PDA

View Full Version : Proper Interpretation of the Woman Taken in Adultery Incident (Jn 8:1-11)



Nazaroo
January 30th, 2013, 10:46 AM
I'm taking this excerpt from our extensive commentary on these verses,
to bring people up to speed on the historical circumstances, legal requirements, and actual significance of this important incident, for gospel doctrine.

The full commentary, (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/COMM/the-best.html#s02bc) encompassing 400 years of analysis of these verses by some of the most brilliant and insightful commentators can be read onsite (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/COMM/the-best.html):


"It is conceded that adultery was exceedingly common at this time, so common that they had ceased to put the law in force against it. The Waters of Jealousy (Numbers 5:19-28 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Numbers%205.19-28)) were no longer drunk, the culprits or those suspected of this crime, being so very numerous; and the men who were guilty themselves dared not try their suspected wives, as it was believed the waters would have no evil effect upon the wife, if the husband himself had been criminal."
- Adam Clarke

As Jesus continues his teaching in the temple (8,2), it is quite appropriate that now the scribes rather than the chief priests join the Pharisees in trying to trap Jesus, since the Jews had earlier questioned Jesus' knowledge of "scripture" (7:15, γραμματα), and the "scribes" (8:3, γραμματεις) are scriptural experts.
Presenting the adulteress (8,3) and purposefully addressing Jesus as "teacher" (8,4; see 7,14.16.17.28), the scribes and the Pharisees test the teaching of Jesus with explicit reference to the law of Moses... (8,5).
- John Paul Heil

Johannine Irony
Another Johannine Irony is intended here, for the Pharisees call Jesus "Teacher" (8:3) but not "Lord" (8:11). (cf. John 13:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%2013.13) - "You [disciples] call Me Teacher and Lord...").
"Teacher" ( = διδασκαλε) is the Greek equivalent of "Rabbi", and may be a lip-service gesture, or even a back-handed insult: They may have engaged Him in Greek because He was from Galilee, where the majority of rural 'Israelites' conversed in Greek. There is some indication that Jesus spoke fluently in Greek (cf. John 7:35 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%207.35), where "Gentiles" is literally "Greeks", or possibly Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora).
In any case there is a formal limit to the amount of respect they pay to Jesus, even when appealing to Him for an opinion or judgement.
- Nazaroo

The scribes and Pharisees ...interrupt his teaching in the Temple to interject a lesson of their own. They are accustomed to controlling discourse in the Temple.
... As v. 5 makes clear, the woman is not a subject but an object, a point of law. Both Lev 20:10 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Lev%2020.10) and Deut. 22:22-24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut.%2022.22-24) advocate the death penalty for adultery, although neither specifies stoning. The two texts also prescribe death for both offenders, the man and the woman, even though the woman's accusers here speak as though the death penalty applies only to the woman (note the feminine accusative plural pronouns, τας τοιαυτας women such as these"] )
Their first concern is with entrapping Jesus, not with the law or justice, or even the woman. She is a useful object to be exploited for their ulterior motives.
- Gail O'Day

In fact, stoning is the traditional method of execution for adultery. O'Day is sloppy here. Deuteronomy 22:24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deuteronomy%2022.24) specifies stoning:
'Then you shall bring them outside the city gate, and stone them with stones until they die.'
(Deut. 22:24a (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut.%2022.24a))

Watson notes that the penalty for adultery was only changed to strangulation by the Jewish Rabbis in the early second century, and so the story must be very old! (See DAUBE, "Landmarks", 188; BECKER, Jesus, 166-167.)
- Nazaroo

"A Lynching ...was the only way in which she could be punished. Because the Sanhedrin was not allowed to hear cases involving the death-penalty, at any rate in Jerusalem itself, the constitutional method of seeking a penalty against her would have been to approach the Roman governor.
The Jewish Law prescribed how and by what means an adulteress should be punished; but its application was hindered so far as regular administration was concerned, and the Romans provided no attractive alternative.
No Roman judge would condemn to death a woman taken in adultery, and that was what the crowd (and the husband) wanted, it would seem, to happen to her. A smaller legal punishment, or even another at the judge's discretion, would by no means satisfy their zeal."
- Duncan M. Derrett

"...the zeal of the crowd was aroused by more than just the woman's violation of the law. Mixed in with their righteous indignation against the woman's sin are at least two kinds of resentment: the first against the constituted colonial authority of the Romans, the imposition of whose relatively lax legal code could be seen as yet another affront to Jewish religious and political sovereignty, and the second against Jesus, taken by the crowd as a self-constituted moral authority, whose self-evident righteousness also arouses resentment.
The woman is largely a pretext for the expression of other resentments, especially those of the scribes and Pharisees for any perceived threat to their civic and political authority.
The mob Jesus confronts in the Pericope de Adultera bears all the hallmarks of what Gans and Girard would identify as a "community in crisis": feeling their religious/legal tradition belittled by the imposition of Roman authority, and riven by competing ideas about how to re-assert the significance of Jewish nationality and identity, the crowd gathers and prepares to immolate a hapless woman in the hope that the execution of an adulteress will re-establish group unity."
- Matthew Schneider

"In the case of adulterers, they (the witnesses) must have seen them in the posture of adulterers ."
- Rabbi Samuel (cf. mSan 5; bSan 30a, G-Daniel: Susanna)

"(It is not just an issue) of their having seen the couple in a `compromising situation,' for example, coming from a room in which they were alone, or even lying together on the same bed. The actual physical movements of the couple must have been capable of no other explanation, and the witnesses must have seen exactly the same acts at exactly the same time, in the presence of each other, so that their depositions would be identical in every respect."
- Duncan Derrett

The accusers committed a colossal tactical blunder. Their charge itself contained information sufficient to expose their hypocrisy. The scribes and Pharisees emphatically declared that the poor woman had been caught “in the very act.” That is significant.
I am reminded of the circumstance where two men were in a fight and one bit off a portion of the other’s ear. When the case came to trial, the attorney for the accused asked a witness: “Did you see Mr. Jones bite off Mr. Smith’s ear?” “No,” the witness responded.
The lawyer might well have stopped at that point with: “No further questions.” - but he just had to ask one question more: “How, then, do you know that Jones bit off Smith’s ear?”
The witness responded : “I saw him spit it out!”
When the Jewish leaders decided to be so specific, “in the very act,” they acknowledged an important point: They knew the identity of the male participant..."
- Wayne Jackson


Striking at the Heart of the Question
John in the narrative, says 'taken in an adultery':
(Greek: - εν μοιχεια κατειλημμενην )

But the Pharisees say, "committing adultery"(!):
(Greek: - επ' αυτοφωρω μοιχονενην )

Both agree that an adultery has taken place; but John, guided by the Holy Spirit, condemns no one. (Matt 7:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt%207.1))
The Pharisees, on the other hand, accuse the woman. (Acts 10:28 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Acts%2010.28))
What a contrast between John's humble yet powerful understatement, and the Pharisees' rude and arrogant interruption (1st Cor 13:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1st%20Cor%2013.1)).
Only the use of the 'active-voice verb participle' by the Pharisee spokesman implies action and participation in the crime, and hence guilt: they say literally, "caught adulterizing".
John's statement in the narrative is entirely different: it speaks of the crime in the abstract, "adultery", and only relates the bare facts, namely that the woman was 'captured' during a criminal activity. Her guilt is not even discussed.
Instead John's testimony concentrates on the known facts, her presence at the scene of a crime. Even the word 'captured' implies no guilt or innocence. 'Capturing' (literally kidnapping) is an activity that can be engaged in by police or criminals, and of course false arrests are entirely possible. That's what trials are for.
The disturbingly divergent expressions so closely juxtaposed beg for special notice: Its the motherload of Johannine Irony for this passage. A critically important question is left hanging in the air:
What if the woman was innocent?

- Nazaroo

Historical Assumption of Guilt by Commentators
"The conventional distorted 'reading' places a primary focus on the woman and her sin and relativizes the role of the third party of the triangle, the scribes and the Pharisees.
Interpreters have the propensity to operate out of the scribes' and Pharisees' valuation of the woman's sin rather than Jesus'.
When the text speaks in its own voice, it is regarded as too dangerous for the interests of the interpreters, and so has been misread against the woman.
...The larger social questions of Jesus' relationship to the religious establishment and the challenge he presented to the status quo are lost to the woman's sin."
- Gail O'Day

The Rape Law (Deut. 22:26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut.%2022.26),27 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut%2022.27))
In point of fact, the Pharisees had it wrong. Catching a woman in the act is not enough to put a woman to death: its only enough to put the man to death.
Even under O.T. Law (Torah), the establishment of the woman's guilt must take into account the possibility of rape:
[I]"But you shall do nothing to the young woman;..."
the benefit of the doubt is given to her,
[I]"that there is in her no sin worthy of death,..."
and it is taken for granted that,
"the betrothed young woman screamed,
and there was no one to save her."
(Deut. 22:26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut.%2022.26),27 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut%2022.27))

Jesus had every right to demand a lot more than just their word that they 'caught her in the act'. What was needed under the Law was clear evidence of her willing compliance in the act of fornication.
The so-called 'Rape-Law' is worded in such a way as to make this plain. The concern of the Law is the woman's willing complicity, and if there is no eye-witnesses or convincing circumstances that prove she willingly conspired with the man, she must be released, even though the man is put to death in any case.
The "country/city" clause in the Law has the obvious purpose of establishing common-sense conditions that protect a woman from both rape and the double-jeopardy of false accusations after the fact:
"If the young virgin was betrothed,
and a man...lays with her in the city,
...you shall stone them both to death...
but if in the countryside the man forces her,
then the man only shall die...
for she [obviously] cried out,
and there was no one to save her."
(Deut. 22:23-25 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut.%2022.23-25))

Even though 'technically' they might claim this woman was "in the city", such a literal interpretation of the Law would be a monstrous breach of its intent. Obviously it could not apply fairly to a mute woman or someone who was gagged, threatened with a knife, or even blackmailed, to name just a few examples.
The blind letter of the law can obviously kill. Above all, God always insists that judges exercise righteous judgement, and uphold the intent of the law, not look for loopholes.
Even putting all questions of compassion, mercy, and grace through repentance aside, Jesus would certainly demand that they "Judge not by mere appearance, but judge righteous (true) judgment." (Jn 7:24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Jn%207.24)).
Plainly, the woman could not be put to death without a thorough inquiry. There could be no 'off the cuff' ruling possible in these circumstances, in spite of the claims or wishes of the Pharisees and scribes. And without further evidence, the Law required the woman's release, guilty or not.

Due Process
Unfortunately, the Law did require a thorough inquiry.
Due process is required, of which it can be assumed the scribes and Pharisees were perfectly aware. This was of course maintained by practice and tradition.
Lynching of any kind is expressly forbidden (Exod. 23:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Exod.%2023.1),2 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Exod%2023.2)). The Pharisees had protected themselves from this charge by publicly acknowledging Jesus as a Teacher of the Law, calling him 'Didaskaleh' (Rabbi) (Isa 29:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Isa%2029.13)), and appealing for a Special Judgement under Deuteronomy 17:8-13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deuteronomy%2017.8-13).
This meant that they had to abide by Jesus' decision under penalty of death: and this was also in itself an admission that they lacked the necessary witnesses for a straightforward trial: For otherwise they could not stray to the right or left of the Law (Num. 20:17 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Num.%2020.17), 22:26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Num%2022.26), Deut.2:27 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut.2.27), 5:32 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut%205.32), 17:11-20 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut%2017.11-20), 28:14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut%2028.14)).
This brought everyone present under Deuteronomy 19:18-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deuteronomy%2019.18-19), which commanded Jesus as Judge to make a full inquiry and punish false witnesses with the sentence intended for their victim, in this case the death penalty.
Jesus certainly had the sympathy and control of a large part of the crowd, and the situation was not without danger for the scribes and Pharisees also.
- Nazaroo

"I believe it would be generally accepted that the episode has never been adequately explained.
Why was the woman brought by the Pharisees and scribes to Jesus? We are told that it was "to try him" or "to tempt him". What can this mean?

What Was the Real Trap?
The usual explanation is that this is connected with the Sanhedrin’s loss of power to inflict the death penalty. I am not convinced that the Romans had taken from the Sanhedrin the power to impose the penalty of death, but let us take the worst case scenario for me and assume they had.
The argument is, I suppose, that if Jesus said the woman should be stoned, then he would offend the Romans, and be in danger.
This approach to the issue I find unconvincing. Why on earth would the Romans be angered if Jesus, a private individual, claimed that an adulteress should be stoned? He would not even be insisting that a verdict of the Sanhedrin should be enforced. There had been none.
Even more to the point, on this approach the Pharisees are putting themselves, not Jesus, at risk with the Romans. It is they who claim that the law of Moses that they follow imposes the penalty of death by stoning. They even said "Moses commanded us (ημιν) to stone such women". The supposed scenario and its explanation are entirely implausible."
- Alan Watson

The Other Adulterer: Where is He?
Another important question is often raised by commentators, namely, Where is the man? It obviously takes two to commit adultery (or at least fornication: see Matt. 5:27-28 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt.%205.27-28)!).
The question is good, but how it is handled usually isn't: It is used as 'evidence' that the scribes and Pharisees are either guilty of hypocrisy or some more heineous crime, like entrapment or that they are guilty of adultery themselves.
To make such an accusation on such flimsy evidence however, is exactly what we are NOT supposed to do, according to the Lord (John 7:24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%207.24) for instance!), nor would it be admissable in a courtroom.
Nor should the absence of the man be grounds for doubt regarding the historical accuracy of the passage. There can be many good explanations for his absence. Derrett has made an elaborate case supporting the idea that the trial was already finished, and the Pharisees were on their way from there to the stoning.
Other possibilities should be considered. They may have already stoned the man or killed him in the process of 'arrest' (...especially if the husband had caught them, this would be a common enough circumstance!). His guilt was certain if caught in the act. Only the woman need be brought before Jesus for an opinion.

This Bird has Flown...
The most obvious possibility of all, is that the man fled, escaping his discoverer. He need not be stronger, only faster, and it is far easier for a suspect to flee a scene than for an opponent to secure him. The adulterer would have the advantage and be on the lookout for discovery. An unsuspecting husband would have no such warning. The woman, with fewer options and resources, would be far easier to catch.
Again, if they had taken the case to the Romans, they may have taken the prisoner themselves for whipping or prison, but declined to process the woman, turning her back to them for punishment.
The Romans had no death penalty for adultery, and might have simply commanded that she be flogged by the Jews. Once free of the watchful Roman eye, they would proceed their own way.
In the end, the absence of the man is a significant fact that would require an explanation, and also further inquiry before sentencing the girl. But its not one that necessarily incriminates the Pharisees and scribes. Commentators frequently push this too far.

- Nazaroo

Adultery by Divorce!
"I would put the episode in a specific historical context:
Jesus had declared that a woman whose husband had divorced her and who remarried committed adultery (Matt 5,31-32; 19,3-9; Mark 10,2-9.)
The woman brought to Jesus was, I suggest, a remarried divorcée. By Jesus’ own claim she was thus an adulteress, but not for the Pharisees. Moses allowed divorce, Jesus forbade it (cf. Mark 10:11-12 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2010.11-12)).
The trap of the Pharisees for Jesus was this: the law of Moses demanded death by stoning for an adulteress; Jesus claimed remarried divorcées were adulteresses though Moses did not, and neither did the Pharisees.
Would Jesus follow his argument to its logical conclusion and impose death on a remarried divorcée? The scribes and Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus very precisely to test him.

No Crime, No Trial
We can see now why there was no trial before the Sanhedrin. For the Pharisees there had been no crime.
The problem of evidence of adultery and of the difficulties of proof disappears. For Jesus, the remarriage of the divorcée was itself adultery.
Besides, we are no longer concerned with a trial and its practical problems. We are confronted rather with a theoretical issue: namely, would Jesus make a divorcée who remarried be liable to suffer the Mosaic penalty for adultery?
... John 8,6, indeed, is very specific. The scribes and Pharisees were "tempting" Jesus so "that they may have [reason] to accuse him". What was to be the ground of this intended accusation?
It cannot have been, I have already claimed, an accusation to the Romans that he was seeking to have the Sanhedrin put the woman to death, a power that the Romans had supposedly taken from the Jews.
Rather, the accusation would be before the Jews themselves, that Jesus was seeking to alter the law of Moses. Such an accusation could be seen as plausible.
Indeed, one part of the double-headed charge against Stephen — and which led to his lynching after an abortive trial before the Sanhedrin — was precisely that Jesus was speaking "blasphemous words" against Moses (Acts 7,11) and the law (Acts 7,13), and changing the customs which Moses delivered to the Jews (Acts 7,14).
The innocent-seeming question, but meant as a trap, to Jesus about the adulteress was full of danger to him.

"Where is the (man) adulterer?"
I have left aside to this point the answer to the basic question, "Where is the adulterer?" My reason is that his absence from the scene is the strongest evidence that the pericope as it stands is unrealistic. If she were caught in the act then so would he have been, and the penalty for both was the same. He, too, should have been brought before Jesus. His absence must be explained.
My answer is that for the Pharisees there was no adultery, no catching in the act, and no adulterer. Their only interest was to test Jesus: would he say the woman was an adulteress to be stoned? Of course, no doubt, they could also have claimed the new husband was an adulterer. But why should they? There was no need for that for the purposes of the test.
- Alan Watson

Not So Elementary, My Dear Watson
Watson's hypothesis is striking, but not compelling. In its favour is its apparent foundation upon Jesus' public teaching on marriage and adultery, and His apparent sharp disagreement with the Pharisees on this vital community issue.
But Watson admits his reconstruction also contains some severe conflicts with the incident itself, and so ironically, he must ultimately dismiss key elements of the story as 'unhistorical'.
Watson speaks as though the only obstacle to his thesis is the 'argument from silence', that is, the issue of divorce and Jesus' teaching on it are not explicitly mentioned at all. This presentation is inadequate and misleading for several glaring reasons. The problems Watson's thesis faces are these:
(1) The Pharisees and scribes have actually arrested a prisoner, and clearly intend to stone her, or push Jesus into it. This goes strongly against the idea that the Pharisees hold her innocent. Watson can't explain why they would go to such lengths, undermining their own position just to 'tempt' Jesus.
(2) They claim to have actually caught her "in the very act, committing adultery". This implies an entirely different scenario than a supposedly legal marriage, disapproved of by Jesus. Can we imagine them arresting a woman whom they would have married in the first place?
(3) The Pharisees and scribes insist "Moses commanded us such be stoned". They demand justice on this basis, and again, this implies a plain case of adultery is before us, not a dispute about what constitutes a legal marriage, where the Pharisees take the opposing view, that it is legal.
(4) Jesus would surely publicly uphold His own teaching regarding marriage. Even when defeating his enemies with a dilemma, He would surely have followed up with a parable or explanation underlining His position. Where's the teaching?
(5) Jesus would surely have exposed their murderous frame-up and hypocrisy here, if Watson were right. Yet Jesus handles the case in terms of Matt. 5:28 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt.%205.28) (their own sexual sins), not in terms of Matt. 19:3-9 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt.%2019.3-9) (divorce), or even more appropriate, Matt. 23:2-4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt.%2023.2-4), 14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt%2023.14) (mishandling of Torah).
(6) Watson's version also paints the Pharisees and scribes as far more hideous and cruel monsters than even Jesus' accusations make out. Watson would have them framing an innocent party by their own interpretation, simply to embarrass or humiliate Jesus. Yet Jesus' own testimony was that they wanted to murder Him, and their behaviour later shows no conscious malice directed at others. (cf. John 18:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%2018.8)...)

These are overwhelming difficulties that can only be overcome by Watson's rejection of the story as it is given to us. He must actually rewrite it drastically, and delete its very heart and soul. The version of the story Watson ends up with is unrecognizable, and more fatal to his thesis, is historically unknown.
- Nazaroo

Nazaroo
January 30th, 2013, 10:51 AM
"The important point is not what Jesus wrote on the ground, but why Jesus was writing in the first place.
Jesus was writing on the ground in the very presence of men who - so we are specifically told - made their living by writing. Scribes copied out the words of the Law of God, as well as teaching it to the people. Furthermore, we know that these Jewish scribes had great reverence for the Word of God and that they maintained extremely high standards in the copying department.
Yet these scribes were standing accusing a woman of sin, despite the fact that they should have been convicted – from God’s laws that they copied out every day – of many sins of which they were themselves guilty.
Christ’s reply, ‘he who is without sin - or, the one who has never made a mistake - let him cast the first stone’, only resulted in wholesale conviction of sin because of the cumulative effect of three factors: (a) Christ’s calligraphy providing graphic illustration of what these men did every day and the standards they themselves set, (b) God’s laws that they continually copied out, and (c) Christ’s famous words accusing them of hypocrisy.
Therefore, the mention of scribes as the prime movers in condemning the woman seems a rather important detail in the piece. The argument that there are plenty of other occasions that John could have mentioned the occupation ‘scribes ’ is vacuous."
- A. W. Wilson

'wrote on the ground' (κατεγραφεν εις την γην). Imperfect active of καταγραπω, old compound, here only in N.T., to draw, to delineate, to write down, apparently inchoative, began to write on the sand as every one has done sometimes.
The only mention of writing by Jesus and the use of καταγραπω leaves it uncertain whether he was writing words or drawing pictures or making signs. If we only knew what he wrote! Certainly Jesus knew how to write. And yet more books have been written about this One who wrote nothing that is preserved than any other person or subject in human history.
- A. T. Robertson

"How widely does Christ differ from men! He writes his Divine thoughts in the dust: they wish to have theirs cut in marble, and engraved on brass."
- Quesnel

" Whatever He wrote, the scribes and Pharisees apparently misunderstood Him: They thought He was stalling for time, and they kept pressing Him, asking Him again and again to answer them and tell them what He would do."
- Ray C. Stedman

"Those who think Christ was primarily there to defend and uphold the Law need to stop and look closely here: It is the scribes and Pharisees who are trying to uphold/enforce the Law here (rightly or wrongly), and it is Jesus who appears reluctant to even begin. It seems only at their insistence that Jesus finally consents and rises to address the question."
- Nazaroo

"Num 5,11-31 prescribed that the priest make a mixture of water and dust from the floor of the tabernacle, and have the woman drink it and swear an oath, and if she were unfaithful she would suffer a gruesome fate. The rabbis interpreted this to mean that only if the husband were guiltless would she suffer the fate from the curse.
Since Johanan ben Zaccai did away with the institution and this must have been before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (or Johanan’s action would have been pointless), then the rabbinic debate and interpretation must have been earlier still.
This modification of the import of the curse will have been present to the minds of the onlookers who put Jesus to the test. The woman was to suffer only if the husband was guiltless.
Jesus’ reply was thus very much directed towards the sinfulness (in his view) of the husband who divorced. Jesus could only confute the Pharisees and scribes by the use of Scripture and its interpretation.
He relied on the new rabbinic interpretation of Num 5,30-31: 'And if the man is clear of sin, then the woman shall bear her sin'. On this view, if the man was not clear of sin, the woman would not bear her sin."
- Alan Watson

Nazaroo
January 30th, 2013, 10:52 AM
'And when they continued pressing Him,
having bent back, He said to them,

"The innocent one among you -
Let him first cast a stone upon her!"
(John 8:7 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%208.7))

technical footnotes:
Lexical: "innocent one", or "sinless person" ( = ο αναμαρτητος, literally "the sinless one" ) Although posing a challenge for commentators, there is no uncertainty as to the basic meaning of the word.

...They thought he was stalling for time, and they kept pressing him, asking him again and again to answer them and tell them what he would do.
So, standing up, Jesus looked them right in the eye and uttered these famous words, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Actually the word he uses is "sinless," "let him who is sinless..." This is the only time Jesus ever employed this word in the New Testament: "Let him who is sinless cast the first stone."
The result is almost humorous. They are stunned. Speechless! He has taken the wind right out of their sails.
- Ray C. Stedman

At this point the story of Jesus and the adulteress takes its place within the narrative flow as the hearing before the law requested by Nicodemus, which serves to vindicate Jesus as a prophetic teacher. ...
Jesus overcomes the test with a powerful prophetic teaching: "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her" (8,7). After the Jewish leaders have departed (8,9) and Jesus has dismissed the adulteress with a command to sin no longer (8,10-11), the reader realizes that the crowd was correct (7,40) and the Pharisees wrong (7,52) about Jesus being a prophetic teacher in relation to Mosaic law.
- John Paul Heil

" To this recurrence of an archetypal human event -- a lynching -- Jesus brings an originary intuition of the shared roots of significance and violence that enables him to short-circuit the sacrifice of the woman taken in adultery.

What is the Real Key?
...The part of the sentence to which we should look for the saying's ethical importance is not the ambiguous expression "without sin," but the phrase "the first to throw a stone at her", especially the adjectival phrase "the first".
"to throw a stone" is, of course, an unambiguous action, the motivation and consequences of which are obvious in this context. One cocks an arm, takes aim, and lets the stone fly, hoping it will strike the presumably restrained sinner squarely in the head.
Jesus seeks unmistakably to bring to mind for each member of the crowd a clear picture of what is about to happen, and thus forgoes euphemism or any other type of figurative language. "First" is similarly unambiguous, and lies even closer to the revelatory kernel of the entire scene, for it brings to light the secret, fatal vulnerability that lurks at the heart of every lynch mob:
... the "sin" of the lynch-mob's victim, as my analysis has already suggested, is something of a pretext, since at least part of the real purpose of the punishment is to ward off a threat of group disunity.
Establishing and securing the unanimity of the group of sacrificers is, as it were, the real purpose of the lynching; and anything that conduces to single out any member of the group thus threatens the entire enterprise.
The precise means that this group has chosen to exact punishment on the woman caught in adultery is, of course, particularly well suited to this end, since in the aftermath of a hail of stones, who can say which was first and which was last? (Or, for that matter, which merely injured the victim, and which delivered the fatal blow?)
The unanimity of the group's action ultimately confers anonymity on each individual, who, after all the stones have been thrown, enlists his own uncertainty concerning the precise order of events in order to still any pangs of conscience that might be stirred by having participated in what could, under other circumstances, be construed as a murder.
Jesus' use of the word "first" is intended precisely to destroy the comforts of anonymous unanimity. And this is precisely what it does, for after another short pause, the story relates how the mob, originally an undifferentiated mass headed by "scribes and Pharisees," degenerates into a collocation of individuals, who depart from the scene "one by one."
- Matthew Schneider

"Jesus’ "The one among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone at her" (v. 7) is typical of him. Jesus is on the attack against the Pharisees.
"The one without sin" is ironic. The Greek (ο αναμαρτητος) is singular. This does not mean "anyone". He is singling out an individual.
The person he means is the ex-husband: for the Pharisees the husband had not sinned in divorcing his wife, for Jesus he had. For the Pharisaic position we have Mishnah Gittin 9.10:
a. The House of Shammai say, "A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity, b. "since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Dt. 24:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Dt.%2024.1))".
c. And the House of Hillel say, "Even if she spoiled his dish, d. "since it is said, Because he found in her indecency in anything".
e. R. Aqiba says, "Even if he found someone else prettier than she, f. "since it is said, And it shall be if she find not favor in his eyes (Dt. 24:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Dt.%2024.1))".

Thus, at least for the supporters of the school of Hillel (of around 70 BC to AD 10) and Rabbi Akiba (of around 45-135), the divorcing husband needed no excuse for his act, hence was without sin. It would be unreasonable to suppose that their position was not also held even earlier. Much early evidence is lost.
Jesus’ attitude is different, expressed most notably at Matt 5,31-32:
"It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce’.
But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, [except on the ground of unchastity], causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery".
(Matt. 5:31-32 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt.%205.31-32), cf. Mark 10:11-12 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2010.11-12))

A husband who divorces his wife, except for unchastity, causes her in the eyes of Jesus to commit adultery, i.e. when she remarries.
We can go further. We know from Matt 19,3-9. that this was an issue of contention between Pharisees and Jesus: The Pharisees put the question of the lawfulness of divorce in the context of testing Jesus.
In fact, the Greek (πειραζοντες), is the same in Matt 19,3, Mark 10,2, and John 8,6, 'testing (him)' . Also, in all three passages the issue is framed in terms of a supposed disagreement between the law of Moses and the stance of Jesus. This is precisely a tricky issue to bring to Jesus. Indeed, it is the issue on adultery for the Pharisees to bring before Jesus.
... If this view ...is plausible, as it is to me, it would even be strengthened if in the pericope the one without sin who had to cast the first stone was the divorcing husband. In Jesus’ eyes, it was he who caused his ex-wife to commit adultery.
Not only that, but if Jesus’ challenge to cast the first stone was not to the crowd in general but to the ex-husband we can understand why there was no response but the crowd melted away. Moreover, for the husband too, his ex-wife would not have committed adultery: he could not cast the first stone [He had divorced her in the first place]."
- Alan Watson

Nazaroo
January 30th, 2013, 10:53 AM
'And again having leaned down,
He was writing in the earth:
and they, having understood,
being convicted by conscience,
went forth one by one,
beginning from the elders, even to the last.'
(John 8:8-9a (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%208.8-9a))

technical footnotes:


"Whatever Christ wrote made a powerful impact upon his critics.
Silently they slipped away into the shadows, progressing from the older to the younger. This effect usually is interpreted as an indication that the Lord’s written message impacted the more mature first, and then the younger. It is hard to focus upon another’s sin when your own is exposed.
At any rate, Jesus’ response – whatever it was – was devastating. The Pharisees’ inconsistency had been laid bare. The accusers abandoned their prey.
They were no match for the Son of God."
- Wayne Jackson

"...Christ's declaration, 'I am the light of the world,'(v.12) seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees, as recorded in verse 9; as, also, it explains the peculiar virulence of the Pharisee's words (in v. 8:41)."
- Scofield

"Jesus is [still] grace and mercy in this text, but his mercy is not exclusively visible in contrast to the woman's sin. To summarize the story as sin (woman) and grace (Jesus) is to objectify and dehumanize the woman the same way the scribes and Pharisees do in v. 4.
...Acquittal is also expressed in the movement and freedom of movement of the characters. When those in the crowd hear the words of Jesus, one by one they go away. Those who would condemn the woman disperse. The elders, those who lived under the old ways the longest and thus had the most from which to walk away, leave first.
They walked away from judgement and condemnation to the possibilities offered by acquittal and life."
- Gail O'Day

"Again those who think Christ was primarily there to defend and uphold the Law must think again! Consider a parallel hypothetical case:
Pharisees: "There's been a murder! We have one of the conspirators right here!"
Jesus: "Sorry, I'm not punishing people for murder at the moment, so I'm going to make it impossible for you to do that."
Pharisees: "Oh. Okay, we'll just leave one of the murderers here. Come to think of it, we don't feel like testifying right now anyway. We're just going to wander off now to ponder our own involvement in various murders. Is that okay with you?"
Jesus: "Oh sure, leave him here. That won't pose a problem. Off you go. I won't need your eyewitness testimony in any ongoing legal inquiry. The victim is obviously dead. Inquiry closed."

We are so used to thinking in terms of Jesus automatically upholding and fulfilling the Law that the obvious sometimes just slides right past us! If Jesus were here really acting as judge, He might be the most derelict judge ever to sit on the bench:
If a judicial trial or inquiry were to continue, the witnesses had no right to wander off, and the judge had no real business letting them go before properly interrogating them. This dismissal of all witnesses nonetheless signals the formal end of the legal proceedings, except rendering a verdict...
Once again Johannine Irony strikes deep! It seems Jesus is helpless to stop her accusers from simply walking away, free of culpability and responsibility for their sins.
In reality, Jesus as driven them off, utterly destroying their plans. They obey as though hypnotized by the Master Magician. Its the same Jesus we see at work in John 18:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%2018.8)."
- Nazaroo

"Jesus’ response discomfited the scribes and Pharisees:
'They, having heard, and convicted by conscience, went out one by one, beginning from the older to the very last'
(John 8,9)

Jesus, as elsewhere when faced with a legal issue, sidesteps the question. In this instance his adversaries are defeated because Jesus, not responding directly to the question or giving a legal opinion, transfers the possible crime of the adulteress to the sin (in Jesus’ view) of her sinless husband who divorced her. It should be remembered that in Jewish law divorce proceeds from the husband.
- Alan Watson

Nazaroo
January 30th, 2013, 10:54 AM
Forgiving People
while Judging Sin...



And Jesus said to her,

"Neither do I judge you:
Go, and sin no more."

technical footnotes:
Lexical/Textual: "pass sentence upon", or "judge", (κρινω without the prefix:κατα-). Here following the μ 5 Text Group (von Soden), the strongest candidate for original text (See Reconstructing the Text (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/RECON/index.html)): The minority reading, "condemn" is a probable local harmonization to verse 8:10b, failing to notice the more plausible intent of the original author to connect with 8:15 etc. and the dominant theme of judgement througout this section of John.
"The Lord was informing the woman that she was not judicially sentenced. As Bloomfield observed, Jesus was simply making 'a declaration that, since his kingdom was not of this world, so he would not assume the office of a temporal magistracy' (II, p. 376).
He was not sanctioning adultery, nor minimizing the lady’s wickedness – quite the contrary. Christ was commenting upon the legal aspect of the situation. With the accusers gone, there was no case left! The witnesses were required to throw the first stones (Dt. 17:7 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Dt.%2017.7)); without them the matter could proceed no further."
- Wayne Jackson

"Even today if you are arrested for a crime, and nobody appears in court to accuse you, the judge will dismiss the case. So Jesus dismissed these men.
But then come these amazing words: "Neither do I condemn you." He alone had the right to condemn this woman. He was the Sinless One, the only One who fulfilled the qualifications to stone. But he did not do so. When you ask why, it is clear that it was because he forgave her sin.
Without forgiveness, justice must be satisfied. God never waves his hand and dismisses sin as though it is of no account. His own truth, his law, his holy character, demand that any deviation from righteousness be punished. Justice must be satisfied -- unless sin is forgiven. So it is clear that the basis on which our Lord said these words is that he had found a way to forgive this woman her sin.

But What about Repentance?
A legalist may protest at this point, "How could he do this? There was no basis for it. In fact, she doesn't even confess her sin, or repent of it, or even say she's sorry. Didn't Jesus himself go about preaching, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand'? What do you say to that?
The answer has to be, "Yes, there must be repentance." God is not a loving, grandfatherly type who says, "That's all right. Forget it. I won't hold it against you." You never find that anywhere in Scripture. That idea of God is a figment of someone's imagination which has been imposed upon a God of truth and justice. It is totally out of character. No, God never does that.
What he requires, of course, is an acknowledgment of evil. There must be repentance. Even God cannot forgive sin which is not acknowledged. When you say, "Yes, I did it. It's wrong. I agree with you," that is repentance. Then forgiveness can come.
"But where does this woman do that?" someone says. The answer, of course, is, "Within her heart!" Remember we are dealing with One who knows the hearts of men. He knows what is going on in the inner life, the inner thoughts. He knew her heart. Somewhere in the course of this incident she had repented.
I do not know if we can accurately picture what was going on when she was brought before Jesus. I can see her being dragged in, red faced, her hair in disarray. She is angry, upset, rebellious, and bitter, perhaps striking out against her accusers.
But when she sees how Jesus handles this crowd of hypocritical judges, and feels that his sympathies are with her, somewhere the mercy and love that was in his face and voice began to touch her. She realized how wrong she was, that she had sinned, and she repented. When she did, Jesus forgave her, obviously anticipating his death upon the cross for her.
The cross is always an eternal event in the mind of God. The sins of the people who lived in Old Testament days were also forgiven on the basis of the death of Jesus on the cross. There is no other way that God can forgive sin. In anticipation of that cross, Jesus forgave her sin. The proof of it is in the words he next said, "Go, and do not sin again."
That is the word I would like to leave ringing in our ears this morning."
- Ray C. Stedman

"...the manner and content of Jesus' final saying should not be ignored. While Jesus cleverly repulses those who sought to entrap him, He did so without compromising his own revolutionary teaching.
'Neither do I condemn you.' This is Radical Forgiveness. Of course, as I remember, he also adds 'Go and do not sin again'.
This form of conflict story (pronouncement story) draws our attention to the importance of the pronouncement at the end. The story provides evidence of conflict but exists to convey the significant pronouncement of Jesus.
In this, radical forgiveness is combined with a call to turn away from sin. But the pronouncement of forgiveness is stated first and is not made conditional on the turn from sin. Rather, the turning from sin seems to flow from the experience of forgiveness."
- John Painter

"The woman, who was physically hemmed in by those who would condemn and kill her, is now free to go and begin her new life. She too is invited into new patterns made possible by Jesus' transformation of condemnation into acquital.
- Gail O'Day

"Verse 11b is a very important statement. In fact, it is a distillation of the distinctive message of the New Testament. It is not an exaggeration to say that the rest of the New Testament is an elaboration of this statement.
It speaks to two of the most important issues in our dealings with God:

The Basis of Our Forgiveness
...Jesus does not say "Sin no more, and then I won't condemn you." This is the way LAW/RELIGION answers the question (EXAMPLES). By the way, Old Testament LAW doesn't accept this formula; it says "Don't sin at all, and then I won't condemn you." According to God's LAW, the first time we break it we become deserving of God's condemnation (Jas. 2:10 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Jas.%202.10)).
Instead, Jesus/GRACE says "I do not condemn you--now go and sin no more." He isn't saying merely that he won't prosecute her (he can't). Neither is he saying that she isn't responsible for her actions ("go and sin no more"). Neither is he saying that he accepts her apology to him (she didn't apologize or do anything to him). He is forgiving what she did to others, and to God. In other words, he is issuing a declaration of divine forgiveness (as in Mk. 2), even though she is guilty!!
How can he do this without making a complete mockery of God's justice? He can do this for two reasons:
(a) Because he is willing to pay the penalty for her sins himself (read 1 Jn. 2:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1%20Jn.%202.1),2 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1%20Jn%202.2)). This is why it is "fair"--because the penalty will be paid (Rom. 3:26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Rom.%203.26)).
(b) ...God the Father has given him the authority to forgive all those who believe in him (read Jn. 5:22-24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Jn.%205.22-24)). Evidently, Jesus saw an attitude of faith in him ("Lord" in vs 7?).

The Motivation for a Changed Life
Note the last phrase: " . . . go and sin no more." God does want us to become free from sin; he does want us to "leave our life of sin." Can you imagine Jesus saying "Go and sin some more" or "Go and sin whenever you want?"
But notice the order: "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." First God assures us of his forgiveness; then he calls on us to cooperate with him as he liberates us from a life of sin. Why is this order so important? Because of the way God motivates us to live for him.
RELIGION SAYS: "Change, or I will condemn you." The fear and threat of God's condemnation is always potentially hanging over our heads in order to "keep us in line." This does not promote deep and lasting change. People who live under this tend to have a superficial and self-righteous kind of holiness.
GRACE SAYS: "I have forgiven and accepted you. Now respond to my love by allowing me to change your life." Loving gratitude is the most powerful motivator in the universe. We don't change in order to be accepted, but because we have been accepted. Real righteousness is practicing love toward God and others. Nothing motivates this kind of lifestyle like forgiveness received. This is why grace, properly understood and appropriated, produces a superior righteousness in the lifestyle of its recipient.
This is why, while we teach emphasize biblical ethics without compromise, we emphasize the grace God. We believe Paul when he says that a focus on the law will only increase our sin problems (Rom. 5:20 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Rom.%205.20); 7:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Rom%207.8); 1 Cor. 15:56 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/1%20Cor.%2015.56)), but that a mind set on God's love and acceptance will motivate us to follow him and unleash the Holy Spirit to gradually transform our lives (Rom. 8:4ff (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Rom.%208.4ff).).
- Gary DeLashmutt

"Man is born unto sin," the Scriptures say (Job 5:7 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Job%205.7)). We all are born to share that fallen nature. Unless that power of sin is broken within us, unless God does something to free us and give us the possibility of a new life he never will say to us, "Go, and sin no more."
But when Jesus says these words to this woman it is clear that she has the possibility of fulfilling it. He never tells anyone to do something that he does not enable him or her to do. Thus, he does not forgive us in order that we might go back and continue in our sins.
The Apostle Paul wrote these wonderful words to his son in the faith, Titus,
'He gave himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds'
(Titus 2:14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Titus%202.14) RSV)

This beautiful story brings us to that place. We understand that when our sins are forgiven it is to free us that we might begin to live a different lifestyle; never to go back to the things that we have left behind.
Sometimes we may. Sometimes we are weak, and need again the forgiving grace of God. But forgiveness is always designed to set us free. That is why it is given. When our Lord forgave this woman that is what he did: He set her free to be a different kind of person than she ever was before."
- Ray C. Stedman

And He said to her, "Go."
Grace is best not confused with honour. We are not told what original foolishness had resulted in the madman being possessed by demons and left living in a graveyard. (The sin of pride, like that of King Nebuchadnezzar may be hinted at here (cf. Dan. 4:28-37 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Dan.%204.28-37)).
Although cured and clothed by Jesus and His disciples, he was not allowed to join their band:
"...and he pleaded to go with Jesus, but He did not allow him, and said to him,
"Go to your house, to your friends, and tell them the great things the Lord has done for you, and that He had mercy upon you."
(Mark 5:18-20 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%205.18-20))

Similarly, the Samaritan woman, who was also apparently an adulteress (John 4:18 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%204.18)), was not invited to accompany Jesus, but sent to witness to her own people (John 4:4-28 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%204.4-28)).
Grace is best received with humility and a willingness to serve, inspired by gratitude.

Grace takes the Form of Time Granted...
Notice that Jesus in His infinite wisdom does not grant immediate forgiveness, nor request a publicly humiliating repentance: He knows the anguish in her heart at the injustice of the Pharisees, first abusing her, betraying her, attempting to destroy her, and finally abandoning her to a mob.
Instead, acting as Judge, and in view of the circumstances, Jesus grants an indefinite postponement of the entire trial, releasing the woman on her honour. For if the woman did not first understand who Jesus was, what meaning would His forgiveness hold for her? Later, we can assume that the time Jesus grants the woman is just right:
'And she stood at His feet weeping, and began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and she kissed His feet, and washed them with perfume,...
And Jesus said,
" Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little."
And He said to her, "Your sins are indeed forgiven."
(Luke 7:36-50 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%207.36-50) )

(This incident should not be confused with another one having a few surface similarities, found in Matt.26:6-13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt.26.6-13), Mark 14:3-9 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2014.3-9), & John 12:1-8 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%2012.1-8). )
- Nazaroo



Return to Index (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/COMM/the-best.html#s00)

Bibliography

Cited Authors and works:

• Burgon, John, Causes of Corruption..., (1882)
• Bushnell, Katharine, God's Word to Women, (1925)
• Clarke, Adam, Commentary, (1826)
• DeLashmutt, Gary, The Woman Caught In Adultery, (2007)
• Derrett, Duncan, New Testament Studies, Vol 10 (1964)
• Kelly, William, John - Introductory Lectures, (1886)
• Jamieson, Robert, Commentary: John, (1871)
• O'Day, Gail, A Study in Misreading, (1992)
• Heil, John Paul, The Story of the Adulteress Reconsidered, (1993)
• Jackson, Wayne, The Current Perversion of John 8:1-11 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%208.1-11), (1999)
• Painter, John, A Response to 'Liar, Liar', (1999)
• Pink, Arthur, Exposition of the Gospel of John, (c. 1950)
• Quesnel, Pasquier, Epitome of the Morals of the Evangelists, (c. 1671)
• Robertson, A. T. , Word Pictures of the NT, (c. 1950)
• Samuel, Rabbi , Talmud, (c. 200 A.D.)
• Schneider, Matthew , Writing in the Dust..., (c. 1997)
• Stedman, Ray C. , Judging the Judges, (c. 1985)
• Stier, Rudolph Ewald, Reden Jesu, (1851)
• Wilson, A. W., A Study in Intrinsic Probability, (2004)

resurrected
January 30th, 2013, 11:01 AM
Good stuff Naz! :thumb:

HisServant
January 30th, 2013, 12:28 PM
An interesting discourse on a passage that most scholars believe is fictional and shouldn't be in the bible in the first place.

Lighthouse
January 30th, 2013, 02:53 PM
Is there a summation?

Is the conclusion that the Jesus did not condemn her because the Law did not allow it?

Nazaroo
January 30th, 2013, 05:14 PM
An interesting discourse on a passage that most scholars believe is fictional and shouldn't be in the bible in the first place.

And as usual most scholars are idiots,
which is why we have 40,000 page website on John 8:1-11 (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/),
demonstrating its authenticity.

Textual Critics for John 8:1-11


1675 J. Lightfoot (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Lightfoot.html)- hints at solution!
1707 J. Mill - coming soon
1710 Whitby - coming soon
1729 R. Bentley (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AC/Bentley-PA.html)- early collations
1734 J. Bengel - coming soon
1786 Matthaei - coming soon
1793 Dettmers - coming soon
1801 Michaelis (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AD/Michaelis-PA.html) brief examination
1806 Staudlin - coming soon
1807 P. Doddridge (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AF/Doddridge-PA.html)agrees with Mill new!
1816 Hug - coming soon
1825 A. Clarke (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AF/Clarke-PA.html) new! supports authenticity
1826 S. T. Bloomfield (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Bloomfield.html)a masterly defence!
1830 Scholz - coming soon
1842 W. Trollope (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Trollope.html)scholarly analysis
1856 T. H. Horne (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/horne.html)& Tregelles' tampering
1863 Hilgenfeld - coming soon
1864 F. L. Godet (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Godet.html)with modern footnotes
1865 Dr. F. Nolan (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Nolan.html)United Church minister
1870 S. Leathes (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/Boyle-PA.html) new!Integrity of John
1871 Lange (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/Lange-PA.html) new!John's Authenticity
1872 Dunwell (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/Dunwell-PA.html) with Scrivener/Burgon
1885 D. Thomas (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/Thomas-PA.html)quotes Farrar new!
1888 W. Kelly (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Kelly.html)Textual Commentary
1891 R. Harris (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AB/Harris-PA.html) 2nd cent. evidence: PA
1892 R. Harris (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AB/Harris-AlephB.html) PA: Lost Quire?
1892 S. Whitney (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AD/Whitney-PA.html) authentic tradition
1893 J. Robinson (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/Western-Robinson.html) Montanist Deletion new!
1894 F. H. A. Scrivener (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Scrivener.html)a balanced review
1896 J. Burgon (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Burgon.html)the classic defence!
1897 E. Miller (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/SUPLEM/Miller-TC-1897.html)2 opposing schools
1914 J. MacRory (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/MacRory.html) new! RC commentator
1925 C. Bushnell (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Bushnell.html)a famous defence
1956 W. Barclay (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/barclay.html)positive commentator
1966 R.E. Brown (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Brown.html)mixed signals
1979 Z. Hodges (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Hodges1979.html)great introduction!
1984 E. F. Hills (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Hills.html)strong evang. defence
1984 G.H. Clark (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AG/GHClark-PA.html)evidence, arguments
1997 W.L. Petersen (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Petersen.html)deep study: Prot.James
1999 F. N. Jones (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/SUPLEM/Jones.html)textual commentary
2006 D.Sutton (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AC/Sutton-PA.html)Syriac evidence
2008 C. Keith (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/SUPLEM/Keith.html) recent survey
2010 J.D. Punch (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AB/Punch1.html) more review soon!
2010 G. Davis (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AF/Davis-PA.html) new!traditional evidence




 Click here for Patristics (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/FATHERS/index.html) Page
 Click here for Opponents (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/DUMB/index.html) Page
 Click here for Internal Evidence (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/index.html) Page

Nazaroo
January 30th, 2013, 05:18 PM
Is there a summation?

Is the conclusion that the Jesus did not condemn her because the Law did not allow it?


One conclusion is that from the legal standpoint,
Jesus did exactly the right thing.

This also coincides with the N.T. ethical position,
that God allows forgiveness under the New Covenant.

Nazaroo
January 30th, 2013, 05:20 PM
INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR AUTHENTICITY

1826 S. T. Bloomfield (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Bloomfield.html)- a masterly defence!
1848 S. Davidson (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Davidson2.html)- linguistic claims refuted
1863 H. Alford (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Alford2.html)- reviewed by Nicolson
1886 J. Burgon (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Burgon-Internal.html)- int. evidence assessed
1896 J. Burgon (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Burgon.html)- the classic defence!
1900 H. Wendt (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/Wendt-PA.html)- More interpolations?
1912 E.R. Buckley (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AB/Buckley1912.html) - conflicting 'Lukan' evid.
1917 H. Cadbury (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Cadbury.html)- 'Lukan theory' weak...
1918 H. L. Jackson (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Jackson.html)- state of scholarship
1932 A. T. Robertson (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Robertson.html)- scholarly hari kari
1940 A. Pink (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Pink.html)- basic contextual evidence
1950 R. Heard (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Heard.html) methodology useless!
1966 A. Johnson (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Heard.html) a new stylistic trait found
1984 B. Witherington (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Witherington1.html)historical integrity
1994 J. P. Heil (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Heil1.html) internal evidence!
1997 M. Schneider (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Schneider.html) MORE internal evidence
1998 R. A. Culpepper (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Culpepper.html) NEW internal evidence!
1999 J. Staley (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AG/Staley-PA.html) Chiasm, Unity of ch 7-8 new!
2000 J. M. C. Scott (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/MScott2.html) MORE internal evidence
2007 A. W. Wilson (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Wilson.html) MORE internal evidence
2010 J.D. Punch (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AB/Punch1.html) - a thorough review! .

Lighthouse
January 30th, 2013, 06:22 PM
One conclusion is that from the legal standpoint,
Jesus did exactly the right thing.

This also coincides with the N.T. ethical position,
that God allows forgiveness under the New Covenant.
So you believe that letting people go free after they commit a crime and the requirements of the law are met is okay with God?

Nazaroo
January 30th, 2013, 09:28 PM
So you believe that letting people go free after they commit a crime and the requirements of the law are met is okay with God?

Yes.

According to the Holy Scriptures,

"Those OUTSIDE, God judges." , and

"Its a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God."

God did not give men the obligation to catch every criminal,
which is simply not possible at all without God.

God Himself has always judged men,
for example the cases of Cain, the first murderer,
and Absalom, traitor and usurper to the king.

God, first granted authority under the theocracy of Moses, (Exodus)
and later authority was extended by God to gentile governments. (cf. Romans)

God granted permission to men for limited participation in God's justice
providing that men are actually sincerely attempting to uphold
God's own laws and not Man's unauthorized alterations and negations.

"You shall neither stray to the right or left of the Law." (Pentateuch)

Most Christians recognize that the essential elements
and fundamental principles of the Law,
like the Ten Commandments (Exodus) and the Law of Two or more Witnesses
are still active obligations, in full force,
being repeated individually and collectively also in the New Testament.
Thus they appear as Christian obligations in the 39 Articles of CofE
and in the Westminster Confession.

Nothing in the New Testament indicates that God has stopped
carrying out His own justice on earth, on both sides of death,
as well as reserving for Himself a special Day of Judgment,
appointed to all men living and dead.

Of necessity, full justice cannot be meted out on earth in this life,
and of necessity, some crimes and sins will be forgiven men by God,
so we should not expect justice to be complete or perfect on earth.

We are warned in the Holy Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments)
that the appearance of injustice (see Proverbs and Job)
is an illusion, and justice is completed on the other side of death,
wherever appropriate.

The essential point is that men do not have the power,
nor the authority to fully replace God's own role as the Final
arbitrator of justice and mercy.

Especially for Christians, it is not our place to be more concerned with justice
than we are concerned with living the gospel and spreading it.
Christians trust by faith that both justice and mercy will be finally
appropriately handled by God under the rule of Jesus the Christ.

HisServant
January 31st, 2013, 06:03 AM
And as usual most scholars are idiots,
which is why we have 40,000 page website on John 8:1-11 (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/),
demonstrating its authenticity.

Textual Critics for John 8:1-11


1675 J. Lightfoot (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Lightfoot.html)- hints at solution!
1707 J. Mill - coming soon
1710 Whitby - coming soon
1729 R. Bentley (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AC/Bentley-PA.html)- early collations
1734 J. Bengel - coming soon
1786 Matthaei - coming soon
1793 Dettmers - coming soon
1801 Michaelis (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AD/Michaelis-PA.html) brief examination
1806 Staudlin - coming soon
1807 P. Doddridge (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AF/Doddridge-PA.html)agrees with Mill new!
1816 Hug - coming soon
1825 A. Clarke (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AF/Clarke-PA.html) new! supports authenticity
1826 S. T. Bloomfield (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Bloomfield.html)a masterly defence!
1830 Scholz - coming soon
1842 W. Trollope (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Trollope.html)scholarly analysis
1856 T. H. Horne (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/horne.html)& Tregelles' tampering
1863 Hilgenfeld - coming soon
1864 F. L. Godet (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Godet.html)with modern footnotes
1865 Dr. F. Nolan (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Nolan.html)United Church minister
1870 S. Leathes (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/Boyle-PA.html) new!Integrity of John
1871 Lange (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/Lange-PA.html) new!John's Authenticity
1872 Dunwell (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/Dunwell-PA.html) with Scrivener/Burgon
1885 D. Thomas (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/Thomas-PA.html)quotes Farrar new!
1888 W. Kelly (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Kelly.html)Textual Commentary
1891 R. Harris (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AB/Harris-PA.html) 2nd cent. evidence: PA
1892 R. Harris (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AB/Harris-AlephB.html) PA: Lost Quire?
1892 S. Whitney (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AD/Whitney-PA.html) authentic tradition
1893 J. Robinson (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/Western-Robinson.html) Montanist Deletion new!
1894 F. H. A. Scrivener (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Scrivener.html)a balanced review
1896 J. Burgon (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Burgon.html)the classic defence!
1897 E. Miller (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/SUPLEM/Miller-TC-1897.html)2 opposing schools
1914 J. MacRory (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/MacRory.html) new! RC commentator
1925 C. Bushnell (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Bushnell.html)a famous defence
1956 W. Barclay (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/barclay.html)positive commentator
1966 R.E. Brown (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Brown.html)mixed signals
1979 Z. Hodges (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Hodges1979.html)great introduction!
1984 E. F. Hills (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Hills.html)strong evang. defence
1984 G.H. Clark (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AG/GHClark-PA.html)evidence, arguments
1997 W.L. Petersen (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/TEXT/Petersen.html)deep study: Prot.James
1999 F. N. Jones (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/SUPLEM/Jones.html)textual commentary
2006 D.Sutton (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AC/Sutton-PA.html)Syriac evidence
2008 C. Keith (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/SUPLEM/Keith.html) recent survey
2010 J.D. Punch (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AB/Punch1.html) more review soon!
2010 G. Davis (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AF/Davis-PA.html) new!traditional evidence




 Click here for Patristics (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/FATHERS/index.html) Page
 Click here for Opponents (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/DUMB/index.html) Page
 Click here for Internal Evidence (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/index.html) Page

So.. the more people you can list that spout nonsense somehow makes your point more valid?

Really?

The FACT is that that section of scripture does not exist in the earliest copies of the manuscripts we have, across manuscript families. It was probably something a priest dreamed up for a sermon and wrote it in a margin, that a following scribe included in the body of text. It has a very different style from the rest of the book and is obviously from a different author than the rest of the book.

chair
January 31st, 2013, 09:32 AM
There is a long tradition of theoretical legal discussion in Judaism. A discussion of that nature would seem much more realistic to me.

The situation described, in which Jesus manages to stop a entire legal procedure by a simple argument, sounds far-fetched, to say the least.

Also, bear in mind that there is also a tradition that the death penalty was very rarely carried out by the Jewish court systems.

It is a good story, though. Makes Jesus look good, and the Pharisees look bad, which is what you want if you are trying to differentiate between your religion and the parent religion.

Nazaroo
January 31st, 2013, 12:17 PM
So.. the more people you can list that spout nonsense
somehow makes your point more valid?

Really?


Really?
What did you expect?
The passage has been discussed for 2000 years.
Should an investigator ignore all previous discussion?
Most fresh investigations begin with a review of previous work
and opinions on a topic.

No other method of investigation that I know of would be
taken seriously.

Do you have a better method than the standard practice?
Please tell us what it is.




The FACT is that that section of scripture does not exist in the earliest copies of the manuscripts we have, across manuscript families.
Yes. That is an interesting fact.
But when we examine this 'fact' in detail,
we can see its irrelevant to the question of the origin and dating
of the passage.

(1) The earliest semi-complete copy of a Bible is Codex Vaticanus. But this copy dates from the time of Constantine (c. 340 A.D.)

The contents and editing procedures however of this "Bible"
cannot be taken as reliable. Why?

(a) it was apparently commissioned by Constantine, as part of a project providing 50 'standardized' Bibles meant for use in major churches in the Empire. The project was supervised by Eusebius, but apparently the books and passages were deliberately selected on a partisan and agenda-driven basis.

(b) manuscripts like Vaticanus (1209) and Sinaiticus (Aleph) are clearly artificially edited productions, sponsored by the contemporary government (Roman Empire), and were produced at a time when textual variation (both accidental omissions and deliberate editing) had been in operation for some three centuries. Long before Constantine's time, churches in various parts of the Empire had diverging copies and different 'Canons' (i.e., they disagreed upon what books should be included in the NT).

(c) Vaticanus is also the earliest manuscript that contains the Gospel of Mark, but no one would claim that Mark was 'inserted' in the Canon in 310 A.D. In fact, internal evidence suggests Mark is the earliest Gospel, predating Luke and Matthew, and was in fact used by these later writers.

(d) Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are notorious also for their "Canon", which included many apocryphal O.T. books not recognised as Holy Scripture today by Protestants and even Anglicans, and also omitted whole books like Revelation.
The extant New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament) of Vaticanus contains the Gospels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels), Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles), the General Epistles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Epistles), the Pauline Epistles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Epistles) and the Epistle to the Hebrews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Hebrews) (up to Heb 9:14, καθα[ριει); thus it lacks 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Timothy) and 2 Timothy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Timothy), Titus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus), Philemon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Philemon) and Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation). These missing pages were replaced by a 15th century minuscule supplement (no. 1957).The the estimated original size, and order of the books seems to indicate
that the Catholic Epistles may not have been included in Vaticanus, while
Sinaiticus although it has the New Testament complete, has, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas) and a part of the Pastor of Hermas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd_of_Hermas), two books not recognised as scripture by any church today.

The FACT is, we don't have complete copies of ANY book of the NT predating the 3rd century. There are only a few papyri of individual books like John's gospel (nearly complete, but edited), all however coming from Egyptian outposts, not mainstream churches in the Empire.

The copies we have tell us more about contemporary church practices
than they do about the canon and the content of NT books.
They indicate the state of the text in the 3rd century was fluid and
still in flux, with local 'text-types' and editions sponsored by
popular teachers throughout the empire.

It is evident that plenty of editing according to personal preference
was being carried out at the time of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
One of the reasons Emperor Constantine sponsored his own edition,
was to attempt to force a standardized text upon the church,
in a way similar to how we received the King James Bible.





It was probably something a priest dreamed up for a sermon and wrote it in a margin, that a following scribe included in the body of text.
Now you present a fanciful hypothesis to support your theory
that the passage was inserted into the text.

But you have offered no evidence whatever to support your claim.
Such theories have been refuted many times in the past.





It has a very different style from the rest of the book and is obviously from a different author than the rest of the book.Finally, you are making out of date claims about stylisms
supposedly identified in the 19th century by early critics.

However, advances in modern linguistics have shown
that these claims are without merit.

Prof. R. Heard, M.A., M.B.E., M.C.
Cambridge U.
Examines past approaches to 'Internal Evidence' and finds them bankrupt. The methodology cannot distinguish between passages in John.
R. Heard (1950) on Jn 8:1-11 (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Heard.html) - new approaches needed

Ben Witherington
Compares the PA to authentic passages of Jesus' teaching in the Synoptics and finds its historical integrity as a tradition remains both intact and useful.
B. Witherington (1984) (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Witherington1.html) - Historical Intregrity of PA

John Paul Heil
Professor of New Testament, Curley Hall,
Catholic University of America,
Washington, DC: Shows strong connections to John's Gospel
J. P. Heil (1994) on John 8:1-11 (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Heil1.html) with new rejoinder

A.W. Wilson
examines both internal linguistic evidence,
and contextual evidence from John's Gospel:
A. W. Wilson (2006) on John 8:1-11 (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Wilson.html) (link)

J.D. Punch
- re-examines internal vocabulary evidence against the PA:
J.D. Punch (2010) on John 8:1-11 (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AB/Punch1.html) - thorough review

HisServant
January 31st, 2013, 12:22 PM
how about the fact that that passage appears in different portions of the Book of John?.. its location is not consistant?

Nazaroo
January 31st, 2013, 12:38 PM
There is a long tradition of theoretical legal discussion in Judaism. A discussion of that nature would seem much more realistic to me.

The situation described, in which Jesus manages to stop a entire legal procedure by a simple argument, sounds far-fetched, to say the least.


And at the same time, there actual examples of such cases in the Tanach,
from Genesis to Jeremiah.

The famous story of Solomon is believed to have been a historical event,
by most religious Jews.

Such remarkable events were recognized by tradition as the highest wisdom.




Also, bear in mind that there is also a tradition that the death penalty was very rarely carried out by the Jewish court systems.

The Talmudic traditions undoubtedly in many cases predate the time of Jesus,
and must be studied with care.
However, we also must recognize that the Talmud in its current form,
with accompanying commentaries was actually collected and composed
after 90 A.D., in the wake of the greatest Holocaust in Jewish history.
Much was lost, and much was reinterpreted in the face of the horrific
Roman/Jewish Wars and the competing Christian/Messiah Movement.

That having been said, the Talmud has continued to be recognized
as an authentic and authoritative source of early Jewish history, dogma,
law, and opinion for that era.





It is a good story, though. Makes Jesus look good, and the Pharisees look bad, which is what you want if you are trying to differentiate between your religion and the parent religion.Actually, this is not cut and dry at all.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of the authenticity of the passage,
is its ad hoc nature, its natural narrative, its shocking content,
and most of all its doctrinal ambiguity.

The fact that it has taken 2000 years to properly place the passage
in its real interpretive framework shows that it was not composed
overtly with any clear agenda in mind.

Jesus comes off not as "good" but as dangerously morally ambiguous
on the surface of the story, creating great difficulties for subsequent
interpreters of the passage, and indeed causing some to excise it
both from public reading schedules (Lectionary systems) and even
copies of the Gospel itself.

The over-villainizing of the Pharisees is a result of ongoing strife
and hostilities with Jewish communities not accepting the new revelation,
and also the tragic context of the Anti-Semitism of Europe in the
Middle Ages, combined with the later Nazi propagandizing of racism.

The original passage does not allow an honest over-villainizing interpretation.
The Jewish party clearly presents themselves as law-upholding under difficult
circumstances of occupation, as we have discussed in the first post.

Nazaroo
January 31st, 2013, 12:43 PM
how about the fact that that passage appears in different portions of the Book of John?.. its location is not consistent?

How about it?

The earliest manuscript that transposes the passage to another place
is from the 12th century, twelve centuries after the book was written.

It is easily accounted for by the fact that on the one hand,
someone had given the scribe of the archetype of Family 13
orders to leave out the passage, but the scribe knew of its existence,
and was so afraid of the curse in Rev. 22:18-19,
that he preserved a copy hidden in Luke, where
it would escape detection by his superiors, but
make it appear he followed orders when the manuscript was inspected.
Its not surprising that in this isolated outpost (Greek Peninsula),
a few more copies were made under the same regime
that gave the order.

This had no impact at all on the some 5,000 manuscript copies
in circulation at the time.

Lighthouse
January 31st, 2013, 02:00 PM
So you believe that letting people go free after they commit a crime and the requirements of the law are met is okay with God?

Yes.
Then you're a fool.

Allowing a murderer to go free is one of the most foolish things we could do; and to advocate for such, while claiming it's okay with God, or even what He wants, makes it even more so.

I hope you're smarter than this when you're standing before God.


According to the Holy Scriptures,

"Those OUTSIDE, God judges." , and

"Its a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God."

God did not give men the obligation to catch every criminal,
which is simply not possible at all without God.

God Himself has always judged men,
for example the cases of Cain, the first murderer,
and Absalom, traitor and usurper to the king.

God, first granted authority under the theocracy of Moses, (Exodus)
and later authority was extended by God to gentile governments. (cf. Romans)

God granted permission to men for limited participation in God's justice
providing that men are actually sincerely attempting to uphold
God's own laws and not Man's unauthorized alterations and negations.

"You shall neither stray to the right or left of the Law." (Pentateuch)

Most Christians recognize that the essential elements
and fundamental principles of the Law,
like the Ten Commandments (Exodus) and the Law of Two or more Witnesses
are still active obligations, in full force,
being repeated individually and collectively also in the New Testament.
Thus they appear as Christian obligations in the 39 Articles of CofE
and in the Westminster Confession.

Nothing in the New Testament indicates that God has stopped
carrying out His own justice on earth, on both sides of death,
as well as reserving for Himself a special Day of Judgment,
appointed to all men living and dead.

Of necessity, full justice cannot be meted out on earth in this life,
and of necessity, some crimes and sins will be forgiven men by God,
so we should not expect justice to be complete or perfect on earth.

We are warned in the Holy Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments)
that the appearance of injustice (see Proverbs and Job)
is an illusion, and justice is completed on the other side of death,
wherever appropriate.

The essential point is that men do not have the power,
nor the authority to fully replace God's own role as the Final
arbitrator of justice and mercy.

Especially for Christians, it is not our place to be more concerned with justice
than we are concerned with living the gospel and spreading it.
Christians trust by faith that both justice and mercy will be finally
appropriately handled by God under the rule of Jesus the Christ.
I think you just contradicted yourself.

Nazaroo
January 31st, 2013, 03:39 PM
Allowing a murderer to go free is one of the most foolish things we could do;

First you have to know that they are a murderer.

Only about 30% of murderers are 'solved' statistically.

Many murders have no viable suspects, let alone convincing evidence.

This means that mere suspicion of a crime, or innuendo,
or unexamined testimony or slander are not valid reasons
to hold someone 'guilty' or punish them.

The Biblical Law of Two Witnesses
requires two innocent trustworthy witnesses,
who are members of the Godly community.
Without those witnesses, the earthly courts under Moses
were required to let suspects go.

Today some 60% of murders are unsolvable.
I don't advocate increasing police budgets,
because this won't solve or prevent more murders.

In many ways, the modern predicament in modern cities
is the result of a whole society built upon sinful lifestyles.
Until those sinful lifestyles are stopped, murder and other crimes
will continue to be a major problem.

If you want real justice, you have to turn to God,
and God has already provided the channels of approach,
namely accepting the Gospel and obeying Christ.

If people are unwilling to accept the Gospel and obey Christ,
then they can expect no Divine protection by God from their fellow criminals.

Criminals, liars, thieves, adulterers and murderers
make lousy judges, courts, police, and governments.
Don't expect much when the bricks you use to make a society
are crap to begin with.

If you can prove someone is a murderer
according to the principles laid out in God's Law,
then by all means bring them to trial, convict them,
and hang them.

If you can't follow God's Law yourself,
don't bother trying to enforce it.

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2013, 12:19 PM
First you have to know that they are a murderer.

Only about 30% of murderers are 'solved' statistically.

Many murders have no viable suspects, let alone convincing evidence.

This means that mere suspicion of a crime, or innuendo,
or unexamined testimony or slander are not valid reasons
to hold someone 'guilty' or punish them.
:doh:

You clearly didn't read my post.

I asked If all the requirements of the law are met; i.e. their guilt is undeniable and God's commands are followed, is it okay with God to just let them go?


The Biblical Law of Two Witnesses
requires two innocent trustworthy witnesses,
who are members of the Godly community.
Without those witnesses, the earthly courts under Moses
were required to let suspects go.
I know that. You need to learn to read.


Today some 60% of murders are unsolvable.
I don't advocate increasing police budgets,
because this won't solve or prevent more murders.
How is that even relevant?


In many ways, the modern predicament in modern cities
is the result of a whole society built upon sinful lifestyles.
Until those sinful lifestyles are stopped, murder and other crimes
will continue to be a major problem.
No kidding.


If you want real justice, you have to turn to God,
and God has already provided the channels of approach,
namely accepting the Gospel and obeying Christ.

If people are unwilling to accept the Gospel and obey Christ,
then they can expect no Divine protection by God from their fellow criminals.

Criminals, liars, thieves, adulterers and murderers
make lousy judges, courts, police, and governments.
Don't expect much when the bricks you use to make a society
are crap to begin with.

If you can prove someone is a murderer
according to the principles laid out in God's Law,
then by all means bring them to trial, convict them,
and hang them.

If you can't follow God's Law yourself,
don't bother trying to enforce it.
So you are contradicting yourself or you failed to read what I actually posted.

genuineoriginal
February 1st, 2013, 01:31 PM
I asked If all the requirements of the law are met; i.e. their guilt is undeniable and God's commands are followed, is it okay with God to just let them go?
If all the requirements of the law are met, and the guilt is undeniable, the murderer will either be put to death or set free.

Deuteronomy 17:6
6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
God has no problem with letting the guilty go free from civil punishment for lack of witnesses.

Deuteronomy 21:7-8
7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.
8 Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2013, 01:53 PM
If all the requirements of the law are met, and the guilt is undeniable, the murderer will either be put to death or set free.

Deuteronomy 17:6
6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

God has no problem with letting the guilty go free from civil punishment for lack of witnesses.

Deuteronomy 21:7-8
7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.
8 Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.

If all the requirements of the law are met there will be two or three witnesses.:doh:

genuineoriginal
February 1st, 2013, 02:02 PM
If all the requirements of the law are met there will be two or three witnesses.:doh:
That is not the case in the woman caught in adultery.
There were no witnesses at the trial, and the woman was let go with nothing more than a warning.

Nazaroo
February 1st, 2013, 02:12 PM
The head of the party of Pharisees did not claim to be a witness.
His opening statement was only a summary of the case he believed
that they had against the woman.

His own testimony concerning the evidence is hearsay,
and has been recognized as invalid as a substitute
for living eyewitness testimony since the time of Daniel (cf. Susanna, Talmud).

Nazaroo
February 1st, 2013, 07:45 PM
If all the requirements of the law are met there will be two or three witnesses.:doh:

Got it.
Missed what you were saying first time around.

Agreed.
God's Law requires 2 or 3 (innocent) witnesses,
and if that requirement was met,
a trial should commence.
That is, if God was willing to recognize the authority
of a valid and operative Mosaic Theocracy,
even during the Occupation by the Romans.

However, given the belief by some Jews and Christians
that the Roman Occupation was itself a prophetic condition brought on
by national rebellion, the authority-claim of the Pharisee group
must be seriously examined before it is accepted.

Lighthouse
February 2nd, 2013, 03:16 PM
That is not the case in the woman caught in adultery.
There were no witnesses at the trial, and the woman was let go with nothing more than a warning.
I know this.



Got it.
Missed what you were saying first time around.

Agreed.
God's Law requires 2 or 3 (innocent) witnesses,
and if that requirement was met,
a trial should commence.
That is, if God was willing to recognize the authority
of a valid and operative Mosaic Theocracy,
even during the Occupation by the Romans.

However, given the belief by some Jews and Christians
that the Roman Occupation was itself a prophetic condition brought on
by national rebellion, the authority-claim of the Pharisee group
must be seriously examined before it is accepted.

:thumb:

Nazaroo
April 13th, 2014, 07:15 AM
That is not the case in the woman caught in adultery.
There were no witnesses at the trial, and the woman was let go with nothing more than a warning.


This isn't strictly correct as the text reads.
The implication of the initial statement by the Pharisee party
does imply they have or had witnesses, who have perhaps
already testified at a previous trial of the man;
(the man must always be put to death in case of adultery,
whereas the 'city/country law' allows the possibility of rape
or extortion or blackmail, and gives benefit of doubt to a woman's
innocence under a much stricter standard of evidence for guilt).

Secondly, you are assuming a trial, when what appears to have
happened is more like a preliminary hearing, in which charges
were dropped or stayed.

bybee
April 13th, 2014, 07:42 AM
Good post. I read through the whole thing. Every time I read this story I am touched by the simplicity of Jesus's words as He parses the situation. His resolution is unassailable. How can anyone doubt that God is at work here?
Love and forgiveness logically lead to the admonition "Go and sin no more"

Nazaroo
April 14th, 2014, 05:23 PM
Good post. I read through the whole thing. Every time I read this story I am touched by the simplicity of Jesus's words as He parses the situation. His resolution is unassailable. How can anyone doubt that God is at work here?
Love and forgiveness logically lead to the admonition "Go and sin no more"

Yes there is a certain inevitability to the unfolding of events, with Jesus present.

His power and authority over the whole situation is staggering in the end.

Nazaroo
February 20th, 2015, 05:54 PM
*bump* and I think we may see the same kind of intervention in the Last Days.

jamie
February 20th, 2015, 06:11 PM
The story of the woman who was alleged to have violated the commandment against adultery had to be let go. The Law of Moses is based on a presumption of innocence and requires two or more credible witnesses for a finding of guilty.

Nazaroo
February 21st, 2015, 08:52 AM
The story of the woman who was alleged to have violated the commandment against adultery had to be let go. The Law of Moses is based on a presumption of innocence and requires two or more credible witnesses for a finding of guilty.


Yes. A lot of people confuse the fact that Jesus acknowledged she was a sinner,
with the question of whether she had in fact committed adultery
as the Pharisees claimed.

Nazaroo
February 26th, 2015, 08:05 AM
Both the treatment of women, and their legal rights,
and the proper enforcement of the Law of Moses in the courts,
are very important issues for today,
at a time when large numbers of Muslims are attempting to
impose Sharia Law upon Western countries.

The critically important fact is that
Sharia Law is NOTHING LIKE Mosaic Law,
and Sharia Law does not protect women or the truth in any way.

On the contrary, Sharia Law today continues to find innocent women guilty,
and perpetrate horrific punishments on innocent people,
in the main because Sharia Law does not properly understand
nor does it carry out the Law of Moses.

The Law of Moses has critically important safeguards and protections
that ensure innocent people are not wrongfully convicted and punished,
whereas Sharia Law has no such safeguards, and is an unjust system.

Ben Masada
February 26th, 2015, 04:15 PM
Is there a summation?

Is the conclusion that the Jesus did not condemn her because the Law did not allow it?

No, I think the summation was because Jesus was a sinner too. Considering the case that, after writing on the sand Jesus said to the ready-to-throw-the-stones gang that the one who was without sin should throw the first stone, and they all left without doing what they had come for and Jesus asked the woman, "Where are your accusers?" And, as the woman answered, "They left, Master." Well, Jesus proceeded and said, neither do I accuse you. Go and sin no more. It means that the accusers left because they were sinners and so did Jesus by saying, "Neither do I accuse you." If the woman had asked, "Why?" Probably he would have said, "Because I am a sinner too. It would have made sense because, according to Eccles. 7:20, "There has never been a man upon earth to have done only good and never sinned." And Jesus was a man upon earth for 33 years of his life.

If you guys find hard to believe the above version of what happened, it was simply a parable because that was not the way the Sanhedrin worked. Besides, how could a married woman be so careless to be caught in the act? Then witnesses were needed and it seems that the whole gang had been. Yes, better take the whole thing as a parable.

Nazaroo
February 26th, 2015, 05:44 PM
No, I think the summation was because Jesus was a sinner too.


He must be, right?

Because a Godly saint is inconceivable to a jaded modern Jewish philosopher.


D58LpHBnvsI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58LpHBnvsI



Considering the case that, after writing on the sand Jesus said to the ready-to-throw-the-stones gang that the one who was without sin should throw the first stone, and they all left without doing what they had come for and Jesus asked the woman, "Where are your accusers?" And, as the woman answered, "They left, Master." Well, Jesus proceeded and said, neither do I accuse you. Go and sin no more. It means that the accusers left because they were sinners and so did Jesus by saying, "Neither do I accuse you."


So far so good.
Now it starts to get flakey:



If the woman had asked, "Why?" Probably he would have said, "Because I am a sinner too. It would have made sense because, according to Eccles. 7:20, "There has never been a man upon earth to have done only good and never sinned." And Jesus was a man upon earth for 33 years of his life.
Ah, no. The poetic expression in Ecclesiastes hardly deserves to be
applied universally for all time.

There have been plenty of sinless children born and died,
Jesuit nonsense notwithstanding.

And that lame line was penned long before Jesus, and hardly anticipated Him.

Finally, the whole of Ecclesiastes is certainly mis-attributed to Solomon,
or else he wrote it in his lapse into senility and awhoring,
(1,000 concubines was it? - clearly a man-whore was the aging Solomon.)

In any case, the jaded atheist who wrote Ecclesiastes was hardly inspired.

Another problem with 'Canonical' collections created by committee.

No doubt the dirty old Rabbis felt they had to include Song of Solomon as well,
seeing as literary porn was so rare in them days.




If you guys find hard to believe the above version of what happened, it was simply a parable because that was not the way the Sanhedrin worked. Besides, how could a married woman be so careless to be caught in the act?
Are you serious?

Do you have any experience with women at all?

Or has your Jewish grandmother instilled you with a superstitious fear
and awe that common sense and common knowledge cannot penetrate?

Are you really amazed that women, like the young men that jaded
whores entrap, could be so dumb?

Of course they can, friend.



Then witnesses were needed and it seems that the whole gang had been. Yes, better take the whole thing as a parable.Better to take your whole thing as a parable:

A parable of how disbelief in the obvious can make a 'scholar' such a fool.

musterion
February 26th, 2015, 05:49 PM
It is not a parable.

The woman was not brought before Him according to the Law, which they knew, and He knew they knew. It's really that simple.

Nazaroo
February 26th, 2015, 05:57 PM
It is not a parable.

The woman was not brought before Him according to the Law, which they knew, and He knew they knew. It's really that simple.

Finally, common sense.


Parables have morals and obvious proverbs.

This is an ambiguous and difficult incident,
which brands it authentic with a hot iron.

Ben Masada
February 27th, 2015, 03:28 PM
[quote]He must be, right?

Wrong! He must have been. The dead no longer can be any thing.


Because a Godly saint is inconceivable to a jaded modern Jewish philosopher.

That's not what Jesus said. He said that we (the Jews) understand what we worship. Hence, salvation comes from the Jews. (John 4:22)


There have been plenty of sinless children born and died,
Jesuit nonsense notwithstanding.

Jesuit perhaps but not Jewish. The personal responsibility as the Law is concerned starts in Judaism at 13 years old for the boy and 12 for the girl.


No doubt the dirty old Rabbis felt they had to include Song of Solomon as well, seeing as literary porn was so rare in them days.

Well, porno if you are a member of the literal interpretation club. Metaphorically, there is a lot to learn from the "Song of Songs."


Do you have any experience with women at all?

Married twice.


Are you really amazed that women, like the young men that jaded whores entrap, could be so dumb? Of course they can, friend.

Now, you are contradicting yourself. They would be dumb if they so carelessly exposed themselves to be caught in the act.

Lazy afternoon
February 27th, 2015, 06:11 PM
Adultery by Divorce!
"I would put the episode in a specific historical context:
Jesus had declared that a woman whose husband had divorced her and who remarried committed adultery (Matt 5,31-32; 19,3-9; Mark 10,2-9.)
The woman brought to Jesus was, I suggest, a remarried divorcée. By Jesus’ own claim she was thus an adulteress, but not for the Pharisees. Moses allowed divorce, Jesus forbade it (cf. Mark 10:11-12).
The trap of the Pharisees for Jesus was this: the law of Moses demanded death by stoning for an adulteress; Jesus claimed remarried divorcées were adulteresses though Moses did not, and neither did the Pharisees.
Would Jesus follow his argument to its logical conclusion and impose death on a remarried divorcée? The scribes and Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus very precisely to test him.

Not true according to better translations.

The practice of putting the women away without a legal divorce as under the law of Moses was the problem.

Jesus did not forbid lawful divorce.

If people are in Christ's Kingdom, it is another matter.

The idea that the accusers would come under conviction of sin, is false.

The whole story is an addition.

-

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.


Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.


Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one,

Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

because--

Act 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
Act 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

The Right to Remarry

With this in mind, let us proceed to study the law of remarriage. Deut. 24:2 (KJV) tells us,

2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

In other words, Moses, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives us the word of God, saying that remarriage after divorce is not a sin. The only stipulation that Moses gives is that she must have written proof in order to validate her divorce. Conversely, if she were put away without the evidence of a written divorce, she could not remarry, because by law she was still married to her first husband, even though her husband had sinned against her by sending her away without divorce papers.

Jesus commented upon this in Matt. 5:31, 32. The biggest hurdle that we all face is that many translators have not made a proper distinction between “divorce” (apostasion) and “put away” (apoluo), even though these are two separate acts, described by two distinct Greek words. For this reason, we must resort to quoting from Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, even though the language is somewhat archaic:

31 And it was said that whoever may put away [apoluo] his wife, let him give to her a writing of divorce [apostasion]; 32 but I—I say to you, that whoever may put away [apoluo] his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away [apoluo] doth commit adultery.

http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/deuteronomy-the-second-law-speech-7/chapter-1-divorce-and-remarriage/

Read the whole article.

LA

kayaker
February 27th, 2015, 10:47 PM
Nazaroo:

Well, when you don't know the truth... you confuse with facts exalting yourself. Jesus' temptation was to summon the dude she was caught in the act with. You stopped short of John 8:15 KJV in your OP. Jesus knew the Law. His own accusers knew the Law. Had Jesus summoned the adulterer, He would have invoked Judgment. Clean, clear, and simple. Btw... Jesus' indirectly convicted the hearts of her accusers writing their names in the dirt who likely tangoed with this likely temple harlot. You totally underestimate the power of Jesus' literal words, Nazaroo. Furthermore, Jesus didn't directly forgive the adulteress... He simply told her He didn't condemn her, and to go and sin no more. Had Jesus directly forgiven her, He would again have violated John 8:15 KJV. Two-edged sword.

kayaker

intojoy
February 27th, 2015, 11:14 PM
Side fact: this was the only case where the Jews challenged Yeshua with Mosaic Law. And it will be their last attempt.

Yeshua did not forgive the adultery. He simply let her go on a technicality because she was only brought before him by the Pharisees in an attempt to make him break the law. If Yeshua forgave her adultery then he would have been stoned to death by those in the group.

Perhaps it was one of the witnesses with her that committed adultery with her which eliminated him from throwing the first stone.

Simon Baker
February 27th, 2015, 11:18 PM
Nazaroo:

Well, when you don't know the truth... you confuse with facts exalting yourself. Jesus' temptation was to summon the dude she was caught in the act with. You stopped short of John 8:15 KJV in your OP. Jesus knew the Law. His own accusers knew the Law. Had Jesus summoned the adulterer, He would have invoked Judgment. Clean, clear, and simple. this Btw..Jesus' indirectly convicted the hearts of her accusers writing their names in the dirt who likely tangoed with likely temple harlot. You totally underestimate the power of Jesus' literal words, Nazaroo. Furthermore, Jesus didn't directly forgive the adulteress... He simply told her He didn't condemn her, and to go and sin no more. Had Jesus directly forgiven her, He would again have violated John 8:15 KJV. Two-edged sword.

kayaker

And Who Among Us Can Go And Sin No More ?

kayaker
February 27th, 2015, 11:29 PM
And Who Among Us Can Go And Sin No More ?

Least of all me! Yet, I proclaim the blood of One who is without sin!

kayaker

kayaker
February 27th, 2015, 11:41 PM
Side fact: this was the only case where the Jews challenged Yeshua with Mosaic Law. And it will be their last attempt.

Yeshua did not forgive the adultery. He simply let her go on a technicality because she was only brought before him by the Pharisees in an attempt to make him break the law. If Yeshua forgave her adultery then he would have been stoned to death by those in the group.

Perhaps it was one of the witnesses with her that committed adultery with her which eliminated him from throwing the first stone.

Appreciating your point, Intojoy... I might beg to differ that Jesus' accusers declared they were not born of fornication in John 8:41 KJV. Jesus held those accusers' feet to the fire. I proffer had Jesus identified the adulterer, who I propose were all those accusers guilty of being, the audience would have stoned the adulteress along with her accusers. I don't see Jesus forgiving her based on John 8:15 KJV. There's only one unique case where forgiveness was not based on the faith of those Jesus healed. Do you have any explicit scripture when Jesus directly said to a specific individual, "I forgive thee"? With that one exception of the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears, and dried His feet with her hair... all other cases Jesus acknowledged their faith made them whole. Where did Jesus actually directly say "I forgive thee" to a specific individual? He didn't directly forgive this adulteress on those same grounds. She never asked for forgiveness, btw.

kayaker

intojoy
February 28th, 2015, 12:49 AM
Don't worry about what scripture doesn't say. If you just focus on what it does say you will have a lifetime of learning.

kayaker
March 1st, 2015, 12:46 PM
Don't worry about what scripture doesn't say. If you just focus on what it does say you will have a lifetime of learning.

With sincere respect, intojoy... I don't "worry about what scripture doesn't say." I indeed start with what scripture says, and invariably wind up with countless questions exploring scripture. What was the explicit temptation of Jesus in the OP? To convict the adulteress? How is that fair? Who was she caught in the act with, and why aren't his naked buttocks in the hot seat? Why didn't Jesus summon the dude? What was Jesus actually writing in the ground? Is there some correlation with what Jesus wrote on the ground impacting the conscience of her accusers? Or, was Jesus writing on the ground some 'undesignated coincidence,' a Jewish expression suggesting the dots don't connect? Only One among the entire crowd was innocent. Why is there no scripture that Jesus directly forgave the adulteress? Why didn't she ask forgiveness? Why didn't Jesus say, "Thy sins be forgiven thee, go and sin no more"?

I tend to think we gloss over too much, intojoy! And, I don't surrender my God-given curiosity to any man or woman, while considering perspectives of others. Thank you for your advice.

kayaker

intojoy
March 1st, 2015, 03:44 PM
Couldn't control yourself could you G I mean K?

kayaker
March 1st, 2015, 11:12 PM
Couldn't control yourself could you G I mean K?

ROFLOL!!! Maybe you should consult almighty Dr. Frucktenheimer so you will know what to think, LOL! Messyain'tit crystallography...You totally crack me up, Intoyourself... does he let you live in his basement? Maybe outhouse, LOL! So, how about tendering your master's rendering of what happened in John 8:1-11 so we all might be so gloriously illuminated by your betrothed. Maybe Dr. Frucktenheimer's is longer than Nazaroo's, ROFLOL.

kayakityyacker

kayaker
March 2nd, 2015, 12:17 AM
Side fact: this was the only case where the Jews challenged Yeshua with Mosaic Law. And it will be their last attempt.

Yeshua did not forgive the adultery. He simply let her go on a technicality because she was only brought before him by the Pharisees in an attempt to make him break the law. If Yeshua forgave her adultery then he would have been stoned to death by those in the group.

Perhaps it was one of the witnesses with her that committed adultery with her which eliminated him from throwing the first stone.

Is that some of Frucktenheimer's magnificence? The adulteress never asked forgiveness. She was caught in the act, was she not? And, Dr. Frucktenheimer hasn't figured out that was Jesus' temptation, to summon the DUDE according to MOSAIC LAW that they BOTH be stoned? But, your master seems to think Jesus' temptation was to condemn JUST the adulteress? And, let HER off on a technicality? I think your boss is a few bricks short of a load on the Books of Moses. Did your master not get to John 8:15 KJV, either?

Your faith is in Dr. Frucktenheimer... and, once again... you're floundering in the Gulf. Jesus could summon a legion of angels... and, his majesty thinks Jesus was concerned about getting stoned to death? Seriously? But, you suggest I shouldn't worry about what's not written in the Bible? And do what, then? Listen to your master? He needs to brush-up on the Books of Moshe.

kayaker

dialm
March 2nd, 2015, 02:34 AM
Adultery is no longer punishable by death. The reason may be because of the power of Jesus. He refused to give the woman the death sentence. Whether or not the woman was a real person is not as important as the viewpoint of Christ. If Jesus had consented to her death then the penalty would be enforce today.

It is easy to believe that Jesus would forgive. But it is not so easy to believe that Jesus would have ever stoned her.

intojoy
March 2nd, 2015, 03:41 AM
Delicious

dialm
March 2nd, 2015, 05:01 AM
Yes intojoy it is a positive. That Jesus can countermand Moses. Not that Jesus always countermanded Moses but the Jesus is able to. This is power.

The woman taken in adultery can be any of us. The death sentence is a just end to all of us. Christ has the power to forgive our sins and Moses cannot touch us.

Oh praise His Holy name! That in the name of Jesus we can have fellowship with Our Father God in Heaven.

intojoy
March 2nd, 2015, 08:38 PM
We can not enter the kingdom of God without God's righteousness.
Duh
So whether or not God was big hearted enough to forgive the woman is the mis focused view shared by haymaker and others. It is irrelevant

Who's name do you pray in?
Is it in the name of kaymaker? And in Kaymaker's righteousness?

Why not?

kayaker
March 2nd, 2015, 10:17 PM
We can not enter the kingdom of God without God's righteousness.
Duh
So whether or not God was big hearted enough to forgive the woman is the mis focused view shared by haymaker and others. It is irrelevant

Who's name do you pray in?
Is it in the name of kaymaker? And in Kaymaker's righteousness?

Why not?

intoyourself... you know, I really think your probably a nice fellow. You can forgive the adulteress, I can forgive the adulteress, but our forgiveness or condemnation doesn't invoke eternal Judgment. Jesus' condemnation or forgiveness would have been eternal. Jesus could not preempt His Father's decision to invoke the end of flesh (Matthew 24:36 KJV), not for a single individual. Jesus had the divine knowledge and power to judge (John 8:16 KJV, John 8:26 KJV), He just wasn't given the authority to condemn or advocate AT THAT TIME. Had Jesus isolated the adulterer summoning him (more likely, THEM), Jesus would have invoked eternal Judgment upon that/those individual(s). Likewise, had Jesus directly forgiven the adulteress, He would have invoked eternal Judgment upon her.

You might want to go back and read up on Job. It was Job's sense of self-righteousness that got him in hot water. Human sense of righteousness doesn't hold a candle to the knowledge and wisdom of Almighty God. God's righteousness is seen through His Son (at least in the NT). Jesus didn't summon the adulterer(s) condemning him(them) to eternal damnation. And, Jesus didn't directly forgive the adulteress forgiving her to eternal salvation. So, when the end of flesh arrives, I'll make a special effort to ask the adulteress if she was forgiven, or only not condemned. I think "go and sin no more" speaks to the continuation of flesh life which proceeds until the end of flesh life.

So, pray tell, intoyourself, I never said God's forgiveness was relevant. Then, your rabbi thinks Jesus was concerned about Himself being stoned? And, he thinks Jesus let the adulteress off on a technicality? And, talk about MY sense of righteousness???


Yeshua did not forgive the adultery. He simply let her go on a technicality because she was only brought before him by the Pharisees in an attempt to make him break the law. If Yeshua forgave her adultery then he would have been stoned to death by those in the group.

Break what law, intoyourself? The law said BOTH the adulterer and adulteress were to be stoned. The technicality was for Jesus to summon the dude! Had Jesus summoned the dude, that dude would have been isolated, identified, and eternally judged. Furthermore, no one in the entire "group" was without sin except Jesus. And, you suggest they would have stoned Jesus? Do you and your Rabbi have authority to judge Jesus??? I think you're treading on thin ice over the deep blue sea! Had Jesus condemned or forgiven the adulteress, it would have been eternal... beam her up, Scottie! The technicality you and your rabbi guru are glossing over is the utterly stark absence of the dude she was caught IN THE ACT with. And, that's not my imagination, that's you and your master glossing over a documented fact... speaking of Mosaic Law. That is, unless her being caught IN THE ACT was some 'undesignated coincidence', spoken by uninspired Jews who cannot connect the dots.

It's not about my sense of righteousness, intoyourself. It's about Jesus following the command of His Father (John 8:15 KJV). Whether or not someone gets off on a technicality is God's decision, not you and your betrothed, rabbi. And, from what I read, I wouldn't bet on it. But, from what I hear... your rabbi has salvation gift-wrapped for you. If you don't like the gift when the fat lady sings... you can just tell God it was a technicality, and point your finger at your rabbi like Adam pointed his finger at Eve. For the time being, you'll be just fine in you and your rabbi's moot court conspiring technicalities in your sense of righteousness.

kayaker

intojoy
March 2nd, 2015, 10:42 PM
Lol

Nazaroo
March 3rd, 2015, 10:53 PM
The law said BOTH the adulterer and adulteress were to be stoned. The technicality was for Jesus to summon the dude! Had Jesus summoned the dude, that dude would have been isolated, identified, and eternally judged. .

Here again you haven't bothered to read the commentary.

The Law of Moses DOESN'T say both are to be stoned.

It says only the MAN is to be stoned,
unless one can prove the woman was also guilty,
and not raped, coerced or threatened or silenced into complicity.

For examples of this very danger being well-known,
just read the story of Susanna in the Greek version of Daniel.

It doesn't matter whether that story is 'canonical' or 'accepted' by
various sects of Jews or Christians.

The fact is, the story of Susanna was popular throughout the Middle East,
for 200 years before Jesus, and was included in the Septuagint (LXX),
and other translations like Aquinas and Theodotion.

Jesus was well aware of the story of Susanna, as were all Jews in His day.

The story establishes or tries to establish a case where a woman was
threatened, attempted extortion, and disbelieved, but proven to be innocent.

Women innocent of adultery (the charge in question) are released.

The other reason your interpretation has no weight, is because
its perfectly possible that the MAN is already dead, having been
stoned already without issue, since the MAN is ALWAYS put to death,
and no consultation with Jesus was necessary nor possible under the Law.

kiwimacahau
March 3rd, 2015, 11:28 PM
Actually most scholarly opinion hold this to have been an addition to the scriptures rather than original to the Gospel within which it appears.

kayaker
March 3rd, 2015, 11:56 PM
Here again you haven't bothered to read the commentary.

The Law of Moses DOESN'T say both are to be stoned.

It says only the MAN is to be stoned,
unless one can prove the woman was also guilty,
and not raped, coerced or threatened or silenced into complicity.

For examples of this very danger being well-known,
just read the story of Susanna in the Greek version of Daniel.

It doesn't matter whether that story is 'canonical' or 'accepted' by
various sects of Jews or Christians.

The fact is, the story of Susanna was popular throughout the Middle East,
for 200 years before Jesus, and was included in the Septuagint (LXX),
and other translations like Aquinas and Theodotion.

Jesus was well aware of the story of Susanna, as were all Jews in His day.

The story establishes or tries to establish a case where a woman was
threatened, attempted extortion, and disbelieved, but proven to be innocent.

Women innocent of adultery (the charge in question) are released.

The other reason your interpretation has no weight, is because
its perfectly possible that the MAN is already dead, having been
stoned already without issue, since the MAN is ALWAYS put to death,
and no consultation with Jesus was necessary nor possible under the Law.

Hey Nazarite! Glad you're back...


Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer AND the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Aren't you Nazarites into the law? Rather presumptuous that the man would already have been dead, don't think? If he were already dead, as in already stoned, then why wouldn't her accusers have stoned them both? Since she was caught in adultery... then, where were the witnesses? Don't tell me... the witnesses were ALSO guilty... as in their names were written in the ground. WHERE's the DUDE? Produce the body, Nazaroo, man of the law. Dead, or alive. You really give those 'Jewish' Pharisees a lot of credit! They'd have had a little better LEGAL case had BOTH the adulterer and adulteress been thrown before the crowd. And, you suggest the dude was dead? LOL! Did you not read John 8:15 KJV? John 8:16 KJV? John 8:26 KJV? I didn't think so. Did any of those extensive, verbose commentaries even mention those verses? I seriously doubt it. All just a bunch of Jerry Springer wanna bee's. Or, Judge Joe Brown's... Give me a break!

kayaker

Nazaroo
March 4th, 2015, 09:02 AM
Hey Nazarite! Glad you're back...

Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer AND the adulteress shall surely be put to death."Aren't you Nazarites into the law? Rather presumptuous that the man would already have been dead, don't think? If he were already dead, as in already stoned, then why wouldn't her accusers have stoned them both? Since she was caught in adultery... then, where were the witnesses? Don't tell me... the witnesses were ALSO guilty... as in their names were written in the ground. WHERE's the DUDE? Produce the body, Nazaroo, man of the law. Dead, or alive. You really give those 'Jewish' Pharisees a lot of credit! They'd have had a little better LEGAL case had BOTH the adulterer and adulteress been thrown before the crowd. And, you suggest the dude was dead? LOL! Did you not read John 8:15 KJV? John 8:16 KJV? John 8:26 KJV? I didn't think so. Did any of those extensive, verbose commentaries even mention those verses? I seriously doubt it. All just a bunch of Jerry Springer wanna bee's. Or, Judge Joe Brown's... Give me a break!

kayaker


ALREADY ANSWERED, in Post #1:




The Rape Law (Deut. 22:26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut.%2022.26),27 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut%2022.27))

In point of fact, the Pharisees had it wrong. Catching a woman in the act is not enough to put a woman to death: its only enough to put the man to death.
Even under O.T. Law (Torah), the establishment of the woman's guilt must take into account the possibility of rape:
"But you shall do nothing to the young woman;..."
the benefit of the doubt is given to her,
"that there is in her no sin worthy of death,..."
and it is taken for granted that,
"the betrothed young woman screamed,
and there was no one to save her."
(Deut. 22:26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut.%2022.26),27 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut%2022.27))

Jesus had every right to demand a lot more than just their word that they 'caught her in the act'. What was needed under the Law was clear evidence of her willing compliance in the act of fornication.
The so-called 'Rape-Law' is worded in such a way as to make this plain. The concern of the Law is the woman's willing complicity, and if there is no eye-witnesses or convincing circumstances that prove she willingly conspired with the man, she must be released, even though the man is put to death in any case.

The "country/city" clause in the Law has the obvious purpose of establishing common-sense conditions that protect a woman from both rape and the double-jeopardy of false accusations after the fact:
"If the young virgin was betrothed,
and a man...lays with her in the city,
...you shall stone them both to death...
but if in the countryside the man forces her,
then the man only shall die...
for she [obviously] cried out,
and there was no one to save her."
(Deut. 22:23-25 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut.%2022.23-25))

Even though 'technically' they might claim this woman was "in the city", such a literal interpretation of the Law would be a monstrous breach of its intent. Obviously it could not apply fairly to a mute woman or someone who was gagged, threatened with a knife, or even blackmailed, to name just a few examples.
The blind letter of the law can obviously kill. Above all, God always insists that judges exercise righteous judgement, and uphold the intent of the law, not look for loopholes.
Even putting all questions of compassion, mercy, and grace through repentance aside, Jesus would certainly demand that they "Judge not by mere appearance, but judge righteous (true) judgment." (Jn 7:24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Jn%207.24)).
Plainly, the woman could not be put to death without a thorough inquiry. There could be no 'off the cuff' ruling possible in these circumstances, in spite of the claims or wishes of the Pharisees and scribes. And without further evidence, the Law required the woman's release, guilty or not.


Due Process

Unfortunately, the Law did require a thorough inquiry.
Due process is required, of which it can be assumed the scribes and Pharisees were perfectly aware. This was of course maintained by practice and tradition.
Lynching of any kind is expressly forbidden (Exod. 23:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Exod.%2023.1),2 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Exod%2023.2)). The Pharisees had protected themselves from this charge by publicly acknowledging Jesus as a Teacher of the Law, calling him 'Didaskaleh' (Rabbi) (Isa 29:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Isa%2029.13)), and appealing for a Special Judgement under Deuteronomy 17:8-13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deuteronomy%2017.8-13).
This meant that they had to abide by Jesus' decision under penalty of death: and this was also in itself an admission that they lacked the necessary witnesses for a straightforward trial: For otherwise they could not stray to the right or left of the Law (Num. 20:17 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Num.%2020.17), 22:26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Num%2022.26), Deut.2:27 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut.2.27), 5:32 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut%205.32), 17:11-20 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut%2017.11-20), 28:14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deut%2028.14)).
This brought everyone present under Deuteronomy 19:18-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Deuteronomy%2019.18-19), which commanded Jesus as Judge to make a full inquiry and punish false witnesses with the sentence intended for their victim, in this case the death penalty.
Jesus certainly had the sympathy and control of a large part of the crowd, and the situation was not without danger for the scribes and Pharisees also.
- Nazaroo

"I believe it would be generally accepted that the episode has never been adequately explained.
Why was the woman brought by the Pharisees and scribes to Jesus? We are told that it was "to try him" or "to tempt him". What can this mean?


What Was the Real Trap?

The usual explanation is that this is connected with the Sanhedrin’s loss of power to inflict the death penalty. I am not convinced that the Romans had taken from the Sanhedrin the power to impose the penalty of death, but let us take the worst case scenario for me and assume they had.
The argument is, I suppose, that if Jesus said the woman should be stoned, then he would offend the Romans, and be in danger.
This approach to the issue I find unconvincing. Why on earth would the Romans be angered if Jesus, a private individual, claimed that an adulteress should be stoned? He would not even be insisting that a verdict of the Sanhedrin should be enforced. There had been none.
Even more to the point, on this approach the Pharisees are putting themselves, not Jesus, at risk with the Romans. It is they who claim that the law of Moses that they follow imposes the penalty of death by stoning. They even said "Moses commanded us (ημιν) to stone such women". The supposed scenario and its explanation are entirely implausible."
- Alan Watson


The Other Adulterer: Where is He?

Another important question is often raised by commentators, namely, Where is the man? It obviously takes two to commit adultery (or at least fornication: see Matt. 5:27-28 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt.%205.27-28)!).
The question is good, but how it is handled usually isn't: It is used as 'evidence' that the scribes and Pharisees are either guilty of hypocrisy or some more heineous crime, like entrapment or that they are guilty of adultery themselves.
To make such an accusation on such flimsy evidence however, is exactly what we are NOT supposed to do, according to the Lord (John 7:24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%207.24) for instance!), nor would it be admissable in a courtroom.
Nor should the absence of the man be grounds for doubt regarding the historical accuracy of the passage. There can be many good explanations for his absence. Derrett has made an elaborate case supporting the idea that the trial was already finished, and the Pharisees were on their way from there to the stoning.
Other possibilities should be considered. They may have already stoned the man or killed him in the process of 'arrest' (...especially if the husband had caught them, this would be a common enough circumstance!). His guilt was certain if caught in the act. Only the woman need be brought before Jesus for an opinion.


This Bird has Flown...

The most obvious possibility of all, is that the man fled, escaping his discoverer. He need not be stronger, only faster, and it is far easier for a suspect to flee a scene than for an opponent to secure him. The adulterer would have the advantage and be on the lookout for discovery. An unsuspecting husband would have no such warning. The woman, with fewer options and resources, would be far easier to catch.
Again, if they had taken the case to the Romans, they may have taken the prisoner themselves for whipping or prison, but declined to process the woman, turning her back to them for punishment.
The Romans had no death penalty for adultery, and might have simply commanded that she be flogged by the Jews. Once free of the watchful Roman eye, they would proceed their own way.
In the end, the absence of the man is a significant fact that would require an explanation, and also further inquiry before sentencing the girl. But its not one that necessarily incriminates the Pharisees and scribes. Commentators frequently push this too far.

- Nazaroo

intojoy
March 4th, 2015, 11:25 AM
Actually most scholarly opinion hold this to have been an addition to the scriptures rather than original to the Gospel within which it appears.


Yea that's heresy

kiwimacahau
March 4th, 2015, 11:34 AM
Yea that's heresy

No, actually, that is not.

resodko
March 4th, 2015, 11:59 AM
Yea that's heresy



never heard this before traci (tracer bullet) started spreading the lie

Nazaroo
March 4th, 2015, 12:16 PM
For evidence on the Authenticity of John 7:53-8:11,
you can go to this thread:

The Internal Evidence for John 7:53-8:11 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108100)
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108100


For abundant evidence that textual critics have only mutilated the Bible,
and have not restored the text at all in modern versions, go to this thread:

Stupid Gaffs in the UBS Greek Text - Haplography (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59944)
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59944

HisServant
March 4th, 2015, 12:40 PM
For evidence on the Authenticity of John 7:53-8:11,
you can go to this thread:

The Internal Evidence for John 7:53-8:11 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108100)
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108100


For abundant evidence that textual critics have only mutilated the Bible,
and have not restored the text at all in modern versions, go to this thread:

Stupid Gaffs in the UBS Greek Text - Haplography (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59944)
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59944

Face it... your judgement on this is a matter of FAITH instead of sound textual criticism... as I can pull up just as many 'experts' that disagree with your 'experts' on this subject.

Yet, you seem to expend a lot of time and effort on an issue that is pretty much immaterial to the lives of every day Christians... in essence, you are aiding the enemy.

Anyhow.. go about squabbling over gnats and beating your chest... unless the Holy Spirit enlightens you, you will continue to remain belligerent on this subject.

Good luck!

Nazaroo
March 4th, 2015, 01:43 PM
Face it... your judgement on this is a matter of FAITH instead of sound textual criticism... as I can pull up just as many 'experts' that disagree with your 'experts' on this subject.


If you are saying that counting critics is useful,
I would suggest you don't really know what sound criticism is.

Counting critics is no better than counting manuscripts.
Both principles are naive and unscientific.

I have built a 40,000 page website on the Authenticity of John 8:1-11.

On that site, I gave a very fair hearing to every critic who opposed
the authenticity of these verses.

All of them got to speak their mind, present their ideas,
offer their arguments, in an open forum of criticism and comparison.

The opponents to authenticity came up empty.

For you to suggest that we did not give every worthy and credible opponent
a full opportunity to present their case, is simply mistaken.

We DID not only present their arguments IN FULL,
we also cross-referenced and footnoted and corrected facts,
and presented the views of their own opponents and friends.

We OPENLY LEAVE ALL the arguments and evidence ON OUR SITE HERE:

Opponents to the Authenticity of John 8:1-11 (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/index.html)
http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/index.html

For you to suggest we have failed to consider all the evidence
alleged to be against these verses is simply dishonest and disengenious.

In case you are having trouble locating all the opponents of authenticity,
here are detailed links to our onsite presentations:


19th Century Opponents (and earlier)


1598T. Beza (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Beza-PA.html) new! mistaken doubts
1836A Tholuck (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Tholuck-PA.html) new!Authentic, but insertion
1848S. Davidson (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Davidson.html) Pt ITextual Evidence
S. Davidson (http://pericopedeadultera.org/INT-EV/Davidson2.html) Pt IILinguistic Evidence
1848J. S. Porter (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Porter.html) textual evidence
1852C.Luthardt (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Luthardt-PA.html) new! "looks synoptic"
1854S. P. Tregelles (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Tregelles2.html) textual evidence
1863H. B. Alford (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Alford.html) Pt I textual evidence
H. B. Alford (http://pericopedeadultera.org/INT-EV/Alford2.html) Pt IINicolson's review
1865Hengstenberg (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Hengstenberg-PA.html) pious forgery?
1866 H. Olshausen (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AD/Olshausen-PA.html) & Kendrick new!
1872 J.B. Lightfoot (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Lightfoot-1882.html) selling the RV
1875 H. Meyer (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Meyer.html) blinded by text.evid.
1883 A. Edersheim (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Edersheim.html) old historicity args.
1886 Schaff (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Schaff.html) selling RV again
1887 B.B. Warfield (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Warfield-Haplography.html) implausible proposal
1891 B. F. Westcott (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Westcott-RV.html) distances himself
1893 J. Lias (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AD/Lias-PA.html) new! buys into Hort 1895
J. MacLean (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AF/MacLean-JohnStyle.html#r08) new! standard fare 1896
F. J. A. Hort (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Hort.html) Pt. I Textual Evidence
F. J. A. Hort (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/index.html) Pt. II (coming soon)
F. J. A. Hort (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Hort3.html) Pt. III Overview & notes
1898W.Milligan (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Milligan-PA.html) new! party line


20th Century Opponents of PA 1901

Nestle (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Nestle.html) self-promotion
1902A. Plummer (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Plummer-PA.html) 80 variants? new!
1908Schmiedel (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Schmiedel.html) doesn't know John
1909T. Zahn (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Zahn.html) inadequate treatment
1921G.H. Box (http://pericopedeadultera.org/COMM/BoxOnLaw.html) damage control?
1930Streeter (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Streeter.html) confused & footnoted
1957R.H. Lightfoot (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Lightfoot1.html) a sales pitch
1960R.B. Ward (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AD/Ward-PA.html) new! 3 source theories
1965U. Becker (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Becker.html) oft cited dismissal
1971B. Metzger (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Metzger.html) propaganda piece
1984G. Burge (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/burge.html) same old claims refuted
1989P.Comfort (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AG/Comfort-PA.html) new!Hortian nonsense
1993G. D. Fee (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/WhyHort.html) Why Hort's text?
1995L. Morris (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Morris.html) out of date fluff
1995J. White (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AG/Boyd-on-White.html) new!falsifying evidence
1997D. Parker (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Parker.html) unscientific trash
1998B. Terry (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Terry.html) Metzgerism defined

21st Century Opponents of PA

2000R. Rayburn (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AG/Rayburn-PA.html) new!deceived by scholars
2001W. H. Harris (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Harris.html) see NETBIBLE (2007)
2002S. Wagner (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Wagner.html) amateur refuted
2002S. Harstine (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Harstine.html) disappointing drivel
2002D. A. Carson (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/DACarson.html) admits shady argument
2003J.P. Holding (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AF/Holding-PA.html)"looseleaf" by Luke?
2004M. Marlowe (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Marlowe1.html) trying to dump St. Aug.
2006B. Ehrmann (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Ehrmin.html) wild deception
2007A.Criddle (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AB/Criddle-PA.html) modifying Ehrman
2007NETBIBLE (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/NETBIBLE-JN8.html) borrowed from Harris!
2007D. Wallace (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Wallass.html) seeking co-dependants
2007Zervos (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Zervos.html) foreign source for PA?
2007Rius-Camps (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AC/Rius-Camps-PA-2007.html) new! not Luke, but Mark?
2008Christianity Today (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/CTApr2008.html) Wallace's mouthpiece



  Supplementary Articles

Unitarians & Modern Versions (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AA/Unitarians.html) 15 Unitarian Textual Critics new!
Clumsy Commentators on John 8:1-11 (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/commentators.html) 8 fumbles: 0 scores
C. W. Hodge (1880) on Textual Critics (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Hodge.html) textual critics before the RV.
H. Osgood (1887) on 'scientific' Criticism (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Osgood.html) Jesus vs.19th cent. Criticism
D. Wallace (2010) Conspiracy Theory (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Wallace-Conspiracy.html) - Hortian Propaganda...new!


  Selected Opponents

A textual critic 'cites' a part of Origen's commentary that doesn't exist, to support his argument against John 8:1-11! In passing, he also dismisses internal evidence against the passage.
Tregelles (1854) on John 8:1-11 (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Tregelles2.html) textual evidence


The most commonly quoted statement against the authenticity of John 8:1-11 is shown to be an unscientific and inaccurate bit of propaganda.
B. Metzger (1971) on John 8:1-11 (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Metzger.html) ANNOTATED


A self-confessed "agnostic" engages in a campaign of disinformation against the verses so as to discredit the Bible, but is caught repeatedly lying and perpetrating a deception, on National TV and Radio.
Ehrmann (2006) on John 8:1-11 (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Ehrmin.html) propaganda engine



We are certainly not afraid to expose ALL the Evidence in FULL
to the light of examination by any reasonable person.






Yet, you seem to expend a lot of time and effort on an issue that is pretty much immaterial to the lives of every day Christians... in essence, you are aiding the enemy.
Christians are able to determine for themselves what is 'immaterial'.
Many Christians are concerned whether or not
accusations that other Christians have added whole sections
to the New Testament are true or false.

Any Christian should be concerned about additions or deletions
from the word of God
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.…
(Rev. 22:18-19 )


These are serious warnings about tampering with the word of God.

I suggest you let Christians determine whether this is important,
and whether such passages as John 8:1-11 are original or not.


You made a remarkable and yet obfuscating accusation, without evidence.

I am happy to rely upon the word of God in this matter:

Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow,
an undeserved curse does not come to rest.
Proverbs 26:2




Anyhow.. go about squabbling over gnats and beating your chest... unless the Holy Spirit enlightens you, you will continue to remain belligerent on this subject.

Good luck!More accusations and personal slanders.
Why?
The Devil is known as an accuser.
I think we can guess what spirit is motivating your attacks.

I believe in God and Jesus, so I won't be relying upon "luck".

No thanks, but thanks for exposing your own state of mind.

HisServant
March 4th, 2015, 01:54 PM
If you are saying that counting critics is useful,
I would suggest you don't really know what sound criticism is.

Counting critics is no better than counting manuscripts.
Both principles are naive and unscientific.

I have built a 40,000 page website on the Authenticity of John 8:1-11.

On that site, I gave a very fair hearing to every critic who opposed
the authenticity of these verses.

All of them got to speak their mind, present their ideas,
offer their arguments, in an open forum of criticism and comparison.

The opponents to authenticity came up empty.

For you to suggest that we did not give every worthy and credible opponent
a full opportunity to present their case, is simply mistaken.

We DID not only present their arguments IN FULL,
we also cross-referenced and footnoted and corrected facts,
and presented the views of their own opponents and friends.

We OPENLY LEAVE ALL the arguments and evidence ON OUR SITE HERE:

Opponents to the Authenticity of John 8:1-11 (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/index.html)
http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/index.html

For you to suggest we have failed to consider all the evidence
alleged to be against these verses is simply dishonest and disengenious.

In case you are having trouble locating all the opponents of authenticity,
here are detailed links to our onsite presentations:


19th Century Opponents (and earlier)


1598T. Beza (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Beza-PA.html) new! mistaken doubts
1836A Tholuck (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Tholuck-PA.html) new!Authentic, but insertion
1848S. Davidson (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Davidson.html) Pt ITextual Evidence
S. Davidson (http://pericopedeadultera.org/INT-EV/Davidson2.html) Pt IILinguistic Evidence
1848J. S. Porter (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Porter.html) textual evidence
1852C.Luthardt (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Luthardt-PA.html) new! "looks synoptic"
1854S. P. Tregelles (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Tregelles2.html) textual evidence
1863H. B. Alford (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Alford.html) Pt I textual evidence
H. B. Alford (http://pericopedeadultera.org/INT-EV/Alford2.html) Pt IINicolson's review
1865Hengstenberg (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Hengstenberg-PA.html) pious forgery?
1866 H. Olshausen (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AD/Olshausen-PA.html) & Kendrick new!
1872 J.B. Lightfoot (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Lightfoot-1882.html) selling the RV
1875 H. Meyer (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Meyer.html) blinded by text.evid.
1883 A. Edersheim (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Edersheim.html) old historicity args.
1886 Schaff (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Schaff.html) selling RV again
1887 B.B. Warfield (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Warfield-Haplography.html) implausible proposal
1891 B. F. Westcott (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Westcott-RV.html) distances himself
1893 J. Lias (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AD/Lias-PA.html) new! buys into Hort 1895
J. MacLean (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AF/MacLean-JohnStyle.html#r08) new! standard fare 1896
F. J. A. Hort (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Hort.html) Pt. I Textual Evidence
F. J. A. Hort (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/index.html) Pt. II (coming soon)
F. J. A. Hort (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Hort3.html) Pt. III Overview & notes
1898W.Milligan (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Milligan-PA.html) new! party line


20th Century Opponents of PA 1901

Nestle (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Nestle.html) self-promotion
1902A. Plummer (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Plummer-PA.html) 80 variants? new!
1908Schmiedel (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Schmiedel.html) doesn't know John
1909T. Zahn (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Zahn.html) inadequate treatment
1921G.H. Box (http://pericopedeadultera.org/COMM/BoxOnLaw.html) damage control?
1930Streeter (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Streeter.html) confused & footnoted
1957R.H. Lightfoot (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Lightfoot1.html) a sales pitch
1960R.B. Ward (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AD/Ward-PA.html) new! 3 source theories
1965U. Becker (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Becker.html) oft cited dismissal
1971B. Metzger (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Metzger.html) propaganda piece
1984G. Burge (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/burge.html) same old claims refuted
1989P.Comfort (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AG/Comfort-PA.html) new!Hortian nonsense
1993G. D. Fee (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/WhyHort.html) Why Hort's text?
1995L. Morris (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Morris.html) out of date fluff
1995J. White (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AG/Boyd-on-White.html) new!falsifying evidence
1997D. Parker (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Parker.html) unscientific trash
1998B. Terry (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Terry.html) Metzgerism defined

21st Century Opponents of PA

2000R. Rayburn (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AG/Rayburn-PA.html) new!deceived by scholars
2001W. H. Harris (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Harris.html) see NETBIBLE (2007)
2002S. Wagner (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Wagner.html) amateur refuted
2002S. Harstine (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Harstine.html) disappointing drivel
2002D. A. Carson (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/DACarson.html) admits shady argument
2003J.P. Holding (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AF/Holding-PA.html)"looseleaf" by Luke?
2004M. Marlowe (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Marlowe1.html) trying to dump St. Aug.
2006B. Ehrmann (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Ehrmin.html) wild deception
2007A.Criddle (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AB/Criddle-PA.html) modifying Ehrman
2007NETBIBLE (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/NETBIBLE-JN8.html) borrowed from Harris!
2007D. Wallace (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Wallass.html) seeking co-dependants
2007Zervos (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Zervos.html) foreign source for PA?
2007Rius-Camps (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AC/Rius-Camps-PA-2007.html) new! not Luke, but Mark?
2008Christianity Today (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/CTApr2008.html) Wallace's mouthpiece



  Supplementary Articles

Unitarians & Modern Versions (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AA/Unitarians.html) 15 Unitarian Textual Critics new!
Clumsy Commentators on John 8:1-11 (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/commentators.html) 8 fumbles: 0 scores
C. W. Hodge (1880) on Textual Critics (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Hodge.html) textual critics before the RV.
H. Osgood (1887) on 'scientific' Criticism (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Osgood.html) Jesus vs.19th cent. Criticism
D. Wallace (2010) Conspiracy Theory (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Wallace-Conspiracy.html) - Hortian Propaganda...new!


  Selected Opponents

A textual critic 'cites' a part of Origen's commentary that doesn't exist, to support his argument against John 8:1-11! In passing, he also dismisses internal evidence against the passage.
Tregelles (1854) on John 8:1-11 (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Tregelles2.html) textual evidence


The most commonly quoted statement against the authenticity of John 8:1-11 is shown to be an unscientific and inaccurate bit of propaganda.
B. Metzger (1971) on John 8:1-11 (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Metzger.html) ANNOTATED


A self-confessed "agnostic" engages in a campaign of disinformation against the verses so as to discredit the Bible, but is caught repeatedly lying and perpetrating a deception, on National TV and Radio.
Ehrmann (2006) on John 8:1-11 (http://pericopedeadultera.org/DUMB/Ehrmin.html) propaganda engine



We are certainly not afraid to expose ALL the Evidence in FULL
to the light of examination by any reasonable person.




Christians are able to determine for themselves what is 'immaterial'.
Many Christians are concerned whether or not
accusations that other Christians have added whole sections
to the New Testament are true or false.

Any Christian should be concerned about additions or deletions
from the word of God
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.…
(Rev. 22:18-19 )


These are serious warnings about tampering with the word of God.

I suggest you let Christians determine whether this is important,
and whether such passages as John 8:1-11 are original or not.


You made a remarkable and yet obfuscating accusation, without evidence.

I am happy to rely upon the word of God in this matter:

Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow,
an undeserved curse does not come to rest.
Proverbs 26:2


More accusations and personal slanders.
Why?
The Devil is known as an accuser.
I think we can guess what spirit is motivating your attacks.

I believe in God and Jesus, so I won't be relying upon "luck".

No thanks, but thanks for exposing your own state of mind.

So you built a 40,000 page website on nonsense... i guess congratulations on the largest waste of time in the history of the world is in order.

There is only one person in the world that I know would encourage such a colossal waste of time... and it isn't Jesus.

Maybe you should examine your motives and lack of critical thinking and time management... God has only given you one life to live and you have spent your time on this?.. what a waste.

Nazaroo
March 4th, 2015, 02:21 PM
So you built a 40,000 page website on nonsense... i guess congratulations on the largest waste of time in the history of the world is in order.



And you have spent so little time, and been so ineffective
in refuting our position, ...

I guess congratulations on the largest internet premature ejaculation
in the history of TOL is in order.

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMy1hNDZlNTE3NjRjZDE2ODQ3.png



There is only one person in the world that I know
... and it isn't Jesus.
I can agree wholeheartedly with you here.

http://makeameme.org/media/created/excuse-me-sir-t476nn.jpg



Maybe you should examine your motives and lack of critical thinking and time management...
Can you show me some examples of your critical thinking?

You must be a great teacher.

I'm hoping for a lesson from you soon.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f9/f6/2f/f9f62f0023ce93a49af2e77932849114.jpg



God has only given you one life to live and you have spent your time on this?.. what a waste.

http://www.laurenwakefieldphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/time-wasted.jpg

musterion
March 4th, 2015, 02:33 PM
Well this thread got weird.

Nazaroo
March 4th, 2015, 02:43 PM
Maybe you should examine your motives and ...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-U854Waf1rEQ/VPduINNVrGI/AAAAAAAAHiU/qe8I6so3Nmg/s1600/batmanmotive.jpg

intojoy
March 4th, 2015, 03:43 PM
No, actually, that is not.


Yea it is cause it leaves room for discrediting the infallibility of scripture.

You obviously have a missing link called Israelology

HisServant
March 4th, 2015, 03:47 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-U854Waf1rEQ/VPduINNVrGI/AAAAAAAAHiU/qe8I6so3Nmg/s1600/batmanmotive.jpg

Thank you for admitting you lost... and have no ground to stand on.

It was much appreciated watching you resort to such childish things since you know you have nothing else to offer.

Also.. thanks for outing yourself as a troll..

https://alexshye.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/they-see-me-trollin-trollin-hatin-internet-troll-demotivational-poster-1284530427-jpg.png

Nazaroo
March 4th, 2015, 03:55 PM
Actually most scholarly opinion hold this to have been an addition to the scriptures rather than original to the Gospel within which it appears.


Unfortunately, this is a sad piece of DISINFORMATION of little use
to Christian readers.

Scholars are about equally divided on the issue if we are counting heads.

Conservative Roman Catholics are committed to it as Holy Scripture.

Conservative Protestants also hold it to be original.

Liberal scholars, agnostics, university professors all reject it to varying degrees,
and for various reasons.

Here is a list of the scholars in all periods (18th, 19th, 20th, 21st centuries)
who upheld the authenticity and inspiration of the passage.



Textual Critics for John 8:1-11

1675 J. Lightfoot (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Lightfoot.html)- hints at solution!
1707 J. Mill - coming soon
1710 Whitby - coming soon
1729 R. Bentley (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AC/Bentley-PA.html)- early collations
1742 J. Bengel (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AH/BENGEL-GNOMON.html) new! - (Eng.xlat-1877)
1786 Matthaei - coming soon
1793 Dettmers - coming soon
1801 Michaelis (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AD/Michaelis-PA.html) brief examination
1806 Staudlin - coming soon
1807 P. Doddridge (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AF/Doddridge-PA.html) agrees with Mill new!
1816 Hug - coming soon
1825 A. Clarke (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AF/Clarke-PA.html) new! supports authenticity
1826 S. T. Bloomfield (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Bloomfield.html) a masterly defence!
1830Scholz - coming soon
1842 W. Trollope (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Trollope.html) scholarly analysis
1856 T. H. Horne (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/horne.html) & Tregelles' tampering
1863 Hilgenfeld - coming soon
1864 F. L. Godet (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Godet.html) with modern footnotes
1865 Dr. F. Nolan (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Nolan.html) United Church minister
1870 S. Leathes (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Boyle-PA.html) new!Integrity of John
1871 Lange (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Lange-PA.html) new!John's Authenticity
1872 Dunwell (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Dunwell-PA.html) with Scrivener/Burgon
1885 D. Thomas (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Thomas-PA.html) quotes Farrar new!
1888 W. Kelly (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Kelly.html)Textual Commentary
1891 R. Harris (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AB/Harris-PA.html) 2nd cent. evidence: PA
1892 R. Harris (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AB/Harris-AlephB.html) PA: Lost Quire?
1892 S. Whitney (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AD/Whitney-PA.html) authentic tradition
1893 J. Robinson (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Western-Robinson.html) Montanist Deletion new!
1894 F. H. A. Scrivener (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Scrivener.html)a balanced review
1896 J. Burgon (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Burgon.html) the classic defence!
1897 E. Miller (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Miller-TC-1897.html)2 opposing schools
1914 J. MacRory (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/MacRory.html) new! RC commentator
1925 C. Bushnell (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Bushnell.html)a famous defence
1956 W. Barclay (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/barclay.html)positive commentator
1966 R.E. Brown (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Brown.html)mixed signals
1979 Z. Hodges (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Hodges1979.html) great introduction!
198 E. F. Hills (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Hills.html) strong evang. defence
1984 G.H. Clark (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AG/GHClark-PA.html) evidence, arguments
1997 W.L. Petersen (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Petersen.html) deep study: Prot.James
1999 F. N. Jones (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Jones.html) textual commentary
2006 D.Sutton (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AC/Sutton-PA.html) Syriac evidence
2008 C. Keith (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Keith.html) recent survey
2010 J.D. Punch (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AB/Punch1.html) more review soon!
2010 G. Davis (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AF/Davis-PA.html) new!traditional evidence


 Click here for Patristics (http://pericopedeadultera.org/FATHERS/index.html) Page

 Click here for Internal Evidence (http://pericopedeadultera.org/INT-EV/index.html) Page


(http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Critics.html#top)

Nazaroo
March 4th, 2015, 03:57 PM
Also.. thanks for outing yourself as a troll..



Its MY thread.

You're the troll making no useful contributions.

https://koshersamurai.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/girls_laughing.jpg


Get lost.

And quit using fake accounts, Chair.

1Mind1Spirit
March 4th, 2015, 06:23 PM
Hey Nazarite! Glad you're back...


Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer AND the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Aren't you Nazarites into the law? Rather presumptuous that the man would already have been dead, don't think? If he were already dead, as in already stoned, then why wouldn't her accusers have stoned them both? Since she was caught in adultery... then, where were the witnesses? Don't tell me... the witnesses were ALSO guilty... as in their names were written in the ground. WHERE's the DUDE? Produce the body, Nazaroo, man of the law. Dead, or alive. You really give those 'Jewish' Pharisees a lot of credit! They'd have had a little better LEGAL case had BOTH the adulterer and adulteress been thrown before the crowd. And, you suggest the dude was dead? LOL! Did you not read John 8:15 KJV? John 8:16 KJV? John 8:26 KJV? I didn't think so. Did any of those extensive, verbose commentaries even mention those verses? I seriously doubt it. All just a bunch of Jerry Springer wanna bee's. Or, Judge Joe Brown's... Give me a break!

kayaker

Excellent post!!!

Course those verses wasn't examined in those commentaries.

They all leave out that it was just the day before (ch. 7) they were arguing if Jesus was the Christ.

Nazaroo has trouble understanding that folks who drink and eat have strong faith, and thinks that Jesus' first miracle was to serve Kool-Aid.

:rolleyes:

kayaker
March 4th, 2015, 08:09 PM
Excellent post!!!

Course those verses wasn't examined in those commentaries.

They all leave out that it was just the day before (ch. 7) they were arguing if Jesus was the Christ.

Nazaroo has trouble understanding that folks who drink and eat have strong faith, and thinks that Jesus' first miracle was to serve Kool-Aid.

:rolleyes:

I'm indebted to you for your objectivity and scriptural assessment, 1Mind1Spirit. Thank you. You do bring to this table the key point Jesus' divinity was discussed in John 7, an astute point I'd not previously considered. That debate continued in John 8 then, and the adulteress' case tempted Jesus to try the case. In doing so, Jesus would have to have summoned the dude she was caught in the act with. Jesus' mere summon would have condemned the dude, explicitly, of being an adulterer. Which of course was exactly the same position the Pharisees held throwing the adulteress before the crowd.

Nazaroo wants to bring in analogous confabulating scenarios of the application of the law, while the Pharisees specifically made mention, "Now MOSES and the law commanded us that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? (John 8:5 KJV)." That clearly was Mosaic Law, and Leviticus 20:10 KJV covers that base. The Pharisees made no mention the adulterer escaped, was killed, or even to his whereabouts. Obviously, for this case to be tried, knowing your keen interest in such matters... your very next question would be: WHERE's THE DUDE?

That was the issue of the day... was Jesus the Christ. Had Jesus invoked Judgment, EITHER forgiveness or condemnation, Jesus would have preempted His Father's authority in timing.

Nazaroo wants to further confabulate the issue with the theory the dude had escaped. He even presents the theory the dude might already have been dead. In other words, confuse the case with theories, and play Judge Judy. I have a theory the dude was really a space alien, and she was abducted, and the dude was beamed up immediately following the event... so, let me summon some alien abduction experts, and Nazaroo can add about 10k more pages to his fruitless explanation as to the whereabouts of the dude!

kayaker

kayaker
March 4th, 2015, 08:37 PM
Furthermore, Nazaroo...

You present the scenario the woman might have been raped. Seriously? Jesus told her, "...Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:11 KJV). Jesus wouldn't tell a rape victim to "go, and sin no more." So, you can trash that nonsense! Had she been raped, Jesus still couldn't isolate the dude and summon him for condemnation (John 8:15 KJV, John 8:16 KJV, John 8:26 KJV).

Your's is a classic case: Truth is greater than the sum of all knowledge (my twisted rendition). You keep gaining in knowledge, and getting farther from the truth: Jesus wasn't sent to invoke Judgment. But, I know this is distasteful for shame-based, legalist theologians, and their boohoo voodoo plan for salvation by works.

kayaker

1Mind1Spirit
March 5th, 2015, 12:58 AM
That was the issue of the day... was Jesus the Christ. Had Jesus invoked Judgment, EITHER forgiveness or condemnation, Jesus would have preempted His Father's authority in timing.


kayaker

I concur.:up:

Ben Masada
March 5th, 2015, 02:21 PM
Adultery is no longer punishable by death. The reason may be because of the power of Jesus. He refused to give the woman the death sentence. Whether or not the woman was a real person is not as important as the viewpoint of Christ. If Jesus had consented to her death then the penalty would be enforce today.

It is easy to believe that Jesus would forgive. But it is not so easy to believe that Jesus would have ever stoned her.

How could Jesus have forgiven a sin that was not committed against him? The wife was not his but of someone else. He himself instructed that if one goes to the Temple to plea for forgiveness of his sins, that he ought rather to leave every thing behind and go to whom he had offended and get forgiveness for his sin. Then and only then he could return to proceed with his plea for forgiveness. That's in Mat. 5:23,24.

resodko
March 5th, 2015, 02:22 PM
How could Jesus have forgiven a sin that was not committed against him?




every sin is committed against God

and Jesus is God :duh:


you bin here six years - aren't you paying attention at all?

The Berean
March 5th, 2015, 02:24 PM
every sin is committed against God

and Jesus is God :duh:


you bin here six years - aren't you paying attention at all?

:up:

Ben Masada
March 5th, 2015, 02:49 PM
every sin is committed against God

and Jesus is God :duh:

you bin here six years - aren't you paying attention at all?

Oh! I thought Jesus was a Jew. As I can see, you are more of a fundamentalist than Paul and myself. Paul taught that he was the son of God. (Acts 9:20) Who is telling the truth among the three of us?

intojoy
March 5th, 2015, 03:10 PM
How could Jesus have forgiven a sin that was not committed against him? The wife was not his but of someone else. He himself instructed that if one goes to the Temple to plea for forgiveness of his sins, that he ought rather to leave every thing behind and go to whom he had offended and get forgiveness for his sin. Then and only then he could return to proceed with his plea for forgiveness. That's in Mat. 5:23,24.


He didn't forgive the sin. He said He did not condemn her to the penalty of sin after no one qualified to throw the first stone. If someone could've thrown it He would have let her get rock piled.

Ben Masada
March 5th, 2015, 03:27 PM
He didn't forgive the sin. He said He did not condemn her to the penalty of sin after no one qualified to throw the first stone. If someone could've thrown it He would have let her get rock piled.

Listen Intojoy, this was only a parable. You know that Jesus used to teach in parables. The object was to point to the sins of the Pharisees; hence the reason why they could not throw the first stone. Only a parable. Nothing literal happened that day. The Sanhedrin did not work that way and no one could interfere with a decision from the Sanhedrin. Besides, stoning one to death could not happen at that time because Rome had removed the jurisdiction of the People to condemn one to death. Israel at that time was a Roman province. Only Rome could sentence one to death.

kayaker
March 5th, 2015, 03:30 PM
Oh! I thought Jesus was a Jew. As I can see, you are more of a fundamentalist than Paul and myself. Paul taught that he was the son of God. (Acts 9:20) Who is telling the truth among the three of us?

What kind of Jew was Jesus, Ben Masada? There are Ashkenazi Jews who were Gentile proselytes into Judaism, descendants of Noah's great grandson, Ashkenaz (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV). There were Israelite Jews, descendants of the patriarch sons of Jacob Israel. There were Pharzite Jews, descendants of Pharez, eldest twin son of Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar (Genesis 38:11, 24, 26, 29). King David and Jesus were descendants of Pharez, eldest twin son of Judah and Tamar (Matthew 1:2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

Wasn't Judah the prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV)? Then, what about Judah's Shelanite descendants (Numbers 26:20 KJV) via his Canaanite wife (Genesis 38:1, 2, 1Chronicles 2:3)? Were they "Jews"? The Shelanites were conceived contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, as Ezra affirmed some 1,400 years later according to Ezra 9:1, 2, 7. Were the Shelanites, "Jews"? Ezra distinctly EXCLUDED "The sons of Shelah son of Judah..." (1Chronicles 4:21, 22) from among the tribe of Judah in 1Chronicles 4:1 KJV, even though Shelah was elder to Pharez.

Were the Shelanites ancestrally intact Israelites conceived contrary to Moses and Ezra? Were the Shelanites ancestrally intact "Jews"? Do you see any correlation with Revelation 2:9, 3:9? Was King David a Jew, then? When you claim Jesus was a Jew, and He being a Pharzite Jew as was King David, then you evidently agree the descendants of Shelah, third and surviving CANAANITE son of Judah (Genesis 38:6, 7, 8, 9, 10), were NOT Jews.

Can you please explain the ancestral origin of the Sephardic Jews beginning with Noah's sons until Jesus' day? Did the Sephardic Jews just sprout out of the ground (Genesis 38:9 KJV)? See, Ben, the Sephardic alleged Jews, who instigated the crucifixion of Jesus (John 8:33 KJV, definitely NOT Israelites, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV), were actually Shelanites who'd usurped the position of God's chosen Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9, 10). How do you figure the Shelanite/Sephardic alleged Jews are the ones from whom salvation comes?

Were the Sephardic alleged Jews descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife via their son, Shelah? Or, were the Sephardic alleged Jews descendants of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar via their eldest twin son Pharez as was King David a descendant?

kayaker

intojoy
March 5th, 2015, 04:35 PM
Listen Intojoy, this was only a parable. You know that Jesus used to teach in parables. The object was to point to the sins of the Pharisees; hence the reason why they could not throw the first stone. Only a parable. Nothing literal happened that day. The Sanhedrin did not work that way and no one could interfere with a decision from the Sanhedrin. Besides, stoning one to death could not happen at that time because Rome had removed the jurisdiction of the People to condemn one to death. Israel at that time was a Roman province. Only Rome could sentence one to death.


I'm lisnin

Matthew traces the events of Mt 12. The parabolic method of teaching was instituted after this event.

Nazaroo
May 12th, 2015, 12:16 PM
New Book on the Pericope de Adultera (http://pericopedeadultera.blogspot.ca/2015/05/new-book-on-pericope-de-adultera.html)



A few interesting names of current researchers in this area appear in the news item on this new book.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IvXYaBihXAA/TcLm82A-L-I/AAAAAAAAARI/x-MnYMOVQ8I/s400/adulteress.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IvXYaBihXAA/TcLm82A-L-I/AAAAAAAAARI/x-MnYMOVQ8I/s1600/adulteress.jpg)

Peter Head has quoted Mr. Black as giving the general outline of contents on the new volume, which comes out of the recent conference on the PA:
'Well, the papers have now been assembled in book form. Yours truly and my former assistant and current Th.M. student Jacob Cerone are serving as editors. Here are the contents:
Foreword: Gail O’Day
Preface: David Alan Black
Introduction: Jacob N. Cerone
Chapter 1: John David Punch: “The Piously Offensive Pericope Adulterae”
Chapter 2: Jennifer Knust: ” ‘Taking Away From': Patristic Evidence and the Omission of the Pericope Adulterae from John’s Gospel”
Chapter 3: Tommy Wasserman: “The Strange Case of the Missing Adulteress”
Chapter 4: Chris Keith: “The Pericope Adulterae: A Theory of Attentive Insertion”
Chapter 5: Maurice Robinson: “The Pericope Adulterae: A Johannine Tapestry with Double Interlock”
Chapter 6: Larry Hurtado: “The Pericope Adulterae: Where from Here?J. D. Punch has had his work (2010) reviewed by us on the Main Website,
as well as Chris Keith (2008).

2008 C. Keith (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Keith.html) recent survey
2010 J.D. Punch (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AB/Punch1.html) more review soon!

We also quoted Gail O'Day a few times in our review of 400 years worth of commentary on these verses, here:

The Best of the Commentators (http://pericopedeadultera.org/COMM/the-best.html) - on Jn 8:1-11

Dr. Maurice Robinson is best known for his textual critical work on the Received and Majority Text found among the many manuscripts spanning nearly a millenium and a half.

We have happily cited his articles and comments and also reviewed some of his analysis on several of our related sites, such as here:

M. Robinson (2001) Byzantine Text (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AA/Robinson2001.html) - its priority
M. Robinson (/06) Majority Method (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AA/Robinson2006.html) - D.Black Interview
Dr. Maurice Robinson on Textual Variants (http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.ca/2011/09/dr-maurice-robinson-on-textual-variants.html)

So we are very interested in reading the new collection of articles,
which will reflect modern viewpoints on the passage,
and also give a significant slice of opinion and modern criticism of John and the PA.

The link to C.&C. Clarke's publishing site seems to be a broken link, but we expect that will be rectified soon.

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.ca/2015/05/forthcoming-book-on-pericope-of-jesus.html

jamie
May 12th, 2015, 01:06 PM
The Law of Moses is based on a presumption of innocence. There was no testimony against the woman. She was acquitted by the law.

Nazaroo
May 13th, 2015, 06:14 AM
The Law of Moses is based on a presumption of innocence. There was no testimony against the woman. She was acquitted by the law.

Agreed!

The Law of Two Witnesses was meant to ensure that a solid presumption of innocence was upheld.

genuineoriginal
May 13th, 2015, 08:05 AM
Agreed!

The Law of Two Witnesses was meant to ensure that a solid presumption of innocence was upheld.

There is also the Law of the False Witness to consider.

Deuteronomy 19:16-20
16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

jamie
May 13th, 2015, 08:28 AM
Also, there was an instruction somewhere about bearing false witness.

HisServant
May 13th, 2015, 09:21 AM
Any time someone says they are offering the 'proper' way to interpret something... run for the hills... they are a cultist.

Someone can propose an interpretation, but it is the Holy Spirit that leads us into truth.

Nazaroo
August 7th, 2015, 04:04 PM
I want to add a recent discovery of mine,
which resolves a puzzle concerning one part of John 8:1-11
that has been left fuzzy at the least for a long time.

I credit Shabir Ally for his own accidental and unintended tip-off.
He is a muslim apologist who critiques the Bible and prefers the Quran.

He of course has no knowledge of my discovery:

The issue concerns why Jesus used the exact expression here,

"The sinless one among you, let him first cast a stone at her..." (Jn. 8:7)

For previously, (without a second look at a certain passage in Deuteronomy),
I found that this remained a puzzle, because it does not directly
quote an O.T. Law or offer an explanation for Jesus' apparent demand.

The Law of Moses did not require "sinless" men to initiate stonings.

So many have thought that Jesus is here (as apparently in other places)
adding to the law or raising it up to a new higher and stricter standard.

But this new insight which I will offer below,
may suggest that Jesus actually wrote out a reference to Deut. 13:6-21.

If this is the case, then His 'incomplete' quote needs to be taken
in this context, and we need to complete the idea ourselves from the Law.

That is, Jesus may have said little, that is, just enough to call the
Deuteronomic Law into memory for the scribes and Pharisees.


Jesus' Shorthand Responses:

When we (often) as modern readers assume the passage is 'self-sufficient'
or 'self-explanatory' on its face, we can make serious mistakes,
or at least miss the historical context and deeper meaning of Jesus.

An example of this is marriage, where Jesus on a few occasions
appears to give a new law or rule on marriage and divorce,
i.e., divorce is only lawful for the reason of actual adultery/fornication.

Knowing that there was a vigorous debate among
the two major Rabbinical schools on divorce,
and that they and the Jews sought Jesus' opinion on it,
makes Jesus' statements much clearer and provides the scope for their application.


Jesus on Divorce: (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/guzik/commentaries/4019.htm)
...
'Divorce was a controversial topic in Jesus' day, with two main schools
of thought, centered around two of its most famous proponents.
The first was the school of Rabbi Shammai (a more strict and unpopular view)
and second was the school of Rabbi Hillel (a more lax and popular view).
...
Under the thinking of Hillel, "a man could divorce his wife if she spoiled his dinner, if she spun, or went with unbound hair, or spoke to men in the streets, if she spoke disrespectfully of his parents in his presence, or if she was a brawling woman whose voice could be heard in the next house. Rabbi Akiba even went the length of saying…that a man could divorce his wife if he found a woman whom he liked better and considered more beautiful." (Barclay)
...
Each school of thought understood that the Mosaic law gave permission for divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house.
Each side knew and believed Deuteronomy 24:1;
the question was, "What constitutes uncleanness?"

The school of Rabbi Shammai understood that uncleanness meant sexual immorality, and said this was the only valid reason for divorce.

The school of Rabbi Hillel understood uncleanness to mean any sort of indiscretion; even to the point where for some rabbis, burning a husband's breakfast was considered valid grounds for divorce.
...
So in their question, the Pharisees tried to get Jesus to side with one teaching or the other. If He agreed with the lax school of Rabbi Hillel, it was clear that Jesus did not take the Law of Moses seriously. If He agreed with the strict school of Rabbi Shammai, then Jesus might become unpopular with the multitude, who generally liked access to an easy divorce. The religious leaders had reason to believe they had caught Jesus on the horns of a dilemma.

The Pharisees wanted to talk about divorce and rabbinical opinions, but Jesus wanted to go back to the Scriptures...

"By answering the question, not from Shammai or Hillel, but from Moses, our blessed Lord defeated their malice, and confounded their devices." (Clarke)
...
Jesus interpreted the meaning of the word uncleanness in the Mosaic Law, showing that it refers to sexual immorality, not just anything that might displease the husband. Therefore, divorce - and the freedom to remarry without sin - is only permitted in the case of sexual immorality.
...
To this permission for divorce, the Apostle Paul added the case of abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (1st Cor. 7:15).

We note that incompatibility, not loving each other anymore, brutality, and misery are not grounds for divorce, though they may be proper grounds for a separation and consequent "celibacy within marriage" as Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 7:11. These words of Paul show us that a Christian couple may in fact split up for reasons that do not justify a Biblical divorce. It may be because of a misguided sense of spirituality; it may be because of general unhappiness, or conflict, or abuse, or misery, addiction, or poverty. Paul recognizes (without at all encouraging) that one might depart in such circumstance, but they cannot consider themselves divorced, with the right to remarry, because their marriage had not split up for reasons that justify a Biblical divorce.


I provided the rather longwinded excerpt above,
to illustrate Jesus' modus operandi or typical habit of
referring back to the Law of Moses on almost all of his conflicts
and controversies with the scribes and Pharisees.

Thus we should also expect Jesus to be referring to, calling to mind,
or referencing some O.T. Laws here as well. And not necessarily only one
law or O.T. reference, but a more whollistic view.

Christians read the passage (Jn. 8:1-11) typically as an independent thing,
and the only O.T. reference in mind is usually the law of stoning for adultery.
It is presumed that this is all that is needed to understand it.

However, there is another O.T. Law, more general and far-reaching in scope,
that ALSO covers adultery and governs legal procedure.

Its Deuteronomy 13:6-21. This law includes Adultery without mentioning
that word specifically, and encompasses a set of procedures that all
such cases ought to conform to in appropriate community situations.

Here is the first part:


6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. ...

- Deut. 13:6-11 (NIV)


At first glance, this does not seem to be about adultery.

However, the commandment against Adultery (Exod. 20:14, Deut. 5:18)
is given as one of the Ten Commandments
which DEFINE the God of Israel, His nature, His very Identity:
Jehovah is the Biblical God, the God of the Ten Commandments.

As a consequence, anyone leading others to break those commandments,
is proposing the abandonment of the worship of the Biblical God,
and the turning towards 'another god', a non-Biblical god, a false god,
and an idol.

Adultery is just a single special case of general Idolatry,
and therefore it falls under the authority of this wider Law.

And in the actual historical context of foreigners in the land
worshipping 'other gods' through temple prostitution and
celebrations of fornication etc., its clear that the main lure
into the worship of other gods was sex, i.e., fornication and adultery.
This was often done 'in secret' inside temples for the purpose of illicit sex,
and prostitution and harlotry.
Israelite men were lured into these temples under a promise of secrecy
and discretion, while Israelite women were lured under a promise of
money and/or threats and blackmail.

Conspirators typically would approach individuals alone,
and sexual crimes like adultery would take place inside homes
and dwellings in private and not visible to the larger community.

Adultery would typically be discovered and reported by those
in the household where the crime occurred, and the head of that house
would be held 'responsible' and accountable, and need to prove
their own innocence in the matter.

One way to force the patriarch, home-owner, husband, or father
into account was to require that THEY be the first to cast a stone
at their own daughter or wife, to prove their loyalty to the Law and God,
and their innocence and/or ignorance of what had been transpiring
in their own house under their nose.
This act was mandatory for the stoning according to this Law,
and ensured that mere accusations from outside parties could not
wreck homes and falsely have people killed for alterior motives or grievances.
And this act of throwing the First Stone was a self-testimony of the
appropriate male in charge of his own innocence in the matter,
and his belief in the accused's guilt.

Thus the expression of Jesus,

"The One Without Sin, Let him cast the first stone at her."

Refers directly to this overruling and preemptory Law,
required especially for the case of adultery, which was typically committed
inside someone's house, home, or private property away from the
eyes of the community.

It was not the absence of the male party in the adultery per se,
which could be simply explained on the basis that
the man was ALWAYS put to death when found guilty of adultery,
and may have already been executed, or could simply have escaped,
which would by no means exonerate the woman.

It was the absence of the OVERSEER, the HomeOwner, the Property Manager,
the Father, the Husband, the Guardian(!) which meant
that no stoning could proceed.

It was THIS man's innocence that must be publicly declared
along with his testimony to the guilt of the accused party,
and consummated by an act which initiated an execution.
It was THIS man's authority that must be thoroughly investigated,
and the crime on his watch explained.

For it must also be remembered that EVERY woman in Israel
was according to the Law of Moses under someone's authority,
supervision, and responsibility, including widows!

A woman was to live with and be under the authority of her father
until marriage, or the patriarch of the household or extended tribe.
A woman was under the authority of her husband during marriage,
with all contracts and permissions requiring his knowledge and assent.
A woman was under the authority of the tribe, king, and priesthood,
when she was widowed, and there were rules for remarriage and
distribution of inheritance of the family line. In cases of dire poverty,
widows had recourse to judges who could impose taxes and provide
food and shelter in Israel.

Thus no Israelite woman was 'free' to wander under her own authority,
and no property in Israel was not under the authority of some adult
and recognized male authority.

Only this man, could by his presence initiate a stoning,
he who had authority over the woman, who lived with the woman,
and who was required to instruct and discipline the woman
as to the Law of God and acceptable behaviour within the community.



The following verses (Deut. 13:12 fwd) give instructions to wipe out whole pockets or towns,
communities which have been hopelessly corrupted and are engaged in
false worship of fake gods, and the subsequent adultery and fornication.
Thus the firmness (merciless) requirement to destroy all those involved,
and burning down of all the property (no profit-motivated excursions allowed). The Law there seeks to stomp out all opportunities for straying from true worship, and also seeks to prevent the abuse of the Law to justify mere pillaging and robbery/murder for profit.

Ben Masada
August 8th, 2015, 04:04 AM
I'm lisnin

Matthew traces the events of Mt 12. The parabolic method of teaching was instituted after this event.

The parabolic method of teaching always existed from before the birth of Jesus. The bible does not obey chronological History but it goes according to psychological History.

Ben Masada
August 8th, 2015, 04:25 AM
[quote]What kind of Jew was Jesus, Ben Masada?

Jesus was of the kind of Jews who lived according to the Law and the Prophets. (Mat. 5:17-19)


There are Ashkenazi Jews who were Gentile proselytes into Judaism, descendants of Noah's great grandson, Ashkenaz (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV). There were Israelite Jews, descendants of the patriarch sons of Jacob Israel. There were Pharzite Jews, descendants of Pharez, eldest twin son of Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar (Genesis 38:11, 24, 26, 29). King David and Jesus were descendants of Pharez, eldest twin son of Judah and Tamar (Matthew 1:2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

Since I know you don't have a quote to post as an evidence that Jesus was from the Tribe of Judah, he was only a Jew without a Tribe in Israel. Those were of the Jews whose fathers were from the Gentiles. Jews because of the mother but without a Tribe in Israel.


Wasn't Judah the prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV)? Then, what about Judah's Shelanite descendants (Numbers 26:20 KJV) via his Canaanite wife (Genesis 38:1, 2, 1Chronicles 2:3)? Were they "Jews"? The Shelanites were conceived contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, as Ezra affirmed some 1,400 years later according to Ezra 9:1, 2, 7. Were the Shelanites, "Jews"? Ezra distinctly EXCLUDED "The sons of Shelah son of Judah..." (1Chronicles 4:21, 22) from among the tribe of Judah in 1Chronicles 4:1 KJV, even though Shelah was elder to Pharez.

As I have explained above, Jesus was not from the Tribe of Judah and, for that matter he could not have been the Messiah.


Were the Shelanites ancestrally intact Israelites conceived contrary to Moses and Ezra? Were the Shelanites ancestrally intact "Jews"? Do you see any correlation with Revelation 2:9, 3:9? Was King David a Jew, then? When you claim Jesus was a Jew, and He being a Pharzite Jew as was King David, then you evidently agree the descendants of Shelah, third and surviving CANAANITE son of Judah (Genesis 38:6, 7, 8, 9, 10), were NOT Jews.

You need to solve this problem of yours with the NT which exonerated Jesus from being a biological son of Joseph and, for that matter, made of him a descendant of Gentiles. (Mat. 1:18)


Can you please explain the ancestral origin of the Sephardic Jews beginning with Noah's sons until Jesus' day? Did the Sephardic Jews just sprout out of the ground (Genesis 38:9 KJV)? See, Ben, the Sephardic alleged Jews, who instigated the crucifixion of Jesus (John 8:33 KJV, definitely NOT Israelites, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV), were actually Shelanites who'd usurped the position of God's chosen Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9, 10). How do you figure the Shelanite/Sephardic alleged Jews are the ones from whom salvation comes?

Again, the NT speaks of Jesus as of having been born as a result of fornication. (John 8:41) Josephus speaks of a vast number of bastard Jews as a result of rapes of young Jewish ladies in Israel in the First Century by the Romans. I don't want to waste my time trying to find out about the origins of the Tribes when it won't help in the case of Jesus.


Were the Sephardic alleged Jews descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife via their son, Shelah? Or, were the Sephardic alleged Jews descendants of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar via their eldest twin son Pharez as was King David a descendant?

Sephardic Jews or Ashkenazy ones can be found in many different tribes. No special connection with Judah or any other specific Tribe.

RevTestament
August 8th, 2015, 11:19 AM
However, there is another O.T. Law, more general and far-reaching in scope,
that ALSO covers adultery and governs legal procedure.

Its Deuteronomy 13:6-21. This law includes Adultery without mentioning
that word specifically, and encompasses a set of procedures that all
such cases ought to conform to in appropriate community situations.

Here is the first part:


6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. ...

- Deut. 13:6-11 (NIV)


At first glance, this does not seem to be about adultery.

However, the commandment against Adultery (Exod. 20:14, Deut. 5:18)
is given as one of the Ten Commandments
which DEFINE the God of Israel, His nature, His very Identity:
Jehovah is the Biblical God, the God of the Ten Commandments.

As a consequence, anyone leading others to break those commandments,
is proposing the abandonment of the worship of the Biblical God,
and the turning towards 'another god', a non-Biblical god, a false god,
and an idol.

Adultery is just a single special case of general Idolatry,
and therefore it falls under the authority of this wider Law.

And in the actual historical context of foreigners in the land
worshipping 'other gods' through temple prostitution and
celebrations of fornication etc., its clear that the main lure
into the worship of other gods was sex, i.e., fornication and adultery.
This was often done 'in secret' inside temples for the purpose of illicit sex,
and prostitution and harlotry.
Israelite men were lured into these temples under a promise of secrecy
and discretion, while Israelite women were lured under a promise of
money and/or threats and blackmail.

Conspirators typically would approach individuals alone,
and sexual crimes like adultery would take place inside homes
and dwellings in private and not visible to the larger community.

Adultery would typically be discovered and reported by those
in the household where the crime occurred, and the head of that house
would be held 'responsible' and accountable, and need to prove
their own innocence in the matter.

One way to force the patriarch, home-owner, husband, or father
into account was to require that THEY be the first to cast a stone
at their own daughter or wife, to prove their loyalty to the Law and God,
and their innocence and/or ignorance of what had been transpiring
in their own house under their nose.
This act was mandatory for the stoning according to this Law,
and ensured that mere accusations from outside parties could not
wreck homes and falsely have people killed for alterior motives or grievances.
And this act of throwing the First Stone was a self-testimony of the
appropriate male in charge of his own innocence in the matter,
and his belief in the accused's guilt.

Thus the expression of Jesus,

"The One Without Sin, Let him cast the first stone at her."

Refers directly to this overruling and preemptory Law,
required especially for the case of adultery, which was typically committed
inside someone's house, home, or private property away from the
eyes of the community.

It was not the absence of the male party in the adultery per se,
which could be simply explained on the basis that
the man was ALWAYS put to death when found guilty of adultery,
and may have already been executed, or could simply have escaped,
which would by no means exonerate the woman.

It was the absence of the OVERSEER, the HomeOwner, the Property Manager,
the Father, the Husband, the Guardian(!) which meant
that no stoning could proceed.

It was THIS man's innocence that must be publicly declared
along with his testimony to the guilt of the accused party,
and consummated by an act which initiated an execution.
It was THIS man's authority that must be thoroughly investigated,
and the crime on his watch explained.

For it must also be remembered that EVERY woman in Israel
was according to the Law of Moses under someone's authority,
supervision, and responsibility, including widows!

A woman was to live with and be under the authority of her father
until marriage, or the patriarch of the household or extended tribe.
A woman was under the authority of her husband during marriage,
with all contracts and permissions requiring his knowledge and assent.
A woman was under the authority of the tribe, king, and priesthood,
when she was widowed, and there were rules for remarriage and
distribution of inheritance of the family line. In cases of dire poverty,
widows had recourse to judges who could impose taxes and provide
food and shelter in Israel.

Thus no Israelite woman was 'free' to wander under her own authority,
and no property in Israel was not under the authority of some adult
and recognized male authority.

Only this man, could by his presence initiate a stoning,
he who had authority over the woman, who lived with the woman,
and who was required to instruct and discipline the woman
as to the Law of God and acceptable behaviour within the community.

:thumb:
You hit the nail on the head here Naz. I can see why some versions left out this passage of John - because they didn't understand it.

Nazaroo
October 16th, 2015, 11:57 AM
bump

Livelystone
October 16th, 2015, 12:42 PM
What about considering prophecy here?

The woman is the church but the man (the clergy) who led her in the wrong direction causing her adultery is not being investigated by the self righteousness of others in the clergy (the pharisees)

Jesus is going to forgive the vast numbers of the church who have fallen victim to the tail of the dragon who are the prophets who teach lies............ however those clergy who make up the tail of the dragon and caused God's church to go astray soon after the last apostle died prophesied by both Daniel and Paul, and who continued for the next 1900 years to teach lies will be judged without mercy

Ben Masada
October 16th, 2015, 12:59 PM
Is there a summation?

Is the conclusion that the Jesus did not condemn her because the Law did not allow it?

Why would Jesus have to condemn her if she was not her husband?