Keith&Co.

I'll buy that.
But why did God bother to promulgate laws that are not obeyed?
If his goal was to make the world better, wouldn't he have known that simply listing laws wouldn't do it? Didn't do it?
Your story doesn't ring true.
If i read a murder mystery where a character is a supergenius serial killer who accidently leaves blatant evidence at a crime scene, he's not a supergenius.
If god made the laws to, as you say, make men lawful, especially the Jews.
And men are not lawful, especially the Jews who the laws were made for.
Then god's plan failed.
I have a hard time believing that an omnipotent being can be disappointed. Or that the plans of an omniscient being can fail.

But you tell me they did, and that it was man's fault,not God's.


So, God IS like a father?
Tell me, if my sons go contrary to my teaching and they will end up in the electric chair, should i, as a father, continue to try to stop them? Or is there a point where the good father just sits there and watches it happen?

WVIncagold

Keith&Co.
Don't you know a good Father sits back and pretends he isn't there when his children go to the electric chair.:Cheeky:

RParvus

The story of the adulteress entered the Fourth Gospel by way of the Old Latin versions. A Latin translator who knew how this Gospel originated inserted the pericope as a symbolic acknowledgement of the real creative source behind this Gospel: the prophetess Philumena. Many Johannine scholars have realized that the discourses in this gospel are not something "remembered" by an eyewitness, but something revealed to a prophet or prophetess. The prophetess in question, I believe, was Philumena, the associate of Apelles. According to Tertullian she was at first a virgin, and "afterwards became a monstrous prostitute" (On the Prescription of Heretics. ch. 30). To construct the Fourth Gospel, Apelles combined Philumena's revelations with his own book "Phaneroseis" ( = "Manifestations). The "Phaneroseis" is no longer extant, but its title seems to refer to the signs Jesus did: "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and he manifested (phaneroo) his glory. Jn. 2:11. The Phaneroseis, then, is the elusive "Signs-Source."
But why was the pericope about the adulterous woman (Philumena) inserted directly in front of John 8:12, a verse in which Jesus declares himself the Light of the world? A look of the Old Latin versions will give us the answer. The John 8:12 declaration of Jesus in several of the Old Latin versions (e.g. the Codex Palatinus) reads as follows: "Ego sum LUMEN (my emphasis) saeculi" ( = "I am the LIGHT of the world"). Now Phi-LUMEN-a's name is from the Greek and means "beloved." However, those of Latin background could not help but notice that her name contains the Latin word for light. Thus the most fitting place to insert her symbolic pericope was right before John 8:12.

This theory is further developed in the last chapter of my book "A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings (or via: amazon.co.uk)."

Roger Parvus

Jeffrey Gibson

How do you explain its inclusion in Greek MSS of Luke? And where is it in the OL versions?

Ummm .. the Greek name from which Filumena is derived being a combination of φῐλ�*ω and μ�*νος, εος, τό, (might, force, etc.) it means no such thing. Where ever did you get the idea that it means "beloved"?

In any case, I wonder if you could tell me if you are aware of -- and more importantly, if you have consulted -- the following articles?

"Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7.53—8.11)"
Chris Keith (University of Edinburgh) Currents in Biblical Research 6 (2008) 377-404

Jennifer Wright Knust "Early Christian Re-Writing and the History of the Pericope Adulterae" JECS 14 (2006) 485-536

and

J. Rius-Camps "The Pericope of the Adulteress reconsidered: The nomadic misfortunes of a bold pericope" NTS 53 (2007) 379-405

Jeffrey

Spanky

RParvus

- How do you explain its inclusion in Greek MSS of Luke? And where is it in the OL versions?


Ans. Many of the Old Latin versions predate Jerome’s Vulgate (who, by the way, translates “light” in Jn 8:12 using “lux” instead of “lumen”). And some of them are thought to date to the second century. The Codex Palatinus contains an Old Latin translation of John’s Gospel. In that codex you will find the pericope de adultera in the usual place, i.e. in front of John 8:12.

Where the Old Latin translator got the pericope is anyone's guess. Those articles you mentioned give several possibilities. But what I am proposing is that the Latin translator's insertion of the pericope directly in front of Jn 8:12 was not a coincidence.



- Ummm .. the Greek name from which Filumena is derived being a combination of φῐλ�*ω and μ�*νος, εος, τό, (might, force, etc.) it means no such thing. Where ever did you get the idea that it means "beloved"?


Ans. Yes, broken down into its components what you say is true. I was going more for the sense of the name which is usually translated as “Beloved.” See, for example, Robert Grant’s translation of the Apelles’ fragments in his “Second Century Christianity: A Collection of Fragments (or via: amazon.co.uk).”


Roger

sugarhitman

Where in Luke is this story? I cant find it.

sugarhitman

Maybe you all should see this website www.bible-researcher.com Edwards Hill on the Story of the Adulteress-who presents a very strong case as to the originality of this story.


This story is original.

Toto

http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Edward Hills' essay is here, but Bible Researcher says

andrewcriddle

Some manuscripts (the group known as f13 or family 13) have the story immediately following Luke 21:38. One manuscript has had the story added by a later corrector after the end of Luke.

The group known as f1 or family 1 have the story after the end of John and one manuscript has it after John 7:36.

Andrew Criddle