Jump to content

Talk:Jesus and the woman taken in adultery: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 177: Line 177:
[[User:Mindfruit|Mindfruit]] ([[User talk:Mindfruit|talk]]) 10:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
[[User:Mindfruit|Mindfruit]] ([[User talk:Mindfruit|talk]]) 10:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:I think it needs to go. The footnote looks like original research. It mentions a reliable source (which I don't have access to), but simply says "see also". "To some Christians not concerned with textual disputes" seems POVish. Also, the sentence doesn't belong in the lead. [[User:StAnselm|<b>St</b>]][[Special:Contributions/StAnselm|Anselm]] ([[User talk:StAnselm|talk]]) 10:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:I think it needs to go. The footnote looks like original research. It mentions a reliable source (which I don't have access to), but simply says "see also". "To some Christians not concerned with textual disputes" seems POVish. Also, the sentence doesn't belong in the lead. [[User:StAnselm|<b>St</b>]][[Special:Contributions/StAnselm|Anselm]] ([[User talk:StAnselm|talk]]) 10:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

== Argument against the Death Penalty ==

Could this be used as an argument against the death penalty?[[Special:Contributions/98.228.223.184|98.228.223.184]] ([[User talk:98.228.223.184|talk]]) 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


== Argument against the Death Penalty ==
== Argument against the Death Penalty ==

Revision as of 18:26, 29 October 2012

WikiProject iconBible B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChristianity B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's History B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

ligature

I am I the only person who finds it pretentious to insist on using a ligitature here, instead of the far simpler (& accurate) use of separate letters -- Pericope Adulterae? -- llywrch 03:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you're not. -Silence 19:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

isn't 'pericope' Greek -- not Latin?

If 'pericope' is Greek, then 'pericope adulterae' should not be described as 'anglicised Latin', eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publius3 (talkcontribs) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of words were borrowed from Greek into Latin, and "Adultera" is a native Latin word... AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let the dude who is without sin...

  • 34,200 results for "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" on Google.
  • 14,500 results for "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" on Google.
  • 69,400 results for just "Let he who is without sin" on Google.
  • 23,400 results for just "Let him who is without sin" on Google.

Looks pretty clear to me which translation we should go with. -Silence 19:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for prostitution

Cut from article:

It has also been used to defend the existence of prostitution, and from mediæval times to the Victorian era, prostitutes would often be found most frequently in regions around Bishop's palaces, known as liberties.

No source, and in 30 years as a Christian this is the first I've ever heard of this. Maybe I'm just not well-read? :-)

Yes, you need to read more critical history. The Church had brodels and slaves up until the Reformation.--Againme (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The go and sin no more part would seem to label the "act" of adultery as a sin. One which she should "no more" engage in, implying it's wrong. Or am I missing something? --Uncle Ed 17:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

embedded structures

There are no references for this diagram. Where has it been published; or is it original research? TomHennell 12:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

history of textual criticism

I have edited this section to remove references to the passage being "removed" from witnesses. While there are a number of manuscripts that lack the passage, and have had it subsequently added by a corrector, I know of none that had the passage, but where it was subsequently deleted.

I have also rephrased the final para of the section. There is no text critical dispute that I am aware over the origin of this story, and little over its age. It is agreed on all side that this is a primitive narrative tradition, almost certainly transmitting a historical episode in the life and teaching of Jesus. The question is rather whether it was bound into John's Gospel from the beginning, or whether it was only incorporated into the Gospel text at a later date. TomHennell 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love this level of detail, but is it appropriate for an encyclopedia article? Should it be placed in a separate article, perhaps entitled "Detailed ..."?Scorwin (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

I am ignoring Tom Hennell's attempt to classify a simple table of quotations as "original research".

This is an absurd application of the rules concerning original research. The chart was merely an easy to read table of OT quotations from the Gospel of John, showing their position relative to the Pericope de Adultera.

To call this "original research" is absurd. Any child could tabulate the published footnoted OT quotations in any copy of the NT. If you delete every unordered list or disallow every organized presentation of facts, the wikipedia would lose 10% of its content.

Stop being anal about something so trivially simple.



I have removed Tom Hennell's undocumented opinions from the article. Citations were lacking, and as it stands, his edits have the shape of an attempt to form his own opinion rather than cite accepted and recognized authorities on the subject.

If you're going to insist on this level of strictness for edits, you can expect the same for your own. --Nazaroo 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I have reverted (again) the additions by user Nazroo that he admits are original research - and not yet published in peer reviewed journals or otherwise.

I give below Nazroo's justification for the insertions.

Naz

I regret that this is not "nonsense", but non-negotiable policy for Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article is not the place to discuss the evidence for and against the passage - but rather the place to summarise the published opinions of scholars concerning the passage (including for and against its authenticity in John, and elswhere in the Apostolic Tradition). I, personally, have no axe to grind on this issue - but I am concerned that an informative summary of the range of opinion (as I believe the article as now stands aimed to be) should not become a contraversialist lecture. In particular, it is not good practice to attach critical comments of your own to othe scholars published opinions - let them stand, and confront them with the published opinions of contrary scholars.

But not your own research please - see the policy article Wikipedia: no original research

regards

Tom

TomHennell 00:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiki

"You deleted my chart with this note:

Is this original reasearch of your own, or has it been published? If the former, then - whatever its merits - it should be removed.

What kind of nonsense is that? It is original research of my own, and it has every right to be in the article, which is a discussion of the evidence for and against the passage.

"whatever its merits - it should be removed" ??? what are you talking about?

Facts and theories should always of course be evaluated based upon their merits, and not just "authorities". If you object to its implications, or question its interpretation as evidence, then just add your own comments, and keep them separate from mine.

This passage in John is a controversial passage, with many variations to be found in contemporary scholarly opinion. You can't just impose your own here at Wikipedia. A good article on this subject will eventually accumulate a wide variety of opinion and evidence from independant research, and that is what will make it a good article. At least 100 articles a year are published on John, and dozens on this passage.

Don't try to censor research or filibuster accumulated evidence. If you can't contribute constructively, leave the article alone.

Sincerely, Naz

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomHennell"

Leadwind, thanks for your work in cutting out duplicates and OR, This article continually attracts such matter and has to be regularly pruned. I have, however, added back some elements relating especially to the evidence for the passage as a non-Johannine tradition. There are two distinct debates; whether the passage is original in John 7:53, and whether the story is an authentic tradition from the apostolic age. In my view, as it stood, the article confused these. I hope you don't mind. TomHennell (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, you're right that I didn't carefully distinguish between "genuine" and "original to John." I count on smart people to catch me when I overreach, so thanks. Next, I'd like to find a way to point out that the proponents of "original to John" are the scholarly equivalent of creationists. Leadwind (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure whether Maurice Robinson is a "creationist", possibly he is; but his position on this pericope is contrary to the common consensus, and (though I do not agree with him) not without substance. In particular, the arguments against the pericope now appears rather less watertight than was thought in the early years of the 20th century. Firstly, Robinson has convincingly argued that the obelization of the passage in many manuscripts relates to its lectionary usage, and not to any doubts as to authenticity. Secondly, the discovery of references in Didymus the Blind undercut the argument that the passage is not known in any Greek Father. Thirdly, arguments from internal consistency are less convincing in John (which shows signs elsewhere of editorial redaction) than in the synoptics. Hence the passasge may not have been penned by the "original evangelist", but still be considered canonical if incorporated by the "original redactor". Finally, the widely accepted view that "umlauts" in Vaticanus indicate known, rejected, variants, may support the testimony of Western Fathers in ingicating the pericope was widely found in John in the manuscript tradition by the 4th Century. TomHennell (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

I've removed the King James 2000 version, as that's a copyright violation, and replaced it with the original KJV (which is out of copyright in the U.S.). Please discuss here before making further changes to the translation. Superm401 - Talk 10:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a modern, more accurate translation would be more sensible. I'll put the NRSV in and see what happens... DTOx (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that version has a copyright too, and is not more, but less accurate, since it is missing essential (underlined) text in parts of the latter verses:
NRSV 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.
KJV 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.
NRSV 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?'
KJV 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?
When the accusers withdrew, the charges were withdrawn. Innocent unless proven guilty. She remains uncondemned, except maybe for all the people ever since who indirectly condemn her by continuing to call her an adulteress after her acquittal.
Telpardec (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "missing" the underlined bits it will be because those are now believed - on the basis of modern evidence not available to the makers of the KJV - not to have been present in the earliest manuscripts. Evercat (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the whole passage is "missing" in the "earliest manuscripts", the SIN-VAT manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The point of the critics is that the passage is missing in whole or in part in some of the manuscripts. What is the point of including the quote from the Bible, but to show what is missing, so people can see what all the fuss is about? The KJV has the whole "missing" passage - the copyrighted NSRV does not.
Telpardec (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holding

The section on James Holding's views is borderline original research. While he's fairly well known, he's not an academic Bible scholar, and doesn't even have a relevant degree. Evercat (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed since most likely, he added it himself but even if not, he is a modern-day apologist with no degrees in any relevant study. He's simply trying to do what Christians have done since day one: insert himself into the game covertly. Someone should just do a quick search for J.P. Holding and remove all of his edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.36.165 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, J.P. Holding isn't even his real name. It's just more of his deception and he doesn't even allow anyone to post differing views on his personal website. He is no scholar and is looked down upon by every legit scholar that has had the misfortune to run across his writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.36.165 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think he changed his name to be J. Holding. But that's not the point. Evercat (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the wikipedia article on J. P. Holding for name change info.
Telpardec (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what did Jesus write on the ground?

--24.6.228.145 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"letters" - John 7:14–15 (Whatever words he wrote with letters, they were trampled underfoot later.)
Telpardec (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wild variations

The Greek manuscripts that do include the story, all of which are late, from the 6th. century A.D. to the 15th., all have wild various readings in it. These suggest that the story is a late forgery and untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Textual variants" are only a small fraction of those actually existing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.11.197 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The heading has been altered to take account of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.67.31 (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the "Georgian Mss." to "Georgian Mss. of Adysh"

It was very ambiguous and false to write that some "Georgian mss." omit it, when most of the Georgian manuscripts actually have it. But the idea here is that the oldest manuscript, which is of Adysh lacks this, and later ones have it because all the later manuscripts are translations of X-XI century Georgian translation, so scribes just rewrote the Georgian one and didn't translate from Greek. Gospel of Adysh is late 9th century manuscript translated from Greek most possibly, so I just added the link to it and corrected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherguylb (talkcontribs) 10:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic church

Does the Catholic Church have a definite teaching regarding the authenticity of this passage? If so, it might be worth at least mentioning whatever the Catholic church's official point of view is. 68.55.112.31 (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the official answer is that as long as the passage is included in the current official edition of the Vulgate (1986) it should be treated as authentic. Dogmatically, only the definitions of Trent about the canon exist (which simply references the Vulgate as the authoritative text). It's probably that some detailed explanation from the Pontificial Commision on Sacred Texts exist, but i haven't checked it properly. If someone is interested in following this thread from a catholic POW i would recommend to get a copy of the University of Navarre's Bible NT volume. The critical apparatus there is enormous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.227.197 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetic guide

So I see that the citation for the phonetic guide of pericope adulteræ includes the classical latin phonetic guide [peˈrikope aˈdulterai] in addition to the one being used for the main entry: (/[invalid input: 'icon']pəˈrɪkəp əˈdʌltər/). I have two questions regarding these two phonetic guides:

1) The classical latin guide shoes that ae in adulterae is pronounced /ai/, but the linked wikipedia article on IPA for Latin shows /aj/, so which is correct?

2) The main phonetic guide for adulterœ shows that ae is pronunced /i/ like the English word "keen". I can't find a reference that allows æ to have this pronunciation, so where does it come from? Mysteryegg (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus's Literacy

From the 4th paragraph: To some Christians not concerned with textual disputes, the passage has been taken as confirmation of the literacy of Jesus, otherwise only suggested by implication in the Gospels, but the word "εγραφεν" in 8:8 could mean "draw" as well as "write".

My gripe with the above sentence is the "otherwise only suggested by implication in the Gospels" canard. What about Luke 4:16-21? That section clearly shows Jesus reading--but even more so, depicts Him as being able to open a scroll and find the specific passage He wanted. This is NOT an "implication"...this is an explicit, indisputable narrative.

That said, this part of the article needs to be fixed...or excised.

Mindfruit (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to go. The footnote looks like original research. It mentions a reliable source (which I don't have access to), but simply says "see also". "To some Christians not concerned with textual disputes" seems POVish. Also, the sentence doesn't belong in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against the Death Penalty

Could this be used as an argument against the death penalty?98.228.223.184 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against the Death Penalty

Could this be used as an argument against the death penalty?98.228.223.184 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against the Death Penalty

Could this be used as an argument against the death penalty?98.228.223.184 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]