Jeffrey Gibson

The value of this "critique" is demonstrated not only in its apparent lack of knowledge of my academic status, but in its notations that

1. Becker's study is an "an obscure (1963) German work unavailable to English readers, and hardly a mainstream reference", and that

2. it has not been cited by anyone recently with the exception of the late William Petersen.

Neither of these statements is true as any perusal of the recent mainstream commentaries on John or the periodical literature on Jn 7:53-8:11 will show.

It also should be noted that the review of Becker's work by J. Smit Sibinga that is the basis of the author's critique of Becker's claim vis a vis Didymus does not anywhere dispute the idea that Didymus cannot be used to show that the PA was known by the Greek fathers. In fact Sibingna never mentions Didymus at all, let alone Becker's claim about him!

More importantly, the critique fails to tell us two significant things:

First, that Sibigna actually praises Becker's work:

Our general impression of the book is, that it is a capable, ambitious
and imaginative attempt to solve the many problems of the pericope
adulterae, even where, perhaps, simply stating them critically should have
been given priority. Much of the relevant material has been collected
and studied and there are many useful suggestions"

True, Sibinga does say:

The investigation is not as thorough and complete as its impressive appearance might suggest and it could have gained considerably by criticism and guidance.

But he concludes his review of Becker by saying:

The validity of his methods however should be acknowledged, even if, in our opinion, they should be applied with more caution and patience. Becker is perhaps right in saying (p. 6) that after Zahn New Testament scholars have neglected a number of historical and literary problems. As for those of the pericope de adultera we now have a substantial German contribution to work with.

And second, that Sibinga does not believe that the PA is Johannine or originally part of the Gospel of John!

Some critique! It misrepresents what Becker's work is, uses selective quotation of a source that does not deal with the subject it is adduced to deal with, and fails to tell us that the author of this source does not agree with what the critques' author is using him to maintain!

Hmm. Sounds like .... nah. Won't say it.

In any case, I note that you've done nothing to substantiate your claim that Metzger "ignored" Didymus.

FWIW, I think that you are in WAY over your head here. Your acquaintance with both the primary evidence and what scholars have been saying about the PA is second had at best. Your claims are woefully uninformed. And you show yourself incapable of being able to tell when the second (and third) hand evidence you have been adducing to support your case is any good.

So if I were you, I'd cease making any claims about the PA, let alone what scholars have been saying about it, and I'd certainly stop thinking that what "Nazaroo" says on the PA and on PA scholarship can be trusted, lest I lose what little credibility I have left.

JG

No Robots

So where does Metzger discuss the passage from Didymus, even to deny it any connection with the pericope in John?

Jeffrey Gibson

You tell me. You're the one who made the claim about what Metzger has done. You must be familiar enough with his work to be certain -- and able to show -- that your claim is true.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

How is it, especially in the light both of the demonstrated fact that the author of this "analysis" ignores evidence and misrepresents the evidence that he adduces and your evident unfamiliarity with scholarship on the PA, do you know, as you are claiming you do, that this "analysis" is "complete", let alone accurate?

Jeffrey

No Robots

I've been using Nazaroo's website. I haven't read Metzger. If you contend that Nazaroo is wrong on this, then please provide some evidence.

No Robots

I'm just offering people a chance to judge the matter for themselves. What, after all, do you think about the pericope?

Jeffrey Gibson

I already have.

The real question is why you think "Nazaroo" is right and, excuse me for saying it, whether you are qualified and widely enough read in the materials he discusses to make an informed judgment one way or another.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm, no you are not. You are making a claim about "Nazaroo's" "analysis and recommending it as a good one.

That whatever its origins, it was not originally a part of the Gospel of John.

Jeffrey

No Robots

A perfectly defensible position, as far as I can see. My own participation in this discussion is simply on the level of trying to stop people from spreading the absurd notion that scholarship has proven that the pericope could not possibly be drawn from an authentic event in the life of Christ.

Magdlyn

If punishment by stoning for adultery had been abolished or at least gone out of favor by approximately the end of the BCE era, then I think the idea Jesus was sought to rule on it by Pharisees would have to be inauthentic. But I dont know if we'd be able to dig up any actual writings from the Pharisees from this early. The "Oral Torah" was not written down until the 2nd century CE.

And anyway, it seems the Judaeans were not allowed to use capital punishment anyway, acc to Roman law. If they couldn't stone Jesus, why worry about whether they could stone an adulteress?