Amaleq13

Attacking Ehrman based on a misinterpretation of his statements is not the most obvious or effective way to accomplish that purpose.

The distinction is made simply by obtaining an accurate understanding of the meanings of the terms involved.

RUmike

No Robots, why do you consider the passage historically accurate information about Jesus?

No Robots

I attack Ehrman because he does not do what Diogenes the Cynic does, ie. make clear the distinction between "interpolated into John" and "historically inauthentic." Ehrman distinctly left the impression on the Daily Show that the pericope is inauthentic, just as Vorkosigan did in his attack on Brunner.



Quite so. And I am grateful to Diogenes the Cynic for making it clear that not all mythicists share Vorkosigan's confusion on the matter.

No Robots

I find the textual evidence from Papias, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome to be thoroughly compelling. But this is just the "letter". From the perspective of the spirit, the pericope is just another of Christ's lapidary inversions of common thinking, quite in keeping with everything else he said. I think the textual history of the pericope is important because it demonstrates clerical willingness to tamper with the Gospel to serve moralistic purposes. The textual history also demonstrates the triumph of the pure Gospel over this attempt to bowdlerize it. I also recognize the courage and honesty of Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome in affirming the pericope's authenticity against their moralizing co-religionists.

I find it strange that those who oppose ecclesiastic abuses do not point to the history of this pericope as a prime example thereof. It is understandable in the case of mythicists, who cannot use Christ or the Gospels in opposition to the Church. I find it far more incomprehensible in the case of Ehrman. I can only imagine that he retains a degree of obedience to the clerical establishment, and therefore cannot bring himself to acknowledge this clear case of clerical abuse.

Amaleq13

He doesn't have to since, as I've already pointed out, there is no necessary assumption about the latter when the former is asserted. It should inspire a rational individual to be cautious in accepting it as historical and should suggest that significant supportive evidence be produced before doing so. The faith of certain early (relative to us though not to the text, itself) Christians in the pericope and the subjective, "spiritual" feelings you and Brunner have in response to it do not qualify as evidence from a rational viewpoint.

It is inauthentic (ie the author of the Gospel did not write it) so, aside from faith that this particular oral tradition was historically reliable despite not being recorded by any of the Gospel authors, what rational evidence is there to conclude that it should be considered history?

I am certain that Vorkosigan understands the difference but, absent substantial supporting evidence, there really is no good reason to accept this known interpolation as historically reliable as your rather weak defense of it clearly shows.

gregor

No Robots
I welcome an explanation on how the following argument works -

You: "some early followers 100 years later liked the flow of the pericope and it fit their personal theology, so it must be historically accurate"

Others: "its apparent age but absence from earliest sources might indicate an early creation, but militates against historicity."

Apply occam's razor if needed.

No Robots

It is the conflation of "proven interpolation" with "proven historically inauthentic" that is invalid.

No Robots

This is the kind of willful distortion that makes the phenomenon of "mass scholarship" so problematic. The fact is that the pericope did not fit the theology of many early Christians, and it was therefore omitted from many manuscripts.

RUmike

Ok No Robots, I suppose we need to dig down further and with more specifics. What are the earliest manuscripts the pericope appears in? I understand also that it has no set place, i.e. it appears sometimes in Luke and sometimes in John. Does anyone know the specifics of this? It will be helpful in determining the antiquity of the passage.

spin

I don't understand No Robots' intransigence. All he has is a few Latin fathers to support the passage with their opinions why they think it should be there. He cannot respond to the total lack in the Greek tradition or the earliest Syriac tradition. He has added not one thing to support the claim in his last five or six posts. In short he has nothing up his sleave for this wandering passage. He is wasting everyone's time with this interpolation.