FREE ESSAY ON STONED OBITUARY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE STORY OF THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN

STONED OBITUARY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE STORY OF THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN

Stoned Obituary: 
An Analysis of The Story of the Adulterous Woman
Look which of you that never sin wrought, 
But is of life cleaner than she, 
Cast at her stones and spare her not, 
Clean out of sin if that ye be. 
(N-Town: Woman Taken In Adultery: Medieval Drama; Bevington, David; Houghton Mifflin,
1975) 
Who among us has never sinned? And, in our place as fellow victims of our own all too
human nature, have we any right to pass judgement on those who do the
same as we do, if with less discretion? If so, this begs the question of whether morality
lies in following the social mores or if it is all in hiding from the public eye how
often you don't follow them. It seems that Jesus, or at least John's version1 of Jesus
and, later, the playwright of the N-Town Cycle, following in his footsteps,
believed that the appearance of a moral life is worthless without the genuine article to
buttress it. It sounds like a solid principle, and one that could be applied, even
today, but despite the similarities in the texts, did the mediaeval context provide less
charitable messages along with the story's original intended moral? And, for that
matter, is there more than first appears to that original moral? 
Among the gospels, only John makes mention of the Adulterous Woman, which brings to
question the probability of the actual occurrence. However, the
differences between John and the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) have led many
scholars to believe that John may have been written to supplement
the material found in the other three gospels. It is believed that the Gospel of John was
written later than the Synoptic gospels, but the debate still stands as to how
much later; estimates range from 75 A.D. to 145 A.D. However, scrolls containing versions
of John's gospel dated to 135 A.D. have been found as far as Syria,
which improves the likelihood of John's claim that he is a disciple of Jesus. This would
place the original writing of the gospel at no later than 100 A.D., and very
likely somewhere around 80 A.D. John's writings, then, are the reminiscences of an
elderly man looking back on his time with the Messiah; the views presented in
the gospel are more likely to be what he felt and could believe in at the time of the
writing, not at the time of his discipleship. This gives John's gospel a more mature
ambiance than those of the Synoptic writers, who were younger men, and more inclined to
write clear-cut, propaganda packed texts. 
Unlike the Synoptic writers, John avoids descriptions of the origins and early childhood
of Jesus, which none of the gospel writers would have known much about,
except through less accurate tales than the ones upon which the rest of the writings are
based. John also includes a significant amount of material not found in the
Synoptics. In addition to the Adulterous Woman, all the other material in John 2-4, which
covers Jesus' early Galilean ministry, is not found in the Synoptics. Prior
visits of Jesus to Jerusalem before the Passion Week are mentioned only in John. Nor do
Matthew, Mark or Luke mention the resurrection of Lazarus found in John
11. John presents his material in the form of extended dialogues or discourses rather
than the pithy sayings found often in the Synoptics; this holds a certain appeal to
the scholarly mind, which seeks accuracy rather than epigrams. This air of accuracy may
be what originally persuaded the N-Town playwright to keep his text so
true to the gospel account. 
The N-Town play of The Woman Taken in Adultery follows the account in the Gospel of John
very closely, and with only one notable embellishment - the scene
wherein the adulterous woman is abducted from the brothel, including the young man
present in that scene. I suspect that this addition was not purely for comic
purposes as may be assumed, but that the forceful capture of the adulterous woman invites
the audience to have sympathy for her predicament. I believe that the
gospel was followed more closely here than in other plays because, in addition to John's
general air of accuracy, there was little that could be added to make his
portrayal of the event more evocative, or if you're a Pharisee, provocative, except for
the brothel scene. 
Both John and the N-Town playwright have Jesus talking to his followers and writing in
the dust as the accusers approach and make their case. Throughout their
presentation, Jesus ignores the three men; he is too busy teaching goodness to appear to
listen too intently to their folly. However, despite his best efforts to ignore
the three men, they persist in requesting his assistance in a simple matter of Law, which
is clearly stated in both Leviticus 20:102 and Deuteronomy 22:223. 
It is an interesting side note that three men stand to accuse the adulterous woman, just
as there are three parts to so many things in the Christian tradition; the three
kings, the Holy Trinity, and the number of times the angel comes to Mary Magdalene, just
to name three. The three accusers set an interesting trap for Jesus by
bringing the adulterous woman before him; if he maintains his own teachings, and says she
should be spared, he speaks against the Law, and will have to be duly
punished. If, however, he maintains the Law, he will be a hypocrite to his own teachings,
and again subject to punishment. Despite the intentions of the Mediaevally
composed accusers, it seems that the historical accusers may have held no definite ill
will toward Jesus, for Rabbi Gunther Plaut, in his commentary on what became
Talmudic teaching on Leviticus 20:10, says: 
The Talmudic rabbis, with their great concern for the sanctity of human life, were openly
opposed to capital punishment. But, since they had
to recognize the letter of the Torah law, they sought a variety of means to render these
penal laws inoperative. Thus, in some instances, they
held that the Torah referred to death by divine intervention, not to death imposed by a
court. They further devised a system of technicalities
to prevent the conviction of a defendant for a capital crime. This somewhat offhand
approach was relatively easy for them, since the Roman
government denied Jewish courts jurisdiction over capital cases. 
(The Torah: A Modern Commentary; Plaut, Rabbi Gunther; 
The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, p.907.)
In John's account, there are two marked irregularities in the accusers' presentation of
their case. First, they provide no witnesses, thus Jesus has not been
presented with the information necessary to correctly judge the use of the Law in this
matter. Second, the accusers speak as though Mosaic law requires the death
penalty for adulterous women only, when, in actuality, Mosaic law states explicitly that
both the man and the woman stand under the penalty of death (Leviticus
20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22). These deviations from the standard procedure may have been
further protection for the accusers, so that they could save themselves
from the stigma of having to stone the woman or to severely punish Jesus for blasphemy by
claiming procedural errors. Not everyone was so open hearted, though;
during the accusations by Annas and Caiphas, at the beginning of The Passion Play, Annas
attempts to execute a similar ploy, and Jesus, using a Roman coin as the
bait. The repetition of the theme is not merely coincidence, as it echoes for the third
and final time as Judas makes his presentation to Pilate. Jesus sidesteps the
snare, as it is set by the adulterous woman's accusers, rather neatly by suggesting that
a sinner who would judge against sinners invites the same fate upon himself.
The playwright's adaptation of the scene opens this document, so, I now offer John's
account, that you may compare the similarity of the text: 
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, 
He that is without sin among you, let him first casta stone at her. 
(John 8:7; Bible, Revised Berkeley Version; Zondervan, 1977)
Thinking on this proclamation, the accusers begin to realise that they have sinned just
as greatly, in less public fashions, if not more greatly because of their
dishonesty in hiding their sins. They are stricken with a sense that Jesus is not merely
speculating that they are sinners, on the basis that all men will at some point or
another be jealous or lustful, but that he can actually see through them to their sins.
The Pharisee expresses, if only as an aside to the audience, his gratitude that Jesus
did not immediately expose his sins, for: 
My sinfull levinge if they out-crye 
I wot nevyr wher mine heed to hide. 
(N-Town)
The other two are equally ashamed of their own hidden immorality, with the Scribe going
so far as to profess that no matter how much he pays for his sins in death,
he will never see the face of Jesus again: 
If I were onys out of this place, 
To suffer deth gret and vengeaunceable 
I wil nevyr come befor his face- 
Thow I should die in a stable 
(N-Town)
Bevington interprets the Scribe's meaning as, "I would rather suffer a terrible and
vengeful death than appear before him (Jesus)." (Bevington, 468) However, in
this translation, he seems to be ignoring the Scribe's reference to the stable, which, in
my opinion, is probably a reference to the Nativity; in effect meaning that
though, in his repentance, he would travel to the point of God's entry into the world to
suffer his penance (a terrible and vengeful death), the Scribe cannot envision
himself forgiven. This leads one to speculate what things he could have done that would
lead him to believe that God, in His theoretically infinite wisdom, would not
grant him forgiveness. I think this moderately skewed perception can be attributed to the
Scribe's sudden discernment of his blasphemy in challenging God in the
form of Jesus. 
After the accusers have slunk back into the town, hiding their faces in shame, the crowd
that gathered to observe and throw stones also dissipates. Jesus at first
appears confused by their disappearance, likely because he was too busy writing in the
dirt to pay attention. Looking around, he asks the adulterous woman: 
Where be thy fomen that did thee accuse? 
Why have they lefte us two alone? 
(N-Town)
Then, she tells him, in an immense outpouring of gratitude, that they have gone because
he shamed them, at which point, he asks her why she's still standing around.
The adulterous woman continues to express her profound gratitude and love for Jesus,
until he finally imparts to her, in their third exchange, that the best thanks she
could offer him would be to go home and start leading a true moral life. 
Jesus, or in a later text, the Doctor, a clerical figure often used to pass on side notes
and end speeches in the plays, gives a small speech at the end of the play
explaining that all repentant sinners will be forgiven by God, if they are truly
repentant. He goes on to say that: 
God wele not kepe olde wreth in minde; 
But, bettyr love to hem he has, 
Very contrite whan he them finde 
(N-Town)
In other words, those who have sinned the most will be loved the best when they repent,
which while it is a lovely sentiment, poses some logistical problems. If
God is the Father, and all of mankind are his children, then some childish behaviour is
no doubt expected on our part; one facet of the child-mind being the desire for
attention. Would a statement such as this inspire those seeking more divine attention to
go out and commit terrible deeds that they would not ordinarily turn to so that
they may later wholeheartedly show their contrition and gain more praise from their
divine Father? Needless to say, such a ploy would be ridiculous and earn the
executor nothing, but to a child, is it not better to throw a ball through a window and
be noted for your idiocy, than to go entirely unnoticed? Of course, when the
fool finally repented of the whole silly scheme, God would no doubt be there to accept
and cherish him. 
Although the play from N-Town presents the scenario in the standard anti-Semitic style of
religious plays of its day, the suggestion that can be gleaned from the
writings of John and research into the religious and political attitudes of the time is
that the 'test' that Jesus is subjected to is an experiment on the part of the ones in
power, to better understand the strange teachings of this new rabbi. What we learn
watching the play or reading the gospel account, and what the adulterous
woman's accusers were probably reminded of, is that morality must be solid, like the
ground we stand on, and that the hollow morality of the masses is not sufficient.
But the accusers, at least in the play, seem to miss out on the best part of Jesus's
message, that just as they could find mercy for a fallen woman, so God could find
mercy for them, if only they would ask. This finding of space for life has traditionally
been a Jewish endeavour in the attempt to understand and apply Torah, and
now, with this story, it is brought to the forefront of Christian thought and teachings,
as well. Perhaps that is what the testing of Jesus is all about; perhaps it is a call
for us to test our own virtues, and find forgiveness for others and ourselves. 
(words: 2426) 
Footnotes: 
1: John 8:3-8:11 contains the story of The Adulterous Woman. 
2: Leviticus 20:10 
If a man commits adultery with his neighbour's wife, both the adulterer and the
adulteress must be put to death. 
3: Deuteronomy 22:22 
If a man be caught lying with a married woman both must die, the man lying with the woman
and the woman; thus you shall purge evil from Israel.