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

Re: [textualcriticism] pericope de adultera and stemmatics

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:10 PM Subject: RE:
    Message 1 of 60 , Dec 7, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
      To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:10 PM
      Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] pericope de adultera and stemmatics

      > At 03:56 PM 12/7/2004 +0100, Wieland Willker wrote:
      > >Andrew Criddle wrote:
      > >> 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.
      > >
      > >A stemma of John 4 can be found here:
      > >http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/2003_11_16_arch.html
      > >
      > >mind possible wrap.
      > The wrap should be less of a problem here at:
      > http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2003/11/proposed-stemma-for-john-4.html
      > Note that the John 4 stemma does not present the Byzantine text
      > in this part of John as a mixture of two different texts. I've
      > also improved my program since then, so perhaps I ought to rerun
      > it on the John 4 data to see if anything differs.
      The central point is that Codex Petropolitanus (N) in John 4 is classed
      as a pre-Byzantine text (along with q in the Old Latin which also omits
      the pericope). rather than as a primitive Byzantine text. as in Mark.

      If this is valid then N is not evidence in John for the early Byzantine
      text but rather for a precursor to that text. Hence it cannot be used
      as direct evidence for the absence of the pericope in the early
      Byzantine text proper.

      However the apparent absence of the pericope in codex Alexandrinus
      and its presence with obelisks IIUC in Codex Basiliensis (E)
      together with its absence from the immediate precursor of the
      Byzantine text, may indicate that the very early Byzantine text did
      not contain the pericope.

      Andrew Criddle
    • Daniel
      Malcomb wrote:
      Message 60 of 60 , Oct 15 3:53 AM
      • 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

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