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.

"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".

        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 peira/zontej, is the same in Matt 19,3, Mark 10,2, and John 8,6, "tempting (him)"¹⁸. 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.

        C.K. Barrett¹⁹ cites with approval a then unpublished paper of David Daube in which Daube suggests that: "in its original context, the slogan ‘He that is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her’ is directed specifically against the unfair treatment of women by men and their laws; and that it is representative of a strong movement in Tannaitic Judaism". If this view of Daube 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.

        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.

        Jesus’ response discomfited the scribes and Pharisees: "They, having heard, and convicted by conscience, went out one by one, beginning from