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

RE: [textualcriticism] pericope de adultera and stemmatics

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    ... I am currently working on the 3rd edition of the commentary and just these days I am adding patristic comments on the PA. If you have any original language
    Message 1 of 60 , Dec 9, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf
      > >
      > It is a very helpful and informative account, thanks.
      >
      > My only criticism would be that the early patristic evidence
      > maybe could be covered in more detail.. In particular the
      > reference to a clearly closely related story in the mid 3rd
      > century Didascalia Apostolorum probably should be
      > mentioned and possibly the late 4th century reference to a
      > variant form in the recently discovered commentaries of
      > Didymus the Blind.


      I am currently working on the 3rd edition of the commentary and just
      these days I am adding patristic comments on the PA. If you have any
      original language quotes handy, these would be welcome. I need e.g.
      Ambrose (Epistle 26,2) and Pacian of Barcelona (Epistle 3, 39).
      Didascalia/Apostolic Constitutions are also welcome.
      Regarding the Didascalia Apostolorum: How certain can we be that what we
      have is really 3rd CE? If it turns out that content and date are
      correct, then the Didascalia is the earliest evidence for the PA. The
      place of origin of the Didascalia is normally assumed to be Syria,
      possibly Antioch, which is certainly not "Western". Hmm ...

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
    • 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.