Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
about mercy, forgiveness and textual criticism |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 3:
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2021}}
[[File:GuercinoAdultress1621Dulwich.jpg|thumb|''Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery'', by [[Giovanni Francesco Barbieri|Guercino]], 1621 ([[Dulwich Picture Gallery]])]]
[[File:Semiradsky Christ and Sinner.jpg|thumb|''[[Christ and Sinner]]'', 1873 by [[Henryk Siemiradzki]]]]
[[File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder - Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery - WGA03469.jpg|thumb|''[[Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery (Bruegel)|Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery]]'', 1565 by [[Pieter Bruegel the Elder|Pieter Bruegel]], oil on panel, {{cvt|24|x|34|cm}}]]
[[File:Jesus und Ehebrecherin.jpg|thumb|''Christ and the woman taken in adultery'', drawing by [[Rembrandt]]]]
Line 19:
==Interpretation==
This episode and its message of [[mercy]] and [[forgiveness]] balanced with a call to holy living have endured in Christian thought. Both "let him who is without sin, cast the first stone"<ref>''E.g.'', Britni Danielle, "[http://clutchmagonline.com/lifeculture/feature/cast-the-first-stone-why-are-we-so-judgmental/ Cast the First Stone: Why Are We So Judgmental?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110430234317/http://clutchmagonline.com/lifeculture/feature/cast-the-first-stone-why-are-we-so-judgmental/ |date=30 April 2011 }}", ''Clutch'', 21 February 2011</ref> and "go, and sin no more"<ref>''E.g.'', Mudiga Affe, Gbenga Adeniji, and Etim Ekpimah, "[http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art201102271115129 Go and sin no more, priest tells Bode George] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110302185320/http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art201102271115129 |date=2011-03-02 }}", ''The Punch'', 27 February 2011.</ref> have found their way into common usage. The English idiomatic phrase to "[[Wiktionary:cast the first stone|cast the first stone]]" is derived from this passage.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/385600.html|title=To cast the first stone|author=Gary Martin |website=phrases.org.uk}}</ref>
The passage has been taken as confirmation of Jesus's ability to write, otherwise only suggested by implication in the Gospels, but the word {{lang|grc|ἔγραφεν}} (''egraphen'') in John 8:8 could mean "draw" as well as "write".<ref>An uncommon usage, evidently not found in the [[LXX]], but supported in Liddell & Scott's ''Greek-English Lexicon'' (8th ed., NY, 1897) s.v. γραμμα, page 317 col. 2, citing (among others) Herodotus (repeatedly) including 2:73 ("I have not seen one except in an illustration") & 4:36 ("drawing a map"). See also, Chris Keith, ''The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus'' (2009, Leiden, Neth., Brill) page 19.</ref>
Line 26:
[[File:Codex Sangallensis 48 348.jpg|thumb|[[Codex Sangallensis 48]] with the blanked space for the pericope John 7:53–8:11]]
The first to systematically apply the [[textual criticism|critical marks]] of the Alexandrian critics was [[Origen]]:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.html|title=New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II: Basilica – Chambers|work=ccel.org}}</ref>
{{Blockquote|In the Septuagint column [Origen] used the system of diacritical marks which was in use with the Alexandrian critics of Homer, especially Aristarchus, marking with an [[obelus]] under different forms, as "./.", called lemniscus, and "/.", called a hypolemniscus, those passages of the Septuagint which had nothing to correspond to in Hebrew, and inserting, chiefly from Theodotion under an asterisk (*), those which were missing in the Septuagint; in both cases a metobelus (Y) marked the end of the notation.}}
Line 36:
Beginning with [[Karl Lachmann]] (in Germany, 1840), reservations about the {{lang|la|Pericope Adulterae}} became more strongly argued in the modern period, and these opinions were carried into the English world by [[Samuel Davidson]] (1848–51), [[Samuel Prideaux Tregelles]] (1862),<ref>S. P. Tregelles, ''An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scripture'' (London 1856), pp. 465–468.</ref> and others; the argument against the verses being given body and final expression in [[F. J. A. Hort]] (1886). Those opposing the authenticity of the verses as part of John are represented in the 20th century by men like [[Henry Cadbury]] (1917), [[Ernest Cadman Colwell]] (1935), and [[Bruce M. Metzger]] (1971).<ref>[[Bruce M. Metzger]], ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart 2001, pp. 187–189.</ref>
According to 19th-century text critics [[Henry Alford (theologian)|Henry Alford]] and [[F. H. A. Scrivener]] the passage was added by John in a second edition of the Gospel along with 5:3.4 and the 21st chapter.<ref>{{cite web|author=F. H. A. Scrivener|title=A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3rd edition, 1883, London) |year=1883 |page= 610 |publisher=George Bell & Sons |url= https://archive.org/stream/aplainintroduct01scrigoog#page/n682/mode/2up}}</ref>
On the other hand, a number of scholars have strongly defended the Johannine authorship of these verses. This group of critics is typified by such scholars as [[Frederick Nolan (theologian)|Frederick Nolan]] (1865), and [[John Burgon]] (1886), and [[Herman C. Hoskier]] (1920). More recently it has been defended by [[David Otis Fuller]] (1975), and is included in the Greek New Testaments compiled by Wilbur Pickering (1980/2014), Hodges & Farstad (1982/1985), and Robinson & Pierpont (2005). Rather than endorsing Augustine's theory that some men had removed the passage due to a concern that it would be used by their wives as a pretext to commit adultery, Burgon proposed (but did not develop in detail){{cn|date=March 2023}} a theory that the passage had been lost due to a misunderstanding of a feature in the lection-system of the early church.<ref>{{cite book | first=John | last=Burgon | title=Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established | publisher=James Parker and Co. | year=1871 | pages=192–243 | url=https://ccel.org/ccel/burgon/mark/mark.iv.x.html}}</ref>
Line 133:
===Chinese distortion===
In September 2020, the Chinese textbook{{Lang|zh|《职业道德与法律》}}(''Professional Ethics and Law'') was alleged to inaccurately recount the story with a changed narrative in which Jesus stones the woman, while claiming to be a sinner
==See also==
| |||