# Jesus and the woman taken in adultry: Where was the guy??? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 7, 2014, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033 "2014-08-07T14:19:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/21 "2014-08-07T16:41:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’m not so sure about lesbianism being specifically mentioned in that verse. [Among all these versions of the Bible](http://biblehub.com/romans/1-26.htm) I think it is only mentioned once. The rest of the translations just mention “unnatural relations”. Yes. It means having an uncle who is a zombie and an aunt that can fly. Unnatural relations. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/22 "2014-08-07T16:49:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. It means having an uncle who is a zombie and an aunt that can fly. Unnatural relations. Or masturbation. We just don’t know, and only one version that I can find so far has translated it to mean lesbianism. Do you have some reason to believe that the New Living translation(a recent revision of The Living Bible) has more accurately translated that verse than the others listed in the link I provided? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/23 "2014-08-07T16:54:46Z")
Too late to add-It could have been that the women were having sex with men, but doing it in ways that were considered “unnatural”. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/24 "2014-08-07T16:55:58Z")
Considering that many cultures consider _getting raped_ to be adultery, it probably was just another case of blame-the-woman. Specifically, an adulterous woman was considered ritually unclean, while the man involved was not. Maybe the woman’s husband was royally pissed at the guy who boinked her, but if he was unwilling to defend her, he probably was willing to settle for the standard harlot’s rate as compensation. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/25 "2014-08-07T17:22:26Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > More precisely, a wife was part of a man’s property and not vice-versa. Consider that the actual commandment is “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” The wife is listed right there along with the rest of his property. [According to the way some groups (e.g. Roman Catholics) number the commandments](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Traditions_for_numbering), the commandment against coveting thy neighbor’s wife is a separate commandment from the one against coveting thy neighbor’s goods. Even if it’s all one commandment (don’t covet anything that belongs to your neighbor), that doesn’t necessarily imply that wives (or anything else covetable) must be considered property. (In some senses they probably _were_, but using the commandment against coveting as evidence for this is really stretching things.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/26 "2014-08-07T17:49:51Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > [According to the way some groups (e.g. Roman Catholics) number the commandments](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Traditions_for_numbering), the commandment against coveting thy neighbor’s wife is a separate commandment from the one against coveting thy neighbor’s goods. > > Even if it’s all one commandment (don’t covet anything that belongs to your neighbor), that doesn’t necessarily imply that wives (or anything else covetable) must be considered property. (In some senses they probably _were_, but using the commandment against coveting as evidence for this is really stretching things.) But that very Commandment is central to this discussion, so I don’t see how using it as evidence could be considered “stretching thing”. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/27 "2014-08-07T18:01:03Z")
Is there any reason to believe the author knew anything else about this incident other than what he saw before him? Maybe they stoned some other guy the day before when the author wasn’t around. I thought the point of this bit was way different than the discussion here. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/28 "2014-08-07T18:13:53Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Is there any reason to believe the author knew anything else about this incident other than what he saw before him? Maybe they stoned some other guy the day before when the author wasn’t around. I thought the point of this bit was way different than the discussion here. The author most likely did not witness the incident, assuming it even happened at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/29 "2014-08-07T19:16:25Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Considering that many cultures consider _getting raped_ to be adultery, it probably was just another case of blame-the-woman. Presumably this what this “Great Debate” was in search of. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/30 "2014-08-07T19:22:08Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Even if it’s all one commandment (don’t covet anything that belongs to your neighbor), that doesn’t necessarily imply that wives (or anything else covetable) must be considered property. (In some senses they probably _were_, but using the commandment against coveting as evidence for this is really stretching things.) We do not derive the idea that women were property from this piece of bible text. There is plenty of evidence for it in actual laws. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/31 "2014-08-07T21:45:25Z")
In his book “Misquoting Jesus”, Prof Bart D. Ehrman says that the earlier copies of the Gospels (was this in John?), the story of the woman caught in adultery don’t exist. It begins to appear in copies that were transcribed in 120 CE or so. He believes that the incident didn’t happen, but scribes added it in because it’s a good story. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/32 "2014-08-07T22:42:54Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Considering that many cultures consider _getting raped_ to be adultery, it probably was just another case of blame-the-woman. Specifically, an adulterous woman was considered ritually unclean, while the man involved was not. Maybe the woman’s husband was royally pissed at the guy who boinked her, but if he was unwilling to defend her, he probably was willing to settle for the standard harlot’s rate as compensation. I think that one should look at the culture concerned, rather than “many cultures” to see what is happening in the original culture. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/33 "2014-08-07T22:45:22Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > One other question: were the Pharisees and elders REALLY planning to stone the woman? Or were they just using her to put Jesus on the spot? > > That is, it’s possible the woman was just a pawn, one the crowd was willing to use as a pawn in a game of “Stump the Prophet.” Somebody has pointed out, no cite, that the stoning was no longer customary in the day, and that it was just to get Jesus to commit to the stoning thing. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/34 "2014-08-07T22:48:37Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > the earlier copies of the Gospels (was this in John?), the story of the woman caught in adultery don’t exist. It was in the Deleted Scenes. Seriously, [Wikipedia has an article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery) that discusses the issue in probably way more detail than anyone here cares about. IIRC it’s common for Bibles to include the passage in John’s gospel, but with a footnote that the passage doesn’t appear in the earliest manuscripts. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/35 "2014-08-07T22:51:17Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > This has always bugged the hell out of me. How in God’s green grasses did this woman commit adultery all by herself? Why was the guy not brought before Jesus? Was he just allowed to skip la-de-da back to his three wives and twenty-nine children? > > It boggles my mind. Give me the Straight Dope, plesae. 1. [Redirect Notice](http://www.google.com/url?url=http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-28.htm&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=HgLkU4-WN8bNsQS-9YKIBA&ved=0CBQQFjAA&sig2=mpRuNywpB8h3lg_SLBaSaQ&usg=AFQjCNHGo1DjPfZT1c0HUv-oD7k8a3DJTQ) Extend to women, if you care to. 2. Nobody knows. 3. Nobody knows. Straight Dope: We can only guess. There may be a lot of reasons, tho. Woman may have been a big whore, and husband had reached his limits of overlooking her antics, while the male adulterer had nobody to complain. The aggrieved husband may not have cared to prosecute the man. Maybe the man ran quicker than the woman. Maybe the religious leaders were doing it one at a time, and the man was to be brought later. Maybe the man was already slain, and Jesus just happened upon the incident in progress. Ten jillion other reasons. Straight Dope is “We can only guess”. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/36 "2014-08-08T00:06:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No one can force you to understand if you don’t want to. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > And no one can force you to step up to the plate when the facts get in your way, Oh Great Guru. Boys, boys, can we just come to an agreement that, whether he spoke on it or not, Paul was against it? That’s how the smart money would bet because he was against nearly everything else. (thinking) The smart money would probably pass because nobody would take the bet. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/37 "2014-08-08T01:18:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The author most likely did not witness the incident, assuming it even happened at all. That doesn’t avoid the question though. Whether the underlying incident happened or not, we can still reasonably ask the question why, in the story told by the evangelist, the woman’t partner in adultery is not mentioned. One possible answer is that one of the themes of the story concerns scapegoating and victimisation; another deals with concern for the powerless and the marginalised. And it suits these themes perfectly for for the marginalised and powerless person to be blamed and punished while the other is simply not mentioned. The omission of the male partner from the story is a deliberate device to underline a point. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/38 "2014-08-08T01:19:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The Old Testament doesn’t, but Romans 1:26 mentions lesbianism (Paul is against it). > > Regards, > Shodan If someone, somewhere was enjoying it, Paul was against it on principle. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/39 "2014-08-08T01:44:00Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Boys, boys, can we just come to an agreement that, whether he spoke on it or not, Paul was against it? That’s how the smart money would bet because he was against nearly everything else. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > If someone, somewhere was enjoying it, Paul was against it on principle. (at the risk of hijacking the thread) Where are you guys getting this characterization of Paul? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033/40 "2014-08-08T01:49:44Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > (at the risk of hijacking the thread) Where are you guys getting this characterization of Paul? The epistles. That is, the letters of attributed to Paul, located toward the back end of the New Testament. Paul was one truly tightened screw. First he’s Saul, and he persecutes Christians. Then, on the road to Damascus, he sees the light, is blinded for three days, and spends the rest of his life running from one mob or another (until the Romans imprison him) and he rails against women, sexual relations and whatever else comes to mind waiting for his date with the axeman. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultry-where-was-the-guy/695033.md?page=3)