Alan Watson, «Jesus and the Adulteress», Vol. 80 (1999) 100-108

Many factors contribute to a re-examination of the story of the adulterous woman (John 7,53–8,11). This essay responds to these factors by its defense of the suggestion that the woman is a re-married divorcee, at fault not with the Mosaic Law, but with the teaching of Jesus on divorce.

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. 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.

        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?

        Jesus wrote on the ground but we are not told what he wrote. The purpose of the writing was to give time for reflection, to put distance between the charge and Jesus’ response. What Jesus wrote is thus of no consequence, with no need to record it. The time for reflection was for both Jesus and the Pharisees.

        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 a)nama/rthtoj 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)".
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)"¹⁶.

        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 lost¹⁷. Jesus’ attitude is different, expressed most notably at Matt 5,31-32: