sotto voce

If skepticism cannot find anything to throw at Jesus better than its own fictions, it might as well pack up and go home.

Net2004

this story proves that jesus was a sinner because the pharisees didn't tell him to cast the 1st stone . if they knew about jesus' claim that he was sinless man god who had told moses to stone the hell out of

Numbers 15:32 When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then Yahweh said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp." 36 The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as Yahweh had commanded Moses




the pharisees knew that jesus was a sinner so there was no point in asking him to throw the 1st stone.

sotto voce

O Great Internet, Holy Mother of Lies. How we adore Thee.

Jane H

Only initial reactions on this piece:

There is a high degree of doubt about its place in John's gospel (even appearing in some manuscripts of Luke!). However that doesn't rule out the possibility that the story may preserve a reliable tradition about Jesus (Ehrman, for instance “Jesus and the adulteress” 35-36 thinks there is a good claim to authenticity).

Reading it as authentic-ish for the sake of it: it was a bit of a tough one. There was a mandate within the Law for stoning, so Jesus might have gone with that (contradicting his 'tough on sin, not tough on sinners' stance). Or he could have gone against it, which would have opened him up to 'anti-Torah' accusations, and being soft on sin. In the end, he had to go with the latter course, with his 'Torah is becoming redundant' agenda, but on his own terms.

The word used for writing, katagraphen, has a meaning of “To write against/in opposition”. I suspect an acted parable here (??new writings for a New Covenant).

Perhaps Jesus is contrasting (parallel to Paul) that Law can only condemn everyone of sin, whereas Jesus' New Covenant can forgive all sins. A redefinition of justification is going on here.


Questions:

Did executions for adultery happen in C1 Israel?
Was there any prospect of this execution actually happening, or was this a theory test?
Where is the man in all this? What is the significance, if any, of his absence?

Toto

There's no record of it. The rabbis made extreme requirements for evidence that made it virtually impossible to actually carry out a stoning. Islam notably started to take this requirement literally.

The whole scenario is quite unrealistic. In the story, it seems the stoning was about to happen, more likely it was just a trap by the Pharisees.

There is a comment here: "The passage is not about adultery, but the entrapment of Jesus by the Pharisees." On the other hand, once Jesus says that the person without sin should cast the first stone, the Pharisees slink away, they don't say "good point!"

sotto voce

No. Most people who actually know what they are talking about are certain that this alleged event did not occur.

If this thread has a purpose, it is to exhibit what people wish that the Bible said, but cannot find it therein.

sotto voce

It can't have been a trap. The author(s) doubtless hoped that people thought so. But there was no doubt about Jesus' reply, that the adulterers (both of them) should have been stoned. "What the hell are you doing hanging about asking me for?"

It's pathetic, it really is. But then it's not the only thing, is it.

DCHindley

Do they happen today in Muslim countries? Yes to both.

There is evidence that "accidents" happen to those condemned. Jona Lendering, who contributed an article on Josephus to Livius.org … does cite a couple of sources to illuminate the possibility that the account reflects actual practices:

He cites the "third or fourth century" "Tannaite tradition" preserved in the Talmud at "Keth. 30a" (by way of "Strack-Billerbeck ii 197) to the effect: "... whosoever is guilty of being stoned either falls from the roof or a wild beast tramples him to death ..."
which includes other examples of those convicted of death, when there was no power to enforce the decision, accidentally (on purpose) getting killed.

[Bab. Kethuboth 30a-b http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethubo...huboth_30.html

[a] Did not R. Joseph say. and R. Hiyya teach: Since the day of the destruction of the Temple, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four forms of capital punishment have not ceased? 'They have not ceased,' [you say]? Surely they have ceased! But [say] [b] the judgment of the four forms of capital punishment has not ceased. He who would have been sentenced to stoning, either falls down from the roof or a wild beast treads him down. He who would have been sentenced to burning, either falls into a fire or a serpent bites him. He who would have been sentenced to decapitation. is either delivered to the government or robbers come upon him. He who would have been sentenced to strangulation, is either drowned in the river or dies from suffocation.

See also Bab. Sotah 8b http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_8.html

MISHNAH. IN THE MEASURE WITH WHICH A MAN MEASURES IT IS METED OUT TO HIM. SHE ADORNED HERSELF FOR A TRANSGRESSION; THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, MADE HER REPULSIVE. SHE EXPOSED HERSELF FOR A TRANSGRESSION; THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, HELD HER UP FOR EXPOSURE. SHE BEGAN THE TRANSGRESSION WITH THE THIGH AND AFTERWARDS WITH THE WOMB; THEREFORE SHE IS PUNISHED FIRST IN THE THIGH AND AFTERWARDS IN THE WOMB,12 NOR DOES ALL THE BODY ESCAPE.

GEMARA. R. Joseph said: Although the measure has ceased, [the principle] IN THE MEASURE has not ceased. For R. Joseph said, and similarly taught R. Hiyya: From the day the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased to function, the four modes of execution did not cease. But they did cease! — [The meaning is:] The judgment of the four modes of execution did not cease. He who would have been condemned to stoning either falls from a roof [and dies] or a wild beast tramples him [to death]. He who would have been condemned to burning either falls into a fire or a serpent stings him. He who would have been condemned to decapitation is either handed over to the [Gentile] Government or robbers attack him. He who would have been condemned to strangulation either drowns in a river or dies of a quinsy [from Gk kunankhē = dog collar that controls by strangling, latter meaning c 1300 tonsillitis with abscesses].]

Then he cites "Tosephta Kelim, i. 1. 6; Bab. kam., 1 (middle)" to the effect:
"...according to an affirmation on oath of R. 'Eli'ezer, the first pupil of R Johanan b. Zakkai and therefore an inhabitant of Jerusalem contemporary with James the Just, 'even a high priest' who on entering the sanctuary is guilty of any breach of the purity laws of the precincts must have 'his skull split with a wooden club.' The barbarous punishment here threatened, like the 'fall from the roof' of the man condemned to be stoned, at once recalls the fate of the 'high priest' James, who was beaten to death with a wooden club by a man whom the Christians regarded as a 'fuller' accidentally on the spot."

[R. Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew, Hendrickson: 2002 (KTAV 6 v., 1977-86), vol 2, pg 1576, Sixth Division, Tohorot (Order of Purities), Kelim Baba Qamma 1:6 H.

"He [R. Eliezer] said to him [R. Simon the Modest] 'By the [sacred] service! Even the high priest [who without washing his hands and feet enters the area between the porch and the alter] - they break his head with clubs.'"]

Already dispatched perhaps. The problem here seems to be a Judean form of "honor killing." No doubt there was suspicion that she willingly entered into an illicit carnal relationship. Maybe it was true, maybe not, but Jesus suggested that one should judge on the side of leniency, as everyone has sinned.

DCH

sotto voce

Bugs Bunny wins!

Iskander

No evidence of stoning in first century Israel.

That a ‘convicted’ adulteress would be brought to a man at a street corner etc. for him to pardon the criminal is absurd.

It is a piece of chicanery to show ‘the Jews’ in a bad light.