spamandham

There is no such thing as a liberal or conservative scholar in the field of Biblical history. There are merely scholars. Those who have an agenda, are apologists, not scholars - regardless of how educated they may be.

Julio

John's gospel is certainly a second-century production, according to "liberal scholars". One that I read twice and regularly use for reference was Charles B Waite and his 1900 book "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred (or via: amazon.co.uk)", a scholarly work I just love. It is a book anyone interested in these matters should get. My sample was offered to me by a Universalist PhD.
Funny that Bart Ehrman doesn't refer to this book in his "Misquoting Jesus", and possibly others [can someone check this, please?].

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto Quote: Originally Posted by Steven Avery Hi Folks, Just back a couple of days and already Godwin lays down the law. Shalom, Steven While I would prefer that participants in this forum refrain from mentioning Hitler, you did open the door with Quote: Originally Posted by Steven Avery From that experience I got the sense that the Holy Spirit left the issue of what was written undetermined quite deliberately. If the gospels are based on supernatual authorship, why are there ambiguities and uncertainties?

Quite puzzling ... the supernatural in a forum discussing the Bible, "opens the door" then you might as well start every post about Bible and the supernatural elements with "well, while I think you and the Bible are like Hitler .. understand.."

Maybe this is an unwritten FRDB regulation ? If there is any hint of the supernatural respond with 'Hitler'.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jakejonesiv

The only thing the assumption of a supernatural author does is end all rational discussion.

show_no_mercy

Of course it opens the door. Maybe the Holy Spirit left such ambiguities in the gospels so that it would pave the way for God's final prophet - Muhammad - to set everything straight in the Koran.

Accordingly, the Koran - which has a supernatural authenticity - says that Jesus didn't die on the cross and only a phantom version of him appeared to be crucified while the real Jesus was taken bodily up to heaven (Quran 4:155 - 159).

spamandham

What methods distinguish a 'liberal scholar' from a 'scholar'? Science is about methods, not conclusions. The methods are either valid or they are not. If they are, then we refer to this simply as 'scholarship', not '{X} scholarship'. If they are invalid, we refer to this as 'quackery', not '{X} scholarship'.

Julio

Of course you're right. Yet in the real environment of church practice it is not like that. We know that we are taught the fundamentals by scholars who have a denominational agenda. Maybe they are only scholars in their own backyard; but when they get paid a salary by some big church, surely the private agenda weights a bit more than pure honesty to their students. Maybe I'm not too wrong.

RParvus

Hi Toto,

As you know, I think the church may have composed or altered an adulterous woman story for use as a prefiguration of Philumena. The idea of composing or using the story in this way may originally have been the idea of the proto-orthodox redactor of canonical Luke-Acts, for the story is also found in some Lucan manuscripts at the end of Jesus’ public ministry. I believe that establishing prefigurations was one of the proto-orthodox redactor’s literary techniques and that he used it, for example, in Acts of the Apostles by creating Apollos as a prefiguration for Apelles. Some scholars claim the vocabulary of the adulterous woman pericope resembles that of Luke’s Gospel, so the pericope may have been composed by the author of that Gospel and then at some point transferred to a more fitting location in the Fourth Gospel. However, I want to make clear that I think whoever made it a part of Luke or John’s Gospel did so only for the benefit of those who were already “in the know” about Philumena’s contribution to the church’s Scriptures. That is to say, no one would suspect a connection between the story and Philumena who did not already know of her role in the composition of John’s Gospel. (I am also aware that there is a claim in the early record that the story of the adulterous woman was present in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Unfortunately, that gospel is no longer extant, so we have no way of knowing [1] if the claim is true and [2] if true, whether the writing of Jesus on the ground was part of the story as it existed in that gospel.

In regard to the “writing” element (Jn. 8:8) in the story:

What was the author’s point in including it? It intentionally arouses our curiosity without satisfying it, since it doesn’t tell us what Jesus wrote. Certainly the Johannine Jesus didn’t write on the ground just to clarify his thoughts (the Son of God’s mind is presumably always clear), or to pass time (the Son of God presumably has more productive ways to pass time). So I think that whatever point was intended was definitely meant to be appreciated only by those “in the know.” Jesus is made to cryptically communicate something by writing with his finger that he cannot be allowed to communicate openly by words. He can start writing with his finger when an adulterous woman is brought to him, but the church would not allow him to say: “My words will one day be given to the world in a gospel written by an adulterous woman.” Or, to illustrate this scenario in another way, suppose that what Jesus wrote on the ground was: “In the beginning was the Word.” Would that have established too clear of a connection between the Fourth Gospel and an adulterous woman? Possibly. In any case, the text as it stands was revelatory enough for those who knew the true origin of the Fourth Gospel. They would understand that Jesus’ weak spot for repentant adulterous women was related to his foreknowledge that one of their number would one day have a tremendously privileged role in the committing to writing of his divine discourses.

I may be reading too much into this, but I don’t think so. There are just too many indications in the early record that there were some who knew what was going on behind the scenes in the early church but used discreetly chosen words when writing about it. For instance, I noted in my post yesterday that Ambrose claimed to have read in a gospel “dictated by the voice of John himself” that John the evangelist was an adolescent. Why not, “dictated by John himself,” instead of, “dictated BY THE VOICE OF John himself?” It would seem obvious that, if John dictated it, he used his voice to do so. So why “by the voice of?” If my Apellean theory is correct, however, we may have an answer to this question. For in the second century Philumena was, in a sense, the voice of John. She alone claimed to actually see John and speak with him. Others could only learn what he said. It was she who would immediately communicate whatever he told her to those who were present.

This might also explain why the early record is careful to say that Papias and Polycarp were “hearers” of John. Thus Irenaeus: “Papias, who had been a hearer of John and a colleague of Polycarp…” I always wondered why Irenaeus didn’t say Papias met John, spoke with John, saw John, or something along those lines. Irenaeus seems reticent in limiting Papias’ contact with John to “hearing.” Why did he not at least provide a few words of explanation: “Papias was only able to attend one of John’s lectures. But he was so far back in the crowd, he couldn’t actually see him. And due to his very busy schedule, he never made time to actually meet and converse with John, etc.” If my Apellean theory is correct, it would explain the awkward description of Papias as a “hearer.” For what other word could you use if you were part of Philumena’s audience. You would be convinced John was present on site and appearing to Philumena as a phantom, but since you couldn’t see him, you would be limited to getting his words relayed to you by Philumena. “I was there with John! I couldn’t see a thing, but I know what he said!” Eusebius, whom I strongly suspect knew more than he cares to divulge about the early church, was aware of how awkward it was to describe someone as a “hearer.” He cannot help adding “and eyewitness” to his description of Papias: “Papias himself… in no way presents himself as a hearer AND EYEWITNESS of the holy apostles, but teaches that he had received the articles of the faith from those who had known them.”

Anyway, these are some of my recent musings.

Roger

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

This response was on point to the OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter Quote: Originally Posted by Toto If the gospels are based on supernatual authorship, why are there ambiguities and uncertainties? Why would you assume a supernatural author would remove all ambiguities? I can think of many situations where a person is given lee-way and a lack of instruction on details. How about a boss that does not micro-manage or a parent that does not answer their students homework for them. These seem like ways to use ambiguities to draw things out of people. Why assume God is not motivated similarly to those in these roles.

Amen. Just to state it clearer, from a believer's point of view, not only is there no difficulty, the verse is special.

Incidentally, you there was an SBL paper in 2008:

“Earth Accuses Earth: Tracing Jesus’ Writing on the Ground”
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.b...-knust-on.html

This focused on the phrase: terra terram accusat which is in Codex Egberti and mentioned by Augustine.

Chrysostom no longer silent on John 8:1-11
http://www.christianforums.com/t7324617/

"Jacobus de Voragine, a thirteenth-century Dominican monk, scholar and author, serves as our final example. Preaching a sermon on the pericope on the third Saturday of Lent, he offered a list of by then traditional suggestions regarding what Jesus wrote: According to Ambrose, Jacobus reports, Jesus wrote, terra terram accusat; according to Augustine, he wrote this (i.e., terra terram accusat) and then, afterwards said to the woman qui sine peccato est uestrum; according to the Glossa, Jesus wrote their sins (eorum pecccata); and, according to John Chrysostom (who, as far as we know, never discussed the pericope adulterae), he wrote terra absorbe hos uiros abdicatos (Earth, swallow these men who have been disowned.)" - (Sabbato Sermo 1.45-48)

Granted, these references are about what expositors thought was in the writing, not why the specific writing was not in the scriptures.

Shalom,
Steven Avery