One of Jesus' "Good Deeds" Examined, by Horia George Plugaru

[JohannGoodflag]

It seems to me that the author is going out of their way (sorry -- I don't know the gender of 'Horia') to suppose that Jesus is calling for the abolishment of law. This is an interesting interpretation, but I'm afraid it doesn't seem likely.

Suppose for a moment that Jesus was a real person, roughly as described in the Gospels, with at least some amount of reason. Is there anything else in the Gospels that suggest that he would have wanted to abolish law? If not, is there a reason to support the idea that he advocated that, aside from this interpretation of John 8:1-11 ? It would seem to me that there is a far more likely hypothesis: that Jesus chose to say something that would both stymie the Pharisees, and at the same time give the woman the greatest chance of living.

The context of what Jesus is supposed to have said is that the Pharisees brought the woman before Jesus, and asked him whether or not she should be stoned. If he were to naïvely provide a "yes" or "no" answer, the Pharisees would have used that answer against him. "Yes" means that he thinks she should be put to death, and by implication is beyond hope of personal redemption; "no" means that he disrespects the law. So any rational answer on his part would require him to answer indirectly. Also, for a young activist such as Jesus would be, to not answer a direct challenge of this nature would be to concede defeat.

By saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her", he does not explicitly reject the rule of law. Neither is he commanding that no-one throw the first stone unless they are without sin: he is just proposing that the first one be someone who has not sinned. This is a rhetorical challenge. Unless and until the Pharisees explicitly admit that no such person exists, the first person to throw a stone would be implicitly claiming that they are pure and blameless, which would be the height of pride and hypocrisy. At the same time, Jesus is strongly implying that the woman is no more beyond redemption than the Pharisees are.

The Pharisees cannot justifiably paint Jesus with the brush of an outlaw because he has made no statement against the law. This is the kind of bullet he consistently dodges when up against the Pharisees. What's more, if they were to condemn the woman, the Pharisees would be admitting that they too may be beyond redemption --- something which would be beyond their pride, and which would compromise their position of authority. Thus, they have no ammunition against Jesus when they clearly expected to have trapped him, and they can do nothing against the woman without being seen as villains.

It is possible to interpret John 8:1-11 so that Jesus is just selfishly telling the Pharisees "Go away, leave me alone" in a very elegant way. However, even if we grant that, there is still what Jesus says to the woman after they have gone: "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Whatever his motive for his response to the Pharisees, he is clearly making the additional message that he does not feel the woman deserves to die; that she is not beyond redemption. Then, it seems likely that he tailored his message to the Pharisees specifically so that they would leave her alone as well.

* * *

I am an Atheist, although I used to be a Christian. I felt compelled to compose this response, not because I feel that Jesus actually existed and was a nice person, but because I feel that Horia's argument is weak. If I can compose a convincing counter-argument to this, would a devoted and intelligent Christian do less? It seems to me that the only way to discredit an argument such as mine is to discredit the Bible as a whole --- something which we can easily do, but which goes beyond the premise of the argument, which is that a "Gospelian" Jesus existed. In a sense, the battle ground is poorly chosen.

In the end, the question is who the intended audience is. If Christians, then I feel the argument is a failure because --- I suspect --- it would not be convincing at all. (I'm an Atheist, and I certainly wasn't convinced that a hypothetical Jesus wasn't kind by this argument.) If the audience are atheists, the goal is probably to provide us with an argument that we, in turn, can ply on an audience of Christians, which reduces to the previous case.

Horia's argument wasn't completely flawed, but I don't think it's very good either.

-- Johann G.

[Horia Plugaru]

JohannGoodflag:

Thanks for your interesting feedback. I don't think however that your critique is convincing and here is why:

It doesn't matter whether is anything else in the Gospels that suggest Jesus would have wanted to abolish the law. My goal was not to argue whether Jesus was pro or against the existence of the juridical system. Instead, I intended to show that what follows on the basis of John 8:1-11 is that he was against it. I did that in order to criticize the Christians who make use of these verses in order to show that Jesus was kind and wise. I gave good reasons to think that they are wrong: from John 8:1-11 it doesn't follow that Jesus was as they claim. Therefore, they shouldn't use John 8:1-11 to show the supposed good nature of Jesus.
Even supposing that in the NT there are countless verses which clearly prove that Jesus advocated law and punishment, a critic who wishes to attack my conclusions has to show that there is no conflict between John 8: 1-11 and the other verses. In other words, she has to specifically and directly attack my arguments given in my article, not simply point out that in other verses Jesus advocated something else.

You say:
If he were to naïvely provide a "yes" or "no" answer, the Pharisees would have used that answer against him. "Yes" means that he thinks she should be put to death, and by implication is beyond hope of personal redemption; "no" means that he disrespects the law. So any rational answer on his part would require him to answer indirectly. Also, for a young activist such as Jesus would be, to not answer a direct challenge of this nature would be to concede defeat. [...] The Pharisees cannot justifiably paint Jesus with the brush of an outlaw because he has made no statement against the law.

But to give such a highly problematic and dangerous response is already a grave sign of weakness and defeat! And since he tells the Pharisees something "tailored" in order to stop them from punishing the delinquent as the law required, he already shows disrespect for the law!

Putting this response aside, remember that he did criticize a law in front of the Pharisees in Mark 2:23-25. There he accepted (perhaps even encouraged) the breaking of a law and explained why that law was incorrect. Thus, he didn't appear to be afraid of criticizing unfair laws even when the Pharisees were around.
In addition, many Christians believe that Jesus actually wanted to be painted as an outlaw. They claim that in Luke 22:36 he instructs his disciples to get swords in order to be considered a lawbreaker so that the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12 is assured.
Moreover, if he would have pointed out that the law which commanded death for adultery is unfair, then he would have given us good reasons to think that he really acted for the appropriate reasons and that he was indeed kind and wise.
What's more, assuming that Jesus didn't want to give the Pharisees a straight answer, why didn't he at least told his disciples--when the Pharisees were not around--that he believed that law was wrong? In this way, he would have made clear what his true intention and motivation were when he acted as is reported in John 8: 1-11.

So as you see, there was nothing holding Jesus back from criticizing the law that required the death penalty for adultery. If he really saved the woman's life because he thought the law was unfair, I don't see why didn't he say so to the Pharisees or at least to his disciples. Therefore, it is very plausible to think that he stopped the persons ready to punish the woman as the law required not because he considered that specific law about adultery to be unfair but for another reason.

What was this reason? He thought that nobody should punish the delinquent because nobody is perfect. What follows from Jesus' words "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her", is that only the "pure and blameless" have the right to punish a criminal according to the law. But is any person, according to Christianity, perfect (or almost perfect)? Clearly not. Lots of Christians claim that man is nothing but a worthless sinner--and the Bible surely supports this conclusion. Even the more moderate ones, who don't say that human beings are but worthless sinners would agree that man is not perfect nor almost perfect. Thus, since only the blameless have the right to convict criminals and since no human being is blameless, it obviously follows that no one has the right to punish delinquents. Rhetorical or not, this is Jesus' message.

You also say:
Unless and until the Pharisees explicitly admit that no such person exists, the first person to throw a stone would be implicitly claiming that they are pure and blameless, which would be the height of pride and hypocrisy.

You should note that the same could be said about any other person, not just the Pharisees. If perfection is required for having the right to convict a criminal, then anybody who would want to start punishing that criminal would be implicitly claiming that she is perfect, which would be "the height of pride and hypocrisy." Who would want to punish the guilty under these circumstances? Nobody. So even if you are right here, what Jesus said is "tailored" in such fashion that not only those Pharisees but in fact nobody would punish delinquents as required by law. This is very similar to what I said.

So I stick to my conclusion reached in the article: If Jesus truly wanted to save the woman's life, what follows from what he did and said in John 8:1-11 is that you shouldn't convict a delinquent as the law requires even if the law is fair or, at least, you don't see any (serious) problems with it. This indeed leads to the belief that the whole juridical system should be abolished since, as I said, "what's the point of judging people by the law if you are never allowed to condemn them by the law?"

In the end you say:
If I can compose a convincing counter-argument to this, would a devoted and intelligent Christian do less?

Probably not. However, "a convincing counter-argument to this" remains to be seen.


Regards,

Horia Plugaru

P.S.: I'm male.

[JohannGoodflag]

Horia ---

I will apologize in advance for the long reply (especially to the mods). In your last response, you begin by saying:
It doesn't matter whether is anything else in the Gospels that suggest Jesus would have wanted to abolish the law. My goal was not to argue whether Jesus was pro or against the existence of the juridical system. Instead, I intended to show that what follows on the basis of John 8:1-11 is that he was against it. I did that in order to criticize the Christians who make use of these verses in order to show that Jesus was kind and wise. I gave good reasons to think that they are wrong: from John 8:1-11 it doesn't follow that Jesus was as they claim. Therefore, they shouldn't use John 8:1-11 to show the supposed good nature of Jesus.
I don’t agree that it doesn't matter. Certainly, you're free to consider John 8:1-11 in isolation, and attempt to draw conclusions. Then, any Christian who bases their arguments mainly on John 8:1-11, unsupported by the rest of the Gospels, would have to contend with your argument. My two points, however, are that

(1) most Christians don't limit themselves to John 8:1-11, and therefore have a basis for rejecting your interpretation; and

(2) even considering John 8:1-11 in isolation, a better interpretation exists than yours, and this interpretation is one that most Christians would be inclined towards.

(3) I think that your logical argument for your interpretation is weak. (This is something which I stated but did not elaborate on in my initial critique: I will discuss this more fully here.)

I’m afraid that these objections remain essentially unaddressed by your reply: not because you ignored them, but probably because I tried to express them briefly, and didn’t make them as clear as I could. I have tried to elaborate more than in the last post, in order to make my objections a bit more clear.

---

For the first point, I can make the following argument. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we consider the Gospel a body of evidence as to the character of Jesus. John 8:1-11 describes one event from Jesus' life, and like most events, it admits several possible interpretations. One interpretation is the one you put forth, and without commenting on how well the interpretation explains the event, it is certainly a viable interpretation. All that this means, however, is that John:8-11 cannot be used, on it's own, as any sort of absolute proof for Jesus' kindness and wisdom. (Perhaps this is the extent of your argument, but it doesn't seem so to me.)

However, to most Christians, John 8:1-11 does not stand alone. The fact that John 8:1-11 can be given this unusual interpretation is not really surprising, probably not even to Christians: how often do Christians accuse Atheists of twisting the Bible by quoting it out of context? There is a lot of other material in the Gospels, and any explanation for John 8:1-11 has to jive with the other events in Jesus' life in order to be plausible. I contend that your explanation doesn't fit with the rest of Jesus' sayings or doings, and so to most Christians, your interpretation can be rejected without much difficulty. While not all Christians concern themselves with the consistency of their own interpretations of the Bible, I cannot fault them if they reject any interpretations they dislike which do not make sense with the Gospels as a whole. Your interpretation, I claim, is one that is both inconsistent with the Gospels and likely to be unpopular with Christians: therefore, they will have no problem in rejecting it.

If you only wanted to perform an intellectual exercise to come up with an interpretation which was consistent with John 8:1-11 (and not necessarily any other passage), and which doesn't suggest that Jesus was kind/wise, then okay: I agree you have succeeded. But if your reason for doing so was to create an argument which could be used in debate with Christians, then I think it fails precisely because it is basically limited to John 8:1-11.

You said:
Even supposing that in the NT there are countless verses which clearly prove that Jesus advocated law and punishment, a critic who wishes to attack my conclusions has to show that there is no conflict between John 8: 1-11 and the other verses. In other words, she has to specifically and directly attack my arguments given in my article, not simply point out that in other verses Jesus advocated something else.
I disagree with your last sentence. A critic who wishes to attack your conclusions does have to show that there is no conflict between John 8:1-11 and the other verses. However, attacking your argument it is only necessary if yours is the only consistent interpretation of John 8:1-11. I don't believe this is the case. What they actually have to do is to show that there exists at least one interpretation which is consistent with the other verses, and that it is not yours. This I believe is possible.

A theory which fits all of the data overrules a theory which fits only some of the data. This is a rule on which (I assume) we would agree, and there's no justifiable reason for not allowing Christians to apply the same rule, even if they do not apply it as often as we might like.

---

Now, even though it is not necessary to attack your argument on the context of John 8:1-11 alone as you claim, it is certainly sufficient to. This brings me to my second point: not only does your interpretation not fit with much of the Gospel, it is not something which must follow from John 8:1-11 either. Your interpretation of John 8:1-11 is not the only consistent interpretation, and one of the other possible interpretations of John 8:1-11 is more moderate, would be more acceptable to Christians, and is better supported by John 8:1-11 itself (as well as the rest of the Gospel) than your interpretation.

I initially argued that Jesus could not directly say anything against the law. I said:
The context of what Jesus is supposed to have said is that the Pharisees brought the woman before Jesus, and asked him whether or not she should be stoned. If he were to naïvely provide a "yes" or "no" answer, the Pharisees would have used that answer against him. "Yes" means that he thinks she should be put to death, and by implication is beyond hope of personal redemption; "no" means that he disrespects the law. So any rational answer on his part would require him to answer indirectly.
You point out:
[...] remember that he did criticize a law in front of the Pharisees in Mark 2:23-25. There he accepted (perhaps even encouraged) the breaking of a law and explained why that law was incorrect. Thus, he didn't appear to be afraid of criticizing unfair laws even when the Pharisees were around. [...] if he would have pointed out that the law which commanded death for adultery is unfair, then he would have given us good reasons to think that he really acted for the appropriate reasons and that he was indeed kind and wise.
You are right, of course: so, my original argument that he couldn’t come out and say that he disagreed with that law fails. The fact that he didn't come out and say it, however, does not necessarily mean that it wasn't the basis of his objection. You also state:
What's more, assuming that Jesus didn't want to give the Pharisees a straight answer, why didn't he at least told his disciples--when the Pharisees were not around--that he believed that law was wrong? In this way, he would have made clear what his true intention and motivation were when he acted as is reported in John 8: 1-11. [...] there was nothing holding Jesus back from criticizing the law that required the death penalty for adultery. If he really saved the woman's life because he thought the law was unfair, I don't see why didn't he say so to the Pharisees or at least to his disciples.
He could have explained, but Jesus was not in the habit of explaining every comment or witty thing that he said. Some of his parables he explained to his followers, but only reluctantly, having thought they should be able to piece together the meaning themselves. By comparison, his utterances in John 8:1-11 I thought pretty clearly illustrated the thesis that just as no-one was without sin, no-one was beyond redemption either --- even if it wasn't the most explicit way he had ever put his position. It is well within Jesus' character not to spell out exactly what he means for posterity, just in case people might get confused. In fact, I don't know anyone whose nature it is to do so.

Having spoken your confusion as to why Jesus wouldn't have said straight out that he objected to the particular law, you say:
[...] therefore, it is very plausible to think that he stopped the persons ready to punish the woman as the law required not because he considered that specific law about adultery to be unfair but for another reason.
The basic premise for your ability to support your interpretation seems to be this: that Jesus couldn't possibly have meant to stop the Pharisees from stoning the woman because he disagreed with the law --- because he didn't come right out and say so in the simplest terms possible. I find this a curious assumption: it seems designed precisely to eliminate the more reasonable proposition that Jesus did object to the law and simply took some artistic liberty in how he voiced his objection. The Jesus of the Gospels clearly liked to turn a good phrase: why is it unlikely that he would sacrifice a minute amount of clarity for the sake of eloquence?

It seems to me that in that Judaic culture of guilt, not only were everyone deemed to be sinners, but they were usually desperately repenting of their own evil. Even today, some Christian sermons are chock full of utterances like "have mercy O Lord" and "we beseech Thee" --- pleas from the congregation, effectively, not to strike them dead where they stand. If you are at least sinful enough that you always have to be repenting of the least of your transgressions, and if it is possible that some people actually are beyond redemption, how can you ever be certain that you yourself are not beyond redemption? And if you were beyond redemption, how could you condemn someone else for that failing? Jesus' answer to this, of course, was his thesis: no-one is supposed to be beyond redemption. As a consequence, neither is this woman who has been accused of adultery, and therefore her life is not spiritually forfeit, whatever the law has to say on the matter. This is what I think Jesus can be considered to be reminding the Pharisees --- that they can feel free to stone the woman if they think that she is definitely beyond redemption, and they are definitely not beyond redemption. Because both he and they know this cannot be the case, they let her go.

I would argue that this is a more-or-less “standard” interpretation of John 8:1-11. That Jesus is opposing the death penalty for the woman is essentially the most likely one for John 8:1-11, and in particular, a stronger interpretation than yours. If your only objection is that Jesus didn’t leave as clear a message for his future followers as he could possibly have done, then I see no compelling objections to this interpretation.

---

Now, we come to my third point, which is that I fundamentally disagree with the logic of your argument. This seems rooted in the objection of yours noted above. Your interpretation holds as follows:
He thought that nobody should punish the delinquent because nobody is perfect. What follows from Jesus' words "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her", is that only the "pure and blameless" have the right to punish a criminal according to the law. But is any person, according to Christianity, perfect (or almost perfect)? Clearly not. Lots of Christians claim that man is nothing but a worthless sinner--and the Bible surely supports this conclusion. Even the more moderate ones, who don't say that human beings are but worthless sinners would agree that man is not perfect nor almost perfect. Thus, since only the blameless have the right to convict criminals and since no human being is blameless, it obviously follows that no one has the right to punish delinquents. Rhetorical or not, this is Jesus' message.
I will point a small but important omission: Jesus thought that nobody should punish the delinquent with the legislated punishment for adulterers (death) because nobody is perfect. You probably omit this because you feel that Jesus couldn't possibly object to the existing law itself --- because he didn't say so in the simplest terms possible. I don't agree with this assessment, so I would like to make sure this distinction is noted.

First, Jesus isn't saying that "only the pure and blameless have the right to punish a criminal according to the law". He only said that if the woman was to be stoned, that the first person to throw a stone should be pure and blameless. If this person was so deep in sin as to be beyond redemption, and therefore worthless enough to kill, then the person to start the honours should be someone who was without sin, and therefore could be certain of redemption (indeed, someone who didn’t even need to redeem themself). If he is not explicitly saying that she doesn’t deserve the death penalty, neither is explicitly saying that law-enforcement is a bad thing. Then, if he is trying to give an anti-law-enforcement message at all, it must be implicitly. I could then ask the following questions:

* If he objects to law-enforcement, why doesn’t he just come out and say so, or at least explain to his disciples that this is what he means?

* If he is implicitly sending this message, how is it clear that he is not implicitly trying to send a different message?

I won’t require you to answer the first question, of course: I’m just showing that your own arguments can be turned against you. For the second point, you seem to think that it is clear that the message he is sending is yours, and you back this up with an argument. I intend to show that your argument is flawed.

In your argument, you start by focusing a lot on punishment according to the law, as opposed to punishment in general, to the point where it becomes conspicuous. This could be because, again, you suppose that Jesus couldn't possibly have objected to the adultery law itself --- but only because he didn't say he did in the simplest terms possible --- and therefore, presumably, punishment according to the law is the only punishment appropriate. I'd say that this is questionable, and it is an example the flaws inherent in your argument. You start off by using the phrase "punishment according to the law" in situations where "death" would suffice: that was the punishment, according to the law, to which the woman was to be subjected. The problem is that you then use the same phrase, and apply it to any criminal at all (where the mandated punishment is not necessarily death), which is not necessarily valid. Then you go from saying "punishment according to the law" to just "punishment" (eliminating even the possibility of punishment according to a less draconian moral code), which is again not necessarily valid.

(This approach is not unlike an argument a theist might make to gloss over contradictory parts of their religious doctrine: I presume that you would not accept such an argument from a theist, and so I’m puzzled that you make such an argument here.)

It seems to me that this drift in word usage is one of the main tools in your argument. If we accept each line of your reasoning process, we arrive at your conclusion that Jesus’ message is
since no human being is blameless, it obviously follows that no one has the right to punish delinquents
If we correct for the drift in the way you're using words, we instead obtain "since no human being is blameless, it obviously follows that no one has the right to kill delinquents". This is eminently a more reasonable statement, and is clearly not equivalent to the one you claim Jesus intends to make. On the other hand, it is exactly the claim that many Christians would agree with. The only reason you present for rejecting this interpretation is that Jesus couldn't possibly have objected to the death penalty --- because he didn't say so in the simplest possible terms.

---

In summary, while I admit I may have been mistaken in that Jesus might have been able to explicitly state that he disagreed with the death penalty for adultery without any great risk, my counter-argument as a whole stands. I feel your argument is weak, because

(1) it would not convince a Christian who does not restrict himself to John 8:1-11 (that is, the vast majority);

(2) even on the basis of John 8:1-11 alone, there is a more reasonable interpretation than yours with which a Christian would likely agree.

(3) I feel your logical argument fails, because

* The assumption that Jesus would necessarily have explained his position explicitly to anyone is faulty;

* The line of reasoning which you use to generalize Jesus' position on law enforcement is flawed.

I hope I have made my arguments clearer.

-- Johann G.

[-DM-]

[Thank you for taking the time to provide further feedback regarding One of Jesus' "Good Deeds" Examined (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=334) by Horia G. Plugaru (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=653). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. -DM-]

[Horia Plugaru]

JohannGoodflag:

With regard to your first point:

You insist that the context of John 8:1-11 is very important. I don't agree.

I believe that my interpretation of John 8:1-11 is correct. Since A cannot be A and ~A at the same time in the same respect, it follows that until my argument is directly attacked, I am entitled to believe that any other interpretation is a priori unlikely. Perhaps your interpretation is more consistent with the context of John 8:1-11 but mine is more consistent with John 8:1-11. So at most, all you could hope to achieve with this strategy is to point out that there is one interpretation of these verses as plausible as mine which is favorable to Jesus.
In this situation, we would have an interpretation that is not favorable to Jesus and one that is. But clearly this is not enough if you want to make use of John 8:1-11 in order to show Jesus' kind/wise nature. If you want to do that, in addition to giving arguments in support of your position you must also give arguments against mine. So I stand by what I said in my last post: if a critic wishes to use John 8:1-11 to show Jesus' good nature, it is not enough for her to simply point out that another interpretation than mine is possible. "She has to specifically and directly attack my arguments given in my article."

However, now that you insist that the context is so important, I will give another argument against your position. Let us take a look at some relevant verses in which Jesus advocates law and punishment. Take Matthew 5: 17-19:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Even if this contradicts my interpretation of John 8:1-11, it also contradicts your saying that "Jesus is opposing the death penalty for the woman is essentially the most likely [interpretation] for John 8:1-11, and in particular, a stronger interpretation than yours." If he does not want to "destroy" the law, then Jesus couldn't possibly imply in John 8:1-11 that the law which demanded death (for adultery or for any other crime) was wrong and should not be respected.
Therefore, the context of John 8:1-11 seems to contradict not only my interpretation but yours as well. This is another reason for disregarding the aforementioned context and to concentrate only on John 8:1-11.

(I can give other reasons as well to believe that the context of John 8:1-11 is not so important to our discussion--for example, that we have good reasons to think Jesus was many times inconsistent and hypocritical--but for now, these two are sufficient.)

In conclusion, your first point fails because:

1. even if the context would be that important and it would clearly show that Jesus was not against the existence of the juridical system, that wouldn't be enough in order to justify Christians to continue to use John 8:1-11 in order to show his kind/wise nature so my attack is still successful;

2. even if 1 fails, the context of John 8: 1-11 doesn't cause more problems to my interpretation than it does to yours. We may conclude then that the context of John 8:1-11 is of no help to our discution and should be ignored.


With regard to your second point

Consider the following principle (P):

P= If X:

--says what appears to be A;
--in case X would not want to be understood as saying that A, X would have nothing to lose in case X would clarify that X meant ~A;
--X would have much to gain in case X would clarify that X meant ~A;
--clarifying what X meant would require X to do an action very similar to one that we know X did in the past without any reservations on X's part (note also that the present circumstances are not different in any relevant way than the ones in which X did that action);
--X doesn't do anything to clarify that X meant ~A

then it is very plausible to believe that X in fact meant A.

You only respond here that "Jesus was not in the habit of explaining every comment or witty thing that he said." But why should we think this means that he wanted to say something else (in John 8:1-11) than what he appears to have said? I see no good reason to accept your counter-argument. Moreover, you say that what you believe Jesus meant "wasn't the most explicit way he had ever put his position." So not only we don't have any good reason to reject my interpretation (which is supported by P) but by your own admission your interpretation is not without at least one serious problem (being unclear to an important degree). You should also note that without any clarification on Jesus' part, his words are actually very problematic and dangerous. And as I said, "to give such a highly problematic and dangerous response is already a grave sign of weakness and defeat!"

Moreover, you insist on saying that Jesus' words "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"
"illustrated the thesis that just as no-one was without sin, no-one was beyond redemption either. [...] If you are at least sinful enough that you always have to be repenting of the least of your transgressions, and if it is possible that some people actually are beyond redemption, how can you ever be certain that you yourself are not beyond redemption? And if you were beyond redemption, how could you condemn someone else for that failing?"

But just because someone is not without sin doesn't mean that she is beyond redemption. There were (are) sins punished with death and (many) others not so punished. It is very reasonable to believe that only or especially the people who commited the first kind of sins are beyond redemption. Your words would gain some credibility only if we would know that those Pharisees mentioned in John 8: 1-11 broke at least a law that demanded capital punishment (and so they themselves were beyond redemption) and if we (and those Pharisees) knew that Jesus knew that. In this case, perhaps we could plausibly interpret Jesus as reminding the Pharisees that they too are in a similar position to that of the woman.
But we don't know any of these. As far as we know, those Pharisees never broke such a law and anybody who is not proven guilty must be considered innocent.

You also said:

And if you were beyond redemption, how could you condemn someone else for that failing?

This is another important problem with Jesus' position. He encourages people to disrespect the law because they may be just as guilty as the one to be punished. I think that what I said about this in my article remains untouched by your critique:

But it is clear that this doesn't and shouldn't follow just from the fact that we are also sinners; In case we also broke the law, the appropriate advice is not to refrain from condemning other delinquents, but to surrender ourselves to the authorities, confess our crime, and wait for the punishment the law has in store for us. Similarly, if we commit immoral deed(s) (but do not break the law) then the appropriate advice is to try not to commit them again and attempt to undo their evil consequences. We shouldn't refrain from condemning delinquents just because we are not without sin!

In conclusion, your second point fails because:

3. we have no good reasons to believe that your interpretation follows from Jesus' words.

4. even if it would follow, Jesus' message is still very problematic and doesn't escape my criticism presented in the article.


With regard to your third point

You repeat:

Jesus isn't saying that "only the pure and blameless have the right to punish a criminal according to the law". He only said that if the woman was to be stoned, that the first person to throw a stone should be pure and blameless. If this person was so deep in sin as to be beyond redemption, and therefore worthless enough to kill, then the person to start the honours should be someone who was without sin, and therefore could be certain of redemption (indeed, someone who didn’t even need to redeem themself).

I disagree for the reasons already given:

* nobody is without sin but this doesn't mean that what the law demands shouldn't be respected;

* assuming we've also broke the law (even if that law is as serious as the one the woman had broken), the appropriate advice is not to stop from punishing the guilty as the law requires but to punish the guilty and afterwards to turn ourselves to the authorities confessing our crime.

After that, you essentially repeat you second point. See my responses above.

Horia Plugaru

[-DM-]

[Johann and Horia: Inasmuch as you are registered discussion board users, I am moving this topic to the Moral Foundations & Principles forum in order to facilitate open discussion. The two of you can continue there as well. -DM-]

[Matrioshka_Brain]

I was forced to wonder about the Article as well.

Did you wright it about the contrast of opintions shown in John 8 1-11 vs other segments? And that by going against these other segments, Christians are applying a double standard, your saying?

I may not have read your article correctly. If the above is true (as in, the whole point of your article and argument), then feel free to disregard the following.



We'll take this part John 8 1-11 individually.

How does dislain for a particular punishment equate the desire for the abolishment of the judicial system (as a whole)? Are you implying that laws cannot be unjust?

On top of that, the argument seems overly relitivistic.

If a man today, in Saudi Arabia, saw a stoning about to commence, for a girl because her hymen was broken, and assumed to be a non-virgin on just that, and exclaimed "Let he whom hath not sinned amungst you cast the first stone", would this be an example of goodness? What if it was around where you lived (legal in your area), thus legal to object too?

Are you saying that it's bad to object to a law? What about in a type of democracy?
Would it be immoral to object to a law in a dictatorship?

Is a law "good" just because it's a law?

-No more time for me to post right now-

[Hooboy !!]

Many Christian apologists make use of John 8:1-11 in an attempt to show the kind and wise nature of Jesus.
The Old Law Covenant was basically a "recipe" for salvation and clearly allowed for the death of the adulteress. But, the point Jesus was trying to make was that sin "condemned" us all to death. Even if they had followed the letter of the Law (highly not likely, given that none was willing to cast the first stone), Jews knew that donig so was no guarantee of salvation. They knew that only God could judge them and grant them salvation. What Jesus was pointing out, was that by judging the adultress, they were basically judging themselves and therefore condemning themselves to death at the same time.

Salvation can only be granted by God, and since we are all sinners, our only hope for slavation then is in God's love and mercy.

Jesus wanted to abolish the Old Law covenant, but only as a means of judging a person's "righteousness".

[christophersimons]

Have you seen the move K-PAX? In the movie, Prot (Kevin Spacey) tries somewhat unsuccessfully to describe his society to Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges). Prot speaks of an unstructured society, where there is no need for a structured society as our planet knows it. He even makes a reference, "Even your Christ and your Buddha had quite a different idea..." when speaking of the law and punishment. I believe that he meant that in his unstructured society, if someone did a "bad deed," it needn't be punished. I believe that he meant that as we as beings mature, we all know the difference between right and wrong, and eventually we all see the purpose for doing right, and how doing right makes for a better world. I believe that that is what Jesus meant in that passage.

[-DM-]

Originally posted by christophersimons
. . . I believe that he meant that as we as beings mature, we all know the difference between right and wrong, and eventually we all see the purpose for doing right, and how doing right makes for a better world. I believe that that is what Jesus meant in that passage. Then you disagree with traditional apologetic interpretation of that passage (not that this would necessarily make you wrong). A traditional apologetic (e.g., Matthew Henry's Commentary) has it that the Scribes and Pharisees were attempting to trap Jesus in an untenable situation, a snare, and that he nicely avoided it with his shifting of the focus to the sins of all.

It should be kept in mind, of course, that the subject passage is one of those the authenticity of which is called into question given that it is missing from John in many ancient manuscripts and that it appears after Luke 21 in others. "After weighing what has been adduced in favor of its authenticity, and seriously considering its state in the MSS., as exhibited in the Var. Lect. of Griesbach, I must confess, the evidence in its favor does not appear to me to be striking." [Adam Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament] If NOT authentic, then of course the article and this discussion are moot.

-Don-

[Horia Plugaru]

Matrioshka_Brain:

How does dislain for a particular punishment equate the desire for the abolishment of the judicial system (as a whole)? Are you implying that laws cannot be unjust?

I made clear in my article that the law which demanded death for adultery was unfair. For example, I said that "the law which demanded death for adultery was unfair and clearly exaggerated."
The problem is that Jesus didn't stop the persons ready to punish the adultress by pointing out to them that the law was unfair. What he told them in order to stop them (here I am assuming that he indeed wanted to save the woman's life) was that they shouldn't punish her by the law because they were not perfect (or almost perfect). This is what follows from Jesus' words "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
But it is clear that if what gives you the right to punish delinquents by the law is being without sin, it follows that no-one has that right. And since no-one has this right, it follows that no-one should punish delinquents by the law. From this to the abolishement of the whole juridical system is only a small step since "after all, what's the point of judging people by the law if you are never allowed to condemn them by the law?"

Are you saying that it's bad to object to a law?

No, objecting to a law is not in itself a bad thing. But it is very important to see the reasons on which that objection is based. If by objecting to a law--be it a fair or an unfair law--you suggest that nobody should punish delinquents because nobody is perfect, I think we do have a problem with your objection.


Hooboy !!:

What Jesus was pointing out, was that by judging the adultress, they were basically judging themselves and therefore condemning themselves to death at the same time.

I addressed a very similar point in my second response to Johann. See what I told him with respect to his second point.


christophersimons:

I believe that he meant that in his unstructured society, if someone did a "bad deed," it needn't be punished. I believe that he meant that as we as beings mature, we all know the difference between right and wrong, and eventually we all see the purpose for doing right, and how doing right makes for a better world. I believe that that is what Jesus meant in that passage.

If I understand you correctly, you agree with me that in John 8:1-11 Jesus wants the abolishment of the juridical system, but, unlike me, you think this is a good thing.

I disagree for the reason given in my article:

It is also clear that if we would follow Jesus' suggestion here and abolish the juridical system, we would permit evil people to inflict evil on others, since legal punishments--the only thing that keeps many people from doing harm to others--would no longer exist.
So it appears that if Jesus really did want to save the life of the adulterous woman, he was neither kind nor wise. By refraining from punishing delinquents as required by the law--and, as I pointed out, this is what Jesus seems to be suggesting--the evil done in the world would be much greater.

It seems to me quite clear that many people realize that harming others is a bad thing. However, many of them simply don't care about their neighbor's suffering but only about their own welfare. So if they would find a way of gaining something on the expense of the others' suffering, they would probably do it. It is only the fear of the punishment imposed by the law that keeps most of them from committing evil deeds.

Horia Plugaru

[oscillowitz]

I think that it is unwise to consider the actions of the mythohistorical Jesus in a universal light. I feel this act of itself grants enormous authority to his influence before critique can be offered. I prefer to see Jesus' act of preventing the woman's death by stoning as that of a cleverly compassionate shyster or politician, and ask us this: since when did attorneys or politicians revere The Law? The Law serves them, not they it.

The legendary personage, Jesus, did a really nice thing that day. Obviously, his legal argument impressed no members of the Roman senate or local council, which subsequently sentenced him to death. But the woman lived.

I expect the Jesus of Biblical narrative to create no more universal changes to The Law any more than I expect him to save my soul.

And, to quote the legendary personage of The Pimp, "The bitch gotta right to live. So she screwed another man!? That's they bidness, not ours. Go stone a rapist, man."

[Hooboy !!]

Originally posted by Horia Plugaru
I addressed a very similar point in my second response to Johann. See what I told him with respect to his second point.
I read and understood your response. I was offering my opinion.

The Bible is filled with metaphors, analogies, parables, illustrations and other "lessons". It is a huge assumption that the actual event even took place, which I doubt did. Not that there weren't many opportunities that could have been used to illustrate the ludicrousness of a system that simultaneously comdemned everyone, while giving some the power of life and death over others.

The Jewish law was developed for more than the simple requirement of maintaining order within it a society. It was developed with a divine imperative, which was supposed to give it an air of infallibility. The obviousness of how ridiculous this notion is, goes without saying. Jesus "rejecting" this law, is not a call to end all rule of law at all, just to this absurd notion.

[Nooley]

i just have one question
Why would something be considered not authentic becase it was in the other 3 gospels or even 1 other gospel but not in John's???
Making that assumption is confusing to me...please explain

[JohannGoodflag]

Hello Horia,

Been gone for a while --- it's been a busy month!

I have read your response from a while ago, and I have discovered that we were arguing at slight cross-purposes. I'll respond to your comments and try to straighten it out.

Reaching back in the thread a little, you said:


You insist that the context of John 8:1-11 is very important. I don't agree.


I respect the fact that you are arguing based on John:8-11 alone. I have since figured out that the reason you're doing this is to try to show what cannot be proven from John 8:1-11 alone (not what can be shown if you take it in isolation, which is what I originally thought).

Okay, fair enough: if your interpretation is sound for John 8:1-11 alone, then John 8:1-11 alone can't be used to prove definitively that Jesus was kind and wise. The questions I would then ask are

(1) How often do Christians try to do so? and
(2) Is this any sort of significant set-back for Christian apologetics?

I suspect the answers are "rarely" and "no", respectively. Sure, Christians may often try to use John 8:1-11 to illustrate his character, but I suspect they never intend it to stand alone as the sole premise from which to draw the conclusion that he was kind and wise. They intend it as a central premise, maybe, but not the only one. So, although your argument may be sound, and thereby refute that John 8:1-11 logically implies on its' own that Jesus was kind and wise, I don't think this really affects the Christian argument as it is actually made.

You point out, regarding Matthew 5:17-19:


Even if this contradicts my interpretation of John 8:1-11, it also contradicts your saying that "Jesus is opposing the death penalty for the woman is essentially the most likely [interpretation] for John 8:1-11, and in particular, a stronger interpretation than yours." If he does not want to "destroy" the law, then Jesus couldn't possibly imply in John 8:1-11 that the law which demanded death (for adultery or for any other crime) was wrong and should not be respected.
Therefore, the context of John 8:1-11 seems to contradict not only my interpretation but yours as well. This is another reason for disregarding the aforementioned context and to concentrate only on John 8:1-11.


I suppose so. A non-fundamentalist Christian could still make the argument of which interpretation is more consistent with the gospels as a whole (granting that some material in the Bible is not true) by making it consistent with as much of the bible as possible; this was in fact my stance when I was a Christian. For this discussion, though, we don't need to go down that quagmire.

Now, I will explore what it is that I think you are actually claiming, as clearly as I know how (given that we're both comfortable with symbolic logic). I now believe you are making the claim that you make is that

A ==> (J & ~K),

where

A are the premises of your interpretation;
J is "Jesus acted as described in John 8:1-11";
K is "Jesus' motivations for these actions were
kindness and wisdom".

I agree with this conditional. My original problem was that I thought you were also trying to show J ==> A.

The whole of my second point was my reason for why I felt this argument could not reasonably be made: I was trying to establish B ==> (J & K), where B was a traditional interpretation, with the additional claim that B is sound. You seem to have been under the impression that I was arguing for
J ==> ~A, which I was not.

I still maintain that my interpretation is more likely than the one you present, but this judgement is made based on additional context; John 8:1-11 alone is also perfectly consistent with a model where Jesus wished to abolish the judiciary. Unless you're arguing for J ==> A as well, we have no more argument on this matter.

In conclusion, I grossly misinterpreted your article as being much more ambitious than it actually was. I have doubts that the argument is of much use against existing arguments for Christianity, but I no longer doubt that it is sound.

-- Johann Goodflag

[gaijin]

There are a number of problems with the article, "One of Jesus' 'Good Deeds' Examined" by Horia G. Plugaru. I would like to mention three of them.

The first problem is with the statement, "...the law commanded death by stoning as punishment for adultery...the woman mentioned in the above verses clearly broke that law...Therefore, the persons who were preparing to stone the woman were actually acting according to the law."

This is, however, incorrect. You will find that the law only allowed stoning if the woman was espoused, not married, or was a priest's daughter (Lev 20, Deu 22). Furthermore, the law stated that the man should also have been brought out to be stoned. The people who were preparing to stone the woman were, therefore, not acting according to the law.

The second problem is with the statement, "Since Jesus said that only the person without sin is entitled to begin punishing the guilty one(s), and since no one is without sin, it follows that, according to Jesus, no one should begin punishing the guilty one(s)."

This statement, however, neither logically follows nor constitutes a proof. It cannot be proven that Jesus was talking about all punishment since the context of his statement was limited to the situation at hand. It is quite possible that, since the woman was probably set up and the situation created to trap Jesus (see below), that Jesus' statement was intended to expose the guilt of the witnesses due to the fact that, as they were not following the law, their testimony was not morally valid. This seems to be more likely as the first people to leave the scene were the eldest.

Thirdly, the statement that "All this boils down to saying that people should never be punished for their evil deeds as required by the law" is also incorrect. As Matthew Henery stated, Jesus "neither reflected upon the law nor excused the prisoner's guilt, nor did he on the other hand encourage the prosecution or countenance their heat." Besides, as shown above, the prosecution was not following the law.

The article interprets the statement that Jesus made in order to fit the conclusion that it was written to make, spinning off into such unjustified statements as "...we would follow Jesus' suggestion here and abolish the juridical system". Nowhere in the article do I see a definitive proof that this is what he implied, only phrases like "seems to" and "suggesting that", which lead me to believe that the writer was biased in the first place and that the article is not written from an objective standpoint.

The article also lacks a solid backing of historical knowledge. I am not particularly knowledgable about the cultural or historical contect myself, but while the author points out that "it would have been much more morally appropriate and wise to stop the men who were ready to execute the woman by pointing out that the law which demanded death for adultery was unfair and clearly exaggerated", that would only be true if adulterers were being stoned all the time, but the Jewish historian Josephus records that adultery was only punished, on average, once every seven years. If this is true, then it lends a lot of weight to the possibility that the situation was set up to trap Jesus, and that his statement, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was therefore intended to expose the fact that the elders were the ones who were breaking the law.

[-DM-]

[Thank you for your feedback regarding One of Jesus' "Good Deeds" Examined (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=334) by Horia G. Plugaru (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=653). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post.

Edited to add: Horia Plugaru says that he is quite busy, but that he intends to respond and should do so within a couple of weeks.

-DM-]

[Horia Plugaru]

The crucial question which needs to be answered is: Do we have good reasons to believe that the Pharisees mentioned in John 8:1-11 were not reliable? In other words, are we justified to believe that they were not sincere?

Remember the famous and widely accepted principle:

P= Person X should be considered innocent until proven guilty, no matter of which group (nation, religious/sexual minority etc) does (s)he belong.

Moreover, if there exists independent (neutral) testimony which does not accuse X of anything, the case for X's innocence is even stronger.

Returning to John 8:1-11, in case you don't give good reasons to believe those Pharisees were guilty of lying, we must consider them--in light of P--sincere. In addition, note that the writer of John--although he does mention the fact that the Pharisees wanted to put Jesus in a difficult position--nowhere questions the Pharisees' sincerity when they said they caught the woman in the very act of adultery.
Besides that, there is another reason to think the aforementioned Pharisees were not lying. They could also attempt to trap Jesus by approaching him (when he thought people) and simply presenting him with a hypothetical case of an adulterous woman. They could have said: "Jesus, assuming you'll meet a woman caught in adultery, what would you advice us to do? …"
I do not see why this method would have been less effective from those Pharisees point of view. And since it is clear that if the Pharisees set up that woman, they would risk being denounced (exposed) and so would risk losing their credibility, (remember that there were many non-Pharisees around when the scene took place--8:3; moreover you claim that Jesus knew this was a set up--why wouldn't anyone else understand that as well?) the question arises: Why would the Pharisees take that unnecessary risk?

In support of your case that the Pharisees were lying when they said they caught the woman in the very act of adultery you say that:

1. the eldest people were the first to leave;
2. adultery was seldom punished with death.

Both 1 and 2 are weak. I don't see any good argument why 1 means the Pharisees were lying. You seem to suppose that the oldest people are more moral than the younger ones--and so, are more easily ashamed when they are caught doing an immoral act. From my experience, however I believe this is not necessarily correct. So good reasons in support of 1 remain to be seen. Letting this point aside, there are other explanations at least as good as yours for 1. It is not implausible to think that the eldest left first because since they lived longer than the rest, the probably committed more sins and so had more reasons to be ashamed of when Jesus said: "He that is without sin among you…"
With respect to 2, perhaps it is true that adultery was seldom punished, but:
First, that doesn't mean that adultery was rare.
Second, it is resonable to believe that concludent cases of adultery--as the one mentioned in John--were very rare and that is why adultery was so rarely punished.
Third, it is not implausible to believe that from all the cases of breaking the law that took place during the time of Jesus, at least one of them happened relatively near the place where he happened to be and was discovered. After all, the Pharisees probably were looking for an oportunity to see what does Jesus think about the law. They weren't necessarily searching for a woman practicing adultery. One practicing whichcraft was probably just as fit for their purpose. And finding a person breaking a (serious) law is not improbable under these circumstancies.
Thus, I don't see why should we believe on the basis of your 2 that that woman was set up.

You also say:

You will find that the law only allowed stoning if the woman was espoused, not married, or was a priest's daughter (Lev 20, Deu 22). Furthermore, the law stated that the man should also have been brought out to be stoned. The people who were preparing to stone the woman were, therefore, not acting according to the law.

We know from various sources that the Pharisees were well acquainted with the law. So the two options we have here are: either the Pharisees were lying when they said that woman deserved death by stoning or they were telling the truth and that woman was really espoused or was indeed a priest's daughter. (One could also argue that since the law demanded the death penalty for adulterous married woman without specifying the way of killing them, it follows that even if that woman was married killing her by stoning was indeed lawful, but let's leave this point aside.) Following P and the other two reasons above given in support of the Pharisees' credibility, we should choose the second option.
The fact that the man was not brought up there doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't to be punished as well for adultery. Probably the Pharisees brought in front of Jesus only one of the adulterous persons because that was enough to put Jesus in a difficult situation. It wasn't necessary for this purpose to bring both of them.

But let us say you are right. Those persons were not acting as the law required. In that case, why didn't Jesus point that out? If he respected the law, knew it and wanted it put into practice, why didn't he tell those men (as well as the other people gathered there) what the law says, so that they would know better next time and not commit the important mistake of breaking it again? So even if you are correct, that only raises other questions concerning Jesus' respect for the law.

In summary, there are good reasons to believe the Pharisees mentioned in John 8:1-11 were not lying. Your arguments to the opposite are weak. What's more, there are no serious reasons to think the Pharisees were not following the law but even if you are correct, serious questions concerning Jesus' respect for the law are to be raised again.
We may therefore conclude again that "we are not justified to say on the basis of John 8:1-11 that it follows that Jesus was kind and/or wise, let alone a model worthy of admiration and imitation."


Horia Plugaru

[from Romania]

Like usually, Mr. Plugaru show off, and make mistakes but he is good intentioned.
He post many messages with similar mistakes on so many forums, but he don't accept critics.

Keep your work Mr. Plugaru

Sincerely,
the guy who told you already his opinion (remember?)

[Horia Plugaru]

Hello Johhan,

Sorry for this tardy reply but I spotted your latest response only about 7 days ago. Apparently, nobody from the SW staff was kind enough to let me know via e-mail that there are new messages on this topic.

You say:

Okay, fair enough: if your interpretation is sound for John 8:1-11 alone, then John 8:1-11 alone can't be used to prove definitively that Jesus was kind and wise. The questions I would then ask are

(1) How often do Christians try to do so? and
(2) Is this any sort of significant set-back for Christian apologetics?

Most Christian apologists I've encountered use John 8:1-11 as an important argument in support of their case that Jesus was a very moral individual. My article indeed raises serious problems for them.
You will agree that usually apologists rely in their speeches on direct, simple and emotional arguments ("arguments" may not be the proper term here, but lets say that it is) especially when they attempt to convert non-Christians.

Now, I see 2 possibilities here: Christians will not find a convincing way to respond to my criticism of John 8:1-11 or they will. In the first situation, it is clear that because of me they lost an important argument in support of their case. This may not be an essential victory on non-Christianity's side, but it's not without importance either.
If, on the other side, they will find a solution, an important condition would be that this solution would be a simple, obvious one, for the reasons given. If it will be rather complicated, this would mean again that it would be hard and perhaps very ineffective for them to use John 8:1-11 when they attempt to convert people to Christianity. That is because, after mentioning those verses, they will also have to explain that Jesus' behavior is moral and wise after all and I doubt (and judging from their speeches that I've heard, they doubt that too) that many non-Christians are willing to listen to such long and perhaps hard to understand explanations.

So yes, unless Christians will find an easy way to respond to "One of Jesus' 'Good Deeds' Examined," they lost an important argument (although, of course, not a fundamental one) in their attempts to convert people to Christianity. As I see it, this is a significant set-back for them.


Horia George Plugaru

[Horia Plugaru]

Like usually, Mr. Plugaru show off, and make mistakes but he is good intentioned.
He post many messages with similar mistakes on so many forums, but he don't accept critics.

Keep your work Mr. Plugaru

Sincerely,
the guy who told you already his opinion (remember?)

Since this message consists only in vague and unsupported assertions, there is nothing for me to respond to. I only have a suggestion for the author: read some materials on logical fallacies, especially the one called "ad hominem." Since I understand you can read in Romanian, a good place to start is Petre Bieltz, Logica, (manual pentru clasa a IX-a, licee si clasa a XI-a, scoli normale), Editura Didactica, Bucuresti, 1993, pp.106-115, in special p.112.

Horia Plugaru