Nazaroo

Why, no. Actually I am totally blind, and use a stick in my teeth to enter keystrokes on a braille-box. I have to do this using a specially designed sonar unit that guides my neck motions.

If you actually looked at the photo carefully, you'd see that rather than write αλλ ' (the normal practice), the scribe here writes αλ ' λ (a mistaken placement of the contraction mark).

This is not a sign of 'laziness', but sloppiness. <edit>

Nazaroo

Because like most Egyptian scribes in this era who copied NT MSS, he was a Alexandrian-Jewish-Christian, hostile to its contents.

Alexandrian Judaism and Messianism was peculiar to Egypt, but still had deep ties to Palestinian Judaism, as the two Talmuds show.

The Palestinian Jews rejected the story of Susanna for obvious reasons (it caricatured the Babylonian Jewish hierarchy as murderous perverts).

The Alexandrian Jews rejected the Pericope de Adultera for similar ones (it painted the Jerusalem authorities as willing to commit murder to frame Jesus).

Augustine's guess as to motives for the dropping of the passage is a good try, but naive. The real culprits here are Jewish-Christians who attempted to exert their influence over the MSS transmission line, as they also tried with the LXX, with some success.

jgibson000

It's curious, isn't it. that if you are right about the identity of the scribe and what his motives were, that he did not also excise all of the other material in GJohn -- and especially 11:45-54 -- in which the Jerusalem authorities are portrayed as willing to commit murder to get rid of Jesus.

Why is that, do you think?

And how do you know that the scribe was a Jewish Christian, let alone that "most Egyptian scribes in this era who copied NT MSS" were Jewish?

Most importantly, I note that you did not answer (or even acknowledge that I asked) the question I posed to you (see here) concerning what your evidence is that the dot in the center of P 66 indicates an omission of something.

Why is that?

JG

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

I think it is worth pointing out to any who are not awares that the theories of Jewish/Alexandrian/Messianic scribes being the source (or even relevant) to the omission of the Pericope (in line with some aspect of Messianic doctrinal viewpoint) in some manuscripts is a theory of Nazaroo .. one that I have never heard of before.

Similarly with the linkage of the Pericope with an appeal to Susanna or to any proposed superiority the Greek OT. Overall not something that I find necessary or helpful or supported.

This is not to create side-issues - simply to point out that on these aspects it looks like we are discussing a Nazaroo theory quite distinct from others who write and speak in favor of the Pericope as original Johannine scripture such as Professor Maurice Robinson or the late Edward Hills.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Nazaroo

You're making a mistake typical of most people who attempt to mount arguments like this.

you don't bother to distinguish the sometimes subtle but often obvious differences between the various groups of material in the NT, and how it would be viewed by the various parties.

For instance, The Jewish authorities would have no difficulty acknowledging they sought to arrest and put to death Jesus the Nazarene, who was openly hostile to their doctrine, their authority, and posed a political threat on many levels. They could and would easily and openly justify such a plot, and simply call it expedient and right.

It was an entirely different matter, how the Babylonian Jewish religious authorities were caricatured in the Story of Susanna, which was rejected by the Jerusalem hierarchy for obvious reasons (and accepted by Alexandrian Jews for the very same reasons!)

And likewise, the key point and problem of the Pericope de Adultera, is that it is probably an authentic incident with some historical basis, and as such was used as means for messianic Jews to openly defy the Jerusalem authorities as corrupt and evil. Naturally they would pursue the eradication of all trace of this story in the same manner that Saul pursued early Christians. With great energy and irrational hatred.

Other incidents in the NT are only anecdotal, or revolve around issues of doctrine or disputes of interpretation of the law, something that every sect of Judaism openly engaged in. There is nothing in most of the NT that would cause undue concern to any of the various religious parties, including zealots.

But that the Religious leaders would frame up a possibly innocent girl (or at least no more guilty than most of the population) and risk having her murdered just to entrap a religious opponent is shirt-tearing time. Especially when you consider all the possibilities such as their personal involvement with this woman, and what that might possibly entail.

The story is deliberately composed to arouse memories of Susanna, The Story of the Levite in Judges, the Story of Dinah, etc. It demands action, as when the Benjaminites were nearly wiped out entirely for refusing to deliver up the evil-doers.

The parallels, and the danger to the Jerusalem religious authorities is obvious, and when you add that all this really took place (Jerusalem was burnt to the ground in 70 A.D.) It is clear why at least some Jews would either find this story offensive and something which must be destroyed, while others embraced it as inspired, and defended it with their very lives.



How does anyone know anything? You add up the probabilities, and the plausibilities, and make your best choice.

I simply can't answer every question every stranger poses on the internet. My fanbase is just too large to respond to every request personally, even though my fans are important to me.

Love, Nazaroo

Nazaroo

Well said, Praxeus:

But consider this;

It was the critics and scholars who rejected the passage, who also rejected or dismissed Augustine's 'conjectures' about the motives of those omitting the passage.

But now that scholars have raised the question of motive and challenged the standard explanation (prudishness, legalism, jealousy), we are free to ask what the real reason might have been.

Because in a sense the scholars are right: Those are personal reasons for rejecting and omitting the passage, reasons any one individual might have done so, once. And indeed that may be all that might cause a single manuscript to have omitted the verses.

But scholars are right to insist that such personal motives alone cannot explain the large-scale attack on these particular verses. Not unless we are proposing a kind of 'lynch mob' mentality, a fadism that defies description.

Because It must be acknowledged that this is no mere accidental omission of an obscure passage, or a local ecclesiastical tradition revolving around some lectionary practices.

This is clearly a large-scale global attack upon a central portion of the NT, one of the most important parts of the most important Gospel, and it is a battle which reached the highest levels of the church, something along the lines of other major controversies.

This is obvious from an examination of the battlefield. It may be true that the victors write the 'history books', but archaeology exposes the seams of every historical account.

The fact that no less than four early manuscripts, are found guilty of omitting the passage with clear knowledge of its existance and position, proves that they are indeed battlefield casualties.

And no amount of posturing by modern 'inerrantists' or KJVOnlyists can change the bloody evidence of these corpses unearthed on the field of battle. This was no friendly scholarly debate or minor theological dispute. This was one of the bloodiest battles in the history of the text.

Those championing the passage won. It was a slaughter. But the price was high. Nearly all NT manuscripts from the 1st to the 7th centuries has been deliberately destroyed in the fight.

I am not challenging the right of those defenders of the text to wage war, or the verdict of history. I believe the passage is authentic for many independant reasons and from many diverse and independant proofs.

My point is that there was a fierce battle. And until you can recognise that you are walking over the corpses buried just under the dirt, you will fail to perceive the depth and greatness of that battle.

Again, the facts of history say otherwise. Origen has left a long and detailed account of what happened to the Story of Susanna, and the battle between the Jews (non-Christian, Babylonian) who rejected it and the Jews (Christian, Alexandrian) who embraced it.

Even if Origen's position regarding the story is wrong, or his account skewed or incomplete, the fact is, Origen at least gives the heads up, and tips us off to yet another great battle between the LXX and the MT.

It is also clear that rightly or wrongly, Origen and the church sided with those inspired writers of the Story of Susanna, and against the Jewish opposition who rejected the verses.


Finally Steven, my 'theory' or rather my position that the verses are an authentic part of John's Gospel, and placed there by its final author/composer in no way depends upon any particular theory of who removed the verses.

I, like Robinson and Hills, and many others, hold that the verses are authentic for all the same (quite numerous and diverse) reasons of evidence.

The many types of internal and historical evidence all point to one thing. The verses were removed, at various times and places, but quite unsuccessfully in the end. The authentic text of John won out.

These observations don't depend upon finding the Jewish authorities guilty of instigating the attacks, although in my view they most certainly were guilty.

The verses are a scathing indictment of the Jerusalem authorities, and more importantly, they are also an accurate reflection of a historical incident.

That the early church under persecution capitulated and hid the verses for a time in some dangerous regions, where Jews were powerful and actively perscecuting them, is not surprising.

That some prudish and uninspired elements within and without the church found excuse to continue to suppress these verses for their own reasons and agendas is highly plausible.

That unbelieving and zealous Jews infiltrated the early church at various times, in an effort to derail it, we have ample evidence in the NT.

That the victory of the Gospel of John over all these enemies, intentional and unintentional was a deserved one, I have no doubt.

Steven Avery

No problem with looking at Augustine's explanation or alternatives. Augustine gets first dibs in my book since he was closer to the action.

The problem is that I find that the tendency of modern scholars to try to "get into the head" of ancient writers often is fraught with pitfalls and wild conjectures. Cyprian did this with the Johannine Comma because he was invisibly asserting a Trinity idea on that .. There was a "military mystery" (trying to remember the strange phrase) involved in 1 Timothy 3:16 .. all sorts of strange things. Ehrman makes his name in the public eye peddling weak conjectures.

In one recent study I found that even a small one letter difference (thus he declared all foods clean) can't simply be accepted as most likely a scribal faux pas by the confused professional textcrits. It has to be some nefarious scribe at work to some deep doctrinal end. Even though the variant existed very early, before the well-known doctrinal battles.

So I always take such conjectures quite cautiously. Although I agree that this one was likely a real doctrinal reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo And no amount of posturing by modern 'inerrantists' or KJVOnlyists can change the bloody evidence of these corpses unearthed on the field of battle.

Since Hills wrote one of the early and strong defenses of the Pericope it would be interesting to know what is the posturing to which you refer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo Those championing the passage won. It was a slaughter. But the price was high. Nearly all NT manuscripts from the 1st to the 7th centuries has been deliberately destroyed in the fight.

A theory that we would have dozens of extra manuscripts from those centuries if it weren't for the Pericope will have to jump over a high bar of hard-to-fathomness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo I believe the passage is authentic for many independant reasons and from many diverse and independant proofs.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo Origen has left a long and detailed account of what happened to the Story of Susanna .. Origen at least gives the heads up, and tips us off to yet another great battle between the LXX and the MT.

And on that one I side fully and completely with the MT.
Following in the Reformation understanding of the Bible text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo Finally Steven, my 'theory' or rather my position that the verses are an authentic part of John's Gospel, and placed there by its final author/composer in no way depends upon any particular theory of who removed the verses. I, like Robinson and Hills, and many others, hold that the verses are authentic for all the same (quite numerous and diverse) reasons of evidence.

Agreed

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Nazaroo

I never really found Augustine's explanation of the motives of those removing the verses in his time to be implausible. In fact, although I don't believe Constantine and Eusebius originated the omission, I believe Constantine knew of it and approved, and Eusebius acceeded to the Emperor's wishes. After all, the Emperor boiled his queen alive for adultery. Who wants to argue with a jealous madman?

But that doesn't explain the primary (early 2nd cent.) omission, and its cause.

It might be helpful to look at the one other early papyrus which witnesses to an omission: P75:




We have highlighted damaged letters in lighter gray, and completely destroyed or obliterated letters and words in Light gray on dark gray. Its not that the missing portions of text can't be reconstructed. That's not the point:

Note that once again, the very section of interest to us has been heavily damaged, apparently deliberately, so that it is no longer possible to check for additional special marks or notes that might indicate what the scribe was facing here in his own exemplar...

Those familiar with the many other MSS of this passage will not be surprised that once again a MS has been hacked, burned, pages torn out, or simply completely lacks a whole section including the pericope. Those involved in the original battle over the verses engaged in a remarkably wide variety of tactics.

But the main thing is that once again, we don't have a 'pristine' MS omitting the passage, but manuscript that also notes the point with a space and dot. The purpose of the space and dot seems to have changed in this manuscript (it was written about 50 years after P66), but regardless of this, the scribe has reproduced the original dot found in P66.

jgibson000

Two questions:

1. How do you know that the damage was deliberate?

2. Are there any other passages in this Papyrus that are damaged?

JG

Riverwind

Oh please Nazaroo...the lacunae in the ancient manusciprts are due to centuries of "wear and tear"...and bugs...and moisture...and who knows what else. It is the same for any other ancient work, but I'm sure conspiracy theories could be developed for them as well if someone so desired.