> Even if I were to accept that the author of this passage somehow expects his mostly-gentile readership to implicitly know Moses' Law is not being administered correctly

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Your assumption that the audience was clearly Gentile is an unfounded assumption. John's Gospel is filled with pericopes aimed at a Jewish audience:

* Jn. 1.19-28, assuming knowledge of priests, Levites, the expectation of Elijah, reference to Isaiah the prophet, and the meaning of baptism.
* Jn. 1.29-34: reference to the Lamb of God, Judaistic concepts of atonement, the meaning of baptism, revelation to israel, and the place of the Holy Spirit.
* Jn. 1.47, assuming the audience would understand the reference to a "true Israelite."
* Jn. 1.49, assuming the audience would understand the reference to the Son of God and the "King of Israel."
* Jn. 2.1-11, assuming the audience would understand the reference to the stone jars and the symbolism of wine as referring to Israel.
* Jn. 2.12-22, assuming the audience would understand the references to the prophetic images of the Temple and zeal for God's house house.
* Jn. 3.1-15, and all the imagery to one of Israel's elite teachers.
* Jn. 3.22-36. John the Baptist was a prophet to Israel. The teaching makes sense in address to Jews.
* Jn. 4. Jesus's conversation with the woman at the well is founded in OT teachings with which a Jewish audience would be familiar.
* Jn. 4.43-54—an indictment of Jewish unbelief, supposed to be convicting to a Jewish audience.
* Jn. 5.1-15. The miracle was a message to the Jews.
* Jn. 5.16-47: a message from Jesus about the Sabbath, Jewish monotheistic theology, and the Jewish Scriptures
* Jn. 6: The feeding of the 5000 and the Bread of Life sermon were aimed at a Jewish audience.
* Jn. 7. Jesus teaching at the Feast of Tabernacles, a Jewish feast, obviously written to those with a knowledge of the feast.

So, I seriously ask you: At what point can you seriously contend that John 8 is written to a mostly Gentile readership who would have little to no knowledge of Moses's law? You've just jumped out of the entire book and the entire context.

Obviously, John 7.52-8.11 is not authentic, but there is nothing in it to substantiate a claim that it was written to a mostly Gentile audience who wouldn't know the Law was not being administered correctly. Secondly, since we don't know who wrote it, or when, the evidence of context, themes, and terminology leads us in the opposite direction of your conclusion.

> Jesus does not do anything to legitimize what has become illegitimate.

What is it that has become illegitimate? I don't know what you're talking about.

> Ultimately Jesus admits that her sin of adultery will now go unpunished

He does NOT admit that. What He does admit is that neither He (in this situation at this time) nor the Pharisees are in a position to punish her sin, which is absolutely correct. It would take a legitimate gathering of perpetrators (the man and the woman), and investigation of the evidence, an appearance before a legitimate court, and the testimony of actual witnesses to do this case correctly. There is always punishment for sin (Num. 32.23; 2 Cor. 5.10). But this was neither the time for that nor the right context.

> Shouldn't a mistrial call for a retrial?

Very possibly. If the Pharisees were serious about such things, they could easily do that—and perhaps they did. What happened next between them and the woman is unknown. But Jesus didn't call for that because the whole situation was a trap for Him, an abuse of the woman as a tool to manipulate Jesus, and a travesty of judicial propriety. I doubt that the Pharisees followed it up. One can tell from the situation and set-up that they didn't care about the Torah or justice, but only about trapping Jesus and slandering him in front of the people present.

Even if I were to accept that the author of this passage somehow expects his mostly-gentile readership to implicitly know Moses' Law is not being administered correctly, Jesus does not do anything to legitimize what has become illegitimate. Ultimately Jesus admits that her sin of adultery will now go unpunished. Shouldn't a mistrial call for a retrial?

> I would think a Torah-observant Jew like Jesus would have encouraged the crowds to treat the woman in accordance with what the Law says.

They were not advancing the case as the Torah dictated, and Jesus did not fall into a legal category of witness or judge. For that matter, to state a position would have been contrary to Torah. (1) the adulterous man was not present, (2) they had not taken the case to their courts, (3) their question is not to fulfill judicial integrity but instead "What do you say?, (4) Jesus didn't qualify as a witness or as a judge in this situation, (5) no trial had taken place, and (6) no investigation had taken place. By what logic do you conclude that "a Torah-observant Jew like Jesus would have encouraged the crowds to treat the woman in accordance with what the Law says"?

> He might have told the Pharisees that she stands condemned but must be condemned alongside the male offender, etc.

Jesus is not in a position to condemn her. He was not a witness to the crime, he has not investigated the crime, the offending man is not there, and He doesn't qualify as a courtroom. If he tells the Pharisees what you suggest, then Jesus is at fault for disobeying Torah. Obviously that didn't happen and should not have happened.

> Essentially you seem to be saying that Jesus let her go on a technicality. A lucky break.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Jesus doesn't "let her go on a technicality." There are so many infractions going on here that the case doesn't even get close to qualifying as legitimate. And you possibly missed Jesus's last words to her: "Now go and sin no more."

If the primary impediment to the stoning of the woman is really judicial malpractice, I would think a Torah-observant Jew like Jesus would have encouraged the crowds to treat the woman in accordance with what the Law says. He might have told the Pharisees that she stands condemned but must be condemned alongside the male offender, etc. Essentially you seem to be saying that Jesus let her go on a technicality. A lucky break.

> Unfortunately most people miss all these points and think Jesus simply didn't approve of judging others or capital punishment or something.

Yeah, people just don't take time or make the effort to truly understand.

> Considering he's God, and the Law was given by God, I think it's safe to say Jesus DOES think adultery is wicked (he even told the woman "go and sin no more")

Of course he disapproves of adultery. Matt. 5.27-30 is clear enough. Jesus never says the law is invalid.

> and would hardly think capital punishment was wrong if he was part of the God that mandated it in the first place.

My estimation would be the same (that he would hardly think capital punishment is wrong). But Jesus never makes any kind of a statement on capital punishment.

> His response "he who is without sin cast the first stone" doesn't mean "unless you are perfect you can never judge someone else's actions," but that's the way people seem to misuse it.

I totally agree.

Unfortunately most people miss all these points and think Jesus simply didn't approve of judging others or capital punishment or something.

Considering he's God, and the Law was given by God, I think it's safe to say Jesus DOES think adultery is wicked (he even told the woman "go and sin no more") and would hardly think capital punishment was wrong if he was part of the God that mandated it in the first place.

His response "he who is without sin cast the first stone" doesn't mean "unless you are perfect you can never judge someone else's actions," but that's the way people seem to misuse it.

OK, thanks. We don't even know how common stoning was. The Bible records only two stonings, both of Christians (Acts 7.57-58; 14.19). But there is no detailed scene of stoning in any ancient literature. Joseph refused to have Mary stoned when she was suspected of adultery (Matt. 1.19). Without data or documentary evidence, it's just impossible to know how unusual it would have been at the time.

Jesus's stopping of it, though, was not because he asserted himself and intervened. They brought the woman to him, and it was clearly a trap. Sure, they caught her in the act, but where's the guy? Lev. 20.10 and Deut. 22.22 say that the man as well as the woman is to be put to death. If they "caught" her, this means they had seen the very act—caught them in bed. This was nothing other than a trap deliberately set. Also, the Law of Moses stipulated that a case of adultery should be taken to the courts (Dt. 19.16-18). They're just being jerks. There was no need for this public display. She could have been kept in custody while the case was referred to Jesus, but they obviously had an ulterior motive: humiliate the woman and therefore also humiliate Jesus. The whole thing is a scam to trap and humiliate Jesus.

The Law stipulates stoning (Dt. 22.21). They don't need Jesus to issue a ruling. Guilt is established and the witnesses are in place. It's a done deal. So what's really going on here? Their question to Jesus is, "Now what do *you* say?" (Jn. 8.5). This is plot, and it's heartless to the woman. If Jesus consented to the execution, the people would judge him as cruel and brutal. If he objects, he's labelled a lawbreaker and a defamer of the Mosaic Law.

Jesus is amazing here.

1. He writes on the ground. Ex. 23.1 says "Don't help a wicked person by being a malicious witness." He's not going to aid and abet their malice.
2. Deut. 1915 says one witness is not enough to convict someone. Two or three was the minimum. Therefore Jesus didn't qualify as one to render judgment. He was not a witness to the event. If he were to rule on it, regardless of which way he ruled, he would be breaking the law.
3. The Law (Dt. 19.16) stipulated that trials were to take place "before the priests and judges who are in office at the time." Therefore for Jesus to pronounce judgment and execution on his own, outside of due process, would have been against the law.
4. The Law (Lev. 20.10 & Dt. 22.22) stipulated that the man and women were to be tried together. Since they caught the couple in the act, it was against the law for the man not to be there as well. Jesus would have been acting illegally to pronounce judgment on her and not on the man since they were caught in the act.
5. Deut. 17.2-7 says that such matters need to be investigated thoroughly (in contrast to dragging the woman out of bed and throwing her in the dirt in front of Jesus), and that it is the witnesses who should throw the first stones (v. 7). Jesus was not a witness and therefore should not have thrown a stone himself.

So, besides compassion, Jesus had reasons to stay out of it. But then his response is classic. He avoids blasting them, and certainly treats her with compassion, and what he says is just perfect to convict them of their blatant guilt through the situation. He doesn't exonerate the woman, but he throws their trap right back at them. Pure genius, and so well played in terms of compassion, mercy, and judgment. He endorses the law in refusing to judge the woman, and also in how he judges her accusers. I love it.

It's just impossible to know how unusual this was. I'm not aware of any other records like this one. If they exist, I'd love to know about them.

The stopping of it

Wow, I'd love to talk but I need more information. What is "amazing and interesting" to you: That they were going to stone her or that Jesus stopped it? When you want to know if if was unusual, are you talking about stoning people caught in adultery, or stopping the community from doing that? When you want to know if there were similar acts or ideas around, do you mean the stoning or the stopping of the stoning?

Jesus prevented the stoning of a woman ‘taken in adultery’. To me this is one of the most amazing and interesting things he did. How unusual would it have been at the time? Were there any similar acts or ideas around there and then?