Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yummyfur · 06-03-2005, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yummyfur

Epistle 25 and 26 is a letter to Irenaeus, it deals with the question, how far a judge, being a Christian, may lawfully sentence any one to death.

Ok here is the qoute from Ambroses's Epistle 25 and 26. The references to the pericope extend well beyond verses given in Latin at the link in a previous post by Praxeus. Ambrose seems to be obssesed with the part about Jesus writing in the dirt, and really hated Jews.

Quote:

Ambrose, Epistle 25
2. But although you knew this, it was not without reason that you have thought fit to make the enquiry. For some there are, although out of the pale of the Church, who will not admit to the divine Mysteries those who have deemed it right to pass sentence of death on any man. Many too abstain of their own accord, and are commended, nor can we ourselves but praise them, although we so far observe the Apostle's rule as not to dare to refuse them Communion.

3. You see therefore both what power your commission gives you, and also whither mercy would lead you; you will be excused if you do it, and praised if you do it not. Should you feel unable to do it, and are unwilling to afflict the criminal by the horrors of a dungeon, I shall, as a priest, the more commend you. For it may well be that when the cause is heard, the criminal may be reserved for judgment, who afterwards may ask for pardon for himself, or at any rate may suffer what is called mild confinement in prison. Even heathen are, I know, wont to boast that they have borne back their axes from their provincial government unrestored by blood. And if heathen do this what ought Christians to do?

4. But in all these matters let our Saviour's answer suffice for you. The Jews apprehended an adultress and brought her to the Saviour, with the insidious intent that if He were to acquit her He might seem to destroy the law, though He had said, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil the law, and on the other hand, were He to condemn her, He might seern to be acting against the purpose of His coming. Wherefore the Lord Jesus, foreseeing this, stooped down and wrote upon the earth. And what did He write but that word of the prophet, O Earth, Earth, Write these men deposed, which is spoken of Jeconiah in the prophet Jeremiah.

5. When the Jews interrupt Him, their names are written in the earth, when the Christians draw near, the names of the faithful are written not on the earth but in heaven. For they who tempt their Father, and heap insult on the Author of salvation, are written on the earth as cast off by their Father. When the Jews interrupt Him, Jesus stoops His head, but not having where to lay His head, He raises it again, is about to give sentence, and says, Let him that is without sin cast the first stone at her. And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

6. When they heard this they began to go out one by one beginning at the eldest, and this either because they who had lived longest had committed most sins, or because, as being most sagacious, they were the first to comprehend the force of His sentence, and though they had come as the accusers of another's sins, began rather to lament their own.

7. So when they departed Jesus was left alone, and lifting up His head, He said to the woman, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee, go, and sin no more. Being the Redemption, He refuses to condemn her, being the Life He restores her, being the Fountain He washes her. And since Jesus, when He stoops down stoops that He may raise up the fallen, He says, as the Absolver of sins, Neither do I condemn thee.

Quote:

Ambrose, Epistle 26
1. Although in my previous letter I have resolved the question which you proposed to me, I will not refuse your request, my son, that I would somewhat more fully state and express my meaning.

2. Much agitated has ever been the question, and very famous this acquittal of that woman who in the Gospel according to John was brought to Christ accused of adultery. The stratagem which the equivocating Jews devised was this, that in case of the Lord Jesus acquitting her contrary to the Law, His sentence might be convicted of being at variance with the Law, but if she were to be condemned according to the Law, the Grace of Christ might seem to be made void.

3. And still more warm has the discussion become, since the time that bishops have begun to accuse those guilty of the most heinous crimes before the public tribunals, and some even to urge them to the use of the sword and of capital punishment, while others again approve of such kind of accusations and of blood-stained triumphs of the priesthood. For those men say just the same as did the Jews, that the guilty ought to be punished by the public laws, and therefore that they ought also to be accused by the priests before the public tribunals, who, they assert, ought to be punished according to the laws. The case is the same, though the number is less, that is to say, the question as to judgment is similar, the odium of the punishment is dissimilar. Christ would not permit one woman to be punished according to the Law; they assert that too small a number has been punished.

....But now let us come to the absolution of the woman taken in adultery.

11. A woman accused of adultery was brought by the Scribs and Pharisees to the Lord Jesus with the malicious intent, that, if He was to acquit her, He might seem to annul the Law, if He condemned her, that He might seem to have changed the purpose of His coming, since He came to remit the sins of all men. To the same purport He said above, I judge no man. So when they brought her they said, This woman was taken in adultery, in the very act; now Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned, but what sayest Thou?

12. While they were saying this, Jesus stooped down and wrote with His finger on the ground. And as they waited for His answer, He lifted up His head and said, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. What can be more Divine than this sentence, that he should punish sins who is himself free from sin? For how can we endure one who takes vengeance on guilt in another and excuses it in himself? When a man condems in another what he commits himself, does he not rather pronounce his own condemnation?

13. Thus He spake, and wrote upon the ground. What then did He write? This, Thou beholdest the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye. For lust is like a mote, it is quickly kindled, quickly consumed; the sacrilegious perfidy which led the Jews to deny the Author of their salvation declared the magnitude of their crime.

14. He wrote upon the ground with the finger with which He had written the Law. Sinners names are written in the earth, those of the just in heaven, as He said to His disciples, Rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. And He wrote a second time, that you may know that the Jews were condemned by both Testaments.

15. When they heard these words they went out one after another, beginning at the eldest, and sat down thinking upon themselves. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. It is well said that they went out who chose not to be with Christ. Without is the letter, within are the mysteries. For in the Divine lessons they sought, as it were, after the leaves of trees, and not after the fruit; they lived in the shadow of the Law, and could not discern the Sun of Righteousness.

16. Finally, when they departed Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. Jesus about to remit sin remains alone, as He says Himself, Behold the hour cometh, yea is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave Me alone; for it was no messenger, no herald, but the Lord Himself Who saved His people. He remains alone, because in the remission of sins no man can participate with Christ. This is the gift of Christ alone, Who took away the sins of the world. The woman too was counted worthy to be absolved, seeing that, on the departure of the Jews, she remained alone with Jesus.

17. Then Jesus lifted up His head, and said to the woman, Where are those thine accusers, hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee, go, and sin no more. See, O reader, these Divine mysteries, and th mercy of Christ. When the woman is accused, Christ stoops His head, but when the accusers retire He lifts it up again; thus we see that He would have no man condemned, but all absolved.

18. By the words, Hath no man condemned thee? He briefly overthrows all the quibbles of heretics, who say that Christ knows not the day of judgment. He Who says, But to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, says also in this place, Hath no man condemned thee? How is it that He asks concerning that which He saw? It is for our sakes that He asks, that we might know the woman was not condemned. And such is the wont of the human mind, often to enquire concerning that which we know. The woman too answered, No man, Lord, that is to say, Who can condemn when Thou dost not condemn? Who can punish another under such a condition as Thou hast attached to his sentence?

19. The Lord answered her, Neither do I condemn thee. Observe how He has modified His own sentence; that the Jews might have no ground of allegation against Him for the absolution of the woman, but by complaining only draw down a charge upon themselves; for the woman is dismissed not absolved; and this because there was no accuser, not because her innocence was established. How then could they complan, who were the first to abandon the prosecution of the crime, and the execution of the punishment?

20. Then He said to her who had gone astray, Go, and sin no more. He reformed the criminal, He did not absolve the sin. Faults are condemned by a severer sentence, whenever a man hates his own sin, and begins the condemnation of it in himself. When the criminal is put to death, it is the person rather than the trangression which is punished, but when the transgression is forsaken, the absolution of the person becomes the punishment of the sin. What is the meaning then of, Go, and sin no more? It is this; Since Christ hath redeemed thee, suffer thyself to be corrected by Grace; punishment would not reform but only afflict thee. Farewell, my son, and love me as a son, for I on my part love you as a parent.

andrewcriddle · 06-03-2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yummyfur

Does anyone have the actual qoute from Ambrosiaster? and the context?, this is one I don't have a book with, or have been able to find online so far.

Also a note, "Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti" was traditionaly attributed to Augustine, but later decided that it was written by the same author who wrote a commentary on Paul, that was originally atrributed to Ambrose, but later(starting with Erasmus, I think) was considered to be by some other author, thus the name Ambrosiaster or Pseudo-Ambrose was used.

See http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf

The Ambrosiaster Quote comes from Quaestiones ex Utroque Mixtim CII Contra Novatianum and reads "dominus autem oblatae sibi meretrici pepercit ei videlicet quam in adulterio se deprehendisse majores judaeorum dixerunt ut quia pia praedicatio incoeperat non condemnandum sed ignoscendum doceret"

Andrew Criddle

Nazaroo · 05-14-2007, 03:34 PM

For the primary textual evidence, (the early manuscripts), we have collected photos and a discussion of the ten most important early manuscripts for John 8:1-11 here:

Top Ten Early MSS for John 8:1-11 <-- Click here.

Our new article reexamining Codex Sinaiticus is also online here:

Codex Sinaiticus ReExamined <-- Click Here.

Explanatory background for the MISSING MSS evidence can be found here:

Missing MSS examined <-- Click here.

Peter Kirby · 05-14-2007, 04:27 PM

Critical fires blaze,
And what is once singed can never be restored to its former glory,
Not even by the most careful restoration acts of the most committed preservationists,
For the truth of the fire is that there is something there that is fuel for it,
And just as where there is smoke there is fire,
Where there is fire there is something burning,
And a light that has been struck.
The darkness has not understood the light.
The darkness has not overtook the light.
It burns bright, yet
There are those who would douse it
With much effort to turn back the process,
The inexorable process that by the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot be reversed.
We cannot go back to a simple faith,
Yet is a faith ravaged by doubt better than one that is laid to rest?
Hardly, and it is hardly the doubt which can be laid to rest,
But the corrupting influence of faith on the minds of men,
Driving them to take every thought captive for Christ.
If the truth will set you free,
Why are your thoughts captive to Christ?
And, worse, captive to this paper, this paper called the Word of God that you believe in above all things heavenly and terrestrial?
If the paper is your captor, let reason be left to those who are free of its grip.
Julian's prohibition had merit.

Nazaroo · 05-14-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

We cannot go back to a simple faith,

Because

(1) We weren't there.

(2) There never was a simple faith.

So why trouble yourself? There is still truth: historical truth, scientific truth, spiritual truth, which together transcend 'scientism' and materialistic panic and greed.

The truth *does* set you free.
Free to imagine the very moment Israel was foolish enough to tempt the Lord to judge herself, and put herself on trial for her adulteries.

Free to understand the judgment of probation:
While the Lord writes in the sand patiently,
and a Woman, a Woman riding the nations like a beast,
a woman taken in adultery,
comes to realise her sin.

Then comes the Judgement.

RED DAVE · 05-14-2007, 05:30 PM

C.S. Lewis opens his yap on the issue.

http://members.aol.com/thompsonja/quote5c.htm

RED DAVE

Nazaroo · 05-14-2007, 10:38 PM

No need to be nasty, Lewis has a point:

Quote:

Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence.

In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened. The author put it in simply because he had seen it.

What can we add except, "The author put it in simply because he [OR SHE] had seen it."

One of the obvious reasons why the person who initially gave the story failed to say what Jesus wrote, is that she was illiterate, and not in a physical position to see what the Pharisees may easily have seen.

hallq · 05-14-2007, 10:46 PM

Oh, please. Any good book on folklore will tell you that legends often contain nonsensical details, certainly not because that's what the source saw, but rather that's what the source heard while forgetting or misunderstanding the reason for the detail. Not to be nasty, but Lewis was an ignoramus when it came to sniffing out legends.

Riverwind · 05-14-2007, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Critical fires blaze,
And what is once singed can never be restored to its former glory,
Not even by the most careful restoration acts of the most committed preservationists,
For the truth of the fire is that there is something there that is fuel for it,
And just as where there is smoke there is fire,
Where there is fire there is something burning,
And a light that has been struck.
The darkness has not understood the light.
The darkness has not overtook the light.
It burns bright, yet
There are those who would douse it
With much effort to turn back the process,
The inexorable process that by the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot be reversed.
We cannot go back to a simple faith,
Yet is a faith ravaged by doubt better than one that is laid to rest?
Hardly, and it is hardly the doubt which can be laid to rest,
But the corrupting influence of faith on the minds of men,
Driving them to take every thought captive for Christ.
If the truth will set you free,
Why are your thoughts captive to Christ?
And, worse, captive to this paper, this paper called the Word of God that you believe in above all things heavenly and terrestrial?
If the paper is your captor, let reason be left to those who are free of its grip.
Julian's prohibition had merit.

Cute poem but utterly misguided and lacking in true understanding. Perhaps you see the paper as a God, but others see it as guidance from God.

Those who have no ancient tradition for their religion make it up as they go. They presume to place themselves in God's stead and make judgments as if they had any idea what it must be like to be a God. They presume to critique the beliefs of others when they have no coherent belief system of their own, certainly not one that would apply to anyone but themselves. They complain about the "paper Gods" of those with a formal religion while they spend their days and nights pouring over their own paper Gods, tomes on that most confused and befuddled of all human studies...philosophy.

Riverwind · 05-14-2007, 11:42 PM

I actually thought about attempting to translate the account from Codex Bezae, but somehow this poem has made me lose my interest. What difference does anything make if such prejudices begin the thread....

05-14-2007, 04:27 PM	#14
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Once again for those who attempt to use reason to defend faith in paper. Critical fires blaze, And what is once singed can never be restored to its former glory, Not even by the most careful restoration acts of the most committed preservationists, For the truth of the fire is that there is something there that is fuel for it, And just as where there is smoke there is fire, Where there is fire there is something burning, And a light that has been struck. The darkness has not understood the light. The darkness has not overtook the light. It burns bright, yet There are those who would douse it With much effort to turn back the process, The inexorable process that by the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot be reversed. We cannot go back to a simple faith, Yet is a faith ravaged by doubt better than one that is laid to rest? Hardly, and it is hardly the doubt which can be laid to rest, But the corrupting influence of faith on the minds of men, Driving them to take every thought captive for Christ. If the truth will set you free, Why are your thoughts captive to Christ? And, worse, captive to this paper, this paper called the Word of God that you believe in above all things heavenly and terrestrial? If the paper is your captor, let reason be left to those who are free of its grip. Julian's prohibition had merit.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-14-2007, 03:34 PM	#13
Nazaroo Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 528	For the primary textual evidence, (the early manuscripts), we have collected photos and a discussion of the ten most important early manuscripts for John 8:1-11 here: Top Ten Early MSS for John 8:1-11 <-- Click here. Our new article reexamining Codex Sinaiticus is also online here: Codex Sinaiticus ReExamined <-- Click Here. Explanatory background for the MISSING MSS evidence can be found here: Missing MSS examined <-- Click here.

05-14-2007, 05:30 PM	#16
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	C.S. Lewis opens his yap on the issue. http://members.aol.com/thompsonja/quote5c.htm RED DAVE

05-14-2007, 10:46 PM	#18
hallq Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 204	Oh, please. Any good book on folklore will tell you that legends often contain nonsensical details, certainly not because that's what the source saw, but rather that's what the source heard while forgetting or misunderstanding the reason for the detail. Not to be nasty, but Lewis was an ignoramus when it came to sniffing out legends.

05-14-2007, 11:42 PM	#20
Riverwind Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Allen, Tx Posts: 604	I actually thought about attempting to translate the account from Codex Bezae, but somehow this poem has made me lose my interest. What difference does anything make if such prejudices begin the thread....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.