S.C.Carlson

Clivaz's article is a fine piece of work. Her thoughts on P69 are absoluting fascinating.

Stephen

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hmm... Interesting.

Of course, Ruis-Camps is a dedicated Markan prioritist, as is evidenced by his article. So no doubt this affects his theories quite a lot (alas!).

Actually, on second thought, I may have been a bit too lenient in regard to Rius-Camps' theory that PA originally belonged after Lk 20:19, rather than after Lk 21:38, as found in Fam. 13 MSS.

In fact, it's pretty clear that PA could have never belonged after Lk 20:19.

The problem that Ruis-Camps completely avoids in his article is the close similarity between Lk 21:37-38 and Jn 8:1-2 (as I've already pointed out earlier).

The fact is that these 2 Lucan verses (Lk 21:37-38) are found in all manuscripts, so we must assume they should belong to the original Luke. So if PA originally belonged after Lk 20:19 together with Jn 8:1-2 (as per Ruis-Camps), we would have a really bizarre duplication of these Lucan verses in a very close proximity to each other.

I think such a situation would be quite impossible; hence, PA could have hardly belonged after Lk 20:19.

So in order for Rius-Camps' theory to be valid, he somehow needs to get rid of Lk 21:37-38 in their current location, but this would be very hard to do.

Yuri.

jgibson000

And you are a dedicated "Lukan" prioritist. So I guess we can disguard every thing you argue as similarly tainted, yes?

And if not, why then are your theories untainted while those of Ruis-Camps are?

In fact, can you show us in any concrete way how his view of Mark has entered in any way at all into, let alone determined the conclusions he comes to in, his discussion of the origins and original place of the PA?

And can you also show us in a definite way how your view of Luke has not entered at any way at all into, let alone determined the conclusions you come to in, your discussion of the origins and original place of the PA that you've recently posted on your Loisy List (which has recenly become just a shill for the huckster James Trimm)?

Jeffrey Gibson

Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

We have now found another scholar who has argued explicitly for a Lukan location of PA.

Robert Lindsey, JESUS RABBI & LORD: THE HEBREW STORY OF JESUS BEHIND OUR GOSPELS (or via: amazon.co.uk), Oak Creek, WI: Cornerstone Publishing, 1990, p. 141-145.

Lindsey suggests that PA belonged originally after Luke 19:46, but dropped out from this position later because of a scribal error... But, unfortunately, the same sort of criticism would apply to Lindsey's theory as to Rius-Camps' theory (Rius-Camps placed PA after Lk 20:19).

Also, I somehow doubt that PA could have dropped out from its original position after Luke 19:46 purely by accident. Clearly, this story had always been politically hot, so perhaps we should look for some political explanation, after all...

Regards,

Yuri.

jgibson000

"We"?

Perhaps you'd do us the kindness of defining "political". And while you are at it, perhaps you'd also explain why Luke's story of Jesus letting the prostitute touch him provocatively and kiss his feet (Lk. 7:36-50) was not also regarded in the same was as you claim the PA was (i.e. as "politically hot") and why it never was dropped from Luke's text?.

Jeffrey Gibson

Yuri Kuchinsky

This is a part of the longer article about Pericope Adultera that I'm working on. This part focuses on the Fam. 13 MSS, and the lectionaries, and what they can tell us about the original location of PA.

Yuri.
________________


FERRAR GROUP MANUSCRIPTS AND THE LECTIONARIES

There are nine old manuscripts of the gospels that place PA after Lk 21:38. It was already in the 19th century that Dr. W. H. Ferrar called attention to some of them and, since his time, more such manuscripts have been discovered, thus bringing their total number to nine. So this family of manuscripts is known as the Ferrar Group, or Family 13.

So here are the catalogue numbers of these nine manuscripts; MSS 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, and 983 (Rius-Camps, p. 151).

Most of them are from the 11th and 12th centuries, and some of them had also been written somewhat later.

[More info about these Family 13 MSS can be found here, at Robert Waltz webpage,

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Man...1-500.html#m13 ]

The testimony of these Ferrar Group manuscripts is highly significant. A closer investigation of them shows that they are certainly not all alike... In fact, there are quite a few variations among them -- even within the PA, itself! And so, no direct dependence among these manuscripts is discernable, which goes to indicate that our nine manuscripts of the Ferrar Group were once part of a very large manuscript family, only a few representatives of which still survive.

All these variations among these nine manuscripts point to a great antiquity of this textual tradition -- the tradition which may well go back to the earliest Christian period.

Some scholars hypothesize that all these Ferrar manuscripts ultimately depend on one and the same very early Codex, perhaps going back to the 4th century or even earlier. But this is not really self-evident, since the variations among them seem to be far too great, thus arguing against a direct dependence.

In any case, it is clear that these Ferrar manuscripts represent an important historical tradition, perhaps current in some specific geographical area or diocese, that the Gospel of Luke included PA after Lk 21:38. And this tradition must have been quite ancient, as indicated by the wide textual variation among our nine manuscripts of the Ferrar Group.

It is certainly possible that this historical tradition goes back all the way to the earliest published edition of Luke (i.e. before the 4 gospel canon was formed), which probably included PA in this location, after Lk 21:38.

And so, this remarkable fact that so many old manuscripts place PA after Lk 21:38 did attract at least some attention among our mainstream commentators. Was it just purely accidental that PA is placed there by all these manuscripts, they've asked?

So, in search for some explanation for this apparent puzzle, some scholars have seized upon a lectionary hypothesis. They proposed that PA migrated into this Lk 21:38 spot from John under the influence of the lectionaries.

Lectionaries are the collections of passages from all 4 gospels that are compiled and arranged for reading to the congregation during Church services. In a typical lectionary, often a passage from Luke is followed by a passage from John, followed in turn by a passage from Matthew, etc.

So, in regard to PA, it has been noted that in some lectionaries this pericope happens to be assigned as the reading for the Feast of St. Pelagia, the reformed prostitute, on October 8th. At the same time, for the Feast of St. Sergius and St. Bacchus on the 7th October, the reading of Lk 21:12-19 had been traditionally assigned. So it has been suggested that PA may have migrated into Luke as the result of this proximity in the lectionaries. (But even then, this doesn't quite explain the location following Lk 21:38, rather than following Luke 21:19.)

Well, I think this theory is rather problematic on several counts.

First of all, Pelagia is believed to have died in the 5th century, so this lectionary assignment must have been rather late, and it could have had very little to do with the early editorial history of either John or Luke.

Also, it's not really true that PA has a firm place in Church lectionaries for the Feast of St. Pelagia on October 8th. A detailed search has shown that only very few, and rather late and obscure Greek lectionaries assign the public reading of PA for the Feast of St. Pelagia.

Normally, this whole Johannine sequence of chapters 7-8 was read publicly during the Pentecost, but it is generally accepted that PA was omitted from this particular sequence of Johannine readings. (This can be seen as yet another argument for PA not originally belonging to Jn.)

So when exactly was PA read in public then, and how commonly was it read at all? Well, actually, the picture here happens to be rather complicated... It is indeed quite likely that in many congregations PA wasn't read publicly at all (due no doubt to its rather controversial status). But when it _was_ read publicly, its location seems to have shifted quite a bit.

Indeed, my own investigation shows that, other than for the Feast of St. Pelagia, PA was also read during the Feasts of various other female Saints, such as St. Mary of Egypt, St. Theodora, and St. Euphemia -- all on different dates!

So here are the appropriate dates, arranged chronologically, during which there was public reading of PA in various Christian congregations,

St. Mary of Egypt -- Fifth Sunday of the Great Fast (Lent)
St. Theodora -- Sept. 18
St. Euphemia -- Sept. 16
St. Pelagia –- Oct. 8

And so, given such a remarkable fluctuation in the lectionary assignments for this pericope, it's certainly very hard to make a case that it floated into its Lk 21:38 spot (as found in Ferrar manuscripts) as a result of some fixed lectionary usage.

Consequently, this very curious location for PA after Lk 21:38 in the Ferrar manuscripts still remains to be explained adequately... It's not really clear at all how PA would have managed to get there, if one assumes that such a migration had taken place at some late date. So perhaps it's more economical to posit that PA had been there all along, i.e. that this was its original location.

The assignment of PA as a reading for the Feast of St. Mary of Egypt, towards the end of pre-Easter period of fasting, is especially significant in my view. In actual fact, this is fully in accord with the placement of PA shortly before the Passion Narrative, i.e. just where our nine Ferrar manuscripts place it!

While St. Mary of Egypt, just like St. Pelagia, is not believed to be a very early Saint, still, it is possible that, at some point, her cult was amalgamated with a previously existing cult of an earlier female Saint. Thus, the assignment of PA as a reading for the Feast of St. Mary of Egypt may in fact represent a direct reflection of the original location of PA after Lk 21:38, as also reflected by the testimony of our nine Ferrar manuscripts.

All the best,

Yuri.

andrewcriddle

Hi Yuri

The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary which is probably based on the lectionary used at Jerusalem c 600 CE has the pericope for October 8th (and Luke 21:12-19 for October 7th)

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thanks, Andrew.

Is this material written up and published somewhere?

It's not entirely clear how Syriac Lectionaries would connect with the Greek textual tradition, through. Might this perhaps serve as an argument for the Aramaic priority hypothesis?

All the best,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

I have recently transcribed the Greek text relevant to the pericope de adultera from Apostolic Constitutions 2.24.6:

Ετεραν δε τινα ημαρτηκυιαν εστησαν οι πρεσβυτεροι εμπροσθεν αυτου, και επ αυτω θεμενοι την κρισιν εξηλθον· ο δε καρδιογνωστης κυριος, πυθομενος αυτης ει κατεκριναν αυτην οι πρεσβυτεροι, και ειπουσης οτι ου ειπεν προς αυτην· Υπαγε· ουδε εγω σε κατακρινω.

And the elders stood another one, a certain sinful woman, before him, and went out, placing the [responsibility for] judgment upon him. But the Lord, who knows the heart, inquired of her whether the elders had condemned her, and after she said no he said to her: Move on; nor do I condemn you.

I have also converted the TLG font provided by Jeffrey for the Didymus passage into Unicode for easier viewing; the text comes from the commentary on Ecclesiastes:

Φερομεν ουν εν τισιν ευαγγελιοις· Γυνη, φησιν, κατεκριθη υπο των Ιουδ[αι]ων επι αμαρτι και απεστελλετο λιθοβοληθηναι εις τον τοπον, οπου ειωθει γιν[εσθ]αι. ο σωτηρ, φησιν, εωρακως αυτην και θεωρησας οτι ετοιμοι εισιν προς το λιθ[οβολ]ησαι αυτην, τοις μελλουσιν αυτην καταβαλειν λιθοις ειπεν· Ος ουχ ημαρτεν, αι[ρε]τω λιθον και βαλετω {ε}αυτον. ει τις συνοιδεν εαυτ το μη ημαρτηκεναι, λαβων λιθον παισατω αυτην. και ουδεις ετολμησεν· επιστησαντες εαυτοις και γνοντες οτι και αυτοι υπε[υθυ]νοι εισιν τισιν, ουκ ετολμησαν καταπταισαι εκεινην.

We find therefore in certain gospels: A woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to happen. The savior, it says, when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her said to those that were about to cast stones: He who has not sinned let him take a stone and cast it. If anyone is conscius in himself not to have sinned let him take up a stone and smite her. And no one dared; since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things they did not dare to strike her.

That English is basically what Andrew Criddle provided, presumably from Ehrman.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels reedited from two Sinai MSS and from P de Lagarde's edition of the 'Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum Lewis and Gibson 1899

See also 'A Comparison of the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary and the Greek Gospel Lectionary' Metzger in Neotestamenta and Semitica Studies in Honour of Matthew Black 1969 pps 209-220

The arrangement of lections is not typically Syriac instead it gives evidence of the Byzantine Greek lectionary in the late 1st millennium.

Anfrew Criddle