Talk:Jesus and the woman taken in adultery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? :-)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)