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.

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 test²⁵.

VI

        The trap set for Jesus by the question did contain a very particular danger. King Herod had married Herodias who was a divorcée, having been married to Herod’s half-brother. Jesus’ response to the adulteress would be interpreted as his response to Herodias. John the Baptist preached repentance for the remission of sin. The account in Mark 6,17-29 is instructive. Herod, we are told, imprisoned John "for Herodias’ sake". John then specifically told Herod that it was not lawful for him to have his brother’s wife, and Herodias hated John as a result²⁶. Consequently she had him beheaded. Jesus, who had been baptized by John would be seen as his follower, and would arouse the same suspicions in Herodias. Indeed, it appears from Mark 3,6 that the supporters of Herod were deeply hostile to Jesus even before the Pharisees were²⁷.

        We now see a further reason for the crowd melting away. No one would throw the first stone when the adulteress represented Herodias²⁸.

VII

        One issue remains. For my thesis to have plausibility I must explain why the pericope never states that the adulteress, caught in the act, is in fact a remarried divorcée. The most plausible explanation is also the simplest. In the early traditions about Jesus there was recorded this episode. It presented problems that would be blurred in oral repetition. First, Jesus would appear more loving and forgiving if the context were generalized. Second, Jesus would not appear to be faced with a strong moral and legal dilemma of his own making if the context were generalized. Such a blurring may appear in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae 3.39.17, when he cites Papias (who was bishop of Hierapolis in the first half of the second century) as having "expounded another story about a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains". We have no other account of a woman being accused before Jesus so probably the episodes are the same. If so, John’s version of an accusation of adultery is blurred into an accusation of many sins²⁹. The original version may well have been specific. The scribes and Pharisees