Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 06-17-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

It is the conflation of "proven interpolation" with "proven historically inauthentic" that is invalid.

Absent any additional compelling evidence, there is no rational reason to consider a "proven interpolation" to be historically reliable. You appear to me to be avoiding the fact that "proven interpolation" clearly places the burden on anyone who wishes to assert that the story is historically reliable. What you have offered so far is clearly inadquate to establish that conclusion.

pharoah · 06-17-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

This is the kind of willful distortion that makes the phenomenon of "mass scholarship" so problematic. The fact is that the pericope did not fit the theology of many early Christians, and it was therefore omitted from many manuscripts.

This claim only makes sense if you still believe that the author of GJohn actually wrote it. Otherwise it's much more reasonable to believe that it was omitted from most manuscripts either because the scribe was unaware of the pericope or because he had reason to believe it was a later addition.

No Robots · 06-17-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

This claim only makes sense if you still believe that the author of GJohn actually wrote it. Otherwise it's much more reasonable to believe that it was omitted from most manuscripts either because the scribe was unaware of the pericope or because he had reason to believe it was a later addition.

The author of GJohn is completely unknown, as are the authors of the other Gospels. We have no information at all about the compilation of the Gospels as we have them. We do have the testimony of the Latin fathers that the pericope was suppressed because of editorial censorship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Absent any additional compelling evidence, there is no rational reason to consider a "proven interpolation" to be historically reliable.

I am saying only that it is not "proven inauthentic".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spin

I don't understand No Robots' intransigence. All he has is a few Latin fathers to support the passage with their opinions why they think it should be there. He cannot respond to the total lack in the Greek tradition or the earliest Syriac tradition. He has added not one thing to support the claim in his last five or six posts. In short he has nothing up his sleave for this wandering passage. He is wasting everyone's time with this interpolation.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the reference to Didymus the Blind.

Amaleq13 · 06-17-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I am saying only that it is not "proven inauthentic".

Yes, I understand that is how you are attempting to shift the burden from defending an inherently suspicious interpolation.

spin · 06-17-2006, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the reference to Didymus the Blind.

Although I haven't found what Didymus the Blind actually says about the pericope, I'm amused that that is the best you can come up with, some one-time teacher of Jerome. And you have been so reluctant to supply any references at all for your dire defence of this interpolation that most experts have no great problem of discarding as pious but not original to the text.

I just think that you have fastened onto the pericope as something that you believe must be a true original part of the gospel fabric simply because you want it to be so. Why you brought it up in the context of the MJ people is unfathomable, making your aggressive intransigence over the matter in the context simply unreasonable.

spin

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-19-2006, 02:44 PM

There’s no doubt in my mind that Pericope Adultera was part of the earliest gospel tradition. It is also quite clear that, at a later time, the increasingly prudish Church fathers were trying to suppress it.

So I find it rather ironic that some of the ‘radical thinkers’ on IIDB are so happy to continue the work of those old Christian moralists.

Cheers,

Yuri.

No Robots · 06-19-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

There’s no doubt in my mind that Pericope Adultera was part of the earliest gospel tradition. It is also quite clear that, at a later time, the increasingly prudish Church fathers were trying to suppress it.

So I find it rather ironic that some of the ‘radical thinkers’ on IIDB are so happy to continue the work of those old Christian moralists.

Bingo!

pharoah · 06-19-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

There’s no doubt in my mind that Pericope Adultera was part of the earliest gospel tradition. It is also quite clear that, at a later time, the increasingly prudish Church fathers were trying to suppress it.

So you're claiming that the pericope was written, not oral tradition, and that the church fathers conspired to strip it out of the text? Where was it originally, Luke or John? You do realize that it's textually impossible for it to be where it's presently located, don't you?

Quote:

So I find it rather ironic that some of the ‘radical thinkers’ on IIDB are so happy to continue the work of those old Christian moralists.

We're just following the evidence here. So far neither you or No Robots, who seems to be all over the place here, has done anything more than make unsupported assertions. It's time for you guys to either put or shut up.

Amaleq13 · 06-19-2006, 03:19 PM

The self-professed absence of doubt in Yuri's mind is as irrelevant as the fact that certain early Christians rejected the story for personal reasons rather than a rational consideration of the evidence.

jgibson000 · 06-19-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

There’s no doubt in my mind that Pericope Adultera was part of the earliest gospel tradition.

OK. But would you mind telling us why you have no doubts about this? Why should your lack of doubt on this matter be ours as well?

Quote:

It is also quite clear that, at a later time, the increasingly prudish Church fathers were trying to suppress it.

Funny, then, that if prudishness on the part of the fathers is, as you claim, the particular reason that the pericope does not appear in the best MSS, we would still find the story of the sinner/prostitute who wipes Jesus feet with her hair and gives Jesus kisses (Lk. 7:36-50 and Matt. 21:31 (on how prostitutes are likely members of the Kingdom of God) are consistently attested throughout the Greek, Latin, Syriac and other versional MS traditions.

Surely on your grounds, that is to say, surely, if the fathers were prudish and their prudishness was indeed, as you claim, a major factor in whether or not a tradition was transmitted, should we not expect to see some MSS without Lk. 7:36-50 and Matt. 21:31? Indeed, should we not be hard pressed to explain why these texts show up at all, let alone are as widely and consistently attesed as they are?

Jeffrey Gibson

06-19-2006, 02:44 PM	#46
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	keeping up the faith? There’s no doubt in my mind that Pericope Adultera was part of the earliest gospel tradition. It is also quite clear that, at a later time, the increasingly prudish Church fathers were trying to suppress it. So I find it rather ironic that some of the ‘radical thinkers’ on IIDB are so happy to continue the work of those old Christian moralists. Cheers, Yuri.

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

06-19-2006, 03:19 PM	#49
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	The self-professed absence of doubt in Yuri's mind is as irrelevant as the fact that certain early Christians rejected the story for personal reasons rather than a rational consideration of the evidence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.