Talk:Capital punishment in the Bible

Which God?
God with a capital G means the God of the Bible. Indeed Israel, who wrote the OT, only believes in one God and give him many names: YHWH, Elohim, the Lord, etc. So you don't need to specify which God. Oct13 (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Homosexuality
I have no opinion on the issues of primary sourcing that are being discussed. I'm just wondering why the article doesn't discuss homosexuality, given Leviticus 20:13 -- "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." See The Bible and Homosexuality.Kirkpete (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC) KirkPete


 * I see no reason not to include this, but use good secondary sources. University-press texts on this shouldn't be hard to find. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yup, agree. And to be clear: it's not about women (lesbians). Maimonides discussed whether there was worldly biblical law against lesbians, and he agreed that lesbians could be slapped for indecency, but no legal punishment was provided by Scripture. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Leviticus 18:3 has been read as a prohibition against lesbianism (and, I think, something in NT), but it doesn't mention any specific punishment, so off-topic for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Technically, yes, in Judaism lesbianism is considered a form of lewdness, so it is formally prohibited, but not serious enough to disqualify a woman from marrying a priest (unlike rape, divorce or widowhood). If I'm not wrong, sperm in vain is considered in Judaism as more wicked than lesbianism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death penalty for homosexuality which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Nearing WP:EW territory
I just reverted 113.21.228.238 for the third time: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capital_punishment_in_the_Bible&diff=1050024154&oldid=1049961286 Same problems at before. This belongs in places like Woman caught in adultery, which goes into detail. For the purpose of THIS article, it's off-topic. And again, sources are not WP:RS. This article is not about Christian faith.] The sources are not WP:RS, it's off-topic here (no matter when it was added, it's in the (Christian) bible now), and according to Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, it's not that simple. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources used are indeed unreliable. it did not belong to the original scripts is also inaccurate: there are no extant 'original scripts' of the Gospel of John, and scholarly judgement is necessarily based upon later copies. I'm not entirely sure whether it's off-topic though to briefly mention the disputed or uncertain authenticity of the pericope adulterae. Maybe some source can be culled from Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, to back up something like "In a passage whose authenticity is uncertain, John 8:3-11 mentions [...]"? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming there is a decent source, but I would suggest more like "provenance is debated". However, it's still off-topic to me, since that applies to the whole gospel, and probably other bible-texts as well. This is where bible-scholars make their daily bread. The article is "Capital punishment in the Bible", and even if some (Christian) bibles have it with an *, they still have it. I vaguely remember a Conservapedia project for making a bible without bits like this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Tgeorgescu, because that seldom hurts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, "provenance is debated" would indeed apply to the whole gospel (and by extension, most of the Bible), but "inauthentic" is narrower, meaning added by someone other than the author(s) of the Johannine literature, whoever those were. If the passage indeed stems from c. 300 CE, it would fall well without the sphere of New Testamental authorship. I see no reason why we should not include a small pointer to this: is it not instructive to note that this well-known biblical perspective on capital punishment may in fact date from a period two centuries after the redaction of the Bible? I know I'm glad I learned this today. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO, no, it doesn't fit here. Consider the current full article-text on this: John 8:3-11 mentions a woman caught in adultery being brought to Jesus for judgment.[46] Jesus does not condemn her, but says "Go and from now on do not sin any more." (John 8:11) Although the authenticity of the story is doubted as it did not belong to the original scripts.[47][48][49] That is a weird WP:PROPORTION. I'd find a WP:EXPLNOTE like "On the authourship on this passage, see Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery" less objectionable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This may be my personal interpretation, but "inauthentic" reads like "not proper religion" in WP-voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course the current text is entirely out of proportion. My proposal is to remove the entire latter part that was added by the IP, and to just prefix it with a brief qualifying subordinate clause. Also, "authenticity" is indeed a bit ambiguous. It's been a while since I last dealt with textual criticism, but the correct term for this is of course "interpolation". I propose:
 * "In a passage that may be a later interpolation, John 8:3–11 mentions a woman caught in adultery being brought to Jesus for judgment. Jesus does not condemn her, but says "Go and from now on do not sin any more." (John 8:11)"


 * According to Cross & Livingstone 1997, these verses [...] are certainly not part of the original text of St John's Gospel. They also note that On the other hand, the story is very much in line with many of those of the Synoptic Gospels, and the facts that it is definitely referred to in a passage in the 3rd cent. Didascalia Apostolorum [...] point to its primitiveness. Finally, they report that there has been in the scholarly literature a suggestion that the passage belongs to St Luke. It's of course complex, but "may be a later interpolation" seems fair on the basis of this source.
 * It is very common in scholarly sources to point out that a passage is a later interpolation when discussing its contents. It's relevant both from a historical and from a theological point of view. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds WP-good to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Apaugasma And at some point, we may go looking for a source that talks about this passage in relation to capital punishment ;-) But that is an article-wide issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right of course. The article is generally very poor, and I'm finding myself in a repeated pattern of making a big fuss over small details in articles that are a complete mess anyways (most of the articles I deal with are much worse than this one). I really need to stop doing this, yet I'm not quite sure how. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, enough mole-hills and we'll get a mountain. I'd like to protest that I'd never do that, but this thread would call me a big fat liar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ananias and Sapphira
This section should be removed. It isn't about capital punishment in any ordinary sense. 216.8.184.218 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, this seems to be some kind of divine retribution. Anyone disagree? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Possibly worth mentioning
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Egyptians drowning Hebrew male babies
 * John the Baptist
 * Massacre of the innocents