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

[glendab]

Excellent Job Steve 53! This is good stuff.

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.

Perhaps you and Boniventure could put on the gloves and have go at it on another thread.

Might be worth the effort.

But as for me the question was resolved when they settled on all the books of the Bible way back when…It is Gospel.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

P.S. I just got a copy of the Complete Works of Josephus for one of my Christmas books. If I can stay off this silly computer long enough, I might get some reading done.

 

[steve53]

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

Josephus isn’t silent.

The Temple outer courtyard was paved with tiles.

I was just throwing a bone to the “sand and dirt” people. The foundations of the Temple were largely completed by 10 B.C. In the forty year interval between that time and Jesus’ Temple presence, the outer courtyard would have been well-tiled as a priority project.

And, responding to a previous poster’s suggestion, I am a lover not a fighter.

 

[adrift]

Josephus isn’t silent.

The Temple outer courtyard was paved with tiles.

I was just throwing a bone to the “sand and dirt” people. The foundations of the Temple were largely completed by 10 B.C. In the forty year interval between that time and Jesus’ Temple presence, the outer courtyard would have been well-tiled as a priority project.

And, responding to a previous poster’s suggestion, I am a lover not a fighter.

Jewish Encyclopedia

The open space beyond the cloisters was paved with various kinds of stone, probably forming a mosaic. This outer court was, strictly speaking, not a part of the Temple. Its soil was not sacred, and it might be entered by any one.

I have some questions:
When Josephus spoke of tiles, what exactly was he speaking about?
The Jewish Encyclopedia describes various kinds of stone?
When it is described as well tiled, does that mean every square inch?
Does coming to the Temple mean going into the Temple?

 

[aragonjohn1]

But then how you explain that the elders started to go first and did not stoned the woman

In the love of Christ,
Gloria

.

shame or pride if involving sin on their part; self-realization if not.

God bless

 

[TimothyH]

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.

There is no ball in anyone’s court. Whether there was a sandy area or not is besides the point of Scripture. Historical accuracy is not the point.The point of Scripture is salvation, not historical accuracy. There is nothing to defend.

-Tim-

 

[adrift]

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.

For Jesus to pretend to read scripture would be a lie. Jesus would not have lied (bear false witness).

And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. 17 And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

It says stood up to read not recite. He found where it was written which would have required Him to read.

 

[steve53]

There must be five old threads on this.

In John, Jesus was accused of preaching even though he did not know letters. I take that to mean that Jesus could not read or write.

John was an eyewitness to the exchange.

Luke admits that all his information was second-hand.

I’ll raise you a smiley face…

 

[thistle]

Frankly, it makes no difference if he wrote on earth, sand, tiles (no imprint) or whatever, the answer to the thread topic is that NOBODY knows what Jesus wrote. Why are there endless discussions on this topic.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe He was drawing pictures and maybe He did so many times. Pictures are worth more than thousands of words, as they say.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

Frankly, it makes no difference if he wrote on earth, sand, tiles (no imprint) or whatever, the answer to the thread topic is that NOBODY knows what Jesus wrote. Why are there endless discussions on this topic.

Very simple. Because we all are learning something new with this discussion.

About those days,** if the Temple has been finished or not**, that this passage is not included in all the manuscripts, or the suggestion that Jesus always goes back to teach and preach the commandments. So it is not that now we are free from the commandments as not to keep them!! And all these help us when we are confronted by people on these issues.

He came to call immoral people to change their lives and this is causing us to remember not only that, but that accusers of immoral people should check themselves also to be able to correct, and not to condemn. That is what Jesus did in this account: he did not stoned the woman neither but told her to go and sin no more.

In the love of Christ,
Gloria

.

 

[thistle]

Very simple. Because we all are learning something new with this discussion.

About those days,** if the Temple has been finished or not**, that this passage is not included in all the manuscripts, or the suggestion that Jesus always goes back to teach and preach the commandments. So it is not that now we are free from the commandments as not to keep them!! And all these help us when we are confronted by people on these issues.

He came to call immoral people to change their lives and this is causing us to remember not only that, but that accusers of immoral people should check themselves also to be able to correct, and not to condemn. That is what Jesus did in this account: he did not stoned the woman neither but told her to go and sin no more.

In the love of Christ,
Gloria

.

What does any of that have to do with the question about what Jesus wrote?

 

[Gloria_de_G]

What does any of that have to do with the question about what Jesus wrote?

That he was writing the Ten Commandments of God. This is a recall to your life and mine.
Do you keep the Commandments as to be close to God? No body is exempt from keeping them.

In the love of Christ,
Gloria

.

 

[adrift]

There must be five old threads on this.

In John, Jesus was accused of preaching even though he did not know letters. I take that to mean that Jesus could not read or write.

John was an eyewitness to the exchange.

Luke admits that all his information was second-hand.

I’ll raise you a smiley face…

Here is the note and translation from the NAB

The Jews were amazed and said, “How does he know scripture without having studied?”

6 [15] Without having studied: literally, “How does he know letters without having learned?” Children were taught to read and write by means of the scriptures. But here more than Jesus’ literacy is being discussed; the people are wondering how he can teach like a rabbi. Rabbis were trained by other rabbis and traditionally quoted their teachers.

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

That he was writing the Ten Commandments of God. This is a recall to your life and mine.
Do you keep the Commandments as to be close to God? No body is exempt from keeping them.

In the love of Christ,
Gloria

.

You should change the title of this thread from " What was Jesus writing on the ground when they brought the woman caught in adultery???"

to

**“Only acceptable answer in my eyes as to what Jesus wrote on the ground when they brougt the women caught in adultery, is the 10 commandments”. **

This title best keeps in line with the spirit of the thread thus far. You seem to be pretty sure of something no one can be sure of except, Christ.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

You should change the title of this thread from " What was Jesus writing on the ground when they brought the woman caught in adultery???"

to

**“Only acceptable answer in my eyes as to what Jesus wrote on the ground when they brougt the women caught in adultery, is the 10 commandments”. **

This title best keeps in line with the spirit of the thread thus far. You seem to be pretty sure of something no one can be sure of except, Christ.

Sorry Sinner but in this thread this is what I am proposing and what I am promoting!!!

Up to now no one has come with a better imagination because the ones that said that Jesus was writing the sins of each one, does not make sense, because some one said He will be disclosing the sins of people in public!!! Also too much writing on the earth!!

What, you would not like me to be right???

You seem to be pretty sure of something no one can be sure of except, Christ.

How do you know that He is not enlightening me to say these things?? Can you be sure that He is not???

And if you do not like my proposal, well tell me where does not square, if not, seems to me that you are just arguing for the sake of not giving a possibility to have it right. Just because in 2000 years no one thought in this answer???:tsktsk:

Well, I tell you that we have the Apocalypse for 2000 years and there is not an explanation about it, does that makes wrong any one who comes with good ideas to give it meaning??

In the love of Christ,
Gloria
PD I will pray for you! :heaven:
.

 

[thistle]

That he was writing the Ten Commandments of God. This is a recall to your life and mine.
Do you keep the Commandments as to be close to God? No body is exempt from keeping them.

In the love of Christ,
Gloria

.

NOBODY knows what he wrote!

 

[glendab]

Gloria,

That he was writing the Ten Commandments of God. This is a recall to your life and mine.
Do you keep the Commandments as to be close to God? No body is exempt from keeping them.

In the love of Christ,
Gloria

.

You seem to have convinced yourself that you know what He wrote: the 10 Commandments. Your thoughts are valid and have meaning, they aren’t necessarily what actually occurred. No one knows what Jesus was writing upon the ground that day. All that is known is that He wrote something. It is dangerous to speculate about things that cannot be known with certainty. Telling others that you KNOW what He wrote isn’t good for them. Be careful. A reflection is that, just a reflection. It isn’t Gospel.

Glenda

 

[TimothyH]

NOBODY knows what he wrote!

Thistle, please read the fifth chapter of the Book of the Prophet Daniel. The parallels are striking.

quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=3357061

-Tim-

 

[Gloria_de_G]

Gloria,

You seem to have convinced yourself that you know what He wrote: the 10 Commandments. Your thoughts are valid and have meaning, they aren’t necessarily what actually occurred. No one knows what Jesus was writing upon the ground that day. All that is known is that He wrote something. It is dangerous to speculate about things that cannot be known with certainty IF YOU THINK LIKE THAT BE HAPPY, BUT I THINK YOU ARE MAKING A BIG THING OUT OF NOTHING, GO AND ASK A PRIEST IF IT SO DANGEROUS TO SPECULATE THAT HE WROTE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Telling others that you KNOW **(TELL ME THE POST WHERE I SAID THIS) **what He wrote isn’t good for them. Be careful. A reflection is that, just a reflection. It isn’t Gospel.

Glenda

You see Glenda, as I can not say that this is what occurred, neither you can be so sure that this is not actually what occurred. And I know that what I am putting forward is a reminder for all of us to keep the Commandments of God so that we may not be accussed in Judgement Day, and if by giving this meaning to this passage have brought so many people to think about it. Blessed be God!

I have told you before if you have a better imagination than mine bring it forward, but not the same that you tried before because some people opposed it, including me.

And do you really think that I thought about this yesterday, NO. I have being thinking in this for years and there is nothing wrong in imagine it like that. and of course that time of reflection neither will make it true. It is not the Gospel but it is something to meditated about.

And I said from the beginning, in my first post, that this is my imagination.:idea: If you do not like it tell me where do you think it does not square, very simple.

In the love of Christ and thinking about all what He did to save us,:flowers:
Gloria

.