Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-03-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

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

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.

Well, you haven't shown that the notion that the PA is a church product is absurd, let alone stated the objective criteria by which its alleged absurdity could be shown to be so. And you certainly haven't engaged in any meaningful way any of the arguments that Johannine scholars have put forward in defense of the case that the PA could be, or most likely was, a later church creation. In fact, I'm have no evidence that you actually know what these arguments are.

Moreover, who among NT scholars is actually spreading the notion that the PA could not possibly be drawn from an authentic event in the life of Jesus, let alone that scholarship has "proven" that it wasn't? What PA scholarship -- even that which argues the idea that the PA is not "historical" -- actually speaks in such absolute terms?

Do you know?

Jeffrey

No Robots · 11-03-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

What PA scholarship -- even that which argues the idea that the PA is not "historical" -- actually speaks in such absolute terms?

It is no wonder that people respond to this kind of petty pedantry by saying that the whole thing is hogwash.

But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-03-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

What PA scholarship -- even that which argues the idea that the PA is not "historical" -- actually speaks in such absolute terms?

It is no wonder that people respond to this kind of petty pedantry by saying that the whole thing is hogwash.

What are you talking about? You made a claim that there are NT scholars who have written on the PA who say that they "have proven that the pericope could not possibly be drawn from an authentic event in the life of Christ.".

I asked -- notably since I do not know of any PA scholars who have said any such thing -- for you to back up your claim and tell me who these NT scholars are.

How is asking you to back up your claim an "ostentatious display of knowledge" (= pedantry) on my part, let alone of the petty sort?

Is your claim true or not?

Jeffrey

No Robots · 11-04-2007, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

What are you talking about? You made a claim that there are NT scholars who have written on the PA who say that they "have proven that the pericope could not possibly be drawn from an authentic event in the life of Christ.".

No, I said that there are people (ie. participants on this board) who claim that scholarship has proven that the pericope is some kind of forgery. See for example the post that triggered this discussion:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

2 of his "authentic sayings" which you list are screamingly falsifiable. Jesus' fight with the Pharisees are ahistorical, so whited sepulchres is out. The aduterae pericope is also out (cast the first stone).

Emphasis added.

Quote:

I asked -- notably since I do not know of any PA scholars who have said any such thing -- for you to back up your claim and tell me who these NT scholars are.

There are no such scholars: that was my point to Magdlyn.

Ray Moscow · 11-04-2007, 07:01 AM

There are at least two issues here:

1. Is the PA likely to be part of the original GJohn?
2. Is the PA likely to be an ancient witness to the HJ?

I think the evidence is pretty strong against the first.

As to the second, the PA seems to have floated around the manuscripts, looking for a home. As such it seems that even the ancients didn't know what to do with it, and therefore its claim to be an authentic witness seems pretty weak.

Ray

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-04-2007, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

What are you talking about? You made a claim that there are NT scholars who have written on the PA who say that they "have proven that the pericope could not possibly be drawn from an authentic event in the life of Christ.".

No, I said that there are people (ie. participants on this board) who claim that scholarship has proven that the pericope is some kind of forgery. See for example the post that triggered this discussion:

But you did accuse me of pedantry, yes? Or am I mistaken in thinking so?

Quote:

There are no such scholars: that was my point to Magdlyn.

Well then, I apologize to you for attributing to you something you did not claim. But the quote from Magdlyn that you give does not show that she made the claim that you (apparently) attributed to her. Can you show me where she expressly and specifically said that scholarship has proven that the PA is some kind of forgery?

Magdlyn, do you think that "no robots" is correct in saying that you made the claim that there are NT scholars who say that they have proven that the PA could not possibly be drawn from an authentic event in the life of Jesus?

If he is correct and you did indeed make this claim, could you please name these scholars?

Jeffrey

Magdlyn · 11-04-2007, 08:16 AM

I know better than to claim anything is proven to be authentic or inauthentic, from a 2000 yr old document. We have certain evidence, and can talk about what is likely and unlikely.

When I said, in passing (as it was off topic for the thread), "screamingly falsifiable," I meant, as should be obvious, hotly contested, highly controversial, missing from the earliest ms. No Robots offered it as part of a list of authentic Jesus sayings. I thought it was an odd choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Constantin Brunner suggests that, "one should rely only on the sayings coming undoubtedly from Christ, on those great and pure statements which can only be his, and not on those popular distortions and additions which are to be found already in the oldest gospels."

Joseph Klausner provides some examples:

* "They that are whole have no need of the physician but they that are sick."
* "Let the dead bury their dead."
* "Blind leaders of the blind."
* "Who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel."
* "Whited sepulchres."
* "It is easier for the camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
* "The rich man giveth alms of his superfluity, and the widow—of her lack."
* "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
* "Let him that is free from sin cast the first stone."
* "It is better to give than to receive."

These proverbs, as Klausner states, "are stamped with the seal of one great, single personality, the seal of Jesus, and not the several seals of many and various disciples."

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Here is what Ehrman writes about the pericope of the adulteress:

Most scholars think that it was probably a well-known story circulating in the oral tradition about Jesus, which at some point was added in the margin of a manuscript.

Misquoting Jesus, p. 65.

So far so good. But then he jumps to this:

In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John. That naturally leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible? Not everyone will respond to this question in the same way, but for most textual critics, the answer is no.

Ibid. p. 65

What critics is he talking about? What is the basis for such a decision? Why doesn't he mention the evidence from Papias, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome? And why doesn't he mention that he himself argues for the retention of the pericope in his scholarly work?

The best disposition to make of the pericope as a whole is doubtless to print it at the close of the Fourth Gospel, with a footnote advising the reader that the text of the pericope has no fixed place in the ancient witnesses.

The text of the New Testament, p. 224

This strikes me as a case where an author is willing to trample all over scholarship and to misinform common people in order to generate book sales.

I started a new thread to let others more knowledgable than me, give evidence of the scholarship being so egregiously trampled by Ehrman.

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-04-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

I know better than to claim anything is proven to be authentic or inauthentic, from a 2000 yr old document. We have certain evidence, and can talk about what is likely and unlikely.

Excellent! But please note that I didn't ask you anything about what you yourself believed about the wisdom of claiming things as "proven". I asked you to tell me whether or not within this thread you had made a claim that there are NT scholars who have claimed that they have proven the inauthenticity of the PA?

So far as I can see you didn't. And I think "no robots" has misrepresented you.

I'm just trying to clarify this point, not what you do or do not know better not to do.

Quote:

I started a new thread to let others more knowledgable than me, give evidence of the scholarship being so egregiously trampled by Ehrman.

Well now you are confusing me! Are you yourself saying that Ehrman has trampled scholarship or that those who claim that Ehrman has done so are wrong?

Your words above indicate the former!

Jeffrey

Magdlyn · 11-04-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I asked you to tell me whether or not within this thread you had made a claim that there are NT scholars who have claimed that they have proven the inauthenticity of the PA?

No, if you read the thread, you can see I didn't.

Quote:

And I think "no robots" has misrepresented you.

Right. But I guess he was upset by me saying "screamingly falsifiable" earlier. I hope it is clear what I meant by that now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

I started a new thread to let others more knowledgable than me, give evidence of the scholarship being so egregiously trampled by Ehrman.

Quote:

Well now you are confusing me! Are you yourself saying that Ehrman has trampled scholarship or that those who claim that Ehrman has done so are wrong?

Your words above indicate the former!

No, the latter. It seems the scholarship No Robots was referring to were merely assertions made by Brunner and/or Klausner that the "cast the first stone" episode obviously carries the "seal" of Jesus' voice and personality and moral code. Other "scholarship" they depended on were the words of Didymus, Augustine and a couple other "Fathers."

However, it seems the standards of Brunner and Klausner are similar to what I know of the standards of the Jesus Seminar. Just slightly more lax?

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-04-2007, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

However, it seems the standards of Brunner and Klausner are similar to what I know of the standards of the Jesus Seminar. Just slightly more lax?

Then your knowledege of those standards is extremely incomplete.

You haven't read The Five Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk), have you. And I'm willing to do an Earl and "bet dollars" to donuts that you are not in any way familiar with all the discussion and application of those standards that appears in the JS journal Forum. Heck, I'll go so far as to say that you've never heard of their journal. Am I right?

Jeffrey

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

11-04-2007, 07:01 AM	#65
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	There are at least two issues here: 1. Is the PA likely to be part of the original GJohn? 2. Is the PA likely to be an ancient witness to the HJ? I think the evidence is pretty strong against the first. As to the second, the PA seems to have floated around the manuscripts, looking for a home. As such it seems that even the ancients didn't know what to do with it, and therefore its claim to be an authentic witness seems pretty weak. Ray

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.