This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Looks pretty clear to me which translation we should go with. - Silence 19:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Cut from article:
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)
There are no references for this diagram. Where has it been published; or is it original research? TomHennell 12:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 24.6.228.145 ( talk) 16:36, 23 April 2011 (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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
This article as it stands today is to my mind guilty of several vices:
Does anybody disagree? Clifford Mill ( talk) 09:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have the background history or any reason why did these verses called "pericope adulterae"? Seltines
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.
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Looks pretty clear to me which translation we should go with. - Silence 19:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Cut from article:
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)
There are no references for this diagram. Where has it been published; or is it original research? TomHennell 12:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 24.6.228.145 ( talk) 16:36, 23 April 2011 (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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
This article as it stands today is to my mind guilty of several vices:
Does anybody disagree? Clifford Mill ( talk) 09:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have the background history or any reason why did these verses called "pericope adulterae"? Seltines
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.