Nazaroo

Where does that leave us? Petersen certainly fairly summarized the case against the PA.

But this case was found to be weak or non-existant, and reducable to the problem of the lack of early evidence of the existance of the PA in its position in John.

So, where does that leave us?

Free to consider the possibility that John 8:1-11 may be a genuine part of John after all, and free to consider other previously unconsidered evidence in favour of its authorship by the creator or final redactor of John.


Once we simply admit the dirth of early textual evidence generally, of any kind, we are free to pursue the other historical, literary and internal evidence.

The small evidence provided which apparently speaks against authenticity, is not strong enough to suspend all future investigation, but rather warns us to be cautious and skeptical in our methodology.

Roller

Why all this if the PA was originally part of John? Someone took it out?

Nazaroo

The short answer is yes.

But it would be wrong not to acknowledge the complexity of the history of these verses. That's what makes it a case equal to any Sherlock Holmes mystery.

Like an Agatha Cristie murder case, the problem is not actually a lack of motives, but too many suspects...

Perhaps even more than one attempted murder was committed in the dark, whether or not the corpse was alive at the time.

JoeWallack

JW:
Why compare what Metzger wrote in 1968 when we have what Metzger wrote more recently?:

"7.53–8.11 Pericope of the Adulteress

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as P66, 75 א B L N T W X Y Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc, s and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts1 and the Old Georgian version2 omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita, l*, q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.

When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.3

At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John’s narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 (D E (F) G H K M U Γ �* 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44 (several Georgian mss)4 or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after Lk 21.38 (f 13). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses that contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials.

Sometimes it is stated that the pericope was deliberately expunged from the Fourth Gospel because Jesus’ words at the close were liable to be understood in a sense too indulgent to adultery. But, apart from the absence of any instance elsewhere of scribal excision of an extensive passage because of moral prudence, this theory fails “to explain why the three preliminary verses (vii 53; viii 1–2), so important as apparently descriptive of the time and place at which all the discourses of c. viii were spoken, should have been omitted with the rest” (Hort, “Notes on Select Readings,” pp. 86 f.).

Although the Committee was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following Jn 7.52.

Inasmuch as the passage is absent from the earlier and better manuscripts that normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make a decision among alternative readings. In any case it will be understood that the level of certainty ({A}) is within the framework of the initial decision relating to the passage as a whole.

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York"


JW:
I Apologize for the above being only a small excerpt of what Metzger had to say on the subject but the entire article was far too large for my email provider. And so Metzger Revised what he wrote in 1968 in 1994. "Edition/s" is usually a clue. So the real time difference is between 1994 and 1997. I concede though that a lot can happen in Three years (just ask "John").

Regarding your comparison of Authorities, Metzger is not just a authority, is he? More like the authority. And it's not just Metzger is it? It's a Textual Criticism Committee. And it's not just a Committee, is it? It's UBS (maybe you've heard of them). On the other side is Peterson/Petersen, hold on, I left the window open and a flock of owls just flew in. Who, who, who. Shew, you stupid owls. Peterson, Petersen...isn't he also the star of CSI-Nazareth?

That being said I have no problem using Direct evidence to set aside the supposed Authority of Christian Bible scholarship. Whatcha got?

Welcome to the Majors Roo-Paul.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Roller

Methinks Metzger says the same also in 2000.

CSI-Nazareth. :notworthy:
I'm not sure if Nazaroo is trying to use Petersen to bolster his case. Zervos summarizes Petersen's article thusly: "Petersen first conducts a tour d’ horizon of the textual data for John 7:53-8:11 in which he summarizes the “very convincing array of evidence and argumentation” that comprises the “massive, convincing, and obvious” reasons for which scholars almost universally consider the PA to be a later insertion into the Gospel of John."
Caught in the Act: Mary and the Adulteress
It's right there in the first opening paragraph.

Roller

So, people took things out, but surely no one put anything in?

Edited to add: Why don't your try to publish this (you'd have to tone down though)? It is obviously important to you. Also, reading your comments about Ehrman and Metzger (from what I can gather foremost authorities) as idiots and charlatans (that's how your comments come off to me) it will be piece of cake to entirely dismantle their entire scholarship on this topic (if not more). Or is there a conspiracy preventing you from doing this?

Amaleq13

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "built-in features"? When I first read it, I assumed you were rejecting the notion (IIUC, generally held by most scholars) that "our" John is the result of at least one but more likely multiple redactors but you later referred to that possibility as viable ("...authorship by the creator or final redactor of John...")so now I don't know what to make of it.


Doug

Nazaroo

Dear Mr. Wallack:

You have proven that an ounce of prevention has no effect at all on the internet.

In my first post I quoted Metzger to discourage others from posting him. This did not deter you in any way. If you read both my 1st post and yours you will (or may not) note that the quotes from Metzger are identical.

There is a reason for this. His book has been revised (reprinted) in the late 90's and also re-issued under the editorship of Ehrman in 2005. But as you'll note, in this section Metzger did not bother to change anything, in spite of the fact that as you say, many advances have been made since that time.

In fact, in Ehrman's re-issue of this classic work by Metzger, the only change (which Ehrman felt compelled to mention) is a footnote by Ehrman that Metzger is wrong on this point:

To which Ehrman notes, that in 1942 the commentaries of Didymus the Blind (c. 350 A.D.) were discovered, in which Didymus *did* mention the PA at length. (Of course this may have been admitted for the purpose of shamelessly promoting his own book on Didymus the Blind.)

So the point is this: What Metzger wrote, he wrote in 1968 or earlier, and he felt no intellectual or moral requirement to change a single keystroke of what he originally wrote, through 3 editions, in spite of the hundreds of books and articles published in this field since then.

But you have somehow succeeded in re-posting what we already started with. Congradulations.


No, as one of the committee heads for the UBS text under Cardinal whatshisname, he is just about the worst authority on textual criticism one could choose.

Try to understand that in spite of this being one of the most avoided subjects and best kept secrets in the Christian world, the UBS text is a 100% Roman Catholic production, which the majority of Protestants, if they knew this, would reject it outright on that basis alone.

Nazaroo

As samples of the various 'seams' and other problems John has, consider these two famous examples:

John 11:2 mentions that the 'Martha' he is talking about is the one who annointed the Lord with ointment; however, he hasn't recounted this fact to the reader yet! The story is told in 12:3.

That is a relatively minor sequential continuity problem, and may only indicate the author's expectations that the reader is already familiar with a synoptic gospel such as Mark or Luke.

A greater seam-like transition occurs in John 14:30, where it seems Jesus tells his listeners that He will no longer talk much, but then goes on for another whole 3 chapters of speeches and prayers (the longest discourse in the gospel).

This is considered a much more significant problem, which many interpret to indicate that John 15:1-17:26 inclusive have been inserted by a later (sloppy) redactor or editor.


But features such as these show that it is crucial to the the framing of the question at hand, that we carefully define what it is we are talking about.

The question is really this: Did the final issuer/author of the finished Gospel of John know about and include the PA or not? Or was it a much later naive 'insertion' by scribes intending to preserve an ancient 'oral tradition' or 'floating' anecdote?

That is, Does passage know anything about John? and Does John know anything about the passage?


We should not confuse this question with other questions about *HOW* he composed or edited his Gospel, or whether he used sources, or whether he issued two editions etc.

Our question centers around the author of the Gospel, not the various possible 'authors' of previous works used by the author of the gospel.

jgibson000

Even if this were so, why would this make the UBS text wrong?

But more importantly, why should we accept that your claim that "the UBS text is a 100% RC production" is true? What evidence do you have that proves that this "secret" is not some false anti-catholic nonsense?

Or, like your previous assertion about atheists and the PA, is your claim about the UBS text just a statement of your personal opinion that is rooted in bias and not in fact?

JG