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.

the older to the very last" (John 8,9). Jesus, as elsewhere when faced with a legal issue, sidesteps the question²⁰. 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.

IV

        It has long been recognized that there is a relationship of some kind — connected with an attempt to make the law apply less unequally to women — between our passage and rabbinic interpretation of the ancient ordeal of a wife whom a husband suspected of adultery which he could not prove²¹. 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 curse²². 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 still²³.

        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"²⁴. On this view, if the man was not clear of sin, the woman would not bear her sin.

V

        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