No Robots

I'll believe that when I see mythicists acknowledge their errors in scholarship. They can start by acknowledging the truth about the history of the pericope of the adulteress, ie. that it is not a late interpolation, but was excised from manuscripts because of clerical moralizing.

spin

You are free to have your opinions. Why do you believe that this opinion relates to the history of the text?


spin

No Robots

The fact is that Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome all attest to this. Your mealy-mouthed assumption that this is merely my "opinion" reveals a true lack of scholarly behavior.

spin

You certainly have a way to alienate yourself.

You cite people writing centuries after the text was written. Totally useless of course, but you don't seem to mind. I guess you just want to foist your unsupported opinions over others and insult them when they don't show enough interest. :wave:

No Robots

We have three scholars from c. 400 who attest to the legitimacy of the pericope and who give reason for its absence from some manuscripts. Your refusal to acknowledge the importance of these facts reveals an absence of scholarly intent.

No Robots

That would effectively rule out all scholarly commentary.

Besides, my point was that the pericope was indeed part of the Gospel centuries before Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; a point which you seem to have conceded.

spin

Commentary is different from evidence. Commentary sometimes uses evidence. Old commentaries are not evidence.

You just moved your goal posts. If Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome knew of the pericope, then it existed in their time. You weren't arguing about their time; you were claiming something about the original gospel content. You haven't attempted to support your claim so it is apparently baseless.


spin

No Robots

I am saying that this pericope has a documented history as old as many other parts of the NT whose authenticity is unchallenged. I am not saying that the pericope is a "true story". I am not even saying that it is part of "the original gospel content". I am just saying that there is no justification whatsoever for labelling it an "interpolation".

spin

It's not in the Greek manuscript tradition. It's missing in the earliest Syriac tradition. It only manifests itself through the Latin fathers. Looks like a fish, smells like one.

I have no particular interest in the passage. You merely touted it as some reason for those supporting the mythicist position to admit the error of their ways. There isn't even a tenuous connection between your reason for mentioning the passage and any issues in this thread, apparently other thanthe fact that you don't like the passage being called an interpolation, despite it having the earmarks of one.


spin

No Robots

Ambrose and Augustine account for its absence in many manuscripts. Jerome judges it legitimate. These are excellent reasons for not pronouncing it an interpolation. No scholar so judges it. Your intransigeance on this point reveals an unwillingness to engage in serious scholarly discussion.


I am saying that we have here an issue that doesn't even touch on the mythicist position, but over which mythicists have isolated themselves from the scholarly community. This demonstrates that mythicists are not prepared to engage in genuine scholarship.