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

Re: [textualcriticism] pericope de adultera and stemmatics

Expand Messages
  • Tommy Wasserman
    ... Harald Riesenfeldt has written an article on this very subject in the journal SEÅ in 1958 (I think that is the correct year) and the article was later
    Message 1 of 60 , Dec 10, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      2004-12-09 kl. 16.33 Schmuel wrote:
      >
      > http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult-hills.html
      > 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)

      Harald Riesenfeldt has written an article on this very subject in the
      journal SEÅ in 1958 (I think that is the correct year) and the article
      was later collected in: Att tolka Bibeln (Stockholm :
      Diakonistyrelsens Bokförlag, 1967).

      This latter title was translated into English, although I don't
      remember the English title. In fact five years ago or something I made
      a translation of the article which took me 19 hours of work only to
      find that it had already been translated :-)

      With regards

      Tommy Wasserman
      Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
    • 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.