Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-30-2006, 03:32 PM

Greetings, all,

Basically, there are two views on Pericope Adultera (PA). Either it has always been a part of the canon, or it was added later, from sources unknown.

In my view, PA has always been canonical -- there’s really quite a lot of evidence to substantiate this. But for those who wish to claim that it was added later, I think it should be incumbent on them to provide some sort of a plausible picture of how this could have happened.

For example, when was this addition made? Who was responsible for it? What was the motivation for it?

Obviously, this is a highly controversial passage, and it must have always been so. Quite clearly, the passage was difficult and controversial right from the beginning, and it has remained so even unto now.

The reason for all these disputes is obvious; PA reflects directly on women’s status in society. The difference here is between a society where women’s sexual indiscretions lead to the punishment of death, and a society where the punishment is less severe. Clearly, most women would much prefer the latter social situation.

From what we know, the status of women in the earliest Christian communities was somewhat higher, compared to what it later became. So it is obvious that, as the status of women in the Church was declining over the centuries, the probability that PA would have been added to the canon must have increasingly diminished.

Thus, we do have plentiful motives for why PA should have been suppressed and excised from the canon... but we seem to have no reason at all for why it should have been inserted into the canon at a late date.

So how can a case for a late addition be made? Is anyone willing to make such a case here?

Absent a plausible and coherent scenario of how PA could have been added to the canon at some late stage (such as in the 4th century), I think the other option may simply win by default.

Indeed, it seems rather absurd that, for some unknown reason, during the 4th century, the Church authorities had decided to drag this thing into the canon from some presumably apocryphal/heretical source, and nobody complained... Is there any other such case anywhere, i.e. a passage that is known to have belonged to apocryphal/heretical sources, and was then inserted into the canon as late as the 4th century? If not, then don’t we have the fallacy of begging the question here?

Regards,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith · 06-30-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri

Is there any other such case anywhere, i.e. a passage that is known to have belonged to apocryphal/heretical sources, and was then inserted into the canon as late as the 4th century? If not, then don’t we have the fallacy of begging the question here?

Strictly speaking, individual passages do not belong in the canon; (recensions of) books do. Unless by canon you mean the textus receptus, could you reword the question?

Thanks.

Ben.

Julian · 06-30-2006, 03:46 PM

The burden of proof is on those who would include it in GJohn. That the passage is fairly early is not disputed, it is referred to in the 3rd century. That it came from GJohn is the issue here. In order to show that it belongs there it would have to be shown that an early Greek manuscript contains it. This is not currently possible and until it is, it must be considered from elsewhere.

I seems that the passage was from somewhere else, was popular and was incorporated into the already wild V.L. tradition (including D(05) in this case) and from there migrated into the Byzantine texts since it fit in nicely with their christology.

Julian

jgibson000 · 06-30-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

Basically, there are two views on Pericope Adultera (PA). Either it has always been a part of the canon, or it was added later, from sources unknown.

In my view, PA has always been canonical -- there’s really quite a lot of evidence to substantiate this.

And this evidence would be what?

I remind you that you have declared elsewere, and commited yourself to the ideas, that "in a scientific discussion, it is _always_ incumbent on the one who makes a claim to defend his or her claim" (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loisy/message/1377).

Quote:

Indeed, it seems rather absurd that, for some unknown reason, during the 4th century, the Church authorities had decided to drag this thing into the canon from some presumably apocryphal/heretical source, and nobody complained... Is there any other such case anywhere, i.e. a passage that is known to have belonged to apocryphal/heretical sources, and was then inserted into the canon as late as the 4th century? If not, then don’t we have the fallacy of begging the question here?

Yes, but not where you think. It's in the claims that when the PA was brought into the textual tradition it was "dragged in" and that, even if it was, that it had to have come from an aprocryphal/heretical source. We also have, besides the strawmen set up here. a mistatement of fact in the claim that nobody ever complained about the inesrtion of the PA into the textual tradition.

JG

countjulian · 07-01-2006, 06:11 AM

Quote:

The reason for all these disputes is obvious; PA reflects directly on women’s status in society. The difference here is between a society where women’s sexual indiscretions lead to the punishment of death, and a society where the punishment is less severe. Clearly, most women would much prefer the latter social situation.

From what we know, the status of women in the earliest Christian communities was somewhat higher, compared to what it later became. So it is obvious that, as the status of women in the Church was declining over the centuries, the probability that PA would have been added to the canon must have increasingly diminished.

But that's simply not the only reason it might have been added. I have seen that passage used to abrogate a whole range of Old Testament "stone the sinner" type laws; many Christians were eager to get rid of such things, and this provided them with more ammo. Also, the Christian community under pagan Roman rule did not have the authority to mete out such punishments, especially for the all-too-common "crime of adultery", so I'm betting that a number of church leaders did not want to deal with such a thing.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 07-01-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Strictly speaking, individual passages do not belong in the canon; (recensions of) books do.

Hi, Ben,

What I mean is that this story must have originally belonged to one of the canonical gospels. Thus, it had the canonical status right from the beginning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Unless by canon you mean the textus receptus, could you reword the question?

Thanks.

Ben.

Textus Receptus has nothing to do with any of this. This term denotes a rather late form of text.

BTW have you read Willker’s analysis of the internal evidence in regard to PA?
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf

He itemises some more Lukan (and/or generally Synoptic) features for PA, compared to what you have.

Regards,

Yuri.

jgibson000 · 07-01-2006, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Ben,

What I mean is that this story must have originally belonged to one of the canonical gospels.

And your evidence for this is what?

Jeffrey Gibson

Yuri Kuchinsky · 07-01-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countjulian

But that's simply not the only reason it might have been added. I have seen that passage used to abrogate a whole range of Old Testament "stone the sinner" type laws; many Christians were eager to get rid of such things, and this provided them with more ammo.

Well, countjulian, I’m simply asking for those who advocate a late addition to provide a some sort of a plausible picture of how this could have happened.

What you have said _begins_ to make such a case, but so far it looks rather sketchy...

For example, you’d have to specify, During which historical period “many Christians were eager to get rid of such things”? The timing is important here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by countjulian

Also, the Christian community under pagan Roman rule did not have the authority to mete out such punishments, especially for the all-too-common "crime of adultery", so I'm betting that a number of church leaders did not want to deal with such a thing.

Do you mean to say that, after pagan Roman rule was ended, the addition of PA would have made more sense? Or is it the other way around?

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 07-01-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

The burden of proof is on those who would include it in GJohn. That the passage is fairly early is not disputed, it is referred to in the 3rd century. That it came from GJohn is the issue here.

This isn't an issue for me. I don't think it came from GJohn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

In order to show that it belongs there it would have to be shown that an early Greek manuscript contains it. This is not currently possible and until it is, it must be considered from elsewhere.

I seems that the passage was from somewhere else, was popular

Who was it popular with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

and was incorporated into the already wild V.L. tradition (including D(05) in this case) and from there migrated into the Byzantine texts since it fit in nicely with their christology.

Julian

How so?

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 07-01-2006, 10:28 AM

Here are a couple of interesting bibliographical items,

H.J. Cadbury "A possible case for Lukan authorship (Jo 7:53-8:11)" HTR 10 (1917) 237-44

Josep Rius-Camps, ORIGEN LUCANO DE LA PERICOPA DE LA MUJER ADULTERA (Jn 7,53-8,11), FILOLOGIA NEOTESTAMENTARIA, Vol. VI - fasc�*culo 12 - Noviembre 1993

[An article in Spanish: “The Lucan origin of the Adulterous Woman pericope.”]

ABSTRACT
The author argues against the johannic origin of John 7:53-8:11 and, studying its style and vocabulary, establishes its lucan origin, determining that it belonged to the Temple Section of Luke's Gospel (19:47-21:38).

The article expounds the arguments in favour of the lucan origin of John 7:53-8:11. First of all, uses intra- and extratextual criteria to exclude its original appartenance to John's Gospel, in agreement with most commentators; after showing the antique character of the pericope, the author asks himself whether John 7:53-8:11 should be considered simply as a piece of oral tradition or rather as a pericope taken out of its original context. He reaches the conclusion that we have here a piece of lucan Sondergut which was formerly a part of Luke's Temple Section (19:47-21:38). He thinks that Luke found his inspiration for this pericope in Mc 10,1:12. Finally, through a parallelism with Exodus 31:18-34:20, he looks for the symbolic meaning of the episode.

The article ends proposing some possible reasons that could explain the elimination of the pericope from the Gospel of Luke and tries to identify the traces of its former position left in the Gospel.
____________

Regards,

Yuri.

06-30-2006, 03:32 PM	#1
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Disputes About the Adultera Pericope Greetings, all, Basically, there are two views on Pericope Adultera (PA). Either it has always been a part of the canon, or it was added later, from sources unknown. In my view, PA has always been canonical -- there’s really quite a lot of evidence to substantiate this. But for those who wish to claim that it was added later, I think it should be incumbent on them to provide some sort of a plausible picture of how this could have happened. For example, when was this addition made? Who was responsible for it? What was the motivation for it? Obviously, this is a highly controversial passage, and it must have always been so. Quite clearly, the passage was difficult and controversial right from the beginning, and it has remained so even unto now. The reason for all these disputes is obvious; PA reflects directly on women’s status in society. The difference here is between a society where women’s sexual indiscretions lead to the punishment of death, and a society where the punishment is less severe. Clearly, most women would much prefer the latter social situation. From what we know, the status of women in the earliest Christian communities was somewhat higher, compared to what it later became. So it is obvious that, as the status of women in the Church was declining over the centuries, the probability that PA would have been added to the canon must have increasingly diminished. Thus, we do have plentiful motives for why PA should have been suppressed and excised from the canon... but we seem to have no reason at all for why it should have been inserted into the canon at a late date. So how can a case for a late addition be made? Is anyone willing to make such a case here? Absent a plausible and coherent scenario of how PA could have been added to the canon at some late stage (such as in the 4th century), I think the other option may simply win by default. Indeed, it seems rather absurd that, for some unknown reason, during the 4th century, the Church authorities had decided to drag this thing into the canon from some presumably apocryphal/heretical source, and nobody complained... Is there any other such case anywhere, i.e. a passage that is known to have belonged to apocryphal/heretical sources, and was then inserted into the canon as late as the 4th century? If not, then don’t we have the fallacy of begging the question here? Regards, Yuri.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-30-2006, 03:46 PM	#3
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	The burden of proof is on those who would include it in GJohn. That the passage is fairly early is not disputed, it is referred to in the 3rd century. That it came from GJohn is the issue here. In order to show that it belongs there it would have to be shown that an early Greek manuscript contains it. This is not currently possible and until it is, it must be considered from elsewhere. I seems that the passage was from somewhere else, was popular and was incorporated into the already wild V.L. tradition (including D(05) in this case) and from there migrated into the Byzantine texts since it fit in nicely with their christology. Julian

07-01-2006, 10:28 AM	#10
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Here are a couple of interesting bibliographical items, H.J. Cadbury "A possible case for Lukan authorship (Jo 7:53-8:11)" HTR 10 (1917) 237-44 Josep Rius-Camps, ORIGEN LUCANO DE LA PERICOPA DE LA MUJER ADULTERA (Jn 7,53-8,11), FILOLOGIA NEOTESTAMENTARIA, Vol. VI - fasc�*culo 12 - Noviembre 1993 [An article in Spanish: “The Lucan origin of the Adulterous Woman pericope.”] ABSTRACT The author argues against the johannic origin of John 7:53-8:11 and, studying its style and vocabulary, establishes its lucan origin, determining that it belonged to the Temple Section of Luke's Gospel (19:47-21:38). The article expounds the arguments in favour of the lucan origin of John 7:53-8:11. First of all, uses intra- and extratextual criteria to exclude its original appartenance to John's Gospel, in agreement with most commentators; after showing the antique character of the pericope, the author asks himself whether John 7:53-8:11 should be considered simply as a piece of oral tradition or rather as a pericope taken out of its original context. He reaches the conclusion that we have here a piece of lucan Sondergut which was formerly a part of Luke's Temple Section (19:47-21:38). He thinks that Luke found his inspiration for this pericope in Mc 10,1:12. Finally, through a parallelism with Exodus 31:18-34:20, he looks for the symbolic meaning of the episode. The article ends proposing some possible reasons that could explain the elimination of the pericope from the Gospel of Luke and tries to identify the traces of its former position left in the Gospel. ____________ Regards, Yuri.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.