So you believe this whole incident was a set-up? That the woman was an actor in a set to trick Yah'shua? I think this very unlikely. She would have been taking a HUGE chance with an angry mob. Furthermore, Yah'shua told her to "sin no more". If the religious leaders had been guilty of fraud, don't you think Yah'shua would have exposed it as such and shamed them for their duplicity? I can't accept this scenario - it makes no sense. Yah'shua's responses are so brilliantly structured as to condemn her accusers and to give her an object lesson - never to repeat this again.

Yet I agree it is odd that the male offender was absent. Maybe he got away (sounds unlikely, admittedly, but not impossible). Or maybe he was stoned separately. Maybe the Jews had both the man and the woman in custody but only presented the woman to Yah'shua, deliberately calculating that He might be 'weaker' when it came to a woman and therefore more likely slip up.

Another apparent anomaly - the Jews and the Jewish leaders were not allowed to conduct executions without the permission of the Roman authority, unless of course they occasionally ignored this and just did it anyway (e.g. stoning of Stephen).

She was not an actor - she was falsely accused.

All the anomalies of the case cause us to have to look at this as a unique scenario.
Everyone has sin, so saying sin no more would not be out of place.

She could very well have been an adulteress - but she was not caught, there was no proof.
Thus the case would be appear to us as a comment on properly following the Torah, and although Yeshua would through his (supernatural) insight know of her sin, we cannot trust in our insight in the same way - he was being an example to us, instead of utilizing supernatural powers that would not really be an example for us in how to conduct trials, as we do not have these powers.

I believe the Rabbinic argument from silence to come into play here - there simply was no man, only a woman with a bad name and reputation, a sinner, and perhaps she also was an adulteress - yet there was no proof, which is key here.



Lev/Christopher said:

So you believe this whole incident was a set-up? That the woman was an actor in a set to trick Yah'shua? I think this very unlikely. She would have been taking a HUGE chance with an angry mob. Furthermore, Yah'shua told her to "sin no more". If the religious leaders had been guilty of fraud, don't you think Yah'shua would have exposed it as such and shamed them for their duplicity? I can't accept this scenario - it makes no sense. Yah'shua's responses are so brilliantly structured as to condemn her accusers and to give her an object lesson - never to repeat this again.
Yet I agree it is odd that the male offender was absent. Maybe he got away (sounds unlikely, admittedly, but not impossible). Or maybe he was stoned separately. Maybe the Jews had both the man and the woman in custody but only presented the woman to Yah'shua, deliberately calculating that He might be 'weaker' when it came to a woman and therefore more likely slip up. Another apparent anomaly - the Jews and the Jewish leaders were not allowed to conduct executions without the permission of the Roman authority, unless of course they occasionally ignored this and just did it anyway (e.g. stoning of Stephen).

Yeshua also told several others, whose sin is not mentioned, to "sin no more".

You may be right - points taken. And yet John 8:3 says that she WAS caught in adultery - why didn't John say she was falsely accused? Had v.4 only existed, where the PHARISEES claimed she was caught in adultery, that would be another matter. But the narrator also says she was caught in adultery in v.3.

It sounds to me, based on the data you have supplied, that she had committed adultery but there were no eye-witnesses, so she hadn't been "caught". That would explain Yah'shua's rebuke to her accusers as well as His strict admonition not to sin again for HE had caught her, knowing the truth. Yet why would the scripture say she was "CAUGHT"?

The first half of John 8:3 seems to me to be the crux. Unless you can prove that has been translated wrong I don't think your case is watertight.

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2638.htm

http://biblos.com/john/8-3.htm

I don't know about the Aramaic, but the Greek word translated "caught" is katalambanó, word which could, perhaps more accurately in this particular scenario, be rendered: perceived (to be caught), understood (to be caught).

Word Origin
from kata and lambanó

Definition
to lay hold of, seize

NASB Word Usage
attained (1), caught (2), comprehend (2), found (1), laid hold (2), lay hold (1), overtake (2), seizes (1), understand (1), understood (1), win (1).

Compare with the English word grasped - meaning to hold physically, or to mentally "hold" (understand).

Lev/Christopher said:

You may be right - points taken. And yet John 8:3 says that she WAS caught in adultery - why didn't John say she was falsely accused? Had v.4 only existed, where the PHARISEES claimed she was caught in adultery, that would be another matter. But the narrator also says she was caught in adultery in v.3.
It sounds to me, based on the data you have supplied, that she had committed adultery but there were no eye-witnesses, so she hadn't been "caught". That would explain Yah'shua's rebuke to her accusers as well as His strict admonition not to sin again for HE had caught her, knowing the truth. Yet why would the scripture say she was "CAUGHT"?