Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who here has the courage to reject the Pericope Adulterae?
#1
Im still struggling with this. After quite some thought, I finally gave in and crossed out 1 John 5:7 out of my NKJ. One huge disadvantage of getting into scholarly biblical work is that you're bound to eventually have to face the forked road of textual variation and come to a final decision, which, in a slight slight way, is falling into the trap of what already frustrates us to begin with-people tampering and cutting/pasting with God's word.

The P/A is so scripture-like, I couldnt imagine it being fake. Ive read Andrew's reason of rejecting it, but I was only interested in the textual criticism (dating, where and where it doesnt show up), not his personal reasons on why he rejects the passage as being contradictory to Torah. But he sort of has a point-Torah demands an adulteress be stoned, does it not? For Yshua to stop the Pharisees from doing so would cause him to contradict his own law. A big reason why I converted to Messianic Judaism (Torah-keeping) is because I always saw Yshua as a huge contradiction to the Tanakh and often sympathized with the Pharisees! (Before I learned that he did not support abolishing his law, but fulfilling).

But anyway, why would God allow man to do such textual damage to his Word? How do we know that OTHER passages arent fake and used/recycled from other fake gospels? Oh, truly, ignorance is bliss...
Reply
#2
To ignore the P/A is to ignore the testimony of the universal church. Ss Augustine and Jerome attested to its scripturality; it was cited in the Didaskalia and Apostolic Constitutions, and it is part of the lectionary for St Pelagia's day (8 October). See EF Hills, The King James Version Defended. Whilst I'm not here to either defend or attack that version, the evidence is still compelling to listen to the testimony of the rest of the church, as would be required by the Creed.
Reply
#3
rungold315 Wrote:But anyway, why would God allow man to do such textual damage to his Word? How do we know that OTHER passages arent fake and used/recycled from other fake gospels? Oh, truly, ignorance is bliss...

Why would a copyist error not be possible?
It might have occurred during the collection of all letters in the 1st century.

God also did not prohibit the Greek variations of the Text, so I don't think that the question 'why would God allow' is not quite the correct question <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#4
Shlama Khulkon:
I reject the Pericope Adulterae. It is from beginning to end an affront to the written Torah. It contradicts several statutes in the scripture. The trial must be before a judge and witnesses. No witnesses were named. Jesus said he did not come to condemn the world but to save it. It was the task of the Sanhedrin to pass righteous judgement.
Also, the Pericope appears as if it was inserted. The passage makes perfect cohesive sense when the Pericope Adulterae is removed.
Finally, as a New Testament Aramaic Primacist I do not see the Pericope Adulterae in the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament. It only appears in Greek Manuscripts, but not all. The 5th Century Sinaiticus Greek Manuscript does not contain the text.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#5
Um..I am very comfortable that it is alater addition and not original to John.
Reply
#6
dr p Wrote:To ignore the P/A is to ignore the testimony of the universal church.

So do you follow everything from this "universal church" (whatever that means)?


Quote: Ss Augustine and Jerome attested to its scripturality;


Do you follow everything these men said?
Reply
#7
Steven Silver, clarify something. If there were no witnesses or no trials, then wouldnt that mean Yshua WASNT contradicting Torah, because he was aware that the Pharisees had set up everything incorrectly and were not judging according to righteous judgment? If the trial and witnesses were there, THEN it would be a contradiction...right?

Doesnt it also bother you that something you consider to be fake is so similar in structure and feel to the rest of what you believe to be true scripture? Isnt that a scary thought?

And yes, Judge.....believing in something cause the church fathers say so is so so wrong on so many levels, lol.
Reply
#8
Rungold what is your theological position?
Reply
#9
Shlama,


in my opinion the P/A is best not taken as orignally part of the text. since i feel much more inclined to go with the Eastern Peshitta reading, i would not accept it in that manner.

that said, i wouldn't be surprised if this turned out in the end to have been an actual encounter in the life of Messiah. the end of the Gospel of John tells us that Messiah did many things which had not been included in his account, and so the possibility remains that this happened, but was only related at a later date, and inserted at that time. just a possibility, to be fair to the existence of it.
i also don't think it actually contradicts the Torah at all, because according to the Torah an adulteress woman AND man must be brought forth to die. the man was left out, thus the Pharisees were in the wrong here. no actual witnesses were mentioned, which further makes for problems.

so what could Messiah do? He clearly condemned the woman's behavior as worthy of death. that was essentially His answer: "stone her --if you haven't performed error in carrying out the edict of the Torah in this matter."

so to me, He upheld the Torah, condemned her supposed sin, and yet showed His desire for repentance for her actions. basically she survived on the basis of a technicality.

as for me, however, if i have to go with what i would call "inspired" writings, i would leave the P/A out for good measure.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#10
@Judge: do you feel free to disregard the opinions of elder statesmen of the church? I don't follow everything those men wrote, but Solomon was under divine inspiration when he wrote "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding (Proverbs 3.5)." If the majority of Christendom holds to a position, one would be well advised not to lightly dismiss it. Then again, if you have a scholarly , believing, and compelling reason to question the P/A, I'd be curious to examine it. @Burning One: the teaching is quite in accordance with the rest of Scripture; since the Jews were under Roman law they had no authority to execute, and this group was a mere lynch mob; the question posed to Christ was obviously a trap: if he said not to stone her, he'd be a libertine; if he said to stone her, he would have broken the law I(ie no witnesses, proper trial) and defied Roman authority. His answer showed respect to both Torah and Roman law, making his questioners appear as fools. @Jeremy: spot on.
Reply
#11
rungold315 Wrote:And yes, Judge.....believing in something cause the church fathers say so is so so wrong on so many levels, lol.

Also wrong on so many levels is that the statement assumes there is only one set of "Church Fathers."

Which Church? Which Fathers?

The Church of the East certainly rejects the PA, and so does its Patristic Tradition. I assume the previous writer, Dr. P. I believe it was, considers only the Fathers of the Western Church to be legitimate authorities on the topic of what should and shouldn't be scriptural. I suppose the canon of the Ethiopic Church doesn't really count, nor that of the Church of the East.

By "Universal Church", you have to understand that these people really mean the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. No other tradition or testimony is valid in their estimation.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#12
dr p Wrote:@Judge: do you feel free to disregard the opinions of elder statesmen of the church?

Which elder statesmen? Please be more specific.

The elder statesmen of the Church of the East reject what the elder statesmen of the Church of the West say about this particular passage found in later manuscripts of your copies of the NT.

I trust those elder statesmen, based on their testimony and the evidence. Given the textual tradition of the West, I would not be surprised that this passage was indeed added later on.

Quote:If the majority of Christendom holds to a position, one would be well advised not to lightly dismiss it.

The majority of Christendom before 1100 AD was to be found east of the Euphrates river, and it was called the Church of the East. If we follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, there would be a big problem with the P/A if you lived during that time.

Invoking the "majority" reason is rarely a valid scientific or scholarly response to an important question. All of your early scriptural versions in the West, and all of them to this day in the East, do not contain the P/A. The only valid conclusion is that it was added later on in the Western copies. It wouldn't have been the first, or last, example of artistic license employed by the western scribes.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#13
@Shamasha Paul: "poisoning the well (ie, western therefore illegitimate)" is not a good debate tactic; neither is falsely attributing a position to one's opponent. I never said there was only one set of fathers. The P/A is part of the Greek and Latin mss traditions, and was believed by Ss Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine. See <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf">http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf</a><!-- m --> for further elaboration on how widespread it really was - including Syriac sources (eg Didascalia, Apostolic Constitutions: "The text can be reconstructed from the Apostolic Constitutions, a few Greek fragments, a complete Syriac translation, an old Latin translation of about half, and the Arabic and Ethiopic Didascalia that depend on the Didascalia Apostolorum. [J. Quasten (Patrology, 1958, vol. 2, pp. 147-148])." This is also not exclusively a scientific discussion, as it also hinges on the question of church authority; ie who has the final say-so as to canonicity. This being the case, your reference to the Ethiopian church is somewhat self-defeating, as she has a number of books in her bible recognised by no other church. These decisions are not made by scientists per se, but by scholars within the church having both the authority and expertise to make them. "Going with the majority" is what you as an ordained church officer (should) do routinely, and is a good idea for unordained members. Your thoughts?
Reply
#14
Shlama Khulkon:
I regret having answered your question. Theological queries are not to be discussed on these forums. I forgot that and gave my heart felt answer only to be challenged with rhetoric. This type of questioning has nothing to do with Aramaic Primacy. It goes nowhere and it will always end in disagreement. Have your own theological position and allow others to have theirs. Some do not accept Greek as the original writing of the New Testament. I am one of them but each is entitled to his own persuasion. I am an Aramaic New Testament Primacist and this fact will never change. My position comes from years of study.

As I stated also, not all Greek New Testament manuscripts contain Pericops Adulterae. However all known Aramic Peshita Manuscripts reject it. So Greek Manuscripts are divided over the Pericope Adulterae but the Peshitta is unified.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver,
Dukhrana Biblical Research,
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#15
Shlama Dr. P.

dr p Wrote:@Shamasha Paul: "poisoning the well (ie, western therefore illegitimate)" is not a good debate tactic;

I merely intended to point out the well-established fact that many western copies of the New Testament are quite unreliable, and that there is far more variance within the Greek and Latin textual tradition, than within others like the Aramaic.

dr p Wrote:neither is falsely attributing a position to one's opponent. I never said there was only one set of fathers.

You spoke of the opinions of Elder Statesmen of the Church, which gave the impression that there is some sort of unified belief on the canonicity of the P/A. I'm sure you know that is not the case.

You also speak of the Church in the singular, as if there is (or ever was) agreement between her various branches on this and other topics. I'm sure you know that isn't the case, either.

You seem to be speaking from a Roman Catholic perspective. If that is the case, then I understand your reasoning for wording in that manner.

I'd simply like to draw your attention to the fact that there is, and has historically been, branches of the "Church" who do not consider the P/A to be authentic, who do not know about or consider Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine to be authoritative within their own patristic or exegetical tradition.

dr p Wrote:The P/A is part of the Greek and Latin mss traditions, and was believed by Ss Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine. See <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf">http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf</a><!-- m --> for further elaboration on how widespread it really was - including Syriac sources (eg Didascalia, Apostolic Constitutions: "The text can be reconstructed from the Apostolic Constitutions, a few Greek fragments, a complete Syriac translation, an old Latin translation of about half, and the Arabic and Ethiopic Didascalia that depend on the Didascalia Apostolorum. [J. Quasten (Patrology, 1958, vol. 2, pp. 147-148])."

Yes, it is part of the (later) Greek and Latin mss traditions. And all of the Syriac and Arabic sources you mention had their origin in the Western empire, and are not part of the body of literary work of the Church of the East. There is a "Syriac" branch of the Western tradition, and that it later conformed to things within the Empire's realm is not at all surprising.

The "Syriac" branch in the other Empire, had no copy of the P/A nor does it accept the later copies of the western tradition which do.

I'm not speaking of something strange here. I can open any number of modern versions, including Catholic ones, at my disposal and almost all mention the reading is spurious. This is coming from the western tradition, not from me personally.

dr p Wrote:This is also not exclusively a scientific discussion, as it also hinges on the question of church authority; ie who has the final say-so as to canonicity.

Precisely. Some traditions accept the P/A because their Branches declared it so. Others didn't.

dr p Wrote:This being the case, your reference to the Ethiopian church is somewhat self-defeating, as she has a number of books in her bible recognised by no other church.

It's actually the exact message I intended to send. Am I supposed to consider the Epistle to Clement canonical because the Ethiopian Church has the authority to declare it so?

What is the difference to someone in the tradition of the Church of the East, between the Pericope Adultera and the Epistle to Clement?

A majority doesn't count, if by majority you mean the number of Christians today who have the P/A in their copy of the New Testament. A majority of Church Fathers (if they are to be incorrectly lumped together from all traditions) would all disagree.

I fail to see how any of this makes the P/A more credible as to its possible canonicity. I look to the evidence in the manuscripts as my final judge, and to context within the material itself.

Nothing within the P/A is offensive to the Christian faith, actually it is consistent with it. I agree with the original author who stated that it does, indeed, sound like something Christ might have said. My argument is not with the message or meaning of the P/A, it's with the delivery. As a Semite I abhor any alteration to scripture, and if it looks like a duck...

dr p Wrote:These decisions are not made by scientists per se, but by scholars within the church having both the authority and expertise to make them.


And there again there is no consensus, except within a given tradition....and even then, the Western Fathers were not unanimous in this, or in the very number of books they considered canonical. Those decisions came much later, and affected only their own jurisdiction, and no one else.

dr p Wrote:"Going with the majority" is what you as an ordained church officer (should) do routinely, and is a good idea for unordained members. Your thoughts?

Going with the majority is not actually a good observation to be made with regards to the Church of the East in general, nor with myself in particular. Not sure if you've noticed, but I'm kinda pushing the envelope here. =)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)