Yuri Kuchinsky

Actually, this article (which is indeed rather good) tends to support my point quite well, since it illustrates how a pericope can easily be moved from one canonical gospel into another.

This article by Clivaz does some good investigative legwork, and shows just how careless, and rather casual with facts many ‘respected TC authorities’ can often be.

Yuri.

No Robots

You may be right about the Lukan origin, and it's a fascinating topic. But let's not get sidetracked. I think we have sufficiently demonstrated that the PA cannot be ruled inauthentic, and that its history and content provide for seemingly endless rumination. My purpose in raising the matter was to discover whether or not the mythicists here were interested in a genuine scholarly discussion. Spin and Amaleq13 seem to have emptied their revolvers and left it at that. Mr. Gibson, while hardly kind to you, Yuri, seems at least to have demonstrated a modicum of scholarly dispassion.

Yuri Kuchinsky

That’s why it’s so important to follow the guidelines of this discussion forum, and to avoid ad hominem comments.

Yuri.

No Robots

The way I read it is that you are getting mauled on technicalities, allowing the larger issue to slip from view. This is most convenient for those whose stand on the larger issue has been completely destroyed.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thanks for posting the complete quote from Klijn, Ben!

I wonder what happened to the word /adultera/, that is present in the quote that I supplied, but not in the quote that you supplied?

"Simul et historiam quandam subjungit de muliere adultera, quæ accusata est a Judæis apud Dominum."

Simul et historiam quondam subiungit de muliere, quae accusata est a Iudeis apud dominum. habetur autem in evangelia, quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos, scripta parabola.

As to Klijn’s various comments, I wonder just how relevant they are...

There are a number of issues at stake here, in this whole discussion.

- What exactly did Eusebius say? Could Rufinus have preserved a more accurate text of the original Eusebius?

- Is PA Lukan in style? (I think it’s rather self-evident. Not much to discuss there AFAIAC...)

- Was PA originally in Lk?

- If so, where exactly was it in Lk?

- If after Lk 21:38, what is the significance of this?

But the original question was,

- Does PA really belong to the earliest Christian period? (I have no doubt of that.)

So the comments by Klijn must be placed in some context... so which of the above issues are really being addressed by him?

Nevertheless, I’m very impressed by your quick analysis of the Lukanisms in PA. It’s amazing how most of the relevant material was already available on your webpage!

More later...

Cheers,

Yuri.

PS:
As to PhilosopherJay and his ‘emendations’, I’m really quite speechless. I don’t know what to do with any of it...

Yuri Kuchinsky

What technicalities?

What are you talking about?

Yuri.

jgibson000

But your original claim was that it was "not an uncommon occurence" for pericopes from Luke to be moved into John, not that pericopes from any canonical gospel could be and were moved with ease into another.

And more importantly, you've still failed to give any actual illustrations of your claim. What other instances can you point to of a pericope being moved from one gospel to another in a such fashion as you say we have in the case of the PA, that is to say, where the earliest MS tradition gives us no hint or any reason to say that that pericope was ever in any other location than the one into which it was purportedly moved?

Or do I not get an answer to this question too?

Jeffrey Gibson

No Robots

They're trying to pin you on the Lukan origin of the PA. Look back at your first post in the thread. You don't say anything there that isn't eminently defensible. It is important in debate to always stick to your objectives, and never defend positions that are not essential to those objectives. Leave the question of the origin of the PA to another thread. We are debating here evidence for its authenticity.

judge

One problem with this conspiracy theory is that is assumes to be true the catholic propaganda that there existed one centrally controlled church.

There was of course at least one independent community or group of communities to the east.
Catholic clerics would have had no power to change their scriptures.

from Christianity in Persia

jgibson000

An error in transcription on Ben's part, most likely, since according to E. Schwartz, Rufinus' translation of the Eusebius text reads:

utitur sane idem Papias testimoniis ex epistula Iohannis prima et Petri similiter prima. simul et historiam quandam subiungit de muliere adultera, quae accusata est a Iudaeis apud dominum. habetur autem in euangelio, quod dicitur secudum Hebraeos, scripta ista parabola.

But I am surprised that you, with your great Latin lingustic knowledge and skill, wrote "Simul et historiam quandam subjungit", since, given your self proclaimed facility in the language, you cannot possibly not know that Latin has no letter "j".

Ah well, there's the danger of cribbing your quotation not only from a web page, but from a web page that uses a commentary on the PA from 1850, instead of going to and using -- or at least checking the wording of the source you have used for the Rufinus quote against -- an authoritative and up to date edition of Rufinus' Ecclesastical History text (like Schwartz's or Mommsen's, for example).

Well, one way for you to demonstrate that it was (or wasn't) would be for you to back translate Rufinus' Latin into Greek and then compare that translation to the known peculiarities of Eusebius style. If it is closer to that style, then it has a claim to be more original.

So why don't you start us out on that path by giving us your reconstruction in Greek of the Greek Vorlage of Rufinus' Latin version of HE 3.39.17?


Schakenburg, Barrett, Beasely-Murry, A.T. Lincoln, U. Becker, W. Wilker and a number of other commentators on the PA would seriously beg to differ with you on this point. What do you know that they don't? What is the "self evident" evidence that you see and they (apparently) missed?

Jeffrey Gibson