Another important aspect of this story is that evidence from ancient and medieval manuscripts strongly suggests it was not part of the original Gospel of John, but why do scholars claim this?
The earliest known manuscript to include the story is a Greek manuscript from the fifth century. After that, no other Greek manuscript records the episode until the ninth century. Some manuscripts even place it in different locations, such as at the end of John or within the Gospel of Luke. For these and other reasons, scholars today almost universally conclude that the story of Jesus writing in the sand was likely not an original part of John’s Gospel.
What they fail to mention here is that wherever this pericope has appeared, it has always been considered inspired and canonical by the Church. As such, there is no problem accepting it as God's word.
I think you have to include the “writing on the ground” as true. Yes it doesn’t appear in some earlier manuscripts but unless they can find out from hence the “writing” mention came from, hoax or some older writ that was lost you have to accept it as truth. Like what was mentioned before, the 4th century church accepted the account as truth and biblical so why are modern people, who are 15 centuries farther away the Bible’s creation trying to discount it?
My own heart and gut accepts it as truth despite my own logical mind’s attempt to falsify the story due to the manuscript differences mentioned but I can’t. Somebody put that reference of Christ’s writing on the ground for a reason in a manuscript that was deemed acceptable for use as part of the Early 4th century canon of scriptures. Never mind modern intellectuals that try to discredit it.
Pretty clear what would stop the mob - their names next to their “secret” sin.