jgibson000

Nice of you to do your research on this after you've made your claim.

Be that as it may, if you'd actually been thorough in that research, you'd also have found and cited M. Gourges, "'Moi non plus je ne te condamne pas': Les mots et la theologie de Luc en Jean 8, 1-11 (la femme adultere)." SR 19 (1990), pp. 305-18 and K. Romaniuk, Jezus i jawnogrezesznica (J 7,53-8,11)." Collectianea theologica 59 (1989), p. 5-14.

And if you'd actually read Cadbury (as the evidence below strongly suggests you havent), you'd not only have found that H. McLaclachn also argued for the Lukan authorship of the PA (in his St. Luke: Evangelist and Historian) but, more importantly, that Cadbury cannot be adduce as a supporter of your claim as you imply he is. Or did you only mean to tell us that thats where one could find a discussion about the issue?

Jeffrey Gibson

Julian

It is worth noting that in terms of statistcally analyzing the straight word usage, it is definitely more Lukan than any other style, by a reasonable margin. This, in and of itself, is not enough to place authorship with Luke. On top of which, we are still in the dark regarding its origin. Moving it from Luke to John makes very little sense IMO.

Julian

jgibson000

Perhaps you'd ask Yuri whether Cadbury agrees with your claim about what a statistical analysis shows -- and more importatly what Cadbury's explanation actually is for the similarities with Lukan style that he notes in the article that Yuri has pointed us to?

He won't answer me. But if you ask ...

Jeffrey

Toto

While looking for something else, I found these two old threads that might be of interest, started by Peter Kirby:

Pericope de Adultera--External Evidence

Pericope de Adultera--Internal Evidence

Julian

Is HTR online? I would have to drive down to the Catholic University to get a look at it otherwise which I don't have the time to do at the moment. My claim about a statistical analysis is based on my own analysis that I did a couple of days ago. All it speaks to is that the word usage is Lukan (that includes Acts, BTW, or the numbers are less favorable), I would hesitate to draw a conclusion from that since I am not familiar with what research has been done in this area. If the HTR is online I would be happy to read it.

I am really only interested in information on this topic that doesn't come with an agenda.

Julian

jgibson000

See my private post to you.

Jeffrey

Julian

All I can get through JSTOR is JBL. Not sure how I can get to other pubs...

Julian

Yuri Kuchinsky

I see that, so far, nobody here has taken up my challenge to explain how the Pericope Adultera could have acquired canonical status at a late date.

Such a scenario, of course, is currently the mainstream view in NT studies, and yet there seems to be nobody to defend it!

Well, I’m afraid this is how our mainstream NT scholarship is... The scholars just all agree to agree that some nutbar scenario is the TRUTH, and no further questions are allowed.

So let’s all agree that PA is some sort of a ‘floating pericope’, and it just kept floating around all by itself -- butterfly-like -- from place to place, until it just happened to alight... right smack inside the canonical gospel of John. And everybody kinda gave it a weird look for a while, but then they said, Well, since you’re such a *floater*, then I guess you’re all right... Shit happens!

It’s all sorta semi-miraculous, isn’t it?

Regards,

Yuri.

jgibson000

Why should they? It's not as if, as you claim, it's never been done. You haven't read Bart Erhman's discussion of the origin of the PA, have you? Or the long exposition on the history of the text by Von Soden? Or the exchage between Von Soden and Leitzmann on the PA?. How about what Colewell and Riddle have written on the matter, or, most importantly the detailed investigation of the history of the text and its tradition by Ulrich Becker, not to mention the dozen or so recent discussions of the topic that one finds in even a cursory search in the ATLA data base? How about what Andrew Lincoln has recently said? Or Craig Keener?

It seems to me that such an assertion can be made only by one who, as his remarks in this thread have been showing, is nowhere near as familiar with the literature on the PA as he would have us believe, who has not read even the literature on the PA that he cites, who seems not to have checked anything he's said so far against any of the standard critical commentaries (where he'd quickly see that what he claims scholars have not done is simply not true), and who, more importatly, has no first hand knowledge of, nor has ever really taken the time actually to become acquainted with, the the way the NT Guild works.

In case people here don't know, Yuri has had no training, formal or otherwise, in NT studies under the guidance of any member of the NT Guild. He holds no degree, not even a BA, in NT studies. He has never presented a paper at a regional or national conference of any of the Guild's major bodies (SBL, CBA, SNTS), let alone smaller ones, nor has he ever even attended one such conference to get a hands on feel for how the Guild actually works.

So should we take Yuri's claims about how "our mainstream NT scholarship is" as true, let alone well as grounded in first hand knowledge and actual experience of that scholarship as they would have to be to even be considered as hitting anywhere close to the mark?

You tell me.

And to Yuri -- before you launch into a complaint that I've engaged in an ad hominem above, please remember that the issue I'm raising is a factual one, whether you have actually read enough of, let alone the significant works within, the literature on the PA produced by "mainstream" scholars, and whether you actually have sufficient experiental first hand knowledge of the Guild and its ways, to justify the claims you are making above about what scholars in the Guild do or not do, have or have not done, with respect to the PA.

Jeffrey Gibson

Yuri Kuchinsky

Here's something curious I've found on the Net. This is the work of Dr. Wm. Richard Kremer, of St. John's Baptist Church - Charlotte, NC,

www.stjohnsbaptistchurch.org

So this is what he writes about the Pericope Adultera (PDF file),

http://www.stjohnsbaptistchurch.org/...0for%20web.pdf

Oh, boy!

So now, from Dr. Kremer, we learn that PA "floated into John ...about A.D. 900"!

That's rather late, isn't it?

And I thought the Church was pretty well done with the canon by AD 400?

And, of course, he still repeats that mistake of Metzger in regard to when the 'earliest Greek Christian scholar' commented about PA! In fact, it was already Didymus the Blind, in the 4th century...

So this is what happens when an innocent conservative Pastor trusts the Textual Scholars. He was totally confused by Metzger et al.!

Oh, well...

Cheers,

Yuri.