Steven Carr

Who is Didiscalia writing in Latin , who mentioned the women caught in adultery? Was he important?

It claims to have been written before the traditional date when Johns' Gospel was written. This means it is unlikely to be quoting something known to be only in the Gospel of John. That would give away the forger too much.

So the self-claimed date of Didiscalia's writing is evidence against the pericope being in John.

To get back to the OP, we do not have the original NT.

Not only does God move in mysterious ways, but we don't have an accurate record of those ways.

Yuri Kuchinsky

That's right, Haran.

Yes, I believe that Ehrman's statement is somewhat misleading.

IMHO the Pericope Adulterae is very old. (Nevertheless, it may have originally belonged to Luke.)

Best,

Yuri.

Steven Carr

http://www.bombaxo.com/didascalia.html is the text of Didscalia.

Where exactly does he mention the story?

Steven Avery

Hi Haran.. sure...

In general, a lot of such research traces back to Dean John Burgon, around the 1880's, when the tools were limited, he could only work with DOS and Dbase2 and AskSam (wait.. was that the 1980's ? :-).

In regard to textual issues I have done my own double-checking and adding and filling out of references, such as in 1 Timothy 3:16 and the ending of Mark (others have done it on the Johannine Comma), mostly from the Web. In the case of the Pericope I haven't done that much, but I can give you a number of the URL's that point you on the way, with my comments.

==================================================
WEB SOURCES FOR PERICOPE ADULTERA REFERENCE INFORMATION
==================================================

http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult-hills.html
http://www.comekjv.com/bible/hills-06.html
The Woman Taken In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11) - Dr. Edward F. Hills
( includes Burgon, Metzger discussion, and some of the quotes)
Good example is the section...
c) Misleading Notes in the Modem Versions
"Metzger's interpretation of the facts is incorrect.."

http://www.nttext.com/variant.html
TWELVE TEXTUAL TROUBLESPOTS - A. W. Wilson
Reviews the UBS apparatus

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf
"Textual Commentary ..The Pericope de Adultera" ...Wieland Willker
"The earliest quotations" p. 7-11
1) greatest amount of technical information
2) regular textcrit perspective
3) lots of the early church writer quotations. p.7-9 and Papias/Didymus later

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1316
Exegetical Commentary on John 8 By: W. Hall Harris III , Th.M., Ph.D.
a) regular textcrit view
b) bibliography included
c) no reference to quotes of Augustine or Jerome

http://www.holywordcafe.com/freaks/John.pdf
The Pericope de Adultera - Research Paper - Chuck A. Louviere (1996)
Early writers - p. 4-5 p.23 (Augustine) P.24 (chart) p.25 (list of references)
Bibliography - early church writer references apparently mostly from
1) Pulpit Commentary Vol. 17 Gospel of John
2) Unholy Hands on the Bible Vol. 1 Jay Green, this section is based on
The Woman Taken in Adultery: A Defense of the Authenticity of St John 7:53-8:11, - Dean John Burgon

http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/r...n/spurious.htm
Spurious changes to the Bible
Includes sections from
"Which Bible can we Trust? 1982, Les Garrett (compiler)

============================================
RECENT PRESENTATION - PROFESSOR MAURICE ROBINSON ============================================

MD 1/7-8-05 - ... Dr. Michael Holmes of Bethel University and Seminary in St. Paul, MN and Dr. Maurice Robinson of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC... Dr. Robinson will present special research on the Pericope adulterae.
INFO --> cskinner@perryhallbaptist.org - Christopher W. Skinner
Recordings - 7 CD recordings, available for $36 including S&H

SIDENOTE:
"Jerome's .. very clearly stated that the Pericope Adulterae *was* in many Greek and Latin MSS known to him -- even though we have zero Greek MSS of that century that contain the passage."
Professor Robinson - correspondence.

==============================
ADDITIONAL INTERESTING REFERENCES
==============================

http://www.nttext.com/adult.html
The ADULTERESS and Her ACCUSERS A Study in Intrinsic Probability -
A. W. Wilson (Internal evidences and themes) - other section above

http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl80/Ani01.htm
Jesus and the Adulteress - Biblica 80 (1999) 100-108 - A. Watson
Many factors contribute to a re-examination of the story of the adulterous woman (John 7,53–8,11). This essay responds to these factors by its defense of the suggestion that the woman is a re-married divorcee, at fault not with the Mosaic Law, but with the teaching of Jesus on divorce.

===========================
TC-LIST & TEXTUAL CRITICISM LIST
===========================

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...m/messages/254
Discussion on the December 2004 Textcrit forum - 12/6-12/14
My post, similar to here, included.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...sm/message/272
Also a bit on 1/28/05 minor

Dr. Leslie McFall - 22 Dec 2002
Subject: [tc-list] Hort on the Pericope Adultery
PASSAGES RELATING TO THE PERICOPE ADULTERY IN HORT'S UNPUBLISHED LETTERS.

And follow-up discussion. Also 10/29/03 - small Papias discussion.
Have in my email archives, not sure if on web.

This earlier "tc-list" tended, imho, to have a much higher level of discussion than the current "textual criticism" list.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

Actually Gregor, I really think you are just diverting the forum from a rather interesting conversation. Now, I don't either seek or mind the comparison with Holding, one way or another, although on this issue of the scripture text we are essentially in opposite camps.

As for my supposed tough task, each poster can come to their own conclusion as to whether my lack of academic skins has hindered, or perhaps even helped, my understanding of the basics of the Bible textual issues.

Although some folks with similar views to mine have high level degrees, and that is fine to see, often the greatest common sense and clarity comes from the interested layperson. You might want to review the Daniel Wallace and Martin Shue posts on Cyprian and the Johannine Comma as an example thereof.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

Yes, this is very clear from the Jerome quote, except that it is many manuscripts, Greek and Latin.
Augustine gives a reason, that seems like it might be accurate, for the dropping of the Pericope in some manuscripts.

Overall, I think it is a rather rare situation that you find a church writer making mention of any missing sections of the New Testament (nor are there other evidences of such omissions). We have been writing here a lot about the two, the Pericope Adultera and the ending of Mark.

And the ending of Mark remained in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, the Pericope also was in a goodly majority, especially to those of use who accept the historic text, yet even in the Vulgate as well. So the two known "censorship by omission" (although Mark may have been more an accident than deliberate, being at the end of the book) attempts essentially failed miserably, until the modern scientific textcrit movement of the last 100 years.

(Ergo, its not suprising to see skeptics like Joe W. hitch their wagon on this modern textcrit mishegas, rather than deal with the historic NT text.)

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

:-)
Those of us who accept the Traditional text would say you have the linkages right, but the conclusion 100% in reverse. The "traditional dates" for John, which apparently you are placing way late, are simply wrong. There was no 'forger'. And the Didiscalia is simply one evidence of an early John.

After I went through my dating endeavors for the Pastorals and 2 Peter, and how evidence was manipulated, misrepresented, glossed and/or ignored by the late daters, I really decided these discussions are low priority. However I am mildly interested in
a) what date you are placing John
b) what you consider the earliest reference to John

Since the Didiscalia is really rather late in the day, and my sense is that there are earlier references to John, your answer to these questions might be helpful to understanding where you are coming from.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

Hi Steven..

CHAPTER VII Section 23
. But if thou receive not him who repents, because thou art without mercy, thou shalt sin against the Lord God; (p. 31) for thou obeyest not our Saviour and our God, to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgement in His hands, departed. But He, the Searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her: Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter? She saith to him: Nay, Lord. And he said unto her: Go thy way: neither do I condemn thee [cf. Jn 8.3-11].

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

Hi Peter,

On the Pericope, my comment on "forgot to tell you something" was based on the available information from Spanish_Inquisitor, and also more, like this five paragraph summary from Bruce Metzger's book

http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 219-221

No mention of the Augustine or Jerome quotes, or the large number of early church writer references. Nope they "forget to tell you" about them.

Or similarly on the following references, and this is what is made available to the general public. Here is a longer section trying to write about the Pericope --.

http://www.factnet.org/discus/messag...tml?1116102054
translation notes from the Beta 2 New English Translation

The quote here takes from a number of sources, the whole current textcrit kitchen sink of Wallace, Metzger, Ehrman and Brown, and.. oops, they also "forget to tell you" about Augustine or Jerome's quote or the multiple early church writer references.

The full NetBible/Wallace material is here...
http://db2.bible.org/netbible2/index...pter=8&verse=7

And again, they "forget to tell you" about either incredible comment,
Augustine, or Jerome, or the reference upon reference.

(comparative kudo for at least mentioning "M. A. Robinson, Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage, Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]" ) --

For ref see - http://www.elalmendro.org/obras/revistafn/fn2526.htm
SIDENOTE on Maurice Robinson, the Pericope omission, and lectionaries..
http://www.dtl.org/versions/e-mails/adultery.htm
Lectionaries and the Adultery Story
Available from TREN - http://www.tren.com/e-docs/search.cf...ery&title=Upon
However, they have a minimum, so it might be better to request from the library where Maurice teaches, if they have.

Granted, Metzger may mention Jerome and Augustine 'en passant' somewhere, maybe even in the same book as above, but it definitely seems to get buried in all the public references, with nary a notice from anyone, yourself included. Notice how nobody picks up on it. Spanish Inq can tell us what he sees from Bart Ehrman on those three topics.

Similarly the same time of stance is in the info from the UBS apparatus
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html

Even if it is mentioned, I doubt that Ehrman, Wallace, UBS or Metzger would give them much emphasis, since they are trying to give the impression that the Pericope arose late, as per their copying each others "12th century" remark.

Jeromes reference to many Greek and Latin manuscripts having the Pericope, when Jerome wrote at 400 A.D. is even by itself virtually a killer to the type of misleading and false impression they are trying to give, and which Spanish Inq actually received from the Ehrman material.

Normally Metzger tends to be reasonably thorough in what he covers, albeit often with spin, bias, misemphasis and the deceptive selective parsing of words and categories, as we see in this example. If I overstated his lack of referencing Augustine and Jerome (and truly Jerome is more important) then that is my error. Someone can pull out the "Textual Commentary.." above, and let us know how Bruce Metzger addresses those evidences. How clearly he tells you about the counter-evidences.

Now, Peter, you raise a very interesting question about "misinformation".

First, to be clear, we (supporters of the Traditional Text) do run into outright wrong and false information, when looking closely at what Metzger and UBS says on textual issues like the Johannine Comma, 1 Timothy 3:16, the ending of Mark, the Pericope and similar issues, even though my claim above was not "lying" or "false information" (see next paragraph for more elaboration).

Would you like me to document a couple of examples, vis a vis Metzger ? Maybe in a separate thread ? Honestly I don't think it would be too hard to find a couple of examples with which even you might grudgingly agree, and if you want, and consider it contributive, I could make it into a little mini-project.

More important though now is to understand the one we are looking at closely, and I just read your tone about C.S. Lewis tonight, and I can see how this thread in a sense could discomfit or embarass you. Clearly you seemed to be uninformed about the evidences yourself.

Your concern is this particular phrase above, amazingly, you really seem to think that anything that is "technically true" cannot be "misinformation", that e.g. omitting major information is not misinformation. This is pretty shocking, Peter.

I'm rather suprised that in this day of government and corporate language parsing, carefully deceptive omissions and phrasing, and legalese-speak, that you are actually trying to take that stance. If so, I doubt if most others here will agree with you, since on issues like recognizing language-finagling skeptics are often ahead of the average-man curve.

Now for language specifics -- you seem to be criticizing the following phrase about the "Greek fathers" wording of Metzger. (We note as an aside that you have offerred no objection so far to the related accuasation of "intellectual dishonesty" in the "Greek fathers" construction. )

Praxeus -
"of selective misinformation (to the point of intellectual dishonesty)"

When I look at the dictionary ( www.dictionary.com) at misinformation,
the definition given is --
"To provide with incorrect information."

When we look up "incorrect" we find three definitions.
1. Not correct; erroneous or wrong: an incorrect answer.
2. Defective; faulty: incorrect programming of the computer.
3. Improper; inappropriate: incorrect behavior.

When Bruce Metzger writes..
"No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus
(twelfth century) comments on the passage."

Without a good solid review of the fifteen and more solid early church references, and especially Jerome's and Augustine's commments, the reference from Metzger to the '12th century' and 'Greek fathers' is in fact very defective, deflective, deceptive and faulty. And most everybody fighting the Comma is playing similar games. Metzger has set up a faulty category meant to give a misimpression about the evidence. For the same reason it is also improper and inappropriate.

In summary, my careful and accurate phrasing stands ...
"selective misinformation (to the point of intellectual dishonesty)"

------

Overall, you really didn't comment at all on the substance of what I wrote above, about the deceptive speaking and writing on this Pericope issue by Metzger and Ehrman. The referencing of only Greek fathers (even more so in a period of time where Latin becomes ascendent, but even a very dubious construction when used in the ante-Nicene period). We saw Spanish_Inquisitor rather flummoxed by Ehrman's carefully parsed, deceptive representation of the data, (for a good cause?) and that doesn't seem to concern you one whit, at least so far. hmmm. I suggest you go back to the first post on this thread and then comment on the representation of the data by Bart Ehrman. If an intelligent person like Spanish can come to such a faulty understanding, does that not tell us something ?

And we do have a funny situation, where the relayed misinformation from Ehrman, with its emphasis on the 12th century, appears to be some sort of garbled referential reflection to the deceptive categorizing of Metzger, also involving the 12th century. I wonder if Spanish_Inquisitor could "go to the videotape" and get Ehrman's exact words about the 12th century and the pericope, and share them with the forum. They appears to be somehow descended from the analysis of his mentor Bruce Metzger, as we notice the very odd 12th century congruence. No mention anywhere of extant Greek manuscripts centuries before this 12th century, which all these folks should know.

Notice that I am the only one who seems to be correcting the various errors on the thread, by Metzger, by Ehrman, pointing out what Jerome actually said about the Pericope (which is very strong evidence against the idea of a late interpolation). This may have had something to do with Haran's willingness to say "Praxeus was correct", referring to the general critique.

To finish, here is one comment on Metzger's analysis of the Pericope.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult-hills.html
Dr. Edward Hills
"The pericope," says Metzger (1964), "is obviously a piece of floating tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western Church. It was subsequently inserted into various manuscripts at various places." (51) But Metzger's interpretation of the facts is incorrect, as von Soden demonstrated long ago by his careful scholarship. Von Soden showed that the usual location of the pericope de adultera was also its original location in the New Testament text.

You might some day even also find interesting Hort's comments, before the modern circling of the horses against the Pericope.

This whole farce on misrepresenting powerful evidences on the Pericope shows the great impoverishment of the modern textcrit position, that they copy each other in the tackiest and most transparently dishonest formulations, and suppress from common understanding and referencing many of the most basic and critical truths about an issue.

And that seems to be why folks like Peter and Joe are so anxious to try to defend the most phoney-baloney textcrit conceptions and contraptions and deceptions -- in their gut, they really want the NT to be errant and weak, and the textcrit alexandrian text is a big help to that cause.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Carr

Thanks for that.

Clearly it is an oral story, so not in the Gospels.

There were lots of stories made up about Jesus in the 2nd century AD

The early manuscripts are very unreliable, as your source Chuck E. Louviere points out, who points out clearly how people would change the text of their own scriptures.

Of course, only Christian apologist could claim that the Pericope is mentioned by 'early' church fathers, and then state that this is 200 years after Jesus died.

I guess there are still 'early' writers writing for the Mormons now. After all, it is less than 200 years since Joseph Smith wrote, so if stories about Joseph Smith suddenly started appearing in Mormon literature, I guess we would have to accept them as genuine.