Ben C Smith

From one of those other threads:

What do you mean by authenticity? If you mean authentically ancient, I think I agree; it seems Papias knew (some version of) the story. But, if you mean authentically Johannine, could you please clarify your position on the attestation by Papias and Didymus? Neither claims to have actually found the pericope in John.

Ben.

Magdlyn

So, you are just going to ignore my objections. You mocked me for not discussing this passage in the earlier thread (when I didn't want to, as it was off topic), and now that I start a new one, you're ignoring my comments.

I read it previously, yes. It does not say much:

This paragraph does not address Didymus or any others saying it was too sexual, therefore embarrassing, deleted then re-added. If you have a better link to more info, please do share.

This is an appeal to authority. How did they know it was edited out and re-added? By whom and when was it taken out and re-added?

Or, we have speculation and apologia. Without more info, we can't be sure. We also have an example of the Fathers imagining they are more morally pure than God! "Oh... it's so icky, we don't like it, we don't understand it, but we'll have it if we must." Did the "Fathers" not address how no punishment for the woman's lover was demanded by the scribes or mentioned by Jesus? I find that more embarrassing (for the "Jewish" son of God who should have been entirely familiar with the mitzvot) than the idea to let her go with just a warning and no ticket. Maybe Jesus was not all that Jewish, really.

I don't see that he did that. He just went into more detail about its history in the more scholarly book.

On the contrary, this idea of Xtians cherry picking is neither new nor remarkable. I just don't see anything to support it happened in this instance except speculation by the "Fathers" and an appeal to authority from you.

And now you do your own version of cherry picking by refusing to address my examples of more embarrassingly sexual tales in the Bible, that were apparently overlooked by your imaginary pious editors!

Stamp out religion? No. Expose superstition and move on to a more accurate idea of the requirements of existence, is how I'd put it. But that's another subject and I'd like to keep this to the pericope, if you please.

Speculation and guesses... that's all you've got? Getting your feet wiped by a woman's hair in public is much more embarrassing, imo.

No Robots

Yeah, not authentically Johannine, but authentically ancient.

No Robots

Let's make this a wide-ranging, slow-paced discussion, shall we? You and Ray have brought up quite a number of things. So let's take our time and deal with them thoroughly.

No. I wasn't mocking you. I was criticizing you for having dismissed the adultery pericope without providing any support, or indicating that this might be a contested area of scholarship. It's a rather cheap debating trick to pass something off as proven. After all, isn't that the whole mythicist complaint about the assumption of a historical Jesus?


Didymus provides evidence that the pericope is ancient. The reasons for its suppression in some manuscripts come from Ambrose and Augustine, citations for which can be found here.

Christ's role in the pericope is of a piece with his entire portrait in the Gospels:

Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.—Mt 5:28

All are guilty, and the greatest sin is moralistic criticism. The man who had sex with the woman is no more guilty than the men who secretly lust after her, and now self-righteously condemn her.


It isn't the sex per se that was problematic, but the unconditional forgiveness of sexual delinquency.

Well, I'll just post Brunner's schema showing how religion is a part of superstition:



Yeah, but informed by what Ambrose and Augustine say. I didn't just pull it out of my ass.

Yeah, I love that bit. Have you ever heard of Sholem Asch? He wrote a novel about Christ, The Nazarene. Fantastic! And he wrote an equally great sequel about Paul, The Apostle. They are filled with sensuousness. Delightful.

Magdlyn

Thank you. Relevant material from your link:

Ambrose (ca. 397):
"At the same time also the Gospel which has been covered, could produce extraordinary anxiety in the inexperienced, in which you have noticed an adulteress presented to Christ and also dismissed without condemnation…. How indeed could Christ err? It is not right that this should come into our mind."

So he thought Christ erred?

Jerome (ca. 420)
“in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.”...

So, he didn't see it in Luke.

Augustine (ca. 430)
“certain persons of little faith, 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.”

And how does he "know" this? He doesn't say. :huh:


So, because certain theologians in the 4th and 5th centuries had seen this pericope in some manuscripts, and could imagine a reason for its excision, we should too. They have no more evidence when it was taken out, by whom, nor when it was re-added, and by which man or group. If they did know, certainly they would have said. You'd think there'd be rumors at least, if such a tampering had happened.


Ah, I see your point here. We know from the Talmud that early rabbis worked hard to lighten the requirements of the mitzvot and sought to do away with the death penalty that YHWH required (and they succeeded). Which makes their supposed demands for Jesus' death all the more questionable, doesn't it?



Forgiving an adulteress for her "sin" was nothing to Jesus, who practically had sex in public at his own party... Why, he's practically acting like a temple qudesh enacting the heiros gamos here. Why not forgive some random woman who cheated on her husband? It's all of a piece with his lax morality, by Yahwistic standards.

No Robots

No, Ambrose is chastising his co-religionists by telling them that if they dislike this passage, they are imputing error to Christ.

Apparently not. Even Didymus puts it in its canonical place, which implies that the shenanigans started quite early.

No, he doesn't. Seems like a reasonable surmise to me, though. He may be following Ambrose, who was his mentor. The main point, of course, is that the pericope is ancient. While reasons for the manipulation of the text may be speculative, it certainly seems that Ambrose and Augustine provide early and persuasive insight.

The relationship of Christ to the Pharisaic rabbinate was exactly the same as that of Socrates to the sophists. The Pharisees and the sophists were not evil men, but Christ and Socrates presented them with insurmountable difficulties, resulting in judicial murder.

A rather grotesque representation of the facts. Well, whatever floats your boat.

Magdlyn

All of your "Fathers" are from around 400 CE, which is 300 full yrs after John was written. 300 yrs! How accurate or significant can anything they say be? They are just speculating, and it suits you to just believe them. I find it less convincing.


300 yrs is not early or persuasive.


Jesus' teachings as shown in the gospels, are right in line with Hillelian theology. Putting a hedge around Torah. The "Jews" he argues with seem to be of Shammai's school.

I do not find the heiros gamos to be grotesque in the least. A female "priestess", the Marys of Jesus' life, understanding Jesus' mission as no men do. Bringing him to birth. Annointing him as the copulating and dying corn god. Watching his death. Later finding him risen. Quite in line with the pagan roots of Xtianity.

No Robots

The point is that we can say the pericope has existed since at least 400 CE. This is significant because some people think that the earliest evidence we have for it is from the 12th century. Secondly, we can say that it dates back to some time before 400 CE, because it was judged canonical by that time. This gives it a pedigree at least as good as many other parts of the NT.

That seems to be Abraham Geiger's view. Brunner is of another opinion.

But what about the children?

Magdlyn

What "many" other parts of the NT have been juggled around this much? What other parts are not commented on until 400 CE? I know the extended ending of Mark.

If anyone else can help out here, please do comment.

Your discomfort with and flippancy about the pagan/sexual aspect of this pericope and other incidents is making this discussion uncomfortable for me. Please let's keep this serious or I will have to ask you to bow out. Thanks.

No Robots

Well, my basic point has been made seriously elsewhere.