Re: [textualcriticism] pericope de adultera and stemmatics
- At 09:21 PM 12/7/2004 +0000, sarban wrote:
>However the apparent absence of the pericope in codex AlexandrinusI think that probably right. In fact, the monolithicness of
>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.
the Byzantine text disappears in the pericope, and it divides
into a number of different textual groups in the Byzantine
manuscripts. That fact to me indicates to me multiple points
of entry of the text within the Byzantines.
Wieland has a particularly good overview of the evidence at
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
- 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