Re: [textualcriticism] pericope de adultera and stemmatics
- 2004-12-09 kl. 16.33 Schmuel wrote:
>Harald Riesenfeldt has written an article on this very subject in the
> 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)
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 :-)
Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
- 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