sharon45

Need a more agreed upon version, then take that one apart.

Haran

This did not seem correct to me, but I had to find the time to check my facts, and now I have. I believe you have probably misunderstood Ehrman. The story of the woman caught in adultery is found in ancient manuscripts (Codex Bezae, or D, among others). What Ehrman may have said about this passage, referred to as the Pericope Adulterae is that it is not found in what are considered by most textual critics to be the "best" ancient manuscripts. In at least a couple of manuscripts, the passage is located in different places in John, and in another manuscript it is in Luke.

What I believe you were more than likely referring to in your initial post is the text of 1 John 5:7, called the Comma Johanneum, or the following passage:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

There is a famous story about how this verse was inserted by Erasmus when he was working on his version of the Greek New Testament in the 16th century. I'll let you google that one. It's an interesting story and I'll probably tell it wrong anyway.

The text of 1 John 5:7 was absent from most ancient manuscripts. However, I believe it was in the Vulgate. It appears that this text may have been an ancient, theological marginal note that was accidentally incorporated into the body of the epistle at some point.

Here are some links that might be of interest:
Pericope Adulterae
Comma Johanneum

Though he may not have said it with the best of tones, Praxeus was correct.

Vorkosigan

Hi Haran -- I think he's confused what Metzger said in his Text Commentary, where he noted that no Greek father commented on the passage until the 12th century. From Kirby's post on CS Lewis....

Bruce M. Metzger writes, "The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. . . . No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it." (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 219-220)

Haran

Do you think Bart Ehrman confused this in his lecture series, though, or SI confused what Ehrman said?

I would be surprised if Ehrman made that kind of mistake in a lecture that is being sold by the Teaching company, but I suppose it's possible.

So...you're getting into Textual Criticism now? Cool! It's fun and addicting!

rlogan

I had thought it well known that the actual quote from Junior's lips was:

"Let he who has not done her cast the first stone"

Vorkosigan

I'll take door number two in that matrix.

That's my summer program. I only have basic texts. I stole that from Peter's analysis of CS Lewis from a couple of years ago, as I thought I had indicated.

Steven Avery

> Praxeus -How about Jerome quoting the verse, and placing it in the Vulgate
> (400 A.D.).. ?

Hi Darstec, thanks for the hint, but it is irrelevant.

First, the Pericope is in the earliest extant copies of the Vulgate (which I understand go back to a few copies in the 6th through 8th centuries).

And, quite significantly Jerome specifically stated "in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord." Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, vol. 23, col. 579 (maybe 553).

Hope that helps.

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

Steven Avery

Dunno him personally :-) Well, since this topic is ..
" Do we have the original NT?"
And since Bart Ehrman flat out said --
"the famous story in John of the woman who was caught in the act of adultery...was not in the original"
I didn't see any basis for Bart saying that unless someone has the original to check. Since I dunno anybody else who does, I just naturally concluded that Professor Ehrman had checked his own copy.

However, upon further examination we find that he really was involved in some confusions about this textual issue, giving forth misleading information, and BE was just stating his own questionable textual conclusion as a fact.

All straightened out.

Hopefully we can at least make some headway :-)

His article on the Da Vinci Code was one of three or four really good articles on same.

My understanding is he is somewhere in the agnostic or atheistic camp, however in some ways that makes him more honest about his views of the text than the liberal Christian textcrits. His credentials are top notch, however in textcrit (even more than most other disciplines) there are fundamental paradigmic issues than can make the brightest, sharpest people abysmally wrong.

What Ehrman specifically said about the Pericope was a mishegas of misleading (selective to a point of intellectual dishonesty) information. Some of it has already been exposed on this thread, and maybe more will come. However, he is only following in the footsteps of other great textcrits like Bruce Metzgar in framing arguments with a combination of misinformation, misleading selective, qualified assertions, and poor logic. In a sense, it was part of his scholarship training.

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

PS.
Analogy (which a few may accept as a fair analysis of a different industry), the folks who work for the drug companies, which companies engineer the studies and muscle the journals and peddle to the doctors, who really believe these hundreds or thousands of newly patented drugs are helping the health of our nation ... they may be degreed marketeers or scientists, and they may really believe they are doing a good, helpful job, and deserve their top pay for their honest and sincere labors for the health of our nation.

Or perhaps the paradigms of the science and the structure of the system are flawed to the max, and the whole system stinks and is corrupt, and folks on the modern drug treadmill are going on a costly (subsidized) insane spiral of ill health.

Steven Avery

Hi Gregor, my CV will show me as a computer programmer (minicomputer/small business) by trade, with APICS/InventoryControl certification, and a USCF Life Chess Master, inactive). 2 years in UC Berkeley back in some unusual days. In spiritual circles a layman rather fascinated with scripture issues, and have been challenged on the Net to uproot stagnant views. And I try to apply a dollup of common sense, along with methodical research, careful analysis, and with a willingness to try to understand and express the paradigmic underpinnings of theories. I have one 30 page paper up on the Net exposing a Bible version plagiarism (HRV-Hebraic Roots Version, article by Steven Avery) and enjoy the discussions in a moderately large long-term email forum that I host.

EvC ? Usually I don't find either the tude, or the actual discussions, in the creationary/evolutionary dialogs very edifying, and this section right now is perhaps even more than I can really feel shalom about timewise. However I will keep the EvC invite in mind.

How else may I be of assistance ?

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

Vorkosigan

Beam...mote....eye.

That's quite an accusation for an apologist. Your evidence?

Such as....?