Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

pericope de adultera and stemmatics

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    It is IMO certain that the pericope de adultera is not an original portion of John. However there is uncertainty about its early textual history. And
    Message 1 of 60 , Dec 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      It is IMO certain that the pericope de adultera is not an original
      portion of John. However there is uncertainty about its early textual
      history. And particularly whether it is an original part of the
      Byzantine text.
       
      If the history of the early text proposed for Mark by Stephen Carlson
      on the basis of stemmatics is applicable to John then this may throw
      light on the problem.
       
      The pericope is clearly not present in the narrow or strict Alexandrian
      text. It appears not to be present in the broad or pre-Byzantine
      Alexandrian text. (absent in 33 and probably absent in codex
      Ephraemi where the missing pages lack space for the pericope).
      It appears not to be present in the Caesarean text (absent in codex
      Korideti and 565 at end of John in family 1 etc).. It is present in part
      of the strict Western text (Codex Bezae and SOME Old Latin although
      some of the supposedly Old Latin support may be a result of Vulgate
      influence.) . It also has Latin Fathers in support (Ambrose
      Ambrosiaster Augustine) that is probably independent of the Vulgate.
       
      If as Stephen Carlson suggests the Byzantine text is a conflation of
      the broad Alexandrian text with the Caesarean text without the
      influence of the strict Western text then one would not expect this
      pericope to be part of the text. This is in agreement with its absence
      from such early representatives of the Byzantine text as Codex Y
      and probably Codex Alexandrinus (where the missing pages lack
      space for the pericope) and from such Byzantine influenced versions
      as the Gothic and Peshitta. One particularly interesting result of the
      stemmatic analysis is that it makes Codex Petropolitanus (N) which
      lacks the pericope, a representative of the primitive Byzantine text
      in Mark. If this analysis holds good in John it may tip the balance
      decisively in favour of a Byzantine text which originally lacked the
      pericope de adultera. 
       
      If this analysis is sound it would imply that the pericope is originally
      found only in part of the strict Western text, and that its presence in
      the Vulgate is a consequence of the Western influences on that text.
      It was not originally part of the Byzantine text until several centuries
      after the origin of that text.
       
      Andrew Criddle
    • Daniel
      Malcomb wrote:
      Message 60 of 60 , Oct 15, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Malcomb wrote:
        << One final note, the pericope presupposes that the Jews of Jesus'
        ministry on earth had the authority to kill. This [is refuted]
        elsewhere in the Gospel narrative.>>

        There are a couple of problems with this assertion.

        1) The text specifically says that this was a setup by the Scribes
        and/or Pharisees. It should have been a lose/lose proposition for
        Jesus: if he said "stone her," he would be in trouble with the Romans
        for instigating a lynching, as alluded to in 18:31. If he said "free
        her," he would be seen as "soft on crime" and loose popular support.
        They did not, of course, forsee the third option, which made them out
        to be the losers instead. But no authority under ROMAN law to execute
        was ever claimed; only under MOSAIC law.

        2) Lynchings by stoning did in fact occur during that era, as seen by
        the examples of Stephen in Acts 7 and James in the History of
        Hegesippus.

        Daniel Buck
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.