really is a lot to be learned from these passages.

Glenda

 

[steve53]

That Jesus was in the outer courtyard of the second temple is accepted. He came from the Mount of Olives to the Temple, and where else could that be?

As i noted earlier, the Temple did not have a sandy base. It was tiled over with shaped rock. Here is the relevant section from Josephus:

“Now for the works that were above these foundations, these were not unworthy of such foundations; for all the cloisters were double, and the pillars to them belonging were twenty-five cubits in height, and supported the cloisters. These pillars were of one entire stone each of them, and that stone was white marble; and the roofs were adorned with cedar, curiously graven. The natural magnificence, and excellent polish, and the harmony of the joints in these cloisters, afforded a prospect that was very remarkable; nor was it on the outside adorned with any work of the painter or engraver. The cloisters [of the outmost court] were in breadth thirty cubits, while the entire compass of it was by measure six furlongs, including the tower of Antonia; those entire courts that were exposed to the air were laid with stones of all sorts. (Wars V 5:1,2)”

So the ball is in the “court” of those who defend the “sand-writing” passage.

Were the slabs so dusty that Jesus could write or make symbols on them?

Not likely, as the Second Temple was THE holy center for the Jews, and they would have had people constantly keeping it clean, even giving that job to low-level priests.

So the whole sand-writing episode could have had its roots in the Old Testament, as has been suggested, with Jesus not being able to read or write.

BTW Jesus could well have memorized certain key passages from the Bible after having heard them so many times, and learned to recite them as if he was reading, with the scripture in hand.

 

[EphelDuath]

That Jesus was in the outer courtyard of the second temple is accepted. He came from the Mount of Olives to the Temple, and where else could that be?

As i noted earlier, the Temple did not have a sandy base. It was tiled over with shaped rock. Here is the relevant section from Josephus:

“Now for the works that were above these foundations, these were not unworthy of such foundations; for all the cloisters were double, and the pillars to them belonging were twenty-five cubits in height, and supported the cloisters. These pillars were of one entire stone each of them, and that stone was white marble; and the roofs were adorned with cedar, curiously graven. The natural magnificence, and excellent polish, and the harmony of the joints in these cloisters, afforded a prospect that was very remarkable; nor was it on the outside adorned with any work of the painter or engraver. The cloisters [of the outmost court] were in breadth thirty cubits, while the entire compass of it was by measure six furlongs, including the tower of Antonia; those entire courts that were exposed to the air were laid with stones of all sorts. (Wars V 5:1,2)”

So the ball is in the “court” of those who defend the “sand-writing” passage.

Josephus ran out of paper, was simply mistaken, didn’t care to mention a certain sandy part, was specifically trying to contradict John, the place had changed in the 30-60 years between the events taking place and Josephus’ description of it, or some careless copyist had lost the part where Josephus described it, or mis-copied it.

So we have, what, six or seven perfectly plausible reasons for why we shouldn’t take Josephus to be counter-proof of the pericope having been a real event?

Not likely, as the Second Temple was THE holy center for the Jews, and they would have had people constantly keeping it clean, even giving that job to low-level priests.

So they would’ve been ok with stoning a woman to death in there?

So the whole sand-writing episode could have had its roots in the Old Testament, as has been suggested, with Jesus not being able to read or write.

BTW Jesus could well have memorized certain key passages from the Bible after having heard them so many times, and learned to recite them as if he was reading, with the scripture in hand.

… or he could read. Much more plausible considering the utter lack of contrary evidence.

 

[steve53]

Excellent points.

The first courtyard of the Second Temple could have had sandy areas where people could put out cigarettes or walk their dogs.

 

[Neofight]

He will have written that in the first time he bent down, no need to bend down again and carry on writing, don’t you think?

In the love of Christ,
Gloria

.

Man often needs to hear things twice, hence the 10 commandments in exodus and again in Deuteronomy.

 

[thistle]

"8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8** And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground**. 9 But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.” "John 8:1-11

Here is what I imagine::newidea:

When he bent on the ground he **was starting to write the Ten Commandments **but they press him to answer and Jesus told them that the one that did not have sin to throw the first stone, and then continue to write the Ten Commandments, that in Hebrew will be very short, two words each. But Jesus started to write them from the last commandment, the 10th: you shall not covet then 9th not bear false witness, etc. (Ex 20:3-17)

Since the elders, the Scribes and the Pharisees who brought the woman, pride themselves in not having other gods beside God and not worshiping idols, not taking the name of God in vain and keeping the Shabbat day (the first four commandments), but must probably did not keep so well the others, like not to covet others things, etc. they were the ones to go first. In fact, Jesus warned before the people to “…practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” Mt 23:3

As Jesus came closer to the first commandments, which the younger will find more difficult to keep, they also left and no one stone the adulterous woman.

What do you imagine??

In the love of Christ,
Gloria

.

There is no point in speculating because nobody knows what he wrote.

 

[glendab]

Steve - HUH?

… with Jesus not being able to read or write.

BTW Jesus could well have memorized certain key passages from the Bible after having heard them so many times, and learned to recite them as if he was reading, with the scripture in hand.

Am I to think that you’d like Jesus to quote from a Bible before you’ll believe Him? Or do you think there was a Bible around at the time of Christ?

Jesus is LORD!

What do you mean?

Glenda

 

[DaveBj]

There is no point in speculating because nobody knows what he wrote.

^^This. All that we have for 71 posts reminds me of the celebratory burnouts by the winner of a NASCAR: LOTS of engine noise, LOTS of wheelspin, LOTS of smoke, and the car either is standing perfectly still or spinning in circles.

 

[adrift]

The story of the woman taken in adultery (aka periscope adulterae) wasn’t added to the Gospel of John, 7,8, until the 4th century. It does not appear in either the fourth century Codex Sinaticus or the Codex Vaticanus.

But is was a good story of Jesus so someone added it… Note that it not in any of the other gospels.

But John’s gospel didn’t contain the story of the woman taken in adultery until it was added in the 4th century. Are you claiming that John was still alive to write it?

Incidentally, if you read the Gospel of John closely, the only one that mentions “a beloved disciple,” you’’ ll find it was probably Lazaras, not John. Hint: Read the story of what Jesus said from the cross in turning his mother’s care over to the “beloved disciple.” Does it identify that person as John? If the beloved disciple took Mary into his home “within the hour,” was he living in Bethany as was Lazaarus (about a half hour walk from Jerusalem), or 3 days away in Galilee as was the Apostle John?

I wondered how long before some one would post this. It isn’t as clear cut as you state.
Here is a complete look at it. Disputed passage in the Gospel of John (John 7:53-8:11)
Sinful woman forgiven by Jesus. Is this passage Scriptures?
Rare major case of a truly disputed Bible passage

 

[steve53]

Great link.

Here is a cut-and-paste from it.

Evidence against John 7:53-8:11 (Manuscripts without)

Aleph (Sinaticus, without the passage, circa 4th century)
A (Alexandrinus, without the passage, circa 5th century) End Note 1
B (Vaticanus, without the passage, circa 4th century)
C (Ephraemi Rescriptus, without the passage, circa 5th century) End Note 1
P75 (Bodmer Papyrus, without the passage, circa late 2nd or early 3rd century)
P66 (Bodmer Papyrus, without the passage, circa mid 2nd century)
Codex Washingtonianus (without the passage, 5th century)
Codex Borgianus (without the passage, 5th century)
Diatessaron (harmony of the gospels by Tatian, without the passage, circa 150-160 A.D.)
Early church Fathers including Tertullian (early third century), Cyprian (early to mid third century), Origen (early to mid third century) who perhaps knew nothing of it (the commentary of the latter doing all the verses surrounding it!).
Old Armenian Manuscripts (6 of them omit it)
SYRc.s. & majority of SYRp (the oldest and best Syriac manuscripts omit it, translation dates from 2nd century A.D.)
Sahidic (Coptic dialect, without the passage, translation from late 2nd to early 3rd century)
Older Bohairic (Coptec dialect, without the passage, 4th century)
Old Georgian (without the passage, mid-fourth century translation)
Armenian (without the passage, fifth century translation)
Gothic (without the passage, fourth century translation, sixth century manuscript)
ITa.l.q (several Old Latin, without the passage, 4th century)
No Greek Church Father prior to the 9th century comments on the passage
Greek Church Father Euthymius Zigabenus (declares that accurate copies of the gospels do not contain the passage, 12th century)
End Note 5

Evidence for John 7:53-8:11 (Manuscripts including, or referring, to this passage)

Didascalia Apostolorum (Syriac quotation from the account, circa 3rd century. Does not state what gospel, if any, it was in) End Note 8
D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis, 5th century)
Papias of Hierapolis (refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" circa 125 A.D.) End Note 2
Didymus the Blind (refers to the passage being found in "several gospels", lived circa 313-398 A.D.)
Pacian (370 A.D.) cites the passage. End Note 10
B (Vaticanus, circa 4th century, which didn't include the passage, marked the end of chapter 7 with an "umlaut" indicating that an alternative reading was known)
Jerome (says that the passage was found in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West, late 4th century)
Many other Latin Fathers including Ambrose End Note 7, John Chrysostom, and Augustine (all speak of the passage as being canonical. Augustine claims that some may have excluded it earlier to avoid the idea that Christ had sanctioned adultery, 4th and 5th centuries) End Note 12
A majority of the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate (perhaps mostly due to Jerome's influence)
Apostolic Constitutions (alludes to the account, late 4th century; document partially based on the Didascalia Apostolorum)
End Note 6

Evidences for being unsure about John 7:53-8:11

S (Vaticanus 354, 949 A.D., present but marked with an obelus as a questionable text)
Minuscule 795 (has only John 7:53-8:2, excludes 8:3-11, 9th century?)
Many Lectionaries (about 40 have only 8:3-11 and exclude 7:53-8:2, 11th century, a couple have 8:2-11) End Note 11
Many Minuscule Manuscripts (about 50 include the full passage but mark it with an asterix or obeli as being questionable, 11th-15th centuries, a few have shorter but still mark it as questionable).
A series of Minuscules (Family 1, include the passage yet have it after John 21:25, 12th-15th centuries)
Almost all old Armenian Manuscripts (except for the 6 which omit it, the others include the passage yet have it after John 21:25)
A series of Minuscules (Family 13, include the passage yet have it after Luke 24:53, 11th-15th centuries)
Other Minuscules (Minuscule 1333 include 8:3-11 after Luke 24:53; Minuscule 225 adds the passage after John 7:36; Minuscule 129, 259, 470, 564, 831 and 1356 place 8:3-11 after John 21:25; Minuscule 826 has it after Luke 21:38. Mostly 11th-12th centuries)
Several Georgian Manuscripts (include the passage but have it after John 7:44)

The New King James Version, while acknowledging that some dispute this passage, tries to turn their footnote into a reason for inclusion.

I am surprised there is no mention of the circumstances of the Temple itself, with Josephus saying it was tiled with stone. That should at least raise questions. As far as stoning in the Temple, we are talking about the outer courtyard which was an area of about 15 acres where everyone of all faiths could congregate. This was where in A.D. 58 Paul had his run-in with the Priests and would have suffered bodily harm if it weren’t for the Romans.

 

[EphelDuath]

I am surprised there is no mention of the circumstances of the Temple itself, with Josephus saying it was tiled with stone. That should at least raise questions.

I have pointed out six or seven legitimate reasons to not take Josephus’ word as Gospel.

Excellent points.

The first courtyard of the Second Temple could have had sandy areas where people could put out cigarettes or walk their dogs.

I’ll take your sarcasm to be an admittance that you don’t have some sort of Godly omniscience to know if every single part of the Temple was tiled 30-60 some years before Josephus was silent on the matter.

 

[adrift]

I am surprised there is no mention of the circumstances of the Temple itself, with Josephus saying it was tiled with stone. That should at least raise questions. As far as stoning in the Temple, we are talking about the outer courtyard which was an area of about 15 acres where everyone of all faiths could congregate. This was where in A.D. 58 Paul had his run-in with the Priests and would have suffered bodily harm if it weren’t for the Romans.

In reading and rereading I can find no reference in scripture that there was sand. It says that Jesus wrote with His finger on the ground. Could be that it was dust? It is also just a guess where Jesus was siting. It says He went to the temple but nothing more.

 

[steve53]

It was no small feat to go to the Temple.

The major access for the common people was from the south, where steps had to be ascended to a height of about 100 feet. There were separate steps for those walking down and “slow-walking” up.

Then you would enter the “Royal” cloisters, where you had triple cloisters running the length of the south part of the temple, about 250 yards. Here is where all the businesses were and merchants.

Jesus usually held forth near the main gate of the “Inner” courtyards, in a cloister built on top of the East wall of the Temple. Solomon’s Portico was the name, and at its closest point was maybe 50 yards away from the main gates.

If a group of Priests wanted to challenge him, this is where they would have brought the woman.

I doubt there would be sand or dirt anywhere within the Second Temple. That was thought to be a corruption and nothing God would want to see.

So there you have.

You maybe could say that the Temple had not been fully completed yet, and that their COULD have been piles of sand or dirt lying around, but that would be stretching it I think.

source Hagan “Fires of Rome”

 

[EphelDuath]

You maybe could say that the Temple had not been fully completed yet, and that their COULD have been piles of sand or dirt lying around, but that would be stretching it I think.

What’s stretching it is to try and discredit the pericope based solely off of the silence of Josephus.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

No more problems with the tiles, sand or ground where Jesus bent to write!!!

.την γην

This is the Greek word and its literal meaning is: ** THE EARTH**

Therefore** Jesus was writing on the earth**, and not on tiles or sand or dust or what ever you can imagine!!!

Better to have things clear from the original!!

Gloria

PD And to clarify that the temple was still in construction in the times of Jesus I already explain it in post #45

.

 

[steve53]

LOL.

That certainly clears it up…