[Nazaroo]

Bookmark this thread, so you can find it easily!

For even more information go to our online database on John 8:1-11 here:
http://adultera.awardspace.com

Mirror Site:
http://pa-john.freehostia.com
___________________________

Most textual critics from the 19th century until today pedal a story that this section in John was a 'later addition, although containing an authentic tradition about Jesus' or some such drivel.

Obviously I don't agree.

(1) I don't agree that 'the evidence against the passage is overwhelming'.

(2) I don't agree that textual evidence is of any relevance whatsoever for establishing authenticity.

(3) I don't agree that the internal evidence is against the passage.

(4) I don't agree that textual critics should be allowed to remove passages of scripture of this importance, based upon their lamebrained notions of the history of the text.

(5) I don't agree that Christians have been using an 'inferior text' for nearly 2000 years, only so that a couple of heretical clowns from Cambridge could miraculously 'restore' it in the 19th century.

(6) I don't believe there is any scientific procedure or argument for the removal of a passage that has been universally accepted by Christians for 1500 years.

(7) I don't like useless and misleading footnotes in modern versions which cast doubt upon perfectly good and wholesome Scriptures, which are obviously as inspired as any other part of the Gospel.

And just to get the ball rolling, I am going to post some of my evidence FOR the authenticity of John 8:1-11 next.

Sincerely, Nazaroo.

[Nazaroo]

1) Jesus retreats alone to the Mount of Olives. (Jn 7:53-8:1)

"...so there was a division...because of him...(Jn 7:43)

...And every man went to his own house,

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives." (Jn 7:53-8:1)

In the past, this reference to the Mount of Olives has been counted as a 'Lukanism' because the place is not mentioned elsewhere in John, but is however found in Matt. 21:1, 24:3, 26:30, Mark 11:1, 13:3, 14:26, Luke 19:29 (introduced with

to kaloumenon), 19:37, 21:37 (with to kaloumenon), 22:39, Acts 1:12 (with to kaloumenon).

From these instances its obvious that the phrase "Mount of Olives" (

to OroV twn Elaiwn) is not really Lukan at all, but simply Synoptic. Only the longer "the Mount that is called 'Olivet'" (to OroV to kaloumenon Elaiwn) is truly Lukan, and although Luke appears to use the phrases interchangeably, the shorter phrase is easily traced to his source, i.e. Mark.

The name is obviously well known to all the synoptic Gospels, and we can also count John in on this too, since there is strong evidence that John knew of at least one synoptic gospel as well.

There are many synoptic expressions that John either uses only once, or sparingly, since he prefers to avoid any direct dependance upon them. The "Mount of Olives" is best explained as a natural (and accurate) geographical detail for orientation purposes. Since it has no other known significance, it is not mentioned again.

What has been overlooked is that this is the second time Jesus has withdrawn to the mountain alone.

In John 6:15, Jesus withdraws to the mountain because they were about to make Him king by force (of violence). That is, the people were now divided (from those in Jerusalem) after the miracle of the Feeding of the 5000, and they are still plainly in the wrong 'spirit'. That is, the 'sign' has backfired badly, generating no true Godliness or repentance and producing the wrong response, a dangerous mob reaction that could lead to civil war. In case that isn't clear, Jesus explicitly states this in Jn 6:26.

Here in 8:1, the crowd is again dangerously divided, and He withdraws. It is only the surface appearance of the two incidents that is different. The same unspiritual condition is behind the hostility of the leaders who seek to arrest Him, and the people are still divided. We merely see two sides of the same adverse conditions. John emphasizes that Jesus rejects both sides in the division of the people. He is not afraid of arrest.

It is critical to John's didactic purpose that both incidents are covered, and presented in the right order. This order of presentation prevents any potential misunderstanding as to the second incident. The reader is alerted that Jesus retreats because the divided state of the people was an unacceptable condition.

Here we can only comment that if the passage was 'added later' this is an extremely fortunate circumstance harmonizing with the evangelist's subtle but deep teachings on the ambigious value of 'signs'. This is remarkable because it has taken 200 years of analysis for moderns to reach this level of understanding about John's use of 'signs'! The didactic power of the opening form (7:53-8:1) is difficult to account for as a mere 'insertion' by a naive editor wishing to preserve an ancient and authentic story about Jesus.

The core idea then of Jesus withdrawing to the mountain alone in the face of division is Johannine, not Synoptic. In the other gospels, Jesus simply stays at the Mount of Olives when He's near Jerusalem. He does not retreat there in reaction to responses from crowds. The confrontation/drama here resulting in John 7:53-8:1 is not found in this passage alone (Jn 7:53-8:11), but it is actually unique to John.

It is not the presence of 'Mount of Olives' in John 8:1 which must be explained but rather the lack of the name in John 6:15, and this is accounted for by the location. John has Jesus leave Jerusalem on the Passover and cross Lake Tiberias for the miracle of the Feeding of the 5000, so it is a different mountain entirely.

The real oddity in John is the lack of a reference to 'Mount of Olives' in the passion narratives. Since it is found there more than once in all the synoptics, there is a natural expectation to find it there in John too. But John's passion narrative is so different that it lacks all of the key synoptic contexts, so there is no real occasion (or at least need) to mention of the Mount of Olives by name in John's passion account. In any event this question, although interesting, is hardly related to the authenticity of the passage under examination here.

[Nazaroo]

2) At Dawn He came into the Temple (John 8:2)

"And at dawn Jesus came again to the temple,

and all the people were coming to Him;

and having sat down He was teaching them. ..." (John 8:2)

The word for 'dawn' (orqrou) appears only here in John, although its familiar enough from Luke, who uses the expression twice (Luke 24:1, Acts 5:21). But this is an old expression, having stood in the LXX for nearly 400 years by John's time. So it is again not really a Lukan word at all. It is found at least twice in the popular Greek psalter (Ps 57:8, 108:2 LXX), familiar to Greek speaking Jews for hundreds of years before Christ, and for at least 200 years afterward.

Even so, the word appears to be an archaism, and not a normal choice for a Greek writer, even one as heavily Semitic as John. As a matter of fact, under other circumstances, John seems to prefer expressions like prwi(Jn 18:28, 20:1, 21:4)

Remarkably however, the phrase appears six times in Jeremiah (Jer 7:25, 25:4, 26:5, 32:33, 35:14, 44:4 LXX), while it remains almost non-existant in most other books. Whether this can be traced to Jeremiah's phraseology rather than the Greek translator is moot, since the Greek Jeremiah was a very popular book. These passages focus particularly upon the warnings to the Jews prior to the fall of the Kingdom of Judah and the Exile.

Striking, and typical, is Jeremiah 32:33 (LXX):

"...and I taught them at dawn (orqrou) and they refused instruction:

and they brought their filth into (the Temple),

- the House where they called upon My Name,

in their uncleanness." ...(Jer. 32:33-34)

Six times Jeremiah uses the phrase like a gong to announce the woes against Judah and the Temple. These well-worn passages had been pondered and lamented over constantly since the Exile. By the time of Christ, 'dawn' (orqrou) would simply be a painfully humbling reminder of Jeremiah's prophecies every time the Greek Psalter was sung.

When such a heart-rending chord as this would naturally be struck in Greek-Jewish listeners (hellenists), it is weak at best to suggest that a writer would use such a unique and powerful keyword merely to crudely imitate or point to Luke. Luke after all is attempting to make the same striking connection himself in using this archaic expression. The author picked this phrase ultimately to point us to Jeremiah. Luke's text as a go-between is simply superfluous here.

When we come to examine the two instances in Luke/Acts, they actually appear to be one-way arrows in the other direction. It is far more plausible to suggest that Luke uses dawn (orqrou) with the women coming to the tomb (Luke 24:1) to remind us of John 8:1-11 than vice versa. Similarly, although the instance in Acts is uncannily similar to the context in John, neither John nor a forger gains anything by such a link to Acts, while Luke might at least profit marginally by a reminder of incidents in Jesus' ministry.

Yet the strongest and most convincing explanation for dawn (orqrou) in both John and Luke/Acts is simply to recall the Greek Jeremiah.

This is even more compelling when we find John doing this elsewhere, again and again. For instance, in the Wedding at Cana, John uses the phrase "What is that to you and me, woman?" (ti emoi kai soi, gunai) (Jn 2:4) and refers to the waterpots as (udriai / udriaV), (Jn 2:6,7), the same word that is used in the Greek book of Kings, to point us to the Miracle/Sign of Elijah with the jars of oil. There the woman (gunai) says to Elijah, "What to me and you?" (ti emoi kai soi) (1 Kg 17:18 (3Kg LXX)) and he tells those in need to take empty pitchers (udria) and draw out the provisions. (The Johannine substitution of 'wine' for oil is an interesting problem, but not germaine here.)

Without always using explicit or long quotations, John constantly points us to Old Testament stories and types through the LXX. The use here of the archaic word for dawn (orqrou) is just one more example of an all too common Johannine procedure.

[hatsoff]

The two earliest surviving manuscripts (P66 & P75, both third century), as well as many others with later dates, do not have John 8:1-11. That alone is enough to demonstrate its inauthenticity.

[Nazaroo]

Originally Posted by hatsoff

The two earliest surviving manuscripts (P66 & P75, both third century), as well as many others with later dates, do not have John 8:1-11. That alone is enough to demonstrate its inauthenticity.

Interestingly, it does nothing of the kind.
Even if you were able to produce a manuscript from Egypt that you could conclusively date from the 1st century, this would be essentially meaningless in regard to the question of authenticity.

The textual evidence is not evidence of 'authenticity' of a passage or omission, but simply historical evidence of the treatment and transmission of that passage or omission *after* the passage or omission has been invented or discovered.

Lets leave the external evidence aside for now. Most of the external evidence is not evidence germaine to the authenticity of the passage at all. It's just evidence concerning the subsequent history of the passage *after* its obvious existance. That evidence must be interpreted in the light of the history of the political, social and doctrinal views of the people manipulating the textual stream of transmission in the 4th and 5th centuries.

The internal evidence is overwhelming for its authenticity as part of John's gospel. Although as long ago as 1848 Samuel Davidson made as good a case as could be made against its authorship, based upon an analysis of vocabulary and phraseology, but it was extremely flimsy. (An Introduction to the New Testament Vol 1 1848 pg 359-360.)

But with the passage removed from the gospel, its entire structure from macro to micro -level falls apart.
No less compelling is the quality and genius of the passage itself.
Obviously you've been lied to about the nature and meaning of the evidence. You have my sympathy.


I have uploaded one of my charts: shown is the 'Sitz im Leben' of the Pericope, its placement in the Gospel of John.
This pericope is given a queenly throne second only to the Great Commandment itself.
The chart is part of my book and is copyrighted by me the author,
however fellow Christians are freely granted an unlimited licence to use it
for their study and edification, and reproduce it for teaching purposes.

This is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the internal evidence entrenching the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery in the gospel of John.

http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-EV/OT.html

[hatsoff]

The internal evidence is certainly not overwhelmingly in favor of authenticity, but I'll agree it does point to that. However, the external evidence is just too strong. P66 and P75 are just the tip of the iceberg, to use your terminology. Dozens of early greek manuscripts omit 7:53-8:11, and dozens more include the text in a different place (sometimes later in John, others in Luke). No internal evidence could possibly be strong enough to offset all that.

[Nazaroo]

Again, you have been misled as to the importance of the later history of the transmssion of the text. It is essentially meaningless as any kind of witness to what happened hundreds of years before those texts were written.

You would no more consult a scribe of the 2nd century regarding a textual variant, than you would consult an African witch-doctor regarding your toothache.

[hatsoff]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Again, you have been misled as to the importance of the later history of the transmssion of the text. It is essentially meaningless as any kind of witness to what happened hundreds of years before those texts were written.

No, it is not. Anyway, P66 and P75 are dated about 100 years after John was originally written, not "hundreds." But they are valuable because they show the earliest manuscripts did not include 7:53-8:11. That portion was added later. To deny the evidence is just silly. Why else would the earliest and most reliable manuscripts not include 7:53-8:11?

[theo_victis]

(1) I don't agree that 'the evidence against the passage is overwhelming'.

That is a shame.... because the evidence is overwhelming. In order to demonstrate this, I find it adequate to quote Bruce Metzger:

"The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John....."

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 219-221.

Furthermore, since i assume you ascribe to the Byzantine (textus receptus) texts as authoritative, i will be glad to inform you that even Erasmus himself doubted the text's reliability.

Theodore Beza of the 1611 KJV also did not find that portion to be original.

Only in the Latin Western Church is this portion of Scripture mentioned. "In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it."

John 7:53-8-11 is found first, I believe, in the third century! That is two hundred + years after Christ. That is like me saying, you know what? I think the founding Fathers of our country really meant to add a line to the Constitution denying Homosexuals the right for gay marital status. That would be ridiculus of myself to add something to that text!!! Especially, considering the original autograph along with the circulating transcripts would not have contained it. It really is the same case for the Pericope Adulterae (Story of the Adultress).

Further notes:

The Pericope Adulterae is not the same type of Greek that John uses, most scholars conclude it best fits Lukian Greek versus Johannine Greek.

"Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John's narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 (D E F G H K M U G P 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44 (several Georgian mss.) or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after Luke 21.38 (f13)." - Metzger.

This throws out the notion that there is an internal flow or interruption in the passage that necessitates the Pericope, since both the linguistic style and sloppy dispersal in various manuscripts show that it is not autographical.

Also in some instances, the Pericope was tacted onto the end of the Gospel of John.

Conclusion:

The Pericope is not scripture. It is plain and simple. It was added on in later years. How was it added on? Some scholars ascribe it to oral tradition, which i do not deny. We of course should expect that there would be stories surrounding Christ's life circulating within the church, however, not necessarily THE story that God gave us via the Gospels. John even admits that there arent enough volumes to fill the world to tell all of what Christ has done. While the historicity of the passage may not be untrue, this oral tradition should not be seen as equal to scripture, especially in an age where we cannot verify this tradition.

(7) I don't like useless and misleading footnotes in modern versions which cast doubt upon perfectly good and wholesome Scriptures, which are obviously as inspired as any other part of the Gospel.

Hardly useless for those looking to preserve God's TRUE word and not allow corrupt texts to dominate.

[Nazaroo]

Two points:

(1) Don't bother quoting Bruce Metzger. He's a clown.

(2) Read the posts. The external evidence is irrelevant. Only the internal evidence can actually answer the pertinent questions:

a) Does the passage know anything about John?

b) Does John know anything about the passage?

This is how the question "Is the passage authentic?" breaks down into components.

The answer, "It is missing from extant manuscripts from the 2nd-4th centuries." is an answer to an entirely different question.

P66 and P75 are dated about 100 years after John was originally written, not "hundreds." But they are valuable because they show the earliest manuscripts did not include 7:53-8:11. That portion was added later. To deny the evidence is just silly. Why else would the earliest and most reliable manuscripts not include 7:53-8:11?

(1) P66 and P75 can be dated at the earliest as late 2nd century. Anything earlier is just exaggeration of claim.

(2) A lot can happen in two weeks to a newpaper story or a book. Imagine what can happen in 100 years (3 generations!)

(3) No. They are valuable because they show the earliest EXTANT EGYPTIAN manuscripts are missing the pericope.

(4) The 'portion' was not 'added later'. It was known to be in many manuscripts in the 2nd century. That is the only plausible explanation for its widespread attestation and easy acceptance in the middle of the 3rd century.

(5) To deny the evidence is just silly. And to exaggerate the evidence is just as silly. Its not historical science.

(6) "Why else would the earliest and most reliable manuscripts not include 7:53-8:11?" There are many plausible explanations: Not the least being that the Gospel of John was sabotaged by Jews, who had a gigantic settlement in Alexandria, and were acitvely engaged in the manufacture of scrolls.

[hatsoff]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Two points:

(1) Don't bother quoting Bruce Metzger. He's a clown.

You're kidding, right? Metzger is one of the most respected Biblical scholars of the 20th century!

(2) Read the posts. The external evidence is irrelevant.

That is a gross error in judgment on your part. The external evidence trumps the internal. I don't know how to say it any plainer than that.

The answer, "It is missing from extant manuscripts from the 2nd-4th centuries." is an answer to an entirely different question.

If there were earlier extant manuscripts, you would be correct. However, there are not, and you are wrong.

The question here, is, was John 7:53-8:11 added by another author or authors? We see that in the second century, the text was not present. In the third and fourth centuries, more and more manuscripts began to include the story, sometimes tacked onto the end of John, others in Luke, and, most commonly, between John 7:52 and 8:12. What this tells us is that the text was added in the third century, and gained popularity in the fourth. We do not need the original manuscript to make that determination.

(2) A lot can happen in two weeks to a newpaper story or a book. Imagine what can happen in 100 years (3 generations!)

Sure, that's true. Unfortunately, a scenario where text is originally included, then removed, then spontaneously re-inserted would be extremely unlikely--darn near impossible.

(4) The 'portion' was not 'added later'. It was known to be in many manuscripts in the 2nd century.

There were no such manuscripts. Where are you getting your info?

That is the only plausible explanation for its widespread attestation and easy acceptance in the middle of the 3rd century.

Who said it was easily accepted? Often the tale was tacked onto the end of John, as if the scribe wasn't sure what to do with it.

(5) To deny the evidence is just silly. And to exaggerate the evidence is just as silly. Its not historical science.

Of course it is.

(6) "Why else would the earliest and most reliable manuscripts not include 7:53-8:11?" There are many plausible explanations: Not the least being that the Gospel of John was sabotaged by Jews, who had a gigantic settlement in Alexandria, and were acitvely engaged in the manufacture of scrolls.

That doesn't make any sense. No non-Christian would bother copying a Gospel at all, much less leave out some random story.

[theo_victis]

(1) Don't bother quoting Bruce Metzger. He's a clown.

What does that make you?

(2) Read the posts. The external evidence is irrelevant. Only the internal evidence can actually answer the pertinent questions:

Um...internal evidence answers such pertinent questions as?.......... Is it from John? NO, the Greek in the Pericope is not John's style at all but rather more similar to Lukian Greek (meaning it is a lot more complex than John's simplistic style).

a) Does the passage know anything about John?

Well... the passage itself doesnt talk about John? I am not sure how to answer that. The Greek isnt Johanine in style.

b) Does John know anything about the passage?

Um... the answer to this is NO.

This is how the question "Is the passage authentic?" breaks down into components.

No actually, it starts on a textual critical level (higher and lower criticism) then works its way into redactive criticism. You should start externally first.

The answer, "It is missing from extant manuscripts from the 2nd-4th centuries." is an answer to an entirely different question.

I have no idea what question you are trying to answer then... because the MSS evidence speaks for itself.

Manuscript Evidence for Pericope

First 100 years of Church History: N/A
First 200 years of Church History: N/A
First 300 years of Church History: Pericope is seen

And I am supposed to believe that it is apart of the original? As Christians we should preserve the scriptures, not the interpolated accounts of Christ.

[Chandler]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

I am going to start my first quality thread here. We'll see how it goes.

Most textual critics from the 19th century until today pedal a story that this section in John was a 'later addition, although containing an authentic tradition about Jesus' or some such drivel.

Obviously I don't agree.

(1) I don't agree that 'the evidence against the passage is overwhelming'.

(2) I don't agree that textual evidence is of any relevance whatsoever for establishing authenticity.

(3) I don't agree that the internal evidence is against the passage.

(4) I don't agree that textual critics should be allowed to remove passages of scripture of this importance, based upon their lamebrained notions of the history of the text.

(5) I don't agree that Christians have been using an 'inferior text' for nearly 2000 years, only so that a couple of heretical clowns from Cambridge could miraculously 'restore' it in the 19th century.

(6) I don't believe there is any scientific procedure or argument for the removal of a passage that has been universally accepted by Christians for 1500 years.

(7) I don't like useless and misleading footnotes in modern versions which cast doubt upon perfectly good and wholesome Scriptures, which are obviously as inspired as any other part of the Gospel.

And just to get the ball rolling, I am going to post some of my evidence FOR the authenticity of John 8:1-11 next.

Sincerely, Nazaroo.

Hi Nazaroo. Commendably good research you are undertaking here.

I confess though, that have always considered this passage in the gospel strange, not only because of the style in which it is written (or the doubt hanging over it as to whether it is really part of the gospel) but because of the content.

A number of sexual crimes carried the death penalty under the Mosaic Law and were extremely serious. For my own part, the adulterous woman has my sympathy and I feel happy about the outcome, that she was forgiven and let off. But the Law of Moses was not an option. The Jews were under obligation to obey it.

If the account is authentic why was the Law of Moses not upheld and the wrongdoer put to death?

[Nazaroo]

Originally Posted by Chandler

Hi Nazaroo. Commendably good research you are undertaking here.

I confess though, that have always considered this passage in the gospel strange, not only because of the style in which it is written (or the doubt hanging over it as to whether it is really part of the gospel) but because of the content.

It is fairly easy to show that the passage actually IS in the style of John, and that John knows all about the passage as well.

Another thorough examination of the internal evidence for and against the Pericope de Adultera can be found here:

(LINK UPDATED/REPAIRED)
http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-EV/Wilson.html

For more internal evidence, see our list of articles here:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-EV/index.html

Enjoy!

A number of sexual crimes carried the death penalty under the Mosaic Law and were extremely serious. For my own part, the adulterous woman has my sympathy and I feel happy about the outcome, that she was forgiven and let off. But the Law of Moses was not an option. The Jews were under obligation to obey it.

If the account is authentic why was the Law of Moses not upheld and the wrongdoer put to death?

This is perhaps the most interesting and important point.
To this I can point out two critically important facts:

(1) The woman was not guilty of adultery. Most people don't have access to the Greek original text, and even then, they don't read it carefully:

John in the narrative, says: "taken in an adultery"
(en moiceia kateilhmmenhn)

But the Pharisees say "committing adultery!"
(ep autofwrw moiceuomenhn)

Both agree that an adultery (among other crimes) has taken place; but John, guided by the Holy Spirit, condemns no one (Matt.7:1).
The Pharisees, on the other hand, condemn the woman (only!) (Acts 10:28)

We should note that many translations fail to bring out this distinction in the original Greek. The reason is, most are rather free paraphrases which very often leave out such nuances. One would have to hunt for a translation so slavishly literal as to catch something like this. Young's Literal translation is one which does, and there are others.

To those who think the nuance is unimportant, I should point out that the Apostle Paul bases an entire argument on a single letter of the Hebrew alphabet. (Gal 3:15-18) In the Word of the Lord, every nuance is of great value for learning and correction (2nd Tim 3:16)

But onward: What a contrast between John's humble yet powerful understatement, and the Pharisees' rude and arrogant interruption! (1 Cor. 13:1)

They have abused their holy office as priests; they have failed to honour the Lord as the author of the Law; and they have blasphemed God by saying that His law demanded something which it never did! For these words alone, the Pharisees are eligible for the DEATH PENALTY three times over (Lev.20:10, Exod 21:16, Deut. 17:8-12)

What irony and foolishness for them to insist upon a judgement for the woman. But for them to seek the verdict of Jesus OVER the laws of Moses would suggest to the crowd that they also knew that Jesus had more authority than Moses! Observe the crowds' earlier comments:

"He speaks boldly, and they say nothing to Him!
Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?" (Jn 7:26)


(and irony by the way is one of John's stylistic trademarks...)


This is not to deny the woman was probably guilty of some wrongdoing or indescretion, which explains how she came into the hands of the Pharisees in the first place. They may have picked her up soliciting, or she may have simply had a 'reputation' due to some past incident (as most people do...).
Jesus Himself doesn't suggest she is an 'innocent' girl, but nonetheless, the actions of the Pharisees clearly indicate that relatively speaking, her sins were minor compared to theirs.


(2) The woman is often 'let go' under Mosaic Law, if it can be reasonably shown that she screamed for help or was unable to do so. (i.e., she was raped, forced, or otherwise coerced, as is probably the case here). (Deut.22:26,27, Lev 20:4,5 Deut. 17:7)

I will go into the Law of Moses in more detail later, but the gist of it is, that the woman is given the benefit of the doubt, (as it should be), unless eyewitness evidence of her complicity and compliance can be presented. It is only the man who is always put to death, and where is he, if they truly caught her in the act?

Also, once authorized by the Pharisees and scribes to act as judge (as in this case here), Jesus was obligated to make a full inquiry, and punish false witnesses with the punishment they intended for their victim.

There is no doubt that this rape and attempted murder by the Pharisees along with the attempt to frame Jesus was one of the final straws that led our Lord to pronounce the woes against Jerusalem.

"They have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah! (Judges 19:25-30)
The Lord will not let them get away with their evil!
He will punish their sins!" (Hosea 9:9)

The rulers of Jerusalem were slaughtered, and Jerusalem was burnt to the ground in 70 A.D. History has never spoken more eloquently regarding a verdict.

So in answer to your question, the Law of Moses WAS upheld. We have no reason to think otherwise, in the light of God's providence.

[Chandler]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

So in answer to your question, the Law of Moses WAS upheld. We have no reason to think otherwise, in the light of God's providence.

Thanks. I've never had that so well explained until now.