1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Interfaith Discussion' started by Jayhawker Soule, May 24, 2004.

  1. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,890
    Ratings:
    +10,250
    Religion:
    Judaism
    In the now locked "same sex" thread, Ceridwen018 wrote:

    I'm not too sure that it's a good idea to be very positive about anything when it comes to the New Testament, least of all this story. It is from John 7:53-8:11, is known as the "Adultera Pericope", and may well be an interpolation.

    Footnote 139 of the New English Translation Bible notes:

    In the following quote, I have opted to change references such as "W (Washingtonensis)" to "[Washingtonensis]". This is because, unlike 'W', many manuscripts use designations that do not show up correctly here.

     
  2. Green Gaia

    Green Gaia Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,780
    Ratings:
    +1,925
    So Deut, are you suggesting this famous story of Jesus forgiving the woman was made up by someone other than John and added later to the Bible? Why would they do this and what else has been "added"?
     
  3. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,890
    Ratings:
    +10,250
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Perhaps a bit more than that, Maize. I am suggesting evidence that has led such well respected scholars as Bruce Metzger to conclude that "the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming".

    I really have no idea. Jewish Midrash is a whole genre of made-up and/or embellished stories used for teaching.

    That is a fairly open-ended question, and I'm far from an expert. The Marcan Appendix might be another example.
     
  4. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    Deut. 32.8,

    That is extremely interesting-- I've never heard of that before. Just another thing to add to my arsenal of why the bible is not a reliable source of information. It definatly leads to the question of exactly what else has been 'added'! :lol:

    As to why it was added...I suppose it could be to teach a moral lesson to the people who read it, which it does indeed, and in that respect is not bad.

    I am interested as to what kind of evidence there is out there for this. Could you post some stuff?
     
  5. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,890
    Ratings:
    +10,250
    Religion:
    Judaism
    With all due respect, Ceridwen018, I thought I did "post some stuff". What am I missing here?
     
  6. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    Whoops, so you did indeed! I must have missed them. Thank you much!
     
  7. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5
    Ratings:
    +1
  8. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,890
    Ratings:
    +10,250
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Rather than dishing out such disappointing slop, indicate the evidence and argue why it should be deemed probative.
     
  9. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5
    Ratings:
    +1
    I'm not quite sure what you mean.
    I posted some good links presenting counter-evidence and arguments in favour of the Pericope de Adultera. Surely that was a reasonable thing to do.

    What could be more closely described as 'disappointing slop', than the misleading footnotes in a modern version, or quoting Metzger's 19th century viewpoint on the 'assured results' of modern criticism?

    I'll be happy to repost some detailed arguments here for you, if you find it too much to read through the threads previously posted.

    Perhaps you could just tell me what you think are the main arguments in favour of John 7:53-8:11 as an 'addition' or 'interpolation' into the Book of John. Perhaps even a hypothetical date when you think this may have occurred, or the proposed guilty parties, their motive, and how they managed to pull the greatest forgery of all time, without leaving any historical trace of their fraud.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,902
    Ratings:
    +3,255
  11. jeffrey

    jeffrey †ßig Dog†

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,366
    Ratings:
    +1,008
    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.
     
  12. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5
    Ratings:
    +1
    Whats your alternative? The 'standard line' is obviously inadequate.
     
  13. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5
    Ratings:
    +1
    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?:


    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.

     
  14. anders

    anders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,748
    Ratings:
    +167
    Adding one interesting interpretation:

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

    Nazaroo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5
    Ratings:
    +1
    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
     
  16. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,890
    Ratings:
    +10,250
    Religion:
    Judaism
    What peer reviewed scholarship authenticates the Adultera Pericope?
     
Loading...