Nazaroo

One of the more interesting aspects of John 8:1-11 is the disproportionate interest in it by apparent atheists and agnostics.

While Christians and even semi-Christian moderates have a lively interest, the stats from comparable sized forums indicate that atheists and agnostics are far more concerned:




Of course these figures need to be adjusted for 'anonymous' readerships and floating IP addresses (laptops, scrambled services).

Still, it is quite surprising how much buzz a thread like this generates in such a short time.

Theology Online, easily as busy and large a board as Internet Infidels, just can't supply enough interest to match the atheists.

Nazaroo

One way of understanding the deep concern over John 8:1-11 is to recognize its unique importance for forming modern views about democracy and individual rights and freedoms.

This was always a latent issue in the Gospels, and appears to be a genuine part of the political platform of Jesus and His movement. For instance, one can consider the darkly subversive but carefully veiled statement by Jesus about paying taxes to an occupying army:

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's." To ignore the cryptic anarchism latent in this profound statement doesn't do it justice.

And consider again, an almost equally important and new spin on the Sabbath Law,

"The Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath."

These are revolutionary (literally) statements, designed to express and simultaneously keep hidden an anarchistic zealot agenda.

Now we turn to the Pericope de Adultera. It is the most revolutionary of all, because it actually disenfranchises all authority, all rights to punish, to impose Law upon others. It not only defrocks the priesthood as a bunch of corrupt murderers (as did its predecessor, the story of Susanna), but it actually insists upon a standard that NO earthly authority can live up to.

This is the purest and most subtle form of rebellion possible: Total rebellion.

Not only is John 8:1-11 in harmony with the core revolutionary teaching of Jesus, it is the inevitable and natural extension of His philosophy. And as the 'head' or final expression of the doctrine of Jesus, it was the natural lightning-rod, the target of all attack by authority against the Jesus Movement and its dangerous anarchistic teaching.

Jesus planned to tear more than just the Temple down. He planned to tear down all despotic 'government' and replace it with a 'Law' of personal responsibility, voluntarily exercised and written on the heart.

In this, Jesus was following the well-laid projection of previous prophets.

Nazaroo

We have added a webpage that gives photos and a discussion of the ten most important early MSS for John's gospel, and its relation to the question of the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11).

Top Ten Early MSS for John <-- Click Here.

jgibson000

We? Who is "we"?

No chance, right, that it's the same "we" of this message that appeared, coincidentally, on the inhabited by "many scholars" T-C Alternative list just about the same time that the above did here?

Quote:

We have put together photos and a discussion of each of the most important early MSS for John. http://adultera.awardspace.com/TEXT/MSS-top10.html The only thing we were unable to locate was any kind of photo for Codex T. Has anyone seen photos or scans of Codex T online? mr.scrivener

Nah. Couldn't be.

JG

Nazaroo

Its always been we. Nazaroo and mr.scrivener.
We have always worked as a team on this project,
and he posts where he likes to post his announcements,
and I post where I like to post.

I have just spent a week gathering rare photographs of ancient manuscripts and writing a discussion of the value of the textual evidence in each case, and made it available to everyone free on the web.

What have YOU done to contribute positively to this thread, in the dozens of critical and sour-grapes whining posts you have placed here? You sound like someone's ex-wife, or a broken record.

Get a life.

Bye now.

Nazaroo

Well, that's all folks.

That's all the time and effort I am prepared to give to this thread on this board at this time. There is simply too much hostility to engage in any serious scientific inquiry.

Peace.
Nazaroo

Nazaroo

I've annotated R.H. Lightfoot's (1957) comments on John 8:1-11.

It is rather obvious that his remarks inspired Metzger (1967).

R.H. Lightfoot on John 8:1-11 <-- Click Here.


Since Gibson is bound to post some remark about how mr.scrivener and I are really the same secret super-identity, like Bruce Wayne and Batman, let me save him the trouble and explain that we are really siameze twins joined at the hip. mystery solved.

jgibson000

Did you mean "siamese" twins?

Actually, the remark I am "bound" to post has to do with this claim of yours:

Quote:

However, the commentaries of Didymus (4th century) which quote the passage extensively ...

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to cite precisely where in Didymus' commentaries these "extensive quotes" of the PA can be found and to give us the text of these "quotes" so that we can see if they are indeed quotes of the PA and, if so, just how extensive they are?

JG

Nazaroo

You need not wonder. I will never be kind enough to do your homework for you. You never do any work at all, but expect your opponents to furnish all your materials for you.

But you know damn well that:

a) Didymus quotes John 8:1-11, more extensively than Jerome.

b) Its on the internet. Anyone can google Willker's online Textual Commentary on the NT, and look at his (shabby and disorganized) section on the Pericope de Adultera, and they will find about 3 pages of quotation and discussion of Didymus, culled from Ehrman's biased analysis.

So help yourself.

And post it yourself.

If you want more info, buy Ehrman's book on Didymus (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

For simplicity this is what is in Wieland Willker reference.

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf
A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 4b
The Pericope de Adultera: Jo 7:53 - 8:11 (Jesus and the Adulteress)

• Didymus the Blind (�* 398): feromen oun en tisin euaggelioij\ gunh( fhsin katakriqh upo twn Ioudaiwn epi amartia kai apestelleto liqobolhqhnai eij ton topon( opou eiwqei ginesqai) o swthr( fhsin( ewrakwj authn kai qewrhsaj oti etoimoi eisin proj to liqobolhsai authn( toij mellousin authn katabalein liqoij eipen\ oj ouk hmarten( airetw liqon kai baletw auton) ei tij sunoiden eautw to mh hmarthkenai( labwn liqon paisatw authn) kai oudeij etolmhsen) episthsantej eautoij kai gnontej( oti kai autoi upeuqunoi eisin tisin( ouk etolmhsan kataptaisai ekeinhn)

(Didymus' Commentary on Ecclesiastes, according to the Tura Papyrus). ["We find, therefore, in certain gospels: A woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to happen. The saviour, it says, when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her, said to those who were about to cast stones, 'He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and cast it. If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her.' And no one dared. Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things, they did not dare to strike her."]
(p.9)

The Wieland material goes on in the next few pages.

And there was some discussion in a 2005 IIDB thread, pages 3 & 4.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hlight=Didymus
Do we have the original NT?

Shalom,
Steven Avery