John 7:53-8:11; The Adultera Pericope and Casting Stones

[jeffrey]

It is all interesting. I think the most compelling is why was in omitted? The logical conclusion would be it was added later. Which leads to the question, why was it added later? And it would be nice to have at least one original text from at least one of the original authors of the bible.

[Nazaroo]

Whats your alternative? The 'standard line' is obviously inadequate.

[Nazaroo]

Originally Posted by Jawhawker1

(posted in post #1 of this thread

Footnote 139 of the New English Translation Bible notes:


This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: "the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming" (TCGNT 187).

Isn't this the same translation that has Moses' wife casually touching his penis with his son's (lopped off) foreskin, on the flimsy basis that 'at his feet' is supposed to be a euphemism for sexual coitus or foreplay everywhere it appears?:

As if modern versions didn't embarrass themselves enough with over-enthusiastic corrections and conjectural 'emendations' to the Holy Scriptures, some have gone to incredible lengths apparently simply to shock, in the same manner as cheap hollywood movies:

Here, unsastified that the latest and most ridiculous ideas pass easily into 'approved' (read: pushed by publishers) commentaries on the bible, translators have begun tripping over each other in the rush to incorporate every lame-brained thought that occurs to a lonely aging professor, alone in his office, ...confused, ...thinking about young coeds in lecture class...

No perversion or fetish is too extreme to be ruled out of this new round of 'assured results of modern criticism':


Quote:
Zipporah's Encounter with Yahweh (the LORD)
The story of Moses, Zipporah and Yahweh also shows a connection between circumcision, violence and sex. The violence is obvious:

`And it came to pass on the way in the lodging place, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and made it touch his feet, and said, Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me. So he let him alone: then she said, A bridegroom of blood art thou, because of the circumcision.'
(Exod. 4:24-26, RV, 1884, margin)

The text of the King James Version and the Revised Version read: `cast it at his feet.' The more literal `made it touch his feet' was relegated to the margin of the Revised Version, probably for reasons of decency. You see, in Hebrew, feet was used as a euphemism for the genitals. Hence this rendering:

`Zipporah picked up a sharp flint, cut off her son's, foreskin, and touched Moses' genitals with it...'

(Exod. 4:25, Revised English Bible)

The Hebrew did not specify if it was Moses' or Yahweh's feet that were touched, and it did not specify how we should take the word feet. The Revised English Bible accepts that the word feet refers to the genitals. However, it interpolates Moses' name as the one whose genitals were touched with the newly severed foreskin. To say it was Yahweh or to leave it to the reader to decide was apparently not an option for them.

The Revised English Bible (1989)

W. D. McHardy, ed., The Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha. Oxford and Cambridge: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1989.


That's right: For nearly 3000 years, Jew, Christian and Muslim alike have been misled and have mistakenly taken the Biblical text too literally, not recognizing the obvious "sexual euphemism" that 'at his feet' really means that men in O.T. times usually wandered about naked from the waist down, so that their genitals could be available for important fetish rituals. How could we have so misconstrued the sacred text all this time?

Thank Heaven there are brilliant German professors who, unfairly discredited though they might be, can guide the modern translator through the difficult task of sexually updating the bible for the modern world.

Now the poor reader must be assaulted with the most inappropriate and unlikely visual images when contemplating the simplest of expressions, like "at his feet", and will be compelled to consider the possibility, however unlikely, that it is yet another hidden euphemism for some kind of sexual fetish.

Who can possibly deny that this is a direct assault on the many New Testament passages which for the last 2000 years expressed only innocent reverence and homage to our Lord Jesus the Christ, Son of God?

In any case, a good discussion of how incredibly worthless the footnotes found in modern versions are can be found here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2706010-textual-evidence-for-john-81-11.html

In this thread, the first two pages of posts deal specifically with the foonotes in modern versions on this very passage.

[anders]

Adding one interesting interpretation:

SUMMARY

Many factors contribute to a re-examination of the story of the adulterous woman (John 7,53–8,11). This essay responds to these factors by its defense of the suggestion that the woman is a re-married divorcée, at fault not with the Mosaic Law, but with the teaching of Jesus on divorce.

from http://www.bsw.org/?l=71801&a=Ani01.htm

[Nazaroo]

We have opened up a whole new website dedicated to John 8:1-11.

There are over 50 rare and out of print, or otherwise hard to find articles, and hundreds of photographs of the earliest manuscripts, with analysis.

We have also added a watchdog page monitoring violence against women around the world.

adultera . awardspace . com.
just remove the spaces and go to the main homepage!

Peace,
Nazaroo

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

We have opened up a whole new website dedicated to John 8:1-11.

What peer reviewed scholarship authenticates the Adultera Pericope?