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

Pericope Adulterae : Wikipedia Page Misinformation

Expand Messages
  • isaac_chauncy
    Friends, When I first started to research this issue (per James White s book), I came across the wikipedia page. I understand that this is NOT a reliable
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 22, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Friends,
      When I first started to research this issue (per James White's book), I came across the wikipedia page. I understand that this is NOT a reliable source, but it is out there and widely read by many.
      I refer specifically to this:
      =========
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Textual_history
      The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot.
      ==============

      From what I have read and experienced (as a NT Greek reader), their are 2 BIG problems here.
      1. P66 & P75 do not have such markings of any omission.
      2. "diacritical marks". I don't think that is in any way a correct term for a scribal mark indicating an omission.

      Can some of the big wheels here get this corrected so as to not mislead others?

      Sincerely,
      -mike
    • Tommy Wasserman
      MIke (or Isaac?), Yes, this is very sad, but it takes a lot of time and effort to go around and correct misinformed people who claim things whether on wiki,
      Message 2 of 7 , Aug 23, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        MIke (or Isaac?),

        Yes, this is very sad, but it takes a lot of time and effort to go around and correct misinformed people who claim things whether on wiki, blogs, other webpages and discussion-lists (including this one).

        For this specific case, I think the misinformation comes from "The Pericope de Adultera Homepage"  which is listed among the external links. You can read this blogpost and comments for another example of how such misconceptions can find its way even into an academic dissertation (if not the author is one of the persons behind that webpage, which I do not know): http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.se/2010/05/new-dissertation-in-tc-on-pericope-of.html 

        By the way, I am neither very happy with the way I am referenced in the wikipedia article (footnote 10).


        Tommy Wasserman


        22 aug 2013 kl. 16.26 skrev isaac_chauncy:

         

        Friends,
        When I first started to research this issue (per James White's book), I came across the wikipedia page. I understand that this is NOT a reliable source, but it is out there and widely read by many.
        I refer specifically to this:
        =========
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Textual_history
        The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot.
        ==============

        From what I have read and experienced (as a NT Greek reader), their are 2 BIG problems here.
        1. P66 & P75 do not have such markings of any omission.
        2. "diacritical marks". I don't think that is in any way a correct term for a scribal mark indicating an omission.

        Can some of the big wheels here get this corrected so as to not mislead others?

        Sincerely,
        -mike


      • jjcate
        Well, that s the problem with wikipedia, it doesn t take big wheels to edit a page. Anyone can do it. A year or two ago, I was scrolling through some
        Message 3 of 7 , Aug 23, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, that's the problem with wikipedia, it doesn't take "big wheels" to edit a page. Anyone can do it.

          A year or two ago, I was scrolling through some wikipedia pages of various manuscripts, and I don't remember which one it was, but it was a minuscule. And the entire page was describing the wrong manuscript. And I didn't have time to figure out which one it was and correct it, so I logged in and posted a warning in bold letters as the opening paragraph.

          I've lost my note so I don't remember which one it was to go back and check to see if someone corrected it.

          --Jeff Cate,
          Riverside, CA

          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "isaac_chauncy" <mikeferrando@...> wrote:
          >
          > Friends,
          > When I first started to research this issue (per James White's book), I came across the wikipedia page. I understand that this is NOT a reliable source, but it is out there and widely read by many.
          > I refer specifically to this:
          > =========
          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Textual_history
          > The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot.
          > ==============
          >
          > From what I have read and experienced (as a NT Greek reader), their are 2 BIG problems here.
          > 1. P66 & P75 do not have such markings of any omission.
          > 2. "diacritical marks". I don't think that is in any way a correct term for a scribal mark indicating an omission.
          >
          > Can some of the big wheels here get this corrected so as to not mislead others?
          >
          > Sincerely,
          > -mike
          >
        • Jack Kilmon
          This thread arose just as I was reading Jennifer Knust’s 2002 article in JECS at
          Message 4 of 7 , Aug 23, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            This thread arose just as I was reading Jennifer Knust’s 2002 article in JECS at   http://www.academia.edu/687660/Early_Christian_Re-Writing_and_the_History_of_the_Pericope_Adulterae  Your article on the Patmos Family of texts (around here somewhere in my piles) was very insightful and I agree with your conclusion.  4G is the most highly edited, glossed, interpolated, chapter shuffled and generally messed around with of all of the Gospels. It is also the most interesting to me because of what I perceive as an Aramaic to Greek-translated smaller and earlier work embedded in it and perhaps used as a template for the Greek Gospel.  One of my tools for forming an opinion on the originality or “primitiveness” of a pericope is “follow the Aramaic” and there are no indications to me that the PA had an Aramaic origin for its Canonical state but it certainly could have had an Aramaic background if it was re-written from a source in the Gospel of the Hebrews which was the earliest Aramaic Gospel (with the possible exception of my putative Aramaic “proto-John”).  I consider you one of the seminal scholars on the PA so I would like to solicit your opinion (and others on the list) on my suspicion that the PA was an altered text from the GoH to “set a stage” for Christian slandering of Mary Magdalene who was accused (falsely) of being a prostitute...like the woman in the GoH. Also, do you agree with Dr. Knust that most NT scholars gloss over the anti-Jewish impact of the PA?
             
            Jack Kilmon
             
            Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 2:43 AM
            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Pericope Adulterae : Wikipedia Page Misinformation
             


            MIke (or Isaac?),
             
            Yes, this is very sad, but it takes a lot of time and effort to go around and correct misinformed people who claim things whether on wiki, blogs, other webpages and discussion-lists (including this one).
             
            For this specific case, I think the misinformation comes from "The Pericope de Adultera Homepage"  which is listed among the external links. You can read this blogpost and comments for another example of how such misconceptions can find its way even into an academic dissertation (if not the author is one of the persons behind that webpage, which I do not know): http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.se/2010/05/new-dissertation-in-tc-on-pericope-of.html 
             
            By the way, I am neither very happy with the way I am referenced in the wikipedia article (footnote 10).
             
             
            Tommy Wasserman
             
             
            22 aug 2013 kl. 16.26 skrev isaac_chauncy:

             

            Friends,
            When I first started to research this issue (per James White's book), I came across the wikipedia page. I understand that this is NOT a reliable source, but it is out there and widely read by many.
            I refer specifically to this:
            =========
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Textual_history
            The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot.
            ==============

            From what I have read and experienced (as a NT Greek reader), their are 2 BIG problems here.
            1. P66 & P75 do not have such markings of any omission.
            2. "diacritical marks". I don't think that is in any way a correct term for a scribal mark indicating an omission.

            Can some of the big wheels here get this corrected so as to not mislead others?

            Sincerely,
            -mike

             
          • Mr. Buck
            From:Tommy Wasserman     
            Message 5 of 7 , Aug 23, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              From: Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...>  
               
              <<For this specific case, I think the misinformation comes from "The Pericope de Adultera Homepage"  which is listed among the external links. You can read this blogpost and comments for another example of how such misconceptions can find its way even into an academic dissertation (if not the author is one of the persons behind that webpage, which I do not know): http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.se/2010/05/new-dissertation-in-tc-on-pericope-of.html >>

              I went back and revisited this discussion, along with its tangent on Peter Kirk's blog, and I see that there is one loose end on the textual evidence for/against the PA that needs to be tied up.
               Wieland Wilker wrote on the etc blog:

              There actually is an error in the external evidence: 565 is listed as omitting the PA. 
              565 is a member of f1 in John and has therefore the PA at the end of the Gospel. The last page of the manuscript is missing, but the introductory comments (as in 1) are still present. 
              This error is also in the Text & Textwert analyses of John, but it does not appear that Punch utilized these.

              A similar situation exists in p66. The end of John in p66 is not extant, therefore we cannot say that p66 gives unequivocal testimony to the absence of the PA; it does testify to the absence of the PA in the place where it came to rest later in the manuscript tradition, but it cannot speak to the question as to whether or not the PA may have been found at the end of John in third-century Egypt.

              One other thing: the P de A Homepage isn't accessible at the http://adultera.awardspace.com address anymore, but the original site was well-mirrored and can still be found if one looks hard enough. 

              Daniel Buck 
            • TeunisV
              In his Das Leben Jesu kritish bearbeitet (1835 (1st ed.), 1840 (4th ed.) David Friedrich Strauss described his view on the relations between the PA and the
              Message 6 of 7 , Aug 24, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                In his "Das Leben Jesu kritish bearbeitet" (1835 (1st ed.), 1840 (4th ed.) David Friedrich Strauss described his view on the relations between the PA and the different stories of the anointing woman (women).
                See Chris Keith in "Recent and previous research", Currents in Biblical Research, 6,3(2008), pp. 387-388 for a nice overview.
                http://www.academia.edu/2556704/Recent_and_Previous_Research_on_the_Pericope_Adulterae_John_7.53_-_8.11_
                In "Das Leben Jesu fuer das deutsche Volk bearbeitet", 1864 Strauss presented again a view on the anointing stories and the PA. For the "Hebraeer-Evangelium" see pp. 503-533.
                http://books.google.nl/books/download/Das_Leben_Jesu.pdf?id=wLMZmg71bBwC&hl=nl&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U0Oe4DIi8q94rwrbjoLfaZK5A0i_A

                On p. 532 the description(!) of a scheme:

                (2) H.E. PA (1) Mt, Mk (3) Lk 10

                (4) Lk 9 (5) Jn 12

                (4) is parented by (2) and (1).
                (5) is parented by (1) and (3) with elements of (4) added.

                Keith, p. 388: "<the matter> is much more complex than Strauss allows".
                There is still work to do, I suppose.

                Teunis van Lopik

                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
                >
                > This thread arose just as I was reading Jennifer Knust’s 2002 article in JECS at http://www.academia.edu/687660/Early_Christian_Re-Writing_and_the_History_of_the_Pericope_Adulterae Your article on the Patmos Family of texts (around here somewhere in my piles) was very insightful and I agree with your conclusion. 4G is the most highly edited, glossed, interpolated, chapter shuffled and generally messed around with of all of the Gospels. It is also the most interesting to me because of what I perceive as an Aramaic to Greek-translated smaller and earlier work embedded in it and perhaps used as a template for the Greek Gospel. One of my tools for forming an opinion on the originality or “primitiveness” of a pericope is “follow the Aramaic” and there are no indications to me that the PA had an Aramaic origin for its Canonical state but it certainly could have had an Aramaic background if it was re-written from a source in the Gospel of the Hebrews which was the earliest Aramaic Gospel (with the possible exception of my putative Aramaic “proto-John”). I consider you one of the seminal scholars on the PA so I would like to solicit your opinion (and others on the list) on my suspicion that the PA was an altered text from the GoH to “set a stage” for Christian slandering of Mary Magdalene who was accused (falsely) of being a prostitute...like the woman in the GoH. Also, do you agree with Dr. Knust that most NT scholars gloss over the anti-Jewish impact of the PA?
                >
                > Jack Kilmon
                >
                > From: Tommy Wasserman
                > Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 2:43 AM
                > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Pericope Adulterae : Wikipedia Page Misinformation
                >
                >
                >
                > MIke (or Isaac?),
                >
                > Yes, this is very sad, but it takes a lot of time and effort to go around and correct misinformed people who claim things whether on wiki, blogs, other webpages and discussion-lists (including this one).
                >
                > For this specific case, I think the misinformation comes from "The Pericope de Adultera Homepage" which is listed among the external links. You can read this blogpost and comments for another example of how such misconceptions can find its way even into an academic dissertation (if not the author is one of the persons behind that webpage, which I do not know): http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.se/2010/05/new-dissertation-in-tc-on-pericope-of.html
                >
                > By the way, I am neither very happy with the way I am referenced in the wikipedia article (footnote 10).
                >
                >
                > Tommy Wasserman
                >
                >
                > 22 aug 2013 kl. 16.26 skrev isaac_chauncy:
                >
                >
                >
                > Friends,
                > When I first started to research this issue (per James White's book), I came across the wikipedia page. I understand that this is NOT a reliable source, but it is out there and widely read by many.
                > I refer specifically to this:
                > =========
                > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Textual_history
                > The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot.
                > ==============
                >
                > From what I have read and experienced (as a NT Greek reader), their are 2 BIG problems here.
                > 1. P66 & P75 do not have such markings of any omission.
                > 2. "diacritical marks". I don't think that is in any way a correct term for a scribal mark indicating an omission.
                >
                > Can some of the big wheels here get this corrected so as to not mislead others?
                >
                > Sincerely,
                > -mike
                >
              • TeunisV
                Now with clickable links. In his Das Leben Jesu kritish bearbeitet (1835 (1st ed.), 1840 (4th ed.) David Friedrich Strauss described his view on the
                Message 7 of 7 , Aug 26, 2013
                • 0 Attachment

                  Now with clickable links.
                  In his "Das Leben Jesu kritish bearbeitet" (1835 (1st ed.), 1840 (4th ed.) David Friedrich Strauss described his view on the relations between the PA and the different stories of the anointing woman (women).
                  See Chris Keith in "Recent and previous research", Currents in Biblical
                  Research, 6,3(2008), pp. 387-388 for a nice overview.
                  http://www.academia.edu/2556704/Recent_and_Previous_Research_on_the_Pericope_Adulterae_John_7.53_-_8.11_
                  In "Das Leben Jesu fuer das deutsche Volk bearbeitet", 1864 Strauss presented again a view on the anointing stories and the PA. For the "Hebraeer-Evangelium"
                  see pp. 503-533.
                  http://books.google.nl/books/download/Das_Leben_Jesu.pdf?id=wLMZmg71bBwC&hl=nl&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U0Oe4DIi8q94rwrbjoLfaZK5A0i_A

                  On p. 532 the description(!) of a scheme:

                  (2) H.E. PA (1) Mt, Mk (3) Lk 10

                  (4) Lk 9 (5) Jn 12

                  (4) is parented by (2) and (1).
                  (5) is parented by (1) and (3) with elements of (4) added.

                  Keith, p. 388: "<the matter> is much more complex than Strauss allows".
                  There is still work to do, I suppose.

                  Teunis van Lopik

                   

                  >
                  > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" jkilmon@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > > This thread arose just as I was reading Jennifer Knust’s 2002 article in JECS at http://www.academia.edu/687660/Early_Christian_Re-Writing_and_the_History_of_the_Pericope_Adulterae Your article on the Patmos Family of texts (around here somewhere in my piles) was very insightful and I agree with your conclusion. 4G is the most highly edited, glossed, interpolated, chapter shuffled and generally messed around with of all of the Gospels. It is also the most interesting to me because of what I perceive as an Aramaic to Greek-translated smaller and earlier work embedded in it and perhaps used as a template for the Greek Gospel. One of my tools for forming an opinion on the originality or “primitiveness” of a pericope is “follow the Aramaic” and there are no indications to me that the PA had an Aramaic origin for its Canonical state but it certainly could have had an Aramaic background if it was re-written from a source in the Gospel of the Hebrews which was the earliest Aramaic Gospel (with the possible exception of my putative Aramaic “proto-John”). I consider you one of the seminal scholars on the PA so I would like to solicit your opinion (and others on the list) on my suspicion that the PA was an altered text from the GoH to “set a stage” for Christian slandering of Mary Magdalene who was accused (falsely) of being a prostitute...like the woman in the GoH. Also, do you agree with Dr. Knust that most NT scholars gloss over the anti-Jewish impact of the PA?
                  > >
                  > > Jack Kilmon
                  > >
                  > > From: Tommy Wasserman
                  > > Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 2:43 AM
                  > > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Pericope Adulterae : Wikipedia Page Misinformation
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > MIke (or Isaac?),
                  > >
                  > > Yes, this is very sad, but it takes a lot of time and effort to go around and correct misinformed people who claim things whether on wiki, blogs, other webpages and discussion-lists (including this one).
                  > >
                  > > For this specific case, I think the misinformation comes from "The Pericope de Adultera Homepage" which is listed among the external links. You can read this blogpost and comments for another example of how such misconceptions can find its way even into an academic dissertation (if not the author is one of the persons behind that webpage, which I do not know): http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.se/2010/05/new-dissertation-in-tc-on-pericope-of.html
                  > >
                  > > By the way, I am neither very happy with the way I am referenced in the wikipedia article (footnote 10).
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Tommy Wasserman
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > 22 aug 2013 kl. 16.26 skrev isaac_chauncy:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Friends,
                  > > When I first started to research this issue (per James White's book), I came across the wikipedia page. I understand that this is NOT a reliable source, but it is out there and widely read by many.
                  > > I refer specifically to this:
                  > > =========
                  > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Textual_history
                  > > The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot.
                  > > ==============
                  > >
                  > > From what I have read and experienced (as a NT Greek reader), their are 2 BIG problems here.
                  > > 1. P66 & P75 do not have such markings of any omission.
                  > > 2. "diacritical marks". I don't think that is in any way a correct term for a scribal mark indicating an omission.
                  > >
                  > > Can some of the big wheels here get this corrected so as to not mislead others?
                  > >
                  > > Sincerely,
                  > > -mike
                  > >
                  >

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.