Duvduv

I have always found this story unusual beyond the obvious didactic character of the lesson involved.

Here we have Jesus at the Temple in a case of an alleged adulterous woman. First, the author must have surely known from his contacts with Jews that capital punishment was meted out by the Sanhedrin only on the identical testimony of two witnesses, and maybe even known that the persons must first be subject to a verbal warning and then acknowledge that they are planning to commit a sin. The witnesses had to have actually seen the act with no room for doubt.

Besides which, not only is the woman liable for capital punishment if she meets the conditions required by Judaism, but the man also is liable. Yet the gospel writer suggests the woman was alone in committing adultery. He must have known not only Leviticus but actual Jewish practice......

(Leviticus 20:10):“‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

Yet the gospel author says that the punishment was for unexplained circumstances according to the law of Moses and to have rocks thrown at the person, which is not the case according to the law of Moses. A person is taken up onto a scaffold and thrown head first down onto a stone slab.

One can only wonder why the same lesson could not have been taught some other way especially since in the context of the story itself the Sanhedrin would not have been interested in Jesus's moralizing EVEN if capital punishment was permitted to the Sanhedrin in the first century (which it wasn't anyway).

sotto voce

This, of course, is not in the Bible.

Duvduv

....Neither are the court rules for conviction and subsequent killing. Who says that what the Torah means by stoning is having rocks thrown at the person? It doesn't say that. But it certainly says that both the man and woman are liable, and that witnesses must be involved.

sotto voce

Maybe the least misleading thing would be to delete this thread and make another based on Leviticus.

Duvduv

You often come up with unusual observations, but I didn't intend to have the thread on Leviticus but on "Let him who is without sin throw the first stone" from GJohn.......

Bronzeage

Adultery was a crime against property and considered a family matter. It's unlikely the Romans would be concerned, unless a Roman were involved.

In any case, there is no reason to expect an author to add tedious or superfluous details to the story.

sotto voce

Then try harder.

You won't find it there. As you have already confessed.

:constern01:

The least misleading thing would be to delete this thread and make another based on Leviticus.

Or maybe just delete it.

steve_bnk

I am shocked to find inconsistencies in the New Testament.

Toto

This particular pericope has a history. It is widely considered by standard Biblical scholars to be "inauthentic" - it is not consistently in the earliest texts.

If you think it didn't happen, you are in good company.

Duvduv

Another interesting aspect of this story is the moral of the story about casting the first stone.
It implies that no one had the right to perform capital punishment for a sin (even if incorrectly described) liable for that because those performing the punishment themselves had sins.

But of course this is all upside down. Capital punishment was not meted out just to anyone who was a sinner, or even an adulterer as I described. It was for very specific conditions.

Thus someone casting a stone could indeed have committed any other sin either not liable for capital punishment or not complying with the requirements to impose capital punishment.

So the moral of the story essentially rejects the concept of capital punishment found in the Torah itself that the gospels accepted were of divine origin.

For that matter, no punishment of any kind according to this logic could be performed since those imposing the punishment of whatever kind themselves are sinners.

Jesus is saying to the woman to go home and "sin no more" without suggesting what would happen if she did.
Was Jesus thus temporarily nullifying capital punishment just to try to show how a person can have one last chance of avoiding punishment?

Of course this logic would apply to all sins and all punishments equally, whether financial fines, lashes, etc.