Controversy on Christianity Today's website

[Obsidian]

I agree with you, Apostoli, but honestly, Jesus did not make this issue of Roman law the main issue -- although I'm sure he was aware of it. We're allowing ourselves to get distracted. It is a side issue because under the circumstances, even Jewish law did not allow for killing the woman.

[Darth Executor]

Huh? So, were you or Obsidian hypothesizing that someone might advocate the death penalty for the youth minister? Seems like the hypothesis failed.

No, it is presented in Acts as a trial before the Jerusalem sunhedrion for blasphemy, a capital offense.

The Sanhedrin did not have the authority to execute people, they had to obtain the Romans' permission, which they did not (see, err, Jesus's execution). Ergo, it was a lynching.

If there was no chance for an execution, then there was also not much of a trap either.

There was no chance for an execution because it was illegal, not because Jesus couldn't have whipped the mob into a frenzy and had her lynched. If Jesus says kill her He breaks Roman law. If He says spare her, He breaks God's law. So He breaks neither by shaming them into dispersing. Pretty straightforward.

You're assuming that John 8,2, or something like it was part of the original pericope, and that is, of course, possible, but there is absolutely no indication in the pericope itself that only the accusers departed, while others remained.

Yes, I'm also assuming it actually happened when I could simply dismiss it as a later addition and thus inauthentic, which would end what little argument you have left on the spot. John 8:2 IS part of it now though, whether it was before or not. Whoever put it there chose that context for a reason, presumably because it fit. So unfortunately, this doesn't really solve the problem for you. There is obvious continuation between John 7:52 and 8:12 anyway. If John 8:2 was added, it was added for the sake of the pericope.

That only comes from John 8,12, which is obviously Johannine and not part of the orginal pericope. You can imagine that there was an initial crowd in the original pericope, if you want, and you can also imagine that this crowd might have resisted the rallying cries of the scribes and Pharisees for the law of Moses to be fulfilled and therefore did not also want to fulfill the law of Moses with the stoning, and you can imagine that when the text says that Jesus was left alone with the woman that it did not really man alone, but I really think you should try to make a case for this and not just rely on your imagination.

I didn't rely on my imagination, I work based on the surrounding context. I already explained why the text shows that the mob who came with her to Jesus dispersed but not everybody else:

1. Jesus directs His retort at them. It makes no sense for people who did not want to execute her to receive it.
2. They left because they were ashamed. Why would people who never tried to have her stoned in the first place be ashamed? Maybe there's some liberal projection going on and you think 1st century Jews felt guilt by osmosis like you do?

Maybe you could find a similar use of 'alone' in the sense you want to imagine somewhere else in the gospels or other Greek literature? It won't prove your case, but it would be better saying that Jesus was alone like you feeling lonely at a party or that he and the woman were alone on stage like George Burns & Gracie Allen.

If you take your Aspergers hat off you'll realize they're an example of a simple reality: "alone" depends on the surrounding context. Within this context, Jesus WAS on a sort of stage, along with the woman and the people who brought her. It was an analogy meant to help you understand a simple concept, which you still can't comprehend, hence the one image retort: there's only so much patience I have left.

You're making a common assumption that might be true, but there are also indications that it very well might not have been true. There is a tradition in the Talmud that the Jerusalem sunhedrion lost the authority to implement the death penalty about this time, but it is rather vague about exactly when this was. The gospel of John, the latest gospel written explicitly mentions this in 18,31 (but cf 12,10), but we know that this pericope was not originally part of the gospel of John and might not be describing an event that occured in Jerusalem or when Pilate was present in Jerusalem. It seems as if Luke thinks the Jerusalem sunhedrion still could implement the death penalty after this time, perhaps when Pilate was not around, as it does in the trial and execution of Stephen.

Nowhere does Acts say the execution of Stephen was a lawful act. It further describes it as pretty much the run of the mill lynching:

So really you're just begging the question. The fact remains that we have an execution demanded by the Jews, it came before Stephen, and they had to go through Roman channels to have it carried out.

But, even if you want to say that the proposed stoning of the women caught in adultery was merely a theoretical question put to Jesus, or a lynch mob of some type, it still very much pertains to the question of capital punishment according to Jewish law: "In the law, Moses commanded us to stone women such as these. What therefore do you say?" What did Jesus say? Neither do I condemn you.

As Obsidian pointed out, Jewish law requires witnesses. All the witnesses left, so it only pertains to the question of capital punishment according to Jewish law in so much as Jesus went out of His way not to break it. Why do that if He meant to imply that it was wrong to execute adulterers? Saying Jesus does not condemn her means nothing because Jewish law wouldn't have condemned her without evidence either. Nor would any other court of law.

[robrecht]

The Sanhedrin did not have the authority to execute people, they had to obtain the Romans' permission, which they did not (see, err, Jesus's execution). Ergo, it was a lynching.

There was no chance for an execution because it was illegal, not because Jesus couldn't have whipped the mob into a frenzy and had her lynched. If Jesus says kill her He breaks Roman law. If He says spare her, He breaks God's law. So He breaks neither by shaming them into dispersing. Pretty straightforward.

Yes, I'm also assuming it actually happened when I could simply dismiss it as a later addition and thus inauthentic, which would end what little argument you have left on the spot. John 8:2 IS part of it now though, whether it was before or not. Whoever put it there chose that context for a reason, presumably because it fit. So unfortunately, this doesn't really solve the problem for you. There is obvious continuation between John 7:52 and 8:12 anyway. If John 8:2 was added, it was added for the sake of the pericope.

I didn't rely on my imagination, I work based on the surrounding context. I already explained why the text shows that the mob who came with her to Jesus dispersed but not everybody else:

1. Jesus directs His retort at them. It makes no sense for people who did not want to execute her to receive it.
2. They left because they were ashamed. Why would people who never tried to have her stoned in the first place be ashamed? Maybe there's some liberal projection going on and you think 1st century Jews felt guilt by osmosis like you do?

If you take your Aspergers hat off you'll realize they're an example of a simple reality: "alone" depends on the surrounding context. Within this context, Jesus WAS on a sort of stage, along with the woman and the people who brought her. It was an analogy meant to help you understand a simple concept, which you still can't comprehend, hence the one image retort: there's only so much patience I have left.

Nowhere does Acts say the execution of Stephen was a lawful act. It further describes it as pretty much the run of the mill lynching:

So really you're just begging the question. The fact remains that we have an execution demanded by the Jews, it came before Stephen, and they had to go through Roman channels to have it carried out.

As Obsidian pointed out, Jewish law requires witnesses. All the witnesses left, so it only pertains to the question of capital punishment according to Jewish law in so much as Jesus went out of His way not to break it. Why do that if He meant to imply that it was wrong to execute adulterers? Saying Jesus does not condemn her means nothing because Jewish law wouldn't have condemned her without evidence either. Nor would any other court of law.

It is incorrect to say that there was no chance for an execution just because it may have been illegal. Stephen was executed after a trial before the sunedrion with witnesses, even 'though you think it was an illegal execution according to Roman law. Whether you call it an illegal execution or a lynching makes little difference. The accused is still dead afterward. Personally, I don't think Jesus would be afraid or in any way reluctant to fulfill God's law even if he did violate Roman law. Those who still practiced stoning at the time of Jesus may have been flouting Roman law, but they were following God's Law. It is disingenuous to claim that Jesus did not agree with the execution merely because the witness were gone because it was Jesus himself who discouraged anyone from throwing the first stone. Whether the woman had already been tried or if Jesus interrupted the process whereby she was being brought to trial, Jesus can only be seen here as preventing the Mosaic commandment from being followed:

ἐν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ ἡμῖν Μωϋσῆς ἐνετείλατο τὰς τοιαύτας λιθάζειν.

"In our Torah, Moses commanded women such as these to be stoned."

If you want to understand this story as it may have actually occorred, you should not focus attention on this Johannine context. John 8,12 was certainly not part of the original pericope. When the pericope is placed between John 7,36 and 7,37, there is no crowd left at the end of the story. When this pericope is placed at the end of John's gospel, there is no crowd left at the end of the story. When this pericope is placed at the end of Luke 21 there is no crowd left at the end of the story. There is no good reason to assume that any of the crowd was left behind in the original context of this pericope.

I will ignore your ad hominem remarks about my supposedly suffering from liberal guilt or Asperger's or not understanding your simple statements, and for good reason, but you give no good reason for ignoring my question about your or Obsidian's 'hypotheis' as the reason for introducing this story. No one here has recommended stoning for the youth minister. At least Obsidian is consistent in advocating following the commandment of Moses about stoning adulterers, even 12-year-old girls who were victims of an adult with authority over them. You, on the other hand, are you still ambivalent? Of course, those of us who follow Jesus' teaching and example, have a different path to follow.

[Obsidian]

the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

You quoted it yourself, yet you ignore it.

[robrecht]

the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

You quoted it yourself, yet you ignore it.

Don't be absurd. I quoted it as an essential part of my argument. In this story, Jesus dissuades people from following this commandment of Moses. He says, 'Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. And one by one they walk away, beginning with the elders. Jesus was not afraid of the Romans, nor was he afraid to contradict the law of Moses, as he does elsewhere, for example, Mk 10,3-12 Mt 19,7-9. Or, as John and Jesus say, 'the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Messiah. ... Your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope'. Would you like me to quote St Paul?

[Obsidian]

I would like you to stop promoting heresy. How does he dissuade them from the law? He tells them to kill her.

[robrecht]

I would like you to stop promoting heresy. How does he dissuade them from the law? He tells them to kill her.

So when Jesus says, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone," do you think he thought that the witnesses were sinless? You don't think he expected the people to disperse?

[apostoli]

I agree with you, Apostoli, but honestly, Jesus did not make this issue of Roman law the main issue -- although I'm sure he was aware of it. We're allowing ourselves to get distracted. It is a side issue because under the circumstances, even Jewish law did not allow for killing the woman.

I must disagree with you in your last subjection. Under the Mosaic ordinances the woman having been caught in the act (Jn 8:4), was subject to the death penalty without trial! Roman Law was somewhat closer to our modern perspective...

[apostoli]

There was no chance for an execution because it was illegal, not because Jesus couldn't have whipped the mob into a frenzy and had her lynched. If Jesus says kill her He breaks Roman law. If He says spare her, He breaks God's law. So He breaks neither by shaming them into dispersing. Pretty straightforward.

A very good point!!! Though it is often difficult, we need to separate ourselves from modern paradigms (law) and focus ourselves on the circumstances of an occupied territory in "primitive" times...

ps: God's Law (The Decalogue) does not supply penalties. It simply states thou should not commit adultery. Pick an OT hero, they were all licentious and committed adultery - notably Abraham and David each having done so without direct personal penalty! (albeit, to this day the Ishmaelites still plague the Israelites (the result of Abraham's promiscuity), and David's temporal throne was been empty for thousands of years and his Temple (unwanted by YHWH) was repetitively destroyed and to this day remains non-existent. (the result of David's promiscuity)).

[apostoli]

It is incorrect to say that there was no chance for an execution just because it may have been illegal. Stephen was executed after a trial before the sunedrion with witnesses, even 'though you think it was an illegal execution according to Roman law. Whether you call it an illegal execution or a lynching makes little difference. The accused is still dead afterward. Personally, I don't think Jesus would be afraid or in any way reluctant to fulfill God's law even if he did violate Roman law. Those who still practiced stoning at the time of Jesus may have been flouting Roman law, but they were following God's Law. It is disingenuous to claim that Jesus did not agree with the execution merely because the witness were gone because it was Jesus himself who discouraged anyone from throwing the first stone. Whether the woman had already been tried or if Jesus interrupted the process whereby she was being brought to trial, Jesus can only be seen here as preventing the Mosaic commandment from being followed:

ἐν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ ἡμῖν Μωϋσῆς ἐνετείλατο τὰς τοιαύτας λιθάζειν.

"In our Torah, Moses commanded women such as these to be stoned."

If you want to understand this story as it may have actually occorred, you should not focus attention on this Johannine context. John 8,12 was certainly not part of the original pericope. When the pericope is placed between John 7,36 and 7,37, there is no crowd left at the end of the story. When this pericope is placed at the end of John's gospel, there is no crowd left at the end of the story. When this pericope is placed at the end of Luke 21 there is no crowd left at the end of the story. There is no good reason to assume that any of the crowd was left behind in the original context of this pericope.

I will ignore your ad hominem remarks about my supposedly suffering from liberal guilt or Asperger's or not understanding your simple statements, and for good reason, but you give no good reason for ignoring my question about your or Obsidian's 'hypotheis' as the reason for introducing this story. No one here has recommended stoning for the youth minister. At least Obsidian is consistent in advocating following the commandment of Moses about stoning adulterers, even 12-year-old girls who were victims of an adult with authority over them. You, on the other hand, are you still ambivalent? Of course, those of us who follow Jesus' teaching and example, have a different path to follow.

Jesus apparently had a habit/persuasion of quoting YHWH in preference to Moses' ordinances! Notably: "For I desired mercy..." If you acknowledge Hosea, and Jesus' repetitions in Mt 9 & 12 they indicate that Moses' ordinances were warped according to Moses' own prejudices and did not reflect the aspirations of YHWH for his chosen people! In fact, I would suggest that Moses' ordinances are in direct opposition to God's decree to Noah concerning the shedding of another man/woman's blood...

[apostoli]

So when Jesus says, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone," do you think he thought that the witnesses were sinless? You don't think he expected the people to disperse?

To make a judgement (which we can't) one has to distinguish whether the audience adhered to the Rabbinic schools of Hillel or Shammai. If the later then the woman would have probably been stoned without thought.

Now as the focus is on John 8, it is worth noting John 8:30. The audience that remained after the earlier events were those that "As he spake these words, many believed on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed". And yet Jesus accuses these very people = "I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you". (Jn 8:37).

Jesus makes this statement just after he decrees "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin"...

[Obsidian]

Now a third person argues that Jesus contradicted the law of Moses. Blatant heresy. You call yourself a Christian?

Under the Mosaic ordinances the woman having been caught in the act (Jn 8:4), was subject to the death penalty without trial!

Citation please

[OingoBoingo]

Now a third person argues that Jesus contradicted the law of Moses. Blatant heresy. You call yourself a Christian?

You're a bit of a drama queen, aren't you?

[apostoli]

Now a third person argues that Jesus contradicted the law of Moses. Blatant heresy.

If you were literate, and not blinded by some subjective prejudice (See Isaiah and numerous repetitions by Jesus) you would have read that Jesus neither confirmed nor denied Moses' ordinances but invoked God's wisdom = "He who has not sinned, let him cast the first stone"....

You call yourself a Christian?

In case you haven't read the NT, the apostle Paul is very adamant that Christians are not obligated to Moses' ordinances (which demands such were not inspired by God but human impositions (which is proved by the general failure of Moses' inventions (interventions) - from the establishment of the Judges, the Usury laws, dietary laws and other insanities)). So, if your benchmark of Christianity is obligation to Moses' ordinances, then obviously you aren't a Christian...and if you pretend to be one then you are self accused of blatant heresy...Christians follow Christ's teaching, not Moses, Abraham or any other divisive Jew...

[Obsidian]

Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. You don't believe them. That is a gross departure from Christianity.