- Yes, I d like to point out that I ve written an entire article about the use of the passage -- or one like it rather -- in the writings of Didymus the BlindMessage 1 of 60 , Oct 10, 2008View SourceYes, I'd like to point out that I've written an entire article about the use of the passage -- or one like it rather -- in the writings of Didymus the Blind (4th century), arguing that in fact Didymus knew a different form of the passage from the one now in mss of the 4G (he says it can be found in "several gospels), and that there was yet another version floating around known to the author of the Didascalia (3rd century), and that the now familiar account represents a conflation of the two (New Testament Studies, 34  24-44).So I certainly don't think that it is not *mentioned* by Greek writers prior to the 12th century. The point is that the biblical commentaries on John (e.g., Origen!!) have no knowledge of it before then.-- Bart EhrmanBart D. EhrmanJames A. Gray ProfessorDepartment of Religious StudiesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey B. Gibson
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] The Pericope de Adultera and Greek Lectionary influence
> There seems to have been some ongoing chronologicalconfusion here.
> It has been commonly (albeit incorrectly) pointed out(even by Bart
> Ehrman) that no Greek writer prior to the 12 centuryreferred to the
> PA;Actually if there's anything that's continually incorrect, it's the
claim made by PA supporters about that Metzger/Ehrman have made the
What Metzger/Erhman actually say is that "No Greek Church Father prior
to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) *comments on the passage*, and
Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
e-mail jgibson000@comcast. net
- Malcomb wrote:Message 60 of 60 , Oct 15, 2008View SourceMalcomb 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