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

Re: [textualcriticism] pericope de adultera and stemmatics

Expand Messages
  • Schmuel
    Hi Textcrit, ... Andrew Criddle ... Schmuel Hi Andrew and Stephen. Perhaps the early patristic evidence is the fly in the ointment of over-emphasis on the
    Message 1 of 60 , Dec 9, 2004
      Hi Textcrit,

      >Stephen C. Carlson" <SNIP>
      >> Wieland has a particularly good overview of the evidence at
      >> http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf

      Andrew Criddle
      >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.

      Hi Andrew and Stephen.

      Perhaps the early patristic evidence is the fly in the ointment of over-emphasis on the stemmatics here ?

      Ambrose and Ambrosiaster and Augustine were originally mentioned.
      Good references, but by no means complete. Andrew adds two references above.

      There is the very salient fact that Augustine gives a reason for the removal of the Pericope from many manuscripts by his time -- "lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning." as referenced by Zane Hodges and others - quite a strong reference for an early Pericope.

      Similarly Jerome not only included it in the Vulgate, but stated...
      "the pericope de adultera is found in many copies both Greek and Latin"

      In addition there is a very substantial lectionary usage in the Eastern church (details below)

      And in addition to the original Triple-A's and Jerome and the two new references above
      Giving us so far....
      Didascalia (third century)
      Ambrose (forth century),
      Ambrosiaster (forth century),
      Didymus the Blind. (late 4th century)
      Jerome (c. 400 AD)
      Augustine (430 AD).

      The following references are also given, many from Dean John Burgon.
      Pacian in the north of Spain (370),
      Apostolic Constitutions (380 AD)
      Faustus the African (400)
      Rufinus (400)
      Chrysologus (433)
      Sedulius a Scot (434),
      Two anonymous authors
      Victorius or Victorinus (457)
      Vigilius of Tapsus (484)
      Gelasius Bishop of Rome (492),
      Cassiodorus (c. 550)
      Gregory the Great (c. 600)
      other Fathers of the Western Church

      Rather an wide-ranging and extensive list of patristic references from the early days of the church.

      Personally I have found that in some cases an artificial Greek-Latin distinction is made. In those years they were not operating as separate parallel universes :-)

      Steven Avery

      John 8:3-11 was chosen as the lesson to be read publicly each year on St. Pelagia's day, October 8th. [15] John Burgon first pointed out the significance of this historical circumstance: "The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach - and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence was felt to be embarrassing - the Eastern Church has selected nine of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8." [16] As Burgon remarked, this is not opinion - but a fact.

      Thomas Holland - Crowned with Glory
      Didascalia (third century)
      Apostolic Constitutions (380 AD)
      Some of the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version,

      Pericope de Adultera - Chuck A. Louviere

      According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. "Certain persons of little faith," he wrote, "or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin." (33)
    • Daniel
      Malcomb wrote:
      Message 60 of 60 , Oct 15, 2008
        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.