The story of the woman taken in adultery features a dramatic confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees over whether the adulteress should be stoned as the law commands. In response, Jesus famously states, “Let him who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” To Cast the First Stone traces the history of this provocative story from its first appearance to its enduring presence today.
Likely added to the Gospel of John in the third century, the passage is often held up by modern critics as an example of textual corruption by early Christian scribes and editors, yet a judgment of corruption obscures the warm embrace the story actually received. Jennifer Knust and Tommy Wasserman trace the story’s incorporation into Gospel books, liturgical practices, storytelling, and art, overturning the mistaken perception that it was either peripheral or suppressed, even in the Greek East. The authors also explore the story’s many different meanings. Taken as an illustration of the expansiveness of Christ’s mercy, the purported superiority of Christians over Jews, the necessity of penance, and more, this vivid episode has invited any number of creative receptions. This history reveals as much about the changing priorities of audiences, scribes, editors, and scholars as it does about an “original” text of John.
To Cast the First Stone calls attention to significant shifts in Christian book cultures and the enduring impact of oral tradition on the preservation—and destabilization—of scripture.
There is much valuable historical information on the disputed passage of John 8:1-11. However, it presents a process of textual transmission where God is not a factor in terms of providence. Textual transmission and corruption are merely expected human factors and God’s preservation of His Word is nowhere to be found in this book. In other words, the presuppositions of the authors are revealed in the fact that the transmission of Homer or Cicero is no different than the texts of Holy Scripture. Furthermore, while the book is very evenhanded with the evidence, still, the decision to view the passage as not original is still fundamentally speculative based on some limited manuscript evidence and cannot claim to be some kind of “scientific” conclusion from the evidence available. Augustine’s explanation of the suppression of the passage is dismissed as unlikely, without grappling with the fact that Augustine was 1600 years closer to the evidence than we are.