Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Avery · 06-01-2005, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seekeraftertruth

Might want to take a look at this:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

And any newbies on the thread might want to go back to this
one one the Pericope web resources.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...7&postcount=54

And a list of early writers who did quote the Pericope Adultera
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...7&postcount=23

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

Steven Carr · 06-01-2005, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freigeister

It obviously goes back to Papias, 250 years earlier than Augustine, and as such is as old as anything else we have of the Gospels, except for manuscript fragments.

It obviously doesn't. The story does not involve a woman accused of many sins, as in Papias version.

The only thing Papias says which indicates that it is the same story is a woman. Women were fairly common 2,000 years ago.

Steven Carr · 06-01-2005, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

And a list of early writers who did quote the Pericope Adultera
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...7&postcount=23

Where else but in Christian apologetics does 300 years after the event count as 'early'?

The only early one appears to be 200 years after the event, well after the time that we have dozens of fake Gospels about Jesus, and fake Acts of vatious Apostles.

And the Didascalia is a forgery.

Such is the state of Christian apologetics that forgeries written 200 years after the event are taken as adequate evidence that stories happened, even when there is no other evidence from those intervening years.

Can you imagine what people would say if the Mormon church today wrote an admitted forgery and then claimed it was evidence of a new story about Joseph Smith - one that had never been seen before?

freigeister · 06-01-2005, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

It obviously doesn't. The story does not involve a woman accused of many sins, as in Papias version.

The only thing Papias says which indicates that it is the same story is a woman. Women were fairly common 2,000 years ago.

Take a look at this page. Here is a quotation :

Quote:

In favour of the identity may be mentioned that in D (Cod. Bezæ) the sin of the woman is spoken of in a general manner, a woman seized for sin, instead of a woman caught in adultery. And if it had been circulated in the fourth century in a Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic) dress, the leading forms in which it is now found might have originated in different Greek translations of the narrative; or else from the writings of Papias in Greek, and from a Greek translation of the Syro-Chaldaic form of the narration. From Ruffinus's version of the passage in Eusebius, it seems clear that in the age immediately subsequent to that historian, it was thought that the narration to which he referred, was the same as that which had by this time found its way into some copies. Ruffinus renders, "Simul et historiam quandam subjungit de muliere adultera, quæ accusata est a Judæis apud Dominum." Attention to this, and also to the point of resemblance between the Cod. Bezæ and the words of Eusebius, was directed by Dr. Routh; who adds, "Evidenter constat, etiamsi suspecta hæc evangelii pericope eadem esse censeatur atque historia Papiana, nondum eam codici Novi Testamenti tempore Eusebii insertam fuisse" (Rel. Sac., i. 39). The judgment expressed in these last words, however contrary to the notions of those who prefer modern tradition to ancient evidence, is fully confirmed by the most searching investigations. We first hear of this narrative in any copies of the New Testament after the middle of the fourth century. The statement of Eusebius gives us a probable account of its origin, and I believe that we shall not err if we accept this as a true history, transmitted not by the inspired apostle St. John, but by the early ecclesiastical writer Papias.

Steven Carr · 06-01-2005, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freigeister

Take a look at this page. Here is a quotation :

I don't get your point.

'A woman accused of many sins' clearly refers to the woman in John 4 - the one where Jesus told her everything she ever did, yet did not condemn her.

Well, just as clearly as it refers to any other woman.....

'And if it had been circulated in the fourth century in a Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic) dress, the leading forms in which it is now found might have originated in different Greek translations of the narrative; or else from the writings of Papias in Greek, and from a Greek translation of the Syro-Chaldaic form of the narration.'

Huh? Christian scholarship? Might haves? Wild flights of fancy involving 3 languages and chains of transmission for which there is no evidence - all because a 'woman' is mentioned, so it was clearly the same story?

freigeister · 06-01-2005, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I don't get your point.

'A woman accused of many sins' clearly refers to the woman in John 4 - the one where Jesus told her everything she ever did, yet did not condemn her.

Source?

Steven Carr · 06-01-2005, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freigeister

Source?

John 4.

There there is a woman living with a man who is not her husband.

Steven Avery · 06-02-2005, 04:01 AM

Hi folks,

Let's remember that Steven has some unusual theory about the authorship of the Gospel of John - I will first ask the same question he repeatedly (snips) without comment, that might shed some light on the reasoning for his statements in this dialog.

When do you think the Gospel of John was written ?

============

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

clearly refers to the woman in John 4 -..... There there is a woman living with a man who is not her husband.

Ben Smith has the Eusebius Greek, and some comments, at

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html
"a woman who was charged for many sins before the Lord"

While the Samaritan woman could be offerred as another possible source for the story, it has the one obvious large difficulty that the Eusebius/Papias text does not say that her sins were referenced or recited by the Lord, but that she was accused or charged before the Lord. Two significant ways in which the Pericope is a better fit.
accused vs referenced
before vs by

The only reason I could see to dogmatically reject Papias as referring to the Pericope Adultera,would be if one came to the table considering the Pericope, or the whole Gospel of John, as a later invented story.

On the other hand if the criticism is simply that some writers make the connection stronger than warranted, that argument is well worthy of consideration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

And the Didascalia is a forgery.

If you can show hard, clear evidence of this, then I will be happy to remove it from any citations in the future. On the other hand, if you don't have any substantive evidence, then you are simply showing that your posts here are unreliable.

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

Steven Carr · 06-02-2005, 04:36 AM

Praxeus wants to me to prove that a document written in the 3rd century AD is not actually the teaching of the Apostles? When did they live?

I was just going by the Catholic Encylopedia on the work.

Perhaps Praxeus can find an early church father, ie (not one as late as the people who wrote the Gnostic Gospels), who clearly refers to the Pericope.

Or even an early manuscript which has it in.....

Vorkosigan · 06-02-2005, 06:37 AM

Quote:

If you can show hard, clear evidence of this, then I will be happy to remove it from any citations in the future. On the other hand, if you don't have any substantive evidence, then you are simply showing that your posts here are unreliable.

<frowns> Are you saying that this text represents teachings handed down by the Apostles?

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

06-02-2005, 04:36 AM	#119
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Praxeus wants to me to prove that a document written in the 3rd century AD is not actually the teaching of the Apostles? When did they live? I was just going by the Catholic Encylopedia on the work. Perhaps Praxeus can find an early church father, ie (not one as late as the people who wrote the Gnostic Gospels), who clearly refers to the Pericope. Or even an early manuscript which has it in.....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.