Talk:Jesus and the woman taken in adultery

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

Except that virtually all Bibles will go with "him", since it's the object of the main clause verb "let", and therefore requires the accusative case. It also happens to be the antecedent of "who", the subject of the relative clause verb "is", but only "who" has to be in the nominative case, not "him" as well. Take the relative clause out and see what makes sense, and that's what traditional grammar will choose: obviously "Let him [...] cast the first stone" rather than "Let he [...] cast the first stone".

I imagine the desire to use "he" is related to the hypercorrection that is concerned to avoid the accusative case of pronouns in subject position ("Me and Jim went to the cinema"), and ends up using the nominative case in places where traditionally the accusative case was required ("Show Jim and I what you've done"). DTOx (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

Sources? Brothels and slaves? Which "church"? Misty MH (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Good point! LOL. Misty MH (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, except that what prostitutes did was not seen as adultery, but as a service to the public. The Catholic Church sided with Aristotle, who stated that men have to discharge their sperm in order to be healthy. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What about some sources for all this? 216.198.80.202 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I don't know of a ms where this was deleted - but then I seldom see any deletions of anything in any ms - but several mss have this paragraph bordered with oblii or other marks of doubts, and in some instances those marks could have been added to a ms that already had the paragraph without the marks of doubt. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The 18th Century Anglican divine John Gill has an account of the textual history of this passage. He found an earlier source than anything mentioned directly here, so it should be looked into. From his “Exposition of the Bible”:

“This history of the woman taken in adultery, is wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in other ancient copies; nor is it in Nonnus, Chrysostom, and Theophylact; nor in any of the editions of the Syriac version, until it was restored by De Dieu, from a copy of Archbishop Usher's; but was in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions, and in the Harmonies of Tatian and Ammonius; the former of which lived about the year 160, and so within 60 years, or thereabouts, of the death of the Evangelist John, and the other about the year 230; it was also in Stephens's sixteen ancient Greek copies, and in all Beza's seventeen, excepting one; nor need the authenticness of it be doubted of; Eusebius says, it is in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; nor should its authority be called in question.” 216.198.80.202 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

---

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Many versions that are copyrighted allow quotations to be made from them. Each has its own rules. Misty MH (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Several years later I can now go back to this with the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (2012) open in front of me. Of course it's not simply a case of the NRSV omitting verses willy-nilly. Yes, the whole section is marked as an "early insertion in the textual tradition", but in the manuscripts that it does appear in it appears in many, many variant forms. We can think of this section as first being added, and then as being edited and added to further. There isn't simply a longer and a shorter version: it's much more complicated than that. The KJV chose particular textual variants (and omitted others), and the NRSV chose other textual variants (and omitted others). The KJV doesn't have a more "complete" text, just a different one, probably based on later textual variants than the NRSV, as the tendency in recent Bible translations has been to go back to what is probably the oldest variant. In sections like this, where the oldest manuscripts don't have it at all, but the passage has been important in the Christian tradition, they usually include it within brackets and try to find the oldest version of the added section. Unless we're going to cite all the textual variants here, it seems sensible to go with a translation that reflects more recent scholarly work, like the NRSV.

And according to page iv of my version of the NRSV: "The NRSV text may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without the express written permission of the publisher, provided that the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor account for 50% or more of the written text of the total work in which they are quoted". There's a notice of copyright to include, but I think we could manage that. DTOx (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What is said by a particular publisher is irrelevant. A short extract of the text for scholarly purposes such as comparing with other versions is always going to be well within "fair use" guidelines. If you did a whole text, or book, that way, the situation might be different. However, not a focused extract in the midst of a scholarly article. No, I am not a lawyer, however I believe this is a rather simple question. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In the article itself, I wouldn't get mad if someone would provide English translations to the segment on the variant Greek readings. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

See the wikipedia article on J. P. Holding for name change info.
Telpardec (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So, what did Jesus write on the ground?

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

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

I like to think that he wrote THEIR sins. 207.237.211.236 (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

WHY was he writing on the ground? :D Misty MH (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Jesus presumably was writing by impressing, with his finger or a twig, into the dust or sand. But this was in the temple courtyard, and I would have supposed that the Temple did not have a dirt or sand floor but a paved or tiled floor, so there wouldn't be enough sand or dust to write. Also, there wouldn't have been loose stones around to use to kill this woman, and I have very serious doubts that it would have been acceptable to kill her or otherwise shed blood in the temple courtyard. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

He wrote nothing. The story is a late forgery. It is not in the oldest manuscripts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.131.222 (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Sussmanbern gives further reasons for supposing that the whole story is completely untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.131.222 (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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: /pəˈrɪkəpiː əˈdʌltəriː/. 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)

The notation /ai/ is probably phonemic, and /aj/ a hypothesis about how it was actually pronounced, i.e. a more detailed transcription. They're equivalent. You can find the answer to your second question at Traditional_English_pronunciation_of_Latin#Endings. DTOx (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have partly reinstated it, without the POV start, & talking about "writing" rather than "literacy". As explained in (I think) Historical Jesus, in all pre-modern societies reading was a far more common skill than writing, and the two were taught one after the other, not together. As the rest of the article is all about textual issues it does belong in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The text says that Jesus "drew" on the ground - not explicit that he wrote words, maybe drew symbols or caricatures or some simple picture of an event. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

Indeed, it has been so used: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/22/22-1/22-1-pp045-053_JETS.pdf Crassiodorus (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Textual History

Under the section "Textual History" we learn that: "Papias (circa AD 125) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which may well refer to this passage"

Technically, so far as can be determined, it was only Eusebius who said that he believed that the story could be found (in Eusebius' day) in a Hebrew gospel. Note that he (Eusebius) used the present tense in stating that the story IS to be found... //And he (Papias) also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which IS to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.// (newadvent.org)

Given that Jerome reported that //the pericope adulterae was to be found in its usual place (in John's gospel?) in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century.// And that //This is confirmed by some Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery.//

In other words, Papias noted the story c. 120, then Eusebius thought that it was to be found in a Hebrew gospel c.320, then Jerome & others claimed that it existed in "many Greek & Latin manuscripts" c. 400. Given that Jerome included in the Latin Vulgate in John's gospel, the weight of evidence would seem to say that that was where he found it (rather than in a Hebrew version of Matthew's gospel). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMBarber (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Which verses to include?

Does John 7:53 actually belong here? It seems to me that the story actually starts with John 8:1. John 7:53 just says "Then the meeting broke up, and everybody went home." It's the end of the previous story, not the beginning of the next story.Sonicsuns (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Von Soden's Greek NT was especially thorough in covering the variants in this paragraph. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Interpretation" section needs to be split up, or renamed

Of the five paragraphs, the first two (the longest) are about the passage's status as an interpolation and question of canonicity (it is also extremely biased and unbalanced, and almost completely unsourced) and the third and fifth are about the influence of the passage on later art and culture; only the fourth short paragraph deals with interpretation. I do not know exactly how this problem should ne addressed, so I'm posting it here rather than editing directly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I've kept 2 paras, & moved the rest to the lead, which was as usual much too short. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409164438/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409164438/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302185320/http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art201102271115129 to http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art201102271115129

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Mosaic Law

You need to edit the "Mosaic Law" section to also include Deuteronomy 17:7 "The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you." The first stone had to be cast by a person who was an actual witness. So, in order to institute stoning a person who actually witnessed the adultery, and who also "without sin" that is to say, not a participant in the adultery was the only one who had legal authority to cast the first stone. From that, one can make such inferences as he wishes I guess. To me it says don't be a gossip. I don't think it is so much about hypocrisy, because when the New Testament talks about hypocrisy, it usually isn't coy. In any event, it is important to explain that the casting of the first stone was a reference to Mosaic law. Hypercallipygian (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Guilty of several vices?

This article as it stands today is to my mind guilty of several vices:

it rambles like the Derby ram;

it fails to distinguish major from minor points, including far too many of the latter;

it gives far too much technical detail of little or no interest to at least 99% of readers;

it lacks a sense of history, since people in the past without access to the internet could only go on the documents they had seen and the teaching they had heard;

it contains long passages that are unsourced, so their credibility is therefore in doubt and their presence in the article potentially misleading;

it is unrepentantly sexist.

Does anybody disagree? Clifford Mill (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Reading it again, as far as patience allowed, may I put up some positive ideas? Some of the text is about what many would possibly consider one of the relatively significant incidents in the reported life and teaching of Jesus. As such, it probably merits an expanded article that addresses the context and significance of the incident, which this one barely attempts. The rest of the present article must I suspect be of interest only to the infinitesimal minority of Wikipedia users who want to explore the arcane history of the textual variants and could therefore be (a) hived off into its own article or (b) without great loss deleted. Clifford Mill (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really - the religious significance of the passage is severely compromised by the belief of most textual scholars that it is a later addition. On the other hand, for the many interested in biblical textual issues, it is a very important subject. I would certainly oppose a split. Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Clifford has retired. He seems to have over-looked the Wikipedia ban on telling us about his thoughts and feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.131.222 (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

History of Pericope Adulterae

Does anyone have the background history or any reason why did these verses called "pericope adulterae"? Seltines

Atrocious bias

This is a remarkably bad article.

It's almost completely unsourced. Its main section is completely dedicated to apologetics against modern scholars' consensus, which is flat out unacceptable. Statements like "Some "experts" have also falsely claimed that no Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 1100s." or "Many modern textual critics have ignored the early church evidence that is available and have speculated that" undermining entire modern scholarship are out of place in encyclopedic entry. Views of the modern scholars are not represented in any shape or form other than such grotesque strawmans.

The article requires citations and solid rewriting.

Asocjates (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

well you are free to edit/rewrite the article FMSky (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Major, recent English Bible translations tell it upfront that it's not a part of the Bible.

In case you wonder, the judgment of the Novum Testamentum Graece is final, and it reflects broad academic consensus. Novum Testamentum Graece is the "highest court" of the text of the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Contemporary Jewish law?

I read somewhere that some scholars have contended that the Jews had actually abolished stoning as punishment for adultery at the time of Jesus, which counts as additional evidence against the authenticity of the pericope - i.e. whoever wrote it was unaware that adultery was no longer a "stoneable" offence at the time. I don't know enough about this debate to edit the article, however. Muzilon (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)