jgibson000

OK, Yuri. Here's the Didymus the Blind text which is allegedly a quotation of the story now found in Jn 7:53-8:11.. Perhaps you can point out to us how this shows that Didymus knew (and is quoting) the story as it now appears in Jn. 7:53-8:11.

Jeffrey Gibson

********
kai\ ou)k a)kai/-rwj xrhso/meqa. fe/romen ou)=n … e)/n tisin eu)aggeli/oij: gunh/, fhsi/n, katekri/qh u(po\ tw=n )Ioud[ai/]wn e)pi\ a(marti/# kai\ … a)peste/lleto liqobolhqh=nai ei)j to\n to/pon, o(/pou ei)w/qei gi/n[esq]ai. o( swth/r, fhsi/n, e(w…rakw\j au)th\n kai\ qewrh/saj o(/ti e(/toimoi/ ei)sin pro\j to\ liq?[obol]h=?sai au)th/n, toi=j me/l…lousin au)th\n kata-
balei=n li/qoij ei)=pen: "o(\j ou)x h(/marten, ai)[re/]tw li/qon kai\ bale/tw {e}au)-to/n." … ei)/ tij su/noiden e(aut%= to\ mh\ h(marthke/nai, labw\n li/qon paisa/tw au)-th/n. kai\ ou)dei\j e)to/l…mhsen: e)pisth/santej e(autoi=j kai\ gno/ntej, o(/ti kai\ au)toi\ u(pe[u/qu]noi/ ei)si/n tisin, ou)k … e)to/lmhsan <kataptai=sai> e)kei/nhn.
(/ti pleista/kij ponhreu/setai.
"pleista/kij ponh…reu/setai" tou= kakw=sai. a)lla\ mh\ sko/pei su\ tou=-
to. me/xri boulh=j au)t i(/statai to\ pra=gma. … ei) de/ p?ot?[e] t? o)/?n?t?i? t?o?i?o?u=?t?o/? ti fanei/h w(j a)lhqw=j tolmh/santoj au)tou=, to/te kwlute/on … au)to/n, to/te e)pistate/on, oi(=j le/gei boulh/masin a?[u)]t?o?u=?. … 0kai\ kaqo/douj polla\j kakw/sei kardi/an sou, o(/ti w(j kai/ g[e su\ kathra/sw e(te/rouj]. …

******

Chris Weimer

Give it up, Jeffrey. Yuri obviously has no clue about either matters pertaining to the Pericope or a knowledge of Greek - why bother? He hasn't even tried to make a valid case - he never does. He merely shouts off his opinion and his vendetta against mainstream scholars worsens as they're proved right and him wrong.

jgibson000

Yes, I know. But one lives in hope that at some point he might do a turn about and actually produce the sort of scholarship that he decries the NT Guild for not displaying.

Interestingly, one of the authorities he has not pointed to in all of this is Loisy.

Jeffrey

Yuri Kuchinsky

As a moderator, you're not showing such a good example by engaging in these personal attacks.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

RIUS-CAMPS ON THE PERICOPE ADULTERA

by Yuri Kuchinsky

Josep Rius-Camps, ORIGEN LUCANO DE LA PERICOPA DE LA MUJER ADULTERA (Jn 7,53-8,11), Filologia Neotestamentaria, Vol. VI, fasciculo 12, Noviembre 1993, pp. 149-175

ABSTRACT:
_____________________

Josep Rius-Camps, "THE LUCAN ORIGIN OF THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN PERICOPE."

The author argues against the johannic origin of John 7:53-8:11 and, studying its style and vocabulary, establishes its lucan origin, determining that it belonged to the Temple Section of Luke's Gospel (19:47-21:38).

The article expounds the arguments in favour of the lucan origin of John 7:53-8:11. First of all, the author uses intra- and extra-textual criteria to exclude its original appurtenance to John's Gospel, in agreement with most commentators; after showing the antique character of the pericope, the author asks himself whether John 7:53-8:11 should be considered simply as a piece of oral tradition or rather as a pericope taken out of its original context. He reaches the conclusion that we have here a piece of lucan Sondergut which was formerly a part of Luke's Temple Section (19:47-21:38). He thinks that Luke found his inspiration for this pericope in Mc 10,1:12. Finally, through a parallelism with Exodus 31:18-34:20, he looks for the symbolic meaning of the episode.

The article ends proposing some possible reasons that could explain the elimination of the pericope from the Gospel of Luke and tries to identify the traces of its former position left in the Gospel.

________end of Abstract_________

In this article, Dr. Rius-Camps fills a very big gap in the rather abundant academic scholarship on the Pericope Adultera (PA). He explores the possibility that PA belonged originally to the Gospel of Luke, and looks at where exactly in Luke its proper place might have been. While I don't really agree with everything Rius-Camps says in his study, it's a very good effort overall.

In the beginning of this study, Rius-Camps outlines the standard textual evidence for PA, and surveys the opinion of various textual commentators. He concludes that PA didn't originally belong to John, which is, of course, the mainstream opinion in the field.

Still and all, the story is apparently quite ancient, and here Rius-Camps also cites the usual commentators, with whom he agrees. For example, according to Aland & Aland,

"En todo caso, debe admitirse que ... [PA] ya en el siglo II tuvieron entrada en los evangelios." (p. 152, citing Aland & Aland, TEXT, p. 309)

MY TRANSLATION FROM THE SPANISH:
"In any case, we must admit that ... [PA] had entered the gospels already in the 2nd century."

(To this, I would also add my own agreement. Yes, in my own view, PA did enter the gospels in the 2nd century -- although, as I see it, this is also when the gospels were written, anyhow.)

Should PA be considered simply as a piece of oral tradition, or rather as a pericope taken out of its original context? This is the next question that Rius-Camps considers.

And here, his arguments are quite interesting (pp. 153-154). He draws attention to the following transition text, that precedes PA,

(Jn 7:53 YLT) "...and each one went on to his house, but Jesus went on to the mount of the Olives."

According to Rius-Camps, wherever PA is found in the manuscripts (other than in its usual location after Jn 7:52), it is always preceded by this transition passage.

And he also draws attention to the following passages, that feature a very similar transition,

Mk 11:19
Lk 21:37

Acts 5:18 (Western/Peripheral text only)
Acts 21:6

As we can see, 3 of these parallels are Lucan.

According to Rius-Camps, the fact that PA is always accompanied by this transition demonstrates conclusively that we are dealing here with a written text, rather than with some floating oral tradition.

(To be sure, this transition is lacking in the lectionaries, which should demonstrate, according to Rius-Camps, that the lectionaries cannot be invoked as a reason why PA is placed in all those different locations where it is currently found.)

Further on (pp. 154-161), the author launches into a very detailed analysis of the language and grammar of PA. Based on this, he reaches the conclusion that the story in fact represents a piece of Lucan Sondergut, that was later taken out of its original context.

On pages 161-164, Rius-Camps also analyses how PA fits in with the literary style of Luke, and here his analysis moves more into literary criticism. So these considerations strengthen his conclusion that this story is indeed thoroughly Lucan.

For example, Luke has a well-known predilection for female characters, with whom Jesus interacts,

"Segun esto, de las seis pericopas en las que el personaje colectivo es una mujer (suegra de Simon, viuda de Nain, mujer pecadora, mujer con flujos de sangre, mujer encorvada y mujer adultera) cuatro serian peculiares de Lucas (viuda, pecadora, encorvada y adultera)." (p. 163)

MY TRANSLATION FROM THE SPANISH:
"According to this, of the six pericopes in which the collective personage is a woman (Simon's mother-in-law, widow of Nain, woman sinner, woman with the flow of blood, crippled woman, and adulteress) four would be peculiar of Luke (widow, sinner, crippled woman and adulteress).

And Rius-Camps further adds,

"Esta tendencia a echar mano de personajes femeninos representativos se confirma en el libro de los Hechos"

"This tendency to make use of representative feminine characters is confirmed in the Book of Acts"

citing here Tabita (Acts 9:36-42), Lidia (Acts 16:14-15), and the slave girl of Acts 16:16-18.

On pages 164-169, Rius-Camps provides us with his detailed literary analysis of Luke's Temple Section (19:47-21:38), that is tri-partite in its structure, according to him.

And here, on p. 165, he also considers the possibility that PA was located originally after Lk 21:38, just like Fam. 13 MSS locate it. Yet, unaccountably, he rejects this possibility, based mostly on his literary analysis of this whole section of Luke, that he has supplied for us.

Here, unfortunately, I find Rius-Camps' arguments rather unpersuasive. Literary criticism is a notoriously subjective and imprecise pursuit. For every literary critic who claims to find some unusual compositional structure in a given piece of writing, there's yet another critic who will find a completely different compositional structure there -- totally unrelated to the previous one. So this is not a solid foundation on which to build theories in textual criticism.

Anyhow, Rius-Camps argues that PA was originally located after Lk 20:19 -- for which, of course, there's no hard textual evidence whatsoever. So, basically, this is just a conjectural emendation that he offers. (Nevertheless, in support of his view, he does try to adduce, on p. 174, some apparent textual instability at this juncture in various manuscripts -- although such evidence that he supplies seems rather too slender.)

As our Abstract above says, Rius-Camps,

"...thinks that Luke found his inspiration for this pericope in Mk 10:1-12."

Indeed, like the majority of NT scholars today, Rius-Camps is a dedicated Markan prioritist. So he offers in this study his theory that PA was based on the teachings on Marriage and Divorce, as found in Mk 10:1-12.

He puts the Greek texts of these two pericopes side-by-side (p. 170) and finds some substantial parallels there. And these parallels are indeed quite interesting, I must say...

Well, myself, I'm certainly not a Markan prioritist, since I believe that Luke was written before Mark. So perhaps these arguments that Rius-Camps makes in this part of his paper can be used to show that Mark, in fact, based his Marriage and Divorce teachings on Luke's Pericope Adultera...

In his study, Rius-Camps doesn't really offer any coherent theories why PA may have been removed from Luke. He merely quotes H. Riesenfeld as follows,

"La facilidad con que Jesus perdono a la adultera era dificil de reconciliar con la severa disciplina penitencial en boga en la iglesia primitiva. Solo cuando se hubo introducido solidamente una practica penitencial mas liberal, tuvo esta historia amplia aceptacion." (p. 173)

"The ease with which Jesus pardons the adulteress was difficult to reconcile with the strict penitential discipline that was current in the primitive church. Only when a more liberal penitential practice solidly introduced itself, had this story received a wider acceptance."

(Harold Riesenfeld, PERIKOPEN DE ADULTERA I DEN FORNKYRKLIGA TRADITIONEN, Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 17, 1952, pp. 106-118; this article is apparently also available in English translation in his volume of collected essays, H. Riesenfeld, THE GOSPEL TRADITION, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970.)

So, presumably, the scenario that Rius-Camps offers is as follows,

1. PA was part of the original Luke (after Lk 20:19).
2. Then this story was removed from Luke very quickly because it wasn't in tune with "the strict penitential discipline" of the primitive church.
3. At some point, as the penitential discipline apparently became less strict, PA was brought back into use, but was for some reason inserted into John.

So, unfortunately, Rius-Camps doesn't really explain in any way why was PA inserted into John. How could the penitential discipline have anything to do with the movement of this story from Luke into John -- which was clearly a deliberate editorial intervention, and not some sort of an accident?

Thus, the real explanation why PA was removed from Luke and inserted into John still seems to remain rather elusive at this point. I will try to look into this matter further on, and will try to offer a more satisfying explanation.

So, all-in-all, this is quite a valuable article, in my view. Here, Rius-Camps has finally moved on to a whole new higher level of PA scholarship -- a head above all of his colleagues.

Having surveyed an extremely plentiful literature devoted to this pericope, I think it is clear that the scholars have come to a pretty solid consensus on two important matters,

-- PA was a later addition to John
-- the style of PA is remarkably Lucan

So isn't it about time that someone has finally faced this important question head on, Did PA originally belong to Luke, or not? And, if so, then, Where exactly in Luke did it belong?

It is like watching a distant thunderstorm in the summer sky... You see those heavy black clouds gathering slowly on the horizon -- and then the big bright lightning split the sky. So now it's counting the seconds before one expects to hear the massive earth-shattering thunder arrive to where you are. You wait, and wait... and yet there's nothing! So where's that thunder, one wonders?

Well, this is how I feel about the Pericope Adultera. After we've seen all those pregnant black storm clouds of textual and lexical analysis, and the lightning strikes of the clear critical conclusions, shouldn't we also be seeing the next logical step -- the theories on how PA may have fit in with the early history of Luke's Gospel?

Thankfully, we now have this interesting study by Rius-Camps -- apparently the first study to provide the real thunder after all those brilliant but ultimately unproductive light-effects that his colleagues have been amusing themselves with.

While his colleagues have been fundamentally and persistently negative in their approach to the problem -- only being concerned, apparently, with how to _exclude_ PA from the canonical gospels -- Rius-Camps has finally formulated a theory on how this pericope could have belonged to the canonical gospel of Luke right from the beginning.

While he may not have gotten everything right about this theory that he proposes, at least it's a start. Essentially, he's laying a whole new track in a previously unexplored landscape -- in the landscape that should have been explored and mapped out long ago.

All the best,

Yuri.

jgibson000

What do you mean "finally"? These questions were discussed as long ago as 1912 by H. McLaclachn in his St. Luke: Evangelist and Historian, and before Rius-Camps by Von Soden, Leitzmann, and Becker as well as by M. Gourges, "'Moi non plus je ne te condamne pas': Les mots et la theologie de Luc en Jean 8, 1-11 (la femme adultere)." SR 19 (1990), pp. 305-18 and K. Romaniuk, Jezus i jawnogrezesznica (J 7,53-8,11)." Collectianea theologica 59 (1989), p. 5-14, as well as by Johannine and Lukan commentators such as Schnakenburg, Lincoln, Beasley-Murray, Fitzmyer and a number of other Johannine and Lukan scholars.

Do you not do your homework?

BTW, would you care to tell us what Loisy say about the PA?

Jeffrey Gibson

S.C.Carlson

Please note that Ruis-Camps has now modified his views. According to the EvTC blog, he just gave a paper at this year's SNTS arguing that the Pericope Adultera was original to Mark, before going into Luke, then John.

Stephen

Chris Weimer

Wouldn't you think we'd have at least one manuscript with the PA in either Mark or Luke if that were true...Or do we?

S.C.Carlson

Family 13 has the PA after Luke 21:38. I'm not aware of any MS of Mark with the PA, however.

A recent article in HTR discusses fam.13's placement in Luke of PA as being due to lectionary reasons. See: Claire Clivaz, "The Angel and the Sweat Like 'Drops of Blood' (Lk 22:43-44): P69 and f13," HTR 98 (2005): 419-440.

Stephen

P.S. I do not accept Ruis-Camps's changing views on the PA.

Chris Weimer

I'll stop by the library today to make photocopies. Thanks for the reference.