hatsoff

Does anyone have a link to the original Wallace article Nazaroo cited? The bibliography has it pp.291-295...but from what book or journal? I'd very much like to read his thoughts on the matter.

I'm a big fan of his, actually. He's so good he very nearly won me over on the Abiathar issue...though not quite.

Nazaroo

Both Wallace and Ehrman habitually publish in NTS (New Testament Studies). It should be available on some University campuses, but not online. They are very anal about their journal.

Both the original articles referred to are NTS articles and as far as I know no NTS article is available online anywhere. (for free that is. I am sure you could order a copy for some ridiculous sum).


Wallace occasionally publishes online at BIBLE.ORG, but I haven't seen this issue discussed there, except by Harris in his commentary. I reviewed that here:

NETBIBLE or NETBABLE? <-- CLick Here.

Nazaroo

Jackson was an interesting character, who can be considered a moderate, and who rode down the middle of many issues. He clearly comes out in favour of a liberal view of John, and has high respect for the critical scholarship of his time.



What makes Jackson so interesting, is that he sees so strongly that John's Gospel is damaged goods without John 8:1-11, that he actually uses this as evidence that John is either composite or has suffered editing.



Jackson has already rejected the passage on "textual" grounds, like most critics of his era. But sees clearly that the gospel without the passage will hardly do at all!



Jackson (1918) on John 8:1-11 <-- Click Here!


Jackson also provides for us two interesting things:

(1) The originator of the idea that Jn8:1-11 was a "floating" passage. This came from Heitmuller (SNT, ii, p. 789) in the 19th century, at a time when no one had yet collated the majority of MSS...(!) von Soden didn't start his exhaustive collations until this same era, beginning in about 1908 and finishing in 1912.

(2) Jackson also gives us a good overview of the internal inconsistencies or perceived problems with the Johannine Gospel (with or without the passage), as several posters here have inquired about.


Enjoy!



Nazaroo

Toto

Jackson's The Problem of the Fourth Gospel is available on earlychristianwritings.com

(and I see that Peter's other web pages are back.)

JoeWallack

JW:
So we can avoid this type of exchange, of course. A complete commentary provides the best reference, avoids intentional and unintentional ommissions and shows the full extent of evidence for Forgery.

I see you now have Metzger's complete related commentary at your site and have properly identified it. You remind me of that pesky kid in third grade art class who constantly dared everyone else to dare him to drink the cup with the paint mixed with water.

Okay, you've gotten off to a bad start here. You tried to make a point that there was a time gap between Metzger and recent scholarship that reflected superior scholarship. Now you've been shown that Metzger El-all published after Peterson/Petersen. You also Explicitly claimed that Metzger had not changed anything in his Commentary from 1968. Now you've been shown that in the 1994 Version Metzger Explicitly considered the very argument you want to make and referenced detailed rebuttals.

Well, no one's perfect including "Mark's", er sorry, Mark's Jesus so let's move forward. Trying to navigate through your related site I can not find any summary of your position that the PA is not a Forgery. A common technique of Apologists is to Misdirect the discussion from their argument to the arguments of their opponents and posture that because they have successfully criticized other's arguments than by default the Apologist's position is correct. A lack of a summary supporting your conclusion right now could also indicate that you are starting with a conclusion and your argument to support the conclusion is still in progress. Or it may just be that I have not found a summary of your argument to support your concclusion that the PA is not a Forgery.

Where is it?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Nazaroo

We haven't 'avoided' this type of exchange, because you have been seeking to provoke it.

There were no significant omissions from my quotation, which was from the 1968 edition of Metzger's book. It was accurate, and complete. I omitted the last sentence on double-bracketing, since it would be meaningless without a photo or scan of the printed UBS text of 1968.

The footnotes from your 1994 edition were not an 'omission', they were a later addition. In particular, the footnote which you have made a fuss about could not have been in the 1968/1971 printing of Metzger, since it refers to articles published in 1991-1992.

You are mistaken again. And by your logic nothing has changed. The latest edition of the book with the most complete footnotes would be the 2001/2005 edition.

You did NOT post this, and you did NOT post the footnotes for the 2001 or CURRENT edition.

You posted an edition TWELVE YEARS out of date by your own reasoning and logic, and are therefore making a mountain out of a molehill and posturing in a hypocritical manner.




No. You have gotten yourself off to a bad start, making a mess of the thread and embarrassing yourself. Why not quit while you are behind?

There is no foreseeable way for you to recover from this now longrunning bumbling comedy of your own errors.

A gap which is obvious. I quoted what Metzger wrote in 1968, and contrasted it with what Petersen wrote in 1997.

Petersen's scholarship is quite superior to Metzger's. This is plainly reflected in his balanced treatment of the evidence, and his openmindedness regarding its interpretation, and his thoroughness in discussing the evidence.

Peterson for instance spends over 30 pages examining the evidence, quotes a wide range of opinions on almost every controversial aspect of the problems he discusses, and cites at least 50 other textual critics and authors in over 100 footnotes.

In contrast, Metzger presents a truncated and misleading handful of sentences on the topic, and even in the 1994 edition offers only one footnote citing two other authors on this topic.

Metzger in 1994 could not have read Petersen in 1997 when he 'edited' (by not changing anything in the text) the edition you posted.


Not unless you are referring to the 2001/2005 edition edited by Ehrman, which you HAVE NOT POSTED, or even posted the footnotes for.

The 1994 edition (4th) which you did post, was published BEFORE Petersen, who wrote in 1997.

Unless you know something about time warps and quantum black holes, that you want to share with us, the last time I checked, 1994 came BEFORE 1997.



On the contrary, it is plain that Metzger did not change the text one iota between 1968 and 1994. Ehrman added a footnote. Metzger by this time had all but stopped publishing new material, at the age of 85.

Most of his last few published articles were gratefully ghost-written by his students and peers, who we don't deny carefully reflected his mature views, but also quietly updated and corrected some of his intellectual lacunae.

Ehrman is a good example of a student/disciple of Metzger, who in honour of his mentor took over the job of editing and republishing his commentary. Any changes (and they are limited to added footnotes) were placed there by Ehrman, not Metzger.

In fact, long before Metzger's recent death, his entire library of rare and expensive NT research books was on sale on the internet, clearly indicating that Metzger had long stopped doing any serious research.

How can you say Metzger considered the very argument I want to make, when by your own admission you don't know what that argument is?

How can 'detailed' rebuttals (plural) be an adequate description of one flimsy article by Wallace back in 1991?

How does Wallace's 'rebuttal' of Heil's first article (even if it was valid or successful) refute Heil's rejoinder published in 1993?

How can Ehrman's footnote to Metzger in 1994 adequately 'refute' the dozens of articles published since 1994 on the PA?

If Wallace is such a great, general rebuttal of all previous and subsequent arguments for the authenticity of the PA, why is it you haven't read it?

And why don't you post Wallace, instead of Metzger (twice)?

Why don't you tell us why you think Wallace's arguments (which you haven't read) are better than not only Heil's (1991/1993) but also better than Petersen's, who wrote in 1997?

I am holding my breath for you to post WALLACE, explaining his brilliant case.

This should be amusing.


Yes, well, you have to be smarter than a webpage with CSS in order to navigate it successfully.

Thank you for outlining your proposed method for diverting and hijacking this thread. Others may take note of how your mind is working, and what conspiratorial plots you are imagining.

Or it may just be that you have not found a summary of my argument.

Nazaroo

Now might be a good time to take a look at some questions raised in this thread but not addressed because of other more distracting performances.

gstafleu 's question is I think the most penetrating, at least in raising the potential issues.

We cannot entirely address this issue yet, because there are actually *two* technical issues involved:

(1) The authenticity of the Text, which may not be as germaine to gstafleu's questions as people think. Whether or not the passage is 'authentic' may have little to do in the end with its political impact upon Western legal traditions or religious impact upon Christian dogma.

(2) The content of the Text (i.e., the textual reconstruction of the original text), which may have surprises that could drastically affect the meaning and impact of the text, were an open, scientific and well-publicised investigation to be completed.

Obviously, the content of the text is important to determining its significance and impact. Yet perhaps just as importantly, its alteration could be equally significant from the point of view of the subsequent political and religious history of Europe (particularly for instance, issues surrounding women's rights and sexual 'freedoms').

---------------------
Roller's question (KJVonlyism, inerrancy, divine preservation etc.) is actually the focus of what has gone on politically and religiously in the West (particularly America) for the last 40 years.

While this has clearly been important, this issue might fade, or already be fading next to more pressing and modern insights into the meaning of the passage and its history, particularly its ability to point to future directions of research and ethical issues.

------------------------
My observation was a historical one, not an assertion about what *should* be the focus or important aspects of an investigation.

I was not defending a 'KJVonly' position, nor suggesting that this be allowed to be the focus of a serious scientific or historical investigation.

For better or worse, my observations still stand, although 'Cynic's objections have some credence.

-------------------------

This may very well be true, but it is an insight that Cynic deserves credit for, since it is NOT shared by the majority of people on all sides of this question, who are writing apologetically or engaging in research.

Cynic's proposal appears unique and novel, even to people open to his idea, like myself.

One of the main reasons that those defending Bible inerrancy also defend John 8:1-11 is that they see the inherent problem in saying God delivers His word in perfect form, only to allow men to insert whole stories into it at a whim.

Those rejecting the verses also see a conflict in the idea that God's word could be so 'flexible' that anyone can just come along and 'insert' anything they like, and it remains robust enough that it is still the 'authoritative Word of God'.

So Cynic's claim, while possibly having strong scientific merit, is hardly accepted by the majority of debators involved with John 8:1-11.

Well, this misses the point. The reason bible 'attackers' hone in on this story in modern times is nothing to do with its content. Its to do with the historical fact that here is a 'piece of the bible' that has had a bizarre history of suppression, insertion and mutilation.

Far more than say the Ending of Mark, (which is controversial itself), the PA is the only real example of a huge chunk of the NT being either nearly lost, or blatantly falsified. All other variants (explanatory glosses, confused phrases, spelling errors, clumsy omissions) dwarf in significance next to the addition or removal of 12 whole consecutive verses.

It is the physical size and nature of the variant, casting doubt upon an entire pericope or story contained in a gospel, that makes the PA important to both defenders and detractors of the NT.

Nobody disparaging the bible and its contents really cares about the contents of the PA. Its all about the fact that somebody either tampered with the bible in a significant way, or they didn't.

And with defenders, its not the content of the passage either that is important (although it is loved by its defenders). Its the fact that it seems absurd to talk of 'divine inspiration' and 'inerrancy', only to have God allow a story to have been inserted into a gospel so early, and that the majority of Christians for fully a thousand years could be wrong about such a big boo boo.

There are many points here to seriously reconsider.

Is it a 'benign' story? I think not...

Does it have 'a nice ethical message to it'? I think not...


Would 'atheists' conspire to discredit that pericope in particular'? I think not...

We may be missing so many important things about the story here in such a few short sentences, that a big 're-think' is required.

Who is really behind the discrediting of these verses, and why? That is at least one question which is being begged here, and it is a question which can only be answered by an investigation of the other suspect premises that Cynic is here relying upon.

JoeWallack

JW:
God you are struggling here. My quote is from the 1994 Edition which you yourself quoted. Ehrman had nothing to do with this product. At the time he probably still believed that god sacrificed himself to himself thereby dying in order to conquer death and put an end to his eternal law. Ehrman was involved in the 2005 version which I didn't quote from.

So let's summarize the problems you have here so far:

1) You Misidentifed the time gap between the positions of modern bible scholarship and Peterson/Petersen regarding the PA.

2) You failed to note Metzger had considered the type of defense you want to make for the PA.

3) You are confused regarding which version of Metzger/Ehrman says what.

4) You refuse to accept virtually every category of evidence normally used by modern Textual Criticism demonstrating PA is Forged.

5) You either don't have or refuse to provide a summary of your argument as to why you think the PA is original.

6) You think Metzger should have at least received an Academy Award nomination for acting as a Presbyterian clergy for 70 years.

Here's something else for you to consider/deny/ignore. "John" shows a Marked like for an Impossible Jesus. However, the PA is notably Possible.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

hatsoff

Nazaroo, you aren't making any headway in refuting the basic textual arguments against the pericope. In the mean time, you seem to be utterly refusing to discuss your own explanation for its omission in early mss., and how you reconcile them with its alleged authenticity.

Nazaroo

That's mainly because there are no real textual arguments against the pericope.

First of all, there is no textual evidence earlier than about 200 A.D., at least 100-150 years after John's gospel was written.

By analogy, imagine we wanted to reconstruct the original Lord of the Rings; not by looking at Tolkein's dated, handwritten manuscripts prior to publication, but by looking at re-issued 5th 6th, and 7th editions mangled by his surviving son.

Or perhaps we could look at C. S. Lewis, and how his estate is 'certifying' plain forgeries in order to make a buck.

http://www.lindentree.org/proofs.html


The earliest MS, P66, while it omits the passage, shows clear knowledge of its existance, marking the omission with a dot. Is that supposed be evidence against the passage? or evidence against the editors?

http://adultera.awardspace.com/TEXT/text01.html

The simple fact is, the 'useful' textual evidence doesn't reach back earlier than the late 2nd century, so actually its useless for establishing anything about the text before that.

The only evidence that can reach back earlier than the textual evidence is the internal evidence.