Literature vs. Religion

[Minimalist]

  I mean, stopping a whore from getting stoned to death and calling her attackers out for their hypocrisy is pretty brave, and pretty progressive.

Bible-thumping morons aside most actual scholars know that story was made up and tacked on some centuries after the book was written.  The Pericope Adulterae, as it is known:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 219-221.

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it.

So inventing fictional stories for a fictional godboy does not seem terribly impressive.  You know, Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star.  I think that's fiction too.

[Panatheist]

  I mean, stopping a whore from getting stoned to death and calling her attackers out for their hypocrisy is pretty brave, and pretty progressive.

Bible-thumping morons aside most actual scholars know that story was made up and tacked on some centuries after the book was written.  The Pericope Adulterae, as it is known:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 219-221.

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it.

So inventing fictional stories for a fictional godboy does not seem terribly impressive.  You know, Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star.  I think that's fiction too.

Well part of what I like about reading these texts is that we know they are intertextual works, some parts were added, revised, and so on. Who cares if it isn't history? You either like reading that kind of thing or not.

I never read it even thinking about beliefs others may have about its supernatural origins. For my own purposes I don't give two damns about that.