Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 08-05-2003, 05:50 PM

C. S. Lewis writes in "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ," God in the Dock, p. 82:

Quote:

Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced the whatever the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don't work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened. The author put it in simply because he had seen it.

The story of the woman caught in adultery, also known as the Pericope Adultera (John 7:53-8:11), is placed in an appendix to John in the UBS edition, which notes that it is omitted by the best and earliest manuscripts: p66, p75, א, A, B, C, L, N, T, W, X, Y, Δ, Θ, Ψ, 053, 0141, 22, 33, 157, 209, 565, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 2193, as well as various versions, early church fathers, and the Diatessaron. It appears to have been added to the text of John in the third or fourth century. It is commonly called a "floating pericope," on account of its appearance in some witnesses variously after John 21:24, after Luke 21:38, or after John 7:36. It is clearly a late and fanciful addition to the gospel texts. That he is oblivious to this fact and attempts to make the tale into straight historical reporting by the apostle John shows that C. S. Lewis is a crackpot.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan · 08-05-2003, 06:51 PM

Ohhhh! I can't wait to use this one. Thanks ever so much. How early was it known that this passage was a floating pericope?

Vorkosigan

conkermaniac · 08-05-2003, 07:27 PM

Not only is C. S. Lewis a crackpot, but he is also an awful writer. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was one of the worst books I've ever read in my life.

B. H. Manners · 08-05-2003, 07:28 PM

Well, she WAS an adulterous woman, and sure made sure she got around.

C.S. Lewis was a fool.

Peter Kirby · 08-05-2003, 07:38 PM

Eusebius of Caesarea knew of this pericope as belonging not to John but to the apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews. Eusebius writes, "And he [Papias] relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15)

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)

Metzger also writes, "Signficantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials." (Textual Commentary, p. 221)

This has been known for centuries. It is Remedial Text Criticism 21. I guess Lewis wasn't there on the day they talked about the pericope adultera.

best,
Peter Kirby

winstonjen · 08-05-2003, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by conkermaniac
Not only is C. S. Lewis a crackpot, but he is also an awful writer. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was one of the worst books I've ever read in my life.

You can taste the ulterior motive of theism a mile away.

Bernard Muller · 08-05-2003, 08:10 PM

Moderator, moderate yourself!
OK, the guy made a clear-cut mistake. We all do. Do you want me to look into your writings and, if I find one obvious mistake (which I did already) call you a CRACKPOT, and then dismiss all the rest of your work? Shall we slander in such instance?
Actually, I found some interesting points in the quote with some merit, such as the clumsiness.
Best Regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby · 08-05-2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
Moderator, moderate yourself!
OK, the guy made a clear-cut mistake. We all do. Do you want me to look into your writings and, if I find one obvious mistake (which I did already) call you a CRACKPOT, and then dismiss all the rest of your work? Shall we slander in such instance?
Actually, I found some interesting points in the quote with some merit, such as the clumsiness.

The point of the OP is that Lewis is in no position to tell us what's fictional and what's not when he made this gaffe such a central part of his argument for historicity. It's not slander if it's true.

best,
Peter Kirby

winstonjen · 08-05-2003, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
The point of the OP is that Lewis is in no position to tell us what's fictional and what's not when he made this gaffe such a central part of his argument for historicity. It's not slander if it's true.

Not only that, but slander is spoken. In print, insults are legally called 'libel'.

Bernard Muller · 08-05-2003, 09:09 PM

quote:

"The point of the OP is that Lewis is in no position to tell us what's fictional and what's not when he made this gaffe such a central part of his argument for historicity. It's not slander if it's true."

Is Lewis a dictator? Can his work not judged according to the good points and the bad points, some acceptance there and rejection here?
I do not think that's all that Lewis wrote about historicity.
All I want to say, this antagonistic attitude, one mistake and you are out, and then insulted, should not come from a moderator (or call yourself something else).

Best regards, Bernard

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

08-05-2003, 06:51 PM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Ohhhh! I can't wait to use this one. Thanks ever so much. How early was it known that this passage was a floating pericope? Vorkosigan

08-05-2003, 07:27 PM	#3
conkermaniac Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: American in China Posts: 620	Not only is C. S. Lewis a crackpot, but he is also an awful writer. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was one of the worst books I've ever read in my life.

08-05-2003, 07:28 PM	#4
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	Well, she WAS an adulterous woman, and sure made sure she got around. C.S. Lewis was a fool.

08-05-2003, 07:38 PM	#5
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Eusebius of Caesarea knew of this pericope as belonging not to John but to the apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews. Eusebius writes, "And he [Papias] relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15) 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) Metzger also writes, "Signficantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials." (Textual Commentary, p. 221) This has been known for centuries. It is Remedial Text Criticism 21. I guess Lewis wasn't there on the day they talked about the pericope adultera. best, Peter Kirby

08-05-2003, 08:10 PM	#7
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Moderator, moderate yourself! OK, the guy made a clear-cut mistake. We all do. Do you want me to look into your writings and, if I find one obvious mistake (which I did already) call you a CRACKPOT, and then dismiss all the rest of your work? Shall we slander in such instance? Actually, I found some interesting points in the quote with some merit, such as the clumsiness. Best Regards, Bernard

08-05-2003, 09:09 PM	#10
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	quote: "The point of the OP is that Lewis is in no position to tell us what's fictional and what's not when he made this gaffe such a central part of his argument for historicity. It's not slander if it's true." Is Lewis a dictator? Can his work not judged according to the good points and the bad points, some acceptance there and rejection here? I do not think that's all that Lewis wrote about historicity. All I want to say, this antagonistic attitude, one mistake and you are out, and then insulted, should not come from a moderator (or call yourself something else). Best regards, Bernard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.