Toto

I think this is common among all sorts of Biblical scholars and is just laziness, not an intent to deceive.

If NT studies were truly scientific and on a solid basis, and a prominent scholar said 'X' was true, then others could rely on that and assume that X had been established in the usual manner - that it had been proposed as a theory, that other interested scholars had brought up all possible problems, and that a consensus of educated specialists had finally been reached on the truth of 'X'.

But this is not how NT studies works. It is sometimes not even how scientists work - it may take decades of revision and rechecking before things that were believed to be settled are shown to be based on inadequate research.

Steven Avery

And my point is that such questions should not be approached atomisticly, or in a vacuum, but in conjunction with the knowledge of how the authors of that day approached the text and the pericope. So, consider this with me.. We know quite well that authors of that day were aware of the Pericope as Scripture, and the Apostolic Constitutions has a special place as a teaching and training vehicle. Iin that context its very difficult to see it as an oddball or orphan. but..hey, what do I know :-) I'm just trying to apply logic and common sense :-) Ok, thanks, one of the "conflation" theories. I'm sure you are familiar with http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ap_d.html APPENDIX D - CONFLATION OR CONFUSION? - anyway, to me such theories sans scripture manuscript evidence are close to irrelevant, although I can see how they are entertaining. Often the inverse of the conflation theory is more plausible. The conjectured component parts were both taken from the larger original unit. Of course modern textcrit really can't look at the Pericope that way :-)

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Peter Kirby

Respectfully, this may be why you had difficulty understanding my point about the inherent imperfection of translations. Traduttori traditori. The translation is "translators are traitors," but already you can tell that something is missing in the translation of the pithy, rhyming two-word quip.

I will be leading a study of elementary Greek based on William Mounce's book The Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar at Ebla Forum starting this June 1. I hope to see you there! I can answer any questions you may have about it.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Steven Avery

Oh, I understand that languages have many subtleties, and things can be gained or lost in translation. I am rather frequently "going to the Greek" or the Hebrew with folks on specific issues, and I also see cases where the English has a clarity or structure not in the underlying language (gasp).

However, as I said, I don't think every single translation nuance you will come up with will be equivalent in signficance to the one letter difference in 1 Timothy 3:16. Nor the various missing phrases, verses and sections. Maybe if I have my computer languages in better shape I will contemplate Hebrew or Greek. Biblical Hebrew Ulpan with Randall Buth, that type of thing, has a little appeal, but I see so many people weakened in faith and doctrine and understanding by their supposed original language expertise that I only have it on a mild burner. Tanx for the invite. SBL in Philly sounds good, too bad they have such a social political theme for this year.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Vorkosigan

So the issue isn't really whether 2 Peter is a document forged in Peter's name. The issue is the conclusions that flow from the scholarly work. So long as they disagree with your particular "true bible faith" you will attempt to kill them. That's quite an admission, Prax.

We're all atheists here. We do not have any faith commitment to a particular religious text. So we represent a huge population of potential converts to your textual causes.

Think about it.

Believe it or not, I have been talking to believers for the whole of my life. That is true of every atheist here. So really, there is no need to to teach us anything in that regard. Why not simply approach us as one human to another?

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

And the manuscript evidence of the first 3 centuries is relevant in what way to the question of whether the Pericope is original to the text?

Steven Avery

Vork, that might be true if I had not done a quite exhaustive examination and dialog on the issues of 2 Peter. Been there, done that, and came to the conclusion that most of the evidences used against Petrine authorship are shrill, convoluted and very weak. If you like, I can probably find you the thread, it was on Jesus Mysteries or some other forum with a lot of skeptics and their friends.
Simply not true. I've seen a number of folks posting who are not atheists.
Reasonable, not sure what is your objection, however :-)

Meanwhile, I have decided to forego a lot of the conceptual, shrill debates where there is simply paradigmic gridlock in our views, (such as the "dating of Mark" discussion, or " who is credibly historical") and stick with discussions where there is more likely to be good communication, such as talking to you here about my views on the significance of 2 Peter authorship, or the Gadarenes locale discussion, which is largely a factual discussion, and to a large extent belief system neutral, or reviewing the Pericope Adultera references amongst early church writers.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

Steven, I do hope one of these days you will answer my question to you about when you view John as being written. I hesitate to respond to any comments you make because again and again you simply ignore my question.

As to your question here, I don't understand your emphasis. There is not a lot of manuscript evidence of the first three centuries, if you mean the dating of the actual extant manuscripts, rather than manuscript lineage. P66 may count as a mild witness against the Pericope, as an alexandrian text its absensce there fits with the other Alexandrian abscence.

The discussion above was more about theories of conflation, at any time. Those theories are very popular in modern textcrit realms, but often a more sensible approach would take an inverse view of the same evidence. Pierpont, Robinson and Pickering took the lead in explaining weaknesses in the Westcott-Hort theories of conflation.

Ehrman comes from a largely W-H type of theoretical perspective, although he does have large individual and gadfly components of his own. Sometimes his views are actually easier to deal with, for one he makes no pretense of considering any theory of inspiration or preservation or authority of the Scripture text as relevant. He is more honest about this than many of the folks working in modern textcrit, who keep a Christian veneer while using, developing and propagating theories of the NT text that are at base anti-inspiration. I gave an example of that in the recent post to Peter, with their combining "harder reading" concepts and "original autographs" inspiration, leading to contradiction.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

freigeister

Bang on, in fact. But that is what makes it an embarrassment for the mythicists, too. I mean, if the NT is a fabrication, why ever have included the bit in the first place? Unless, of course, you posit an elaborate double-deception involving Augustine's assistance.

For a concise history of the pericope, go here.

Vorkosigan

It's very badly argued and illogical. For example:

• Von Soden (1902) showed long ago that the view implied by these notes is entirely erroneous. Although this scholar denied the genuineness of John 7:53 - 8:11, nevertheless, in his monumental study of this passage he was eminently fair in his presentation of the facts. After mentioning that this section is sometimes found at the end of the Gospel of John and sometimes in the margin near John 7:52 and that in one group of manuscripts (the Ferrar group) the section is inserted after Luke 21:38, von Soden continues as follows: "But in the great majority of the manuscripts it stands in the text between 7:52 and 8:12 except that in at least half of these manuscripts it is provided with deletion marks in the margin." (50) Thus the usual location of the pericope de adultera is in John between 7:52 and 8:12. The manuscripts which have it in any other place are exceptions to the rule.

This argument essentially recognizes that (1) the pericope moves around as a whole and (2) even the ancients knew that it did not belong in the text.

In other words, the logic of these arguments is quite specious. On one hand they claim that the ancients knew this pericope, which means it must have been part of the text. But on the other, the fact that numerous ancient scribes knew it was not part of the original text is disregarded.....ancients are good only when they support our arguments....

But on the other hand -- I can't resist! -- the pericope adultera offers us another view of the illogic of mainstream NT toward the TF. Metzger wants to think that the silence of the earlier Greek Fathers, such as Origen (c. 230), Chrysostom (c. 400), and Nonnus (c. 400), is probative. But there is a similar silence on the TF....

But back to illogic of Fregiester's page:

• Eusebius concludes his discussion of Papias' writings with the following statement: "The same writer used quotations from the first Epistle of John, and likewise also from that of Peter, and has expounded another story about a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains." (39)
  
  From this statement of Eusebius naturalistic critics have inferred that Eusebius knew the pericope de adultera only as a story occurring in the writings of Papias and in the Gospel according to the Hebrews and not as a part of the canonical Gospel of John. This conclusion, however, by no means follows necessarily. Eusebius may have been hostile to the story of the woman taken in adultery not only because of moralistic objections but also because it was related by Papias. For Eusebius had a low opinion of Papias and his writings. "He was a man of very little intelligence," Eusebius declared, "as is clear from his books." (40) It may very well be that the disdain which Eusebius felt for Papias made him reluctant to mention the fact that Papias' story occurred also in some of the manuscripts of the Gospel of John.

ROFL. Why would such a disdain for Papias make Eusebius refrain from mentioning that the pericope was in John? If Eusebius really wanted to demonstrate that Papias was an idiot, all he had to do was point to the fact that poor befuddled Papias didn't even know the pericope was in John, not Hebrews. But the reality is that Eusebius probably didn't know that the pericope was in John, for not only does he positively cite Papias to say where it is, but he does not correct him. Our logician concludes"

It is not "purely" an argument from silence -- Eusebius not only discloses that he knows of the pericope, but also tells us where it may be located. The writer mischaracterizes the situation.

Another fun one is this one:

• This argument, however, is not nearly so strong as Metzger makes it seem. In the first place, as Burgon pointed out long ago, we must knock off at least three centuries from this thousand-year period of which Metzger speaks so ominously. For Tischendorf lists 9 manuscripts of the 9th century which contain the pericope de adultera in its usual place and also one which may be of the eighth century. And so the silence of the Greek Church Fathers during the last third of this thousand year period couldn't have been because they didn't know of manuscripts which contained John 7:53-8:11 in the position which it now occupies in the great majority of the New Testament manuscripts. The later Greek Fathers didn't comment on these verses mainly because the earlier Greek Fathers hadn't done so.

Does anyone know of an actual case were a certain group refused to comment on a particular bible text in their possession because previous members of that group had not? What principle compelled them? Do you think that every Greek father for 10 centuries looked at the pericope adultera, looked at Origen's silence, and then said to himself: "Whoops! Maybe I better not say anything about this..."

I think not.

• In Acts 5:18 we are told that the rulers laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison. To this verse the Latin portion of D adds, and they went away each one to his house. As Harris observes, this addition is obviously taken from the description of the breaking up of the council meeting in John 7:53. If the Montanists were the ones who added these words to Acts 5:18, then the pericope de adultera must have been part of John's Gospel at a very early date.

Actually, this phrase is found in the Gospel of Peter, near as I can tell. So the pericope adultera need not be the source.

• XV. 58 Now it was the last day of unleavened bread, and many were coming forth of the city and returning unto their 59 own homes because the feast was at an end. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, were weeping and were in sorrow, and each one being grieved for that which had befallen 60 departed unto his own house. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our nets and went unto the sea: and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord.

Vorkosigan