tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post5722050793905452432..comments2024-03-10T07:21:57.889-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: My Favorite Passage About an Adulteress in the BibleJames Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-80902053698322027782018-01-28T10:13:21.802-05:002018-01-28T10:13:21.802-05:00Ok. It is a passionate topic for me, how those who...Ok. It is a passionate topic for me, how those who espouse the total infallibility of the text go through hoops to call the end of mark and the stoning story as being there from the very beginning. The New Testament copies we have are a few hundred years removed from the autographs. It is clear even as late as the fifth century (codex Braze is a great example) that there were still areas within the Christian world that felt and believed the gospels the letters the acts could still be refined and shaped (added to and subtracted from) to fill the local congregation’s stylistic historical and dogmatic beliefs. I will answer you more fully after this weekend as I am spending time with my family.JGabriel22https://www.blogger.com/profile/08712042627375880116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-79784105091387135862018-01-25T10:01:59.385-05:002018-01-25T10:01:59.385-05:00"The uncials E, G, H, K, M, U, S, G, Ω, 047, ..."The uncials E, G, H, K, M, U, S, G, Ω, 047, and 0233 support the passage, and Codex F included it when the manuscript was in pristine condition."<br />Perhaps you would cover this evidence in more detail (as you do so well). To start with, D should obviously be on this list. But how about Gamma 036, listed in support at laparola.net? And F is witness to v. 11, but we don't know if it may, like E, also have lacked the first two verses. But if we allow E in for its inclusion of 2-11, then why not Lambda 039 and Pi 041 for 3-11?Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-17270377650838916262018-01-12T18:05:36.901-05:002018-01-12T18:05:36.901-05:00JGabriel,
First: pericope, not periscope.
If y...JGabriel, <br /><br />First: pericope, not periscope.<br /><br />If you take in hand my book -- a free digital copy of which I will happily provide on request -- you will see that I am well aware of the external evidence that you summarized, regarding which MSS have and do not contain the passage. <br /><br /><< The above as you know are the earliest John texts we posses. >><br /><br />You've not mentioned some important Latin evidence.<br /><br /><< There's a reason why it is sometimes found in Luke 21:38 or 24:53, because in style and vocabulary it fits better there than in John. >><br /><br />Incorrect. Please read my book. <br /><br /><< Definitively on internal grounds these verses interrupt the narrative of John’s Gospel and feature non-Johannine vocabulary and grammar. >><br /><br />On the contrary, John's narrative is *not* interrupted by the PA; just the opposite is the case: the narrative is truncated without the PA. Again, please read my book.<br /><br /><< Latin church father's are the only ones who speak of the periscope before the 11th century save one Greek, Dydimus the blind. >><br /><br />Incorrect; again, please read my book.<br /><br />Regarding Latin patristic writers: again, please read my book; this is covered there as well.<br /><br />Regarding Greek patristic writers: again: please read my book. I cover this.<br /><br />Regarding versional evidence: please read my book; I cover this too.<br /><br /><< I fully buy into Chris Keith's arguments as to the time, place and reason behind the addittion of the periscope into the 4th goespel. >><br /><br />Then why are you making references about the PA being put into Luke or at the end of John for stylistic reasons? Are you sure you've read Keith carefully? For he shows a lot of the data that shows that lectionary-related adjustment are the cause of that, not some "This sounds good here" motive.<br /><br />Also:<br /><br /><< You have chosen a lousy "scholar" who made inadequate and clearly fallacious arguments that could be easily disproven to discuss your theory on the authenticity of the periscope. >><br /><br />Well . . . a lot of folks would disagree with the idea that Dan Wallace is a lousy scholar, and it would seem that he must have few true friends, since he has been spreading these claims at Dallas Theological Seminary for years. And of course I want to discuss my theory about the pericope; why would I *or anyone) write for no reason?? But I do not want to rewrite here in the comments what I have already written in my book, so, please, read my book.<br /><br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-43465672619432066682017-12-31T08:13:25.070-05:002017-12-31T08:13:25.070-05:00Gabriel, congratulations on an excellent summary o...Gabriel, congratulations on an excellent summary of the "fraud" theory of the PA (overlooking your typos, of which we are all guilty at times). Whoever has so effectively convinced you of the truth of this theory even managed to get you to believe conflicting 'facts' about Didymus--both that he mentioned the pericope (a horrible blow to the theory) and that he merely mentioned something like it (the only salvageable response). <br />But the most important claim you make is of "clearly fallacious arguments that could be easily disproven." If it is as easy as you claim, I invite you to do so without consulting any of your sources again, as you are clearly already very familiar with them. And please use logic, not ad hominem.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-2021207046779909302017-12-31T02:05:35.497-05:002017-12-31T02:05:35.497-05:00The amount of material you have omitted that point...The amount of material you have omitted that points to the periscope being an addition to the gospel by someone other than the John's author is massive. You have chosen a lousy "scholar" who made inadequate and clearly fallacious arguments that could be easily disproven to discuss your theory on the authenticity of the periscope. <br /><br />A few points:<br /><br />the periscope is missing from ALL manuscripts prior to the fifth century when it is first found in the highly aberrant Codex Bezae. The same Codex Bezae that has a copy of the Acts of the Apostles 10 percent longer than the one found in every other bible.<br />The story then disappears in greek texts for another 4 centuries and doesn't reappear till the 9th century.<br /><br />It's missing in<br />P66<br />P75<br />Codex Sinaticus<br />Codex Vaticanus<br />Codex L (Although it doesn contain a blank space as if the writer kept a space in memorial of the periscope.)<br />Codex Delta (same as above)<br />Codex Alexandrinus<br />Codex Ephraemi<br />Codex Washingtonianus<br />Codex Borganus<br /><br />The above as you know are the earliest John texts we posses.<br /><br />Shall we talk about it stylistically? <br />There's a reason why it is sometimes found in Luke 21:38 or 24:53, because in style and vocabulary it fits better there than in John. <br />We can also find it after John 7:36 or after John 21:25.<br /><br />Definitively on internal grounds these verses interrupt the narrative of John’s Gospel and feature non-Johannine vocabulary and grammar. <br /><br />Let's talk about what our Church Fathers thought of the periscope.<br /><br />Latin church father's are the only ones who speak of the periscope before the 11th century save one Greek, Dydimus the blind.<br /><br />So let's talk about the latin fathers.<br />Pre 5th century Besides Pacian and Ambrisiaster who allude to the story but DO NOT place it in a Johnannine Context <br />Ambrose does cite the passage and places it where it is found in most gospels today.<br />Augustine and Jerome were familiar with the periscope. <br />you have in the 5th century Quodvultdeus of Carthage, Peter Chrysologus, writing in Ravenna c. 450, Prosper of Aquitane and Gelasius also clearly used the passage.<br /><br />As far as the Greek Fathers:<br />you have Papias (circa AD 110) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.<br />Dydymus the blind also refers to a story that sounds very much like the periscope but speaks of it being found in "other Gospels."<br />Let's not forget that Didymus routinely quoted from extracanonical books as if they were scripture, including the Sheperd of Hermas, the docetic tinged Acts of John as well as a number of quotes not found in our present gospels. He was eventually considered a heretic and his works were hunted down and destroyed by the Church.<br /><br />The following greek fathers do not appear to know of this story in our bibles:<br /><br /> Origen, Chrysostom, and Nonnus (in his metrical paraphrase) dealt with the entire Gospel verse by verse and yet no mention of this periscope. <br />Cyril is silent.<br />Euthymius Zigabenus, who lived in the first part of the twelfth century, is the first Greek writer to comment on the passage, and even he declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.”<br /><br />What can early translations of John in other languages tell us?<br /><br />The story missing from the oldest Syriac, Coptic, and Bohairic versions of the Gospel.<br />It's missing from all of the Sahidic, sub-Achmimic, and Gothic manuscripts. <br />Important early Armenian, Old Georgian, and Old Latin copies of John’s Gospel omit the passage.<br />The story is absent in over one hundred of the earliest manuscripts of John.<br /><br />As for me, I fully buy into Chris Keith's arguments as to the time, place and reason behind the addittion of the periscope into the 4th goespel. <br /><br />His book is<br />The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy ofJesusJGabriel22https://www.blogger.com/profile/08712042627375880116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-164206088694441342017-12-22T16:16:57.182-05:002017-12-22T16:16:57.182-05:00JS: "I suppose one could pose that objection,...JS: "I suppose one could pose that objection, but I would not do so, inasmuch as the MSS that have the PA after Luke 21 and after John 21 tend to have other features as well . . ."<br /><br />Good point. But to follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, the oldest manuscript of Mark should be mentioned in support of 16:9-20, as the other member of its textual family contains the verses. Were the last page of p45 still extant, it would probably contain the Freer logion, but almost certainly the rest of the Long Ending.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-30692700259556707112017-12-18T13:55:27.344-05:002017-12-18T13:55:27.344-05:00Scorpion0308,
Please note that this blog does no...Scorpion0308, <br /><br />Please note that this blog does not allow anonymous comments. (But this was, as far as I can tell, your first post, so I will assume for this one minute that you were named Scorpion0308 at birth.) <br /><br />Dr. Wallace may consider *a* story about Jesus and an adulteress to be historical, but that is not the text-critical issue. He has affirmed that he would prefer the passage to be relegated to the footnotes, largely on the basis of the case that he offers in the Credo Course lecture on the subject, which is, as you can see, riddled with errors. He has acknowledged one error that I pointed out in one of his YouTube lectures some time ago (in a series of lectures, given in Brasil, which closely resemble some of the Credo Course lectures, PowerPoint slides and all). Yet he allows it to continue to circulate. I assume that this is due to carelessness, not to a desire to deliberately deceive. Unfortunately the result on the listeners is the same.<br /><br />As for me seeing proud and all that, perhaps the discussion about the tone of the smoke alarm can be undertaken after the fire has been extinguished.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-87518788346045708172017-12-15T14:48:22.794-05:002017-12-15T14:48:22.794-05:00Reading this, it isn't completely obvious that...Reading this, it isn't completely obvious that it definitely was part of the autograph. You fail to mention Dr. Wallace does not discount the possibility of it being a historically accurate story, but failed to be written down by John. I don't mean this as an insult, but you seem to be proud as you say"bask in my confidence". Did you by chance take the opportunity to confront Dr. Wallace with your reasoning's or questions either during the class or outside of it? Nevertheless, I would be interested in his reply. Kudos to you on your work regarding the PA.<br />Scorpion0308https://www.blogger.com/profile/09984630029167113603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-42561358750068325112017-12-14T20:04:35.465-05:002017-12-14T20:04:35.465-05:00This passage is crucially important since the Gosp...This passage is crucially important since the Gospel of John serves as a prophecy for what is to take place during the Millennium. This is teaching about the time when the Bride of Christ (Michael's Bride who gives birth to the Manchild)in the end-times falls and is overcome during her time of peril and tribulation, but she is later redeemed and forgiven of her transgression. Glad to see it getting some defense as a critically important part of holy writ.Jason Whartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14766669304356916594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-3344587421887286742017-12-13T14:48:23.702-05:002017-12-13T14:48:23.702-05:00Daniel Buck,
I suppose one could pose that object...Daniel Buck, <br />I suppose one could pose that objection, but I would not do so, inasmuch as the MSS that have the PA after Luke 21 and after John 21 tend to have other features as well; that is, as you know, the family-13 MSS have other textual affinities, not just the transplantation of the PA to after Luke 21 (where it is near the lection for the previous day in the Menologion), and the family-1 MSS have other textual affinities likewise, not just the transplantation of the PA to after John 21 (where it was put after being taken from the location right after 7:52, as the note in MS 1582 specifically says). It's really the archetype of these clusters that carries the weight, rather than any one member of the group.<br /><br />Still, your point is valid to an extent:<br />If a MS within family-1 does not have the PA after John 7:52, and is not extant for John 21, it should be regarded as a witness for complete non-inclusion very tenuously, if at all, and if a MS within family-13 is not extant for Luke 21-22, it should be regarded as a witness for complete non-inclusion very tenuously, if at all.<br /><br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-67058053655680430672017-12-12T18:59:26.730-05:002017-12-12T18:59:26.730-05:00It's also worth remembering that whenever Dr. ...It's also worth remembering that whenever Dr. Wallace makes a big deal of the multiple locations the pericope is found in, he undercuts the testimony of the ancient manuscripts he claims don't have it. Yes, it may be easily shown that they don't have it between John 7 and 8, but as he has so amply demonstrated, that's no proof that a manuscript doesn't have it--somewhere. In order to claim support for omission, he really needs to show that any given ms has all of the contexts in which the pericope has been found, and it is present in none of them. <br />No wonder he has to throw around numbers like 322 in support of omission. Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-44264235570718811672017-12-12T07:39:09.368-05:002017-12-12T07:39:09.368-05:00I emailed David Allan Black out of Southeastern Ba...I emailed David Allan Black out of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary about this passage once. He seems to think it is authentic and goes back to the autograph. Then he forwarded me to this book: https://www.amazon.com/Pericope-Adulteress-Contemporary-Research-Testament/dp/0567665798 Jonathan Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08246776535492393555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-58018516779258127542017-12-12T05:10:34.430-05:002017-12-12T05:10:34.430-05:00What Dr. Wallace finds "fascinating" cou...What Dr. Wallace finds "fascinating" could be better described as "fantastic." That is, he fantasized a scenario in defiance of the evidence. Following your link to 1349, one can note that indeed 7:52 is followed by 8:12, but there is a τελος lectionary symbol right there in the text between the two. The pericope then follows, with 8:12 up to λέγων, then the αρχη lectionary symbol preceding the rest of the verse.<br />So apparently for at least some lectors, only part of 8:12 was included in the Pentecost reading. Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-91708521495398979672017-12-11T21:15:49.364-05:002017-12-11T21:15:49.364-05:00Thank you for your analysis.
Is there some reaso...Thank you for your analysis. <br /><br />Is there some reason Wallace might WANT John 8a to be outside the canon?<br /><br />I plan to point this this article when discussing John 8a. <br />P.S. I think it is authentic as I see Jesus showing himself to be a Jew following Torah in his responses and showing how his challengers are not.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-43841440928562623832017-12-11T20:54:33.491-05:002017-12-11T20:54:33.491-05:00James, you did an amazing analysis of this. I want...James, you did an amazing analysis of this. I want a copy of your book. Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00310372386939711273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-38391147247054614222017-12-11T19:20:52.996-05:002017-12-11T19:20:52.996-05:00I am hopeful he replies, since you have taken on a...I am hopeful he replies, since you have taken on a giant (not Goliath). I am ignorant, and I am interested in a discussion on this with men of your capability. Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12565341575285149675noreply@blogger.com