Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who here has the courage to reject the Pericope Adulterae?
Pericope de Adultera isn't found in earliest manuscripts of Greek (Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus). Pericope de Adultera is also not found in Peshitta. And Pericope de Adultera wasn't originally part of Peshitto manuscript. It was added to Peshitto around 9th century. Check this link as an example - <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=",_Add._14470"> ... Add._14470</a><!-- m -->
And the Palestinian Syriac has it.

Whether or not we reject, it is a masterpiece which really goes in depth whether or not Yeshu was the Messiah.

According to jewish expectations, the real messiah would restore the Torah law and thus, overrule the Romans.

In fact, Yeshu easily COULD have said: YOU are wrong, why did you only bring the woman? You also must bring the man and kill both!
Deuteronomium 22:22.

In that case, he could be accused of rebellion against ceasar.

In case he would say: "I release her!" they would accuse him of violating the Torah, thus not being the Messiah.

So he did both: He accused her but let them fullfill the execution, just only if they were free of sin.

Secondly G.D. Bauscher wrote John 7:53 to 8:12 in ARamaic script, the Jewish script (DSS).

If you compare 7:53 with 8:12 it is easy to be seen that a part of both verses have a similar look. An Aramaic scribe easily could have SKIPPED (if he lost the bookmarker) it during the copying process however, the Greek _already_ was translated and copied by some one else.
@Shamasha Paul: there are some from the ACOE forum who would find your post amusing, as I am the only historic confessional Protestant on it; I guess, from and ACOE prospective, that the similarity with the RCC would be more obvious than to those on my side of the aisle. Nonetheless, thanks for your reply. As a CP I certainly appreciate that there is diversity within the church universal - even our confession speaks of "true churches" - and don't expect complete uniformity of faith and practice (at least on adiaphora). My main reason for my initial post was what I see as confusing linguistic matters with hermeneutics and ecclesiology. I can't imagine that any "courage to reject the Pericope Adulturae" is required on a website promoting Peshitta primacy; in fact, the courage would be to stand up for it (not my purpose as an invited guest). I also can't imagine that anyone on this site has the authority to accept or reject anything vis-a-vis doctrine and practice; there may be scholarly opinions, but no church recognises the office of independent scholar or autodidact (nor should one). We can only be Bereans for ourselves, and we're never off the hook.
Regarding canonicity, the decisions in the West might have been binding within jurisdictions, but they certainly affected others as barriers to fellowship - just like one person's behaviour is his own, but the consequences aren't necessarily. No human government can repeal the law of noncontradiction, which covers canonicity; I suspect that this argument won't be answered to everyone's satisfaction this side of heaven.
As for being a Semite, that we share, albeit different branches on the tree. I too abhor addition to Scripture, but find subtracting from it equally odious. I would love for what you say to be true, however my jury is still out. Pushing envelopes can be a boon to the church, particularly when that envelope is nothing more than a synonym for Pharisaical selfrighteousness obscuring the Gospel like pigeon excrement on public artwork (eg white middle class cultural norms taken for normative Christian behaviour). When the envelope is confessional integrity, it's another matter entirely. A third option might be pushing things to their logical conclusions and seeing where they lead; I trust that you confine your pushing to options one and three.
One last thing, assuming I haven't put you into a MEGO coma: "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" is a statement you know to be not completely true. You, like the rest of humanity, have certain presuppositions constituting the worldview through which you filter all of reality: Semite, ACOE deacon, etc & soforth. There is no neutrality, rather differing degrees of bias. This is not to say that people can't shift paradigms; I'm just curious if your position is a change, or just a new-and-improved version of what you've always agreed with. Prithee inform me.
I thought Palestinian Syriac is more western-influenced. Doesn't Palestinian Syriac has Western Five? Peshitta doesn't have Western Five. And Peshitto didn't originally have Western Five.
Shlama Dr. P.

Sorry I'm not able to answer all your points as I am at work about to head off into a meeting.

Quote:There is no neutrality, rather differing degrees of bias.

I believe your statement pretty much sums up the entire thread. And it demonstrates what we both readily admit and know to be true.

Personally we all have opinions. And some people are more rigid in their belief system than others. I make no claims of being free of bias.

I have been known to openly disagree with and, when warranted confront, our own hierarchy. My viewpoints are my own, I am able to defend them, and when they disagree with established norms there have been conflicts even within my own church.

I'll give you an example. When I started this work over a decade ago, there was a lot of resistance to it within the church itself.

A certain bishop, who will remain nameless, was particularly irate about it. When I asked him for help, he refused. He was not an Aramaic Primacist. You read that correctly, this CoE bishop was a Greek Primacist. He was educated in Rome, incidentally. Nevertheless, I later heard from other clergy that he would mock this work as a "one man show."

To make a long story short, this nameless individual has since been stripped of his ecclesiastic rank for, ironically, being essentially a "one man show."

His opinions affected his view of reality, as do mine. Having bias is human. Allowing cognitive dissonance to affect our God-given reasoning capabilities is not something we should allow to happen.

I think we agree to a point here. That we are all in some part affected by bias and that we should strive to be more open to ideas when the evidence disagrees with our presuppositions.

In this particular case the lack of the p/a within my own tradition was the basis for my bias. I have since researched it exhaustively. It has reinforced my belief in the original bias. I have yet to see evidence strong enough to dismiss that position. Augustine and Jerome, while great men, aren't reason enough for me to discount the evidence in the manuscripts themselves.

Hope to see you here more often. I have to run. Be well brother.
Wonderful Post, Paul.
@Shamasha Paul: thanks again for your thoughtful post. I too have had to go head-to-head with ministers and elders over lack of confessional integrity; a double standard would be welcome, as then there would only be two. :-( I certainly will be following this site, as the question intrigues me. God bless.
dr p Wrote:@Judge: do you feel free to disregard the opinions of elder statesmen of the church?

Yes I feel free to. Sometimes they were wrong. Sometimes they held views but expressed that they weren't sue that that must be correct. And sometimes they were probably right.
So the only sensible tbhing todo is to feel free to disregard things.

Quote: I don't follow everything those men wrote,

Does that mean you feel free to disregard some things?

Quote: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)."

A good idea. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> Im not sure I would understand that in prescisely the same way you might.

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

Im not sure how we decide how we know when the majority holds something, much less if it's agood idea to follow them.

Perosnally I feel very comfortable dismissing a lot of christian "orthodox" doctrine. I have spent a lot of time arriving at that position, so probably didnt do it too lightly. But thats just me and probably off topic, but Im happy to duscuss in another place.
Im not sure if this forum is the place though.

Quote: Then again, if you have a scholarly , believing, and compelling reason to question the P/A, I'd be curious to examine it.

I dont really, though I suspect that there would be scholars that think so. I tend to think at present,that the peshitta represents the purest form of the NT, but it doesn't seem important to me if that is not the case.
@Judge: hermeneutics is right up there with linguistics in interpreting Scripture - or any piece of writing, really - so the question of "feeling free" will colour any interpretation of any passage anywhere. One would think, though, that the meaning of the author's words in related passages would be a major consideration of any final judgement. In the case of Scripture, that would include the "rule of faith" and the consensus of faithful scholarship, particularly as summarised in confessional symbols. Without some sort of ecclesiastical oversight, one is left with the sort of chaos and confusion of "it means what it means to me today;" if it can mean anything, it means nothing. This does not imply slavish subservience to human authority, but rather the recognition of one's own limitations and degrees of authority. Private judgement is not licence to believe and do what one wants without consequences. Do I feel free to disagree with Ss Augustine and Jerome in certain secondary matters? Sure, as my own branch of the church has; her reasons are spelled out and easily followed. Do I feel free to disagree with them - or her - in essential matters? No, as I would then have forfeited credibly calling myself a Christian. I'm curious as to what standard(s) you use to decide what you filter these considerations in approaching a text.
Me. I reject Pericope Adulterae.
Everyone commits sin. It's already a fact. And God gave the rights to execute on Mount Sinai to all sinners.
Execution is a good way to scare the people when the a nation is under an unstable transition period.
Was it a good reason of not stoning "her"(nevermind, she didn't exist) because everyone is sinful?!

In fact, according to Rabbinic source, a court which stones over 1 person in 70 years is a court of terror.
She must be a great sinner if people had to stone her.
And why was Yeshua not stoning her to stop the spread of sin in Israel? He is pure. And he is the Word of God!(i.e. He
preached stoning to Israel on Mount Sinai!)

And anyone here reject the reading of Mark 16:9-20?
I think it's a bit contradictory to the ascension account of Luke.... Shlikhim went out and preached the scripture? Could someone tell me. I don't speak Aramaic and I don't hope it means Yeshua ascended to heavens from indoor?
If there's an older version of Aramaic Bible being dug out. It would further confirm the scripture.
dr p Wrote:I'm curious as to what standard(s) you use to decide what you filter these considerations in approaching a text.

Well, I dont know that I use any standard.
I dont call myself a christian. If I did I'd be a heretic maybe. Some years ago I came to accept universalism, and full preterism, when I looked to the NT, so I would I guess use those filters. So on that basis I tend to see most of christianity as way off the mark (in theology anyway). Not to say that some christians haven't live very connected spiritual lives.
I dont accept that any of the organisations calling themselves churches have anything that sets them apart from, even me, if I went and started a church. This is not meant to be critical of them or their work, but to me they are just organisations that heard the news in the gospels and other NT books and began to teach what they saw (or even thought they saw) in there.
I dont see any of them as having any special mandate from God to be a "church"
What the heck, I usually stirred the pot in my past posts here, so why not now?

The matter of whether a book or passage is scripture is a spiritual one at its root.
John 14:26, 16:13 & 1 Cor. 2:11-16 make clear that The Spirit of God reveals what is true and Divine to those in whom He dwells.
It is easily discerned by one in whom Rukha d'Qoodsha dwells, whether the Pericope Adultera is scripture, or whether Western 5 books are scripture, or Mark 16:12-20 is scripture, as The Spirit is Truth, and leads us who are spiritual into the knowledge of the truth. This is not primarily an intellectual function of the human mind, but is spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14,15).

If The Spirit cannot show us whether we are reading His words or the words of man, please excuse me if I seem irreverent, but what good is He? I don't think the problem is with The Spirit, however. I think the problem is with us. Generally, the church is not Spirit led (spiritual) but is carnal and ego centric.
"We have the mind of The Messiah", wrote Paul; yet we rely on our puny pee brains of flesh to figure out Divine Truth.

"He that sits in heaven will laugh." Psalms 2
Sometimes He weeps. (Jeremiah 9)

Dave Bauscher
The Church is spirit led, as the Church is the body of Christ and it is where he manifests Himself through the sacraments.

I guess you believe that you have the power to decipher scripture according to what the Holy Spirit tells you huh? Like the 33000 denominations that exist in the Protestant community and state the same thing yet have profoundly different views on everything!

Alan G77 Wrote:The Church is spirit led, as the Church is the body of Christ and it is where he manifests Himself through the sacraments.

I guess you believe that you have the power to decipher scripture according to what the Holy Spirit tells you huh? Like the 33000 denominations that exist in the Protestant community and state the same thing yet have profoundly different views on everything!

You're just proving his point in his saying the church is generally not Spirit led.
Sorry Aaron, I read his statement as a reference to Apostolic churches.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)