Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + + + + + +
Essay:Adulteress Story (view source)
Revision as of 03:54, December 9, 2008
, 03:54, December 9, 2008improved, with another citation and quote
The conservative, evangelical translation of the Bible (NIV) flatly says,<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=7&version=31</ref>
The conservative, evangelical translation of the Bible (NIV) flatly says,<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=7&version=31</ref>
"The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."
"The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."
A Jewish scholar pointed out multiple absurdities in the story:<ref>Dr. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii. 163. [http://anglicanhistory.org/gore/divorce1921.html] (emphasis added).</ref>
:That a woman taken in the act of adultery should have been brought before Jesus (and apparently without witnesses of her crime); that such an utterly un-Jewish, as well as illegal, procedure should have been that of the "Scribes and Pharisees"; that such a breach of law, and of what Judaism would have regarded as decency, should have been perpetrated to "tempt" Him; or that the Scribes should have been so ignorant as to substitute stoning for strangulation as the punishment of adultery; lastly, that this scene should have been enacted in the Temple, '''presents a veritable climax of impossibilities'''.
Some defend continued inclusion of the passage based on a fear of a "slippery slope," that other passages will be questioned or removed if this one were. But there are very few other passages in the New Testament that are even questioned, and none of these have any doctrinal significance.
Amid this scholarship, why is the emphasis on this passage increasing? The answer lies in its liberal message: do not criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself. [[Liberals]] cite this passage to oppose the death penalty, a misuse that has been criticized.<ref>http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4222897/k.64E4/John_8_is_a_Condemnation_of_Capital_Punishment.htm</ref> But one need not be perfect before he can recognize wrongdoing in himself. The Mosaic laws clearly state death as a punishment for sin. So the argument that ''an individual'' must be perfect is not relevant. The God-ordained government has the responsibility for punishment. Civilized society may not depend on stoning to deter immoral crimes, but it does depend on retribution enforced by people who are themselves sinners.
Amid this scholarship, why is the emphasis on this passage increasing? The answer lies in its liberal message: do not criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself. [[Liberals]] cite this passage to oppose the death penalty, a misuse that has been criticized.<ref>http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4222897/k.64E4/John_8_is_a_Condemnation_of_Capital_Punishment.htm</ref> But one need not be perfect before he can recognize wrongdoing in himself. The Mosaic laws clearly state death as a punishment for sin. So the argument that ''an individual'' must be perfect is not relevant. The God-ordained government has the responsibility for punishment. Civilized society may not depend on stoning to deter immoral crimes, but it does depend on retribution enforced by people who are themselves sinners.