Barbarism survives

Are do you think they all have merit?

and they didn't follow it always in Christ day. We don't have a record of what he wrote, but likely was the law and the man's name, or maybe the second time he wrote, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" Matthew 9:13 Whatever it was those assembled at least had good enough conscience to realize they were doing wrong. I'm not sure that would have happened in Iran.

John 8

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

I'm not sure it's authentic. There has been a good bit of controversy about that.

Still, under Mosaic law the woman AND the man should have both been punished, so the whole situation was obviously a set up. If it happened at all.

Actually the biblical text says it was a setup.

As best I can tell, most theologically conservative/evangelical scholars agree that the story of the woman caught in adultery was inserted into John 8 by someone other than the original author. It does not appear in very many of the high quality early manuscripts. When it DOES appear it is often located somewhere else (eg: earlier in John 7, or in John 21, or in Luke 21, or in Luke 24 according to the Baker commentary edited by Elwell). Some of my Bibles are packed up due to some home renovation we having going on, but my recollection is that all (or at least almost all) of the modern translations make mention of the controversy. I'm pretty sure that includes NASB and NIV, both of which are products of fairly conservative scholarly teams. About the only translation I recall NOT mentioning the controversy is the AV (aka 'King James Version'), but that may be because the Textus Receptus used for the AV is not the most reliable Greek manuscript, a fact that should have been known even to the translators of the AV. Also you should note that the controversy about the authenticity of the adultery story goes back at least to the 11th century so it is not entirely the result of modern scholarship.

One does not have to be a skeptic regarding the Bible itself to question the accuracy of the AV.
There are more details in various places, for example:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/DUMB/Nestle.html#r03 (and yes, I do know that the adultera site's author believes the text is authentic)

I thought you were being flippant and dismissive. I personally believe the passage because as an insertion it makes no sense. For instance I do believe the passage about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in I John chapter 5 was an insertion because it clearly interrupts the flow of thought which is restored when that is removed. Second because it makes no sense as a corollary to the rest of the chapter, it even seems a bit stilted in how it's tried to make fit the water and blood. The other reason is it's almost obvious and fits too nicely in with a controversy of the past concerning the Trinity.

I see none of those characteristics in the passage about Jesus and the woman who was brought to him. The text fits the times too closely also, I'd say a perfect fit. The Pharisees were always trying to trap him in some manner. If it was an insertion, I think having Jesus write something unknown, twice, would instead have tried to make some claim of what had been written rather than leaving it unreported. It's almost dismissive of the event really. There's no deliberate scriptural point made, more just a narrative of an interesting event which occurred. The only point that might be considered clearly made was one of mercy rather than judgement. No legal point was clearly made, not even directly implied, although anyone who knew the law might consider it implied, but certainly weakly.

Why insert it? What was the point?

Three ancient texts that don't include it, all the other Greek texts do. I would believe in those 3 having suffered deliberate deletions, than all the others being victim of an insertion. One of those ancient text, maybe all three, could have come under the early Judaizing influences that the early church contended with, causing such deletion. For instance the Book of Enoch fell victim to Judaizing influences in the early church. It's quoted from in other NT text. Jesus constantly used a phrase "Son of Man" that was directly from it when speaking of himself. For centuries even the Jews had accepted it, especially many in the first century. So, where does it appear in our Christian bible? Nowhere. Why? Deleted. Only the Coptic church in Egypt I think puts a copy of a Book of Enoch in their Christian bible.

I don't feel like researching which texts do and do not include that pericope, but let's suppose that all but 3 of the best ancient texts do include it. What you failed to note is that a large number of those texts do not put it in John 8. The story shows up other places in John and also in Luke. My impression from the sources I've seen is that the location in John 8 is arbitrary at best, and not well supported by the ancient texts. Many commentators believe the story is authentic even if they doubt it belongs in the Gospel of John.

That raises questions: Why the confusion? What does that tell us about how the Canon was assembled and by whom?

Let's not go too far afield. We are discussing this one event recorded in John chapter 8. It's possible that's not the original location, but I do believe the story is an accurate one about Jesus, well known at the time. We don't have everything Jesus did, which is something I regret greatly that they weren't all written down. What we do have should be enough however to believe on him. I'd love to have full versions of his sermons in the temple and synogogues, but maybe Matt chapter 5 called the Beatitudes is the most complete one. Why don't we have more? I don't know, but what we do have will have to be enough, unless verifiable texts from first or second century that were known about but didn't survive are found in the future. Wouldn't that be great? Luke indicates there were quite a number of writings available at the time his gospel was written. I suspect many of those never made it to the Canon. It's one reason I like to read the pseudographica, apocrypha, and the various testaments, apocalypses, etc that we do have access to, thanks to translators like Charlesworth. I do note however that BOTH Luke and John sat down to make a record of many events in the life of Christ, and thankful for that. If everything doesn't flow like a timeline perfectly, or some bits and pieces seem an after thought and inserted, doesn't bother me that much. Glad I am to have it. As for the part about the adulterous woman in John 8, I can find no fault with the story and don't get the same feeling of something being false about it like I did the insertion in I John 5 even as a teen who believed in the Trinity.

Luke 1:1 - Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

John 20:30 - And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.