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

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the now locked "same sex" thread, Ceridwen018 wrote:

In the Bible, there is a story of a woman who was caught in the act of adultery and was about to be stoned to death when Jesus said those famous words. Of course, all of her accusers gradually drifted away, throwing no stones, and Jesus kindly told the woman to 'go and sin no more'.

I am very positive that that's the way it played out, but heck-- prove me wrong any day! I'll try to find the specific verses I'm talking about.

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:

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).

- see NET Bible

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.

Textual Criticism has been very useful in determining ancient interpolations of the New Testament and finding out where they came from and what kind of authority they have. One of the largest portions of the New Testament that is under extreme suspicion is John 7:53-8:11. This pericope tells of the woman who was caught in adultery and was brought for questioning before Jesus. These twelve verses are under suspicion because there are many manuscripts where it is lacking, is elsewhere in John’s Gospel, or is even in the Gospel of Luke. The places where it is found is so widely variant that it is very unique among all the disputed passages of the New Testament.

Textual Evidence

The evidence for a non-Johannine origin of this passage is overwhelming. It is absent from Sahidic p 66, 75 (Papyrus Bodmer II and XIV-XV) Dating to early 2nd century and the third century respectively. The uncials [Sinaiticus and Vaticanus], which are proto-Alexandrian and the oldest witnesses, dating to the fourth century. Vaticanus is a relatively complete and superior text of the entire Bible, with the Sinaiticus only slightly inferior to it. It is also missing from [Regius] an Egyptian text of eighth century that includes the double Marcan ending, [Borgianus] another Egyptian text dating to the fifth century, [Washingtonensis] which is also dates to the fifth century, [Monacensis] a Byzantine text of the tenth century, and [Sangallensis] a Greek-Latin diglot of the ninth century. Also ... the oldest forms of the Syriac version, older Bohairic, and some Armenian, Old Gregorian, Gothic, and Old Latin manuscripts omit it. No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century makes mention of this passage, saying that the most accurate copies of the Gospel of John do not contain it.

There is also some confusion as to, when the pericope is included, where exactly it belongs. In the Ferrar group of manuscripts, which are of a Caesarean text type copied between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries, the adultera pericope occurs not in John, but after Luke 21:38. In MSS 225 the pericope stands after John 7:36. In several Georgian manuscripts, MSS I 565 1076 1570 1582 it stands after John 21:25. In several Armenian versions it also is in a separate section at the end of the Gospel. In Sinai Georgian manuscript 16 it follows John 7:44. In many manuscripts it is marked with asterisks and obeli, indicating that although it was included the scribes were aware that it might not be authoritative.

- see The Adultera Pericope

 

[Green Gaia]

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"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

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".

Why would they do this ...?

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

... and what else has been "added"?

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

 

[Ceridwen018]

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?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

With all due respect, Ceridwen018, I thought I did "post some stuff". What am I missing here?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Whoops, so you did indeed! I must have missed them. Thank you much!

 

[Nazaroo]

If anyone wants to look at the more detailed internal evidence in favour of this passage of John, it can be found in several links here:

Why John 8:1-11 is Authentic

Previously Unconsidered Evidence for John 8 1-11

And also there is a good summary of the evidence here:

Intrinsic Probability and the Pericope de Adultera

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If anyone wants to look at the more detailed internal evidence in favour of this passage of John, it can be found in several links here: ...

Rather than dishing out such disappointing slop, indicate the evidence and argue why it should be deemed probative.

 

[Nazaroo]

Rather than dishing out such disappointing slop, indicate the evidence and argue why it should be deemed probative.

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.

 

[Smoke]

If anyone wants to look at the more detailed internal evidence in favour of this passage of John, it can be found in several links here:

Why John 8:1-11 is Authentic

Previously Unconsidered Evidence for John 8 1-11

And also there is a good summary of the evidence here:

Intrinsic Probability and the Pericope de Adultera

I don't find anything at all convincing there.

 

[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]

(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]

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

What peer reviewed scholarship authenticates the Adultera Pericope?