02-23-2011, 09:54 PM
Shlama Dr. P.
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.
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.
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.
Precisely. Some traditions accept the P/A because their Branches declared it so. Others didn't.
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...
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.
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. =)
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. =)