There is an article of interest by Josep Rius-Camps in the latest issue of NTS 53 (2007): 379-405: "The Pericope of the Adulteress Reconsidered: The Nomadic Misfortunes of a Bold Pericope."
Abstract
"This article considers afresh the origin of the pericope of the adulteress, which is absent from some important manuscripts. Comparison of the witnesses to the text reveals that it has been preserved in two distinct forms, one (attested by Codex Bezae and the minuscules 2722 and 1071) that is Markan in style, and the other (attested by f13) that reproduces the style of Luke. The conclusion drawn is that the account was first composed by Mark (and placed after Mark 12.12) and subsequently adopted by Luke (after Luke 20.19). Because of the apparent moral leniency displayed by Jesus, the story would have been removed at an early date from both Gospels, and then later reinserted by some manuscripts but at different places."
A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
Sounds very much like the paper reported here.
ReplyDeleteyes, that is indicated in a note.
ReplyDeleteThis really is a most amazing article. It would take a long time to outline and critique all the elements. It would be a good exercise to set for a post-grad class though.
ReplyDeleteA large part of it is a textual commentary on the passage, with some interesting things to say. The overall theory (see also PJW's remarks linked in comment 1) has surprisingly little basis in the evidence for its key elements:
a) the Markan style of the PA
b) its original presence in Mark 12.12
c) its redaction and inclusion into Luke 20.19
d) its (completely successful) excision from both locations by 'Church leaders' who considered the PA too lax/tolerant.
An interesting feature is the attention given to Maurice's article and to Wieland Willker's on-line textual commentary.
How do these 3 text-types relate to the 4 identified by Wilker, the 7 by van Soden, and the 10 by Robinson?
ReplyDeleteGiven Rius-Camps' thesis, one should wonder why a more modest claim favoring Johannine originality of the PA at the traditional location is considered far-fetched by most textual critics. :-)
ReplyDeleteAs for differing forms of text within the PA, the seven mu-forms of von Soden remain predominant, with Bezae (and two other minuscules apparently dependent upon Bezae) reflecting a wholly separate line of transmission. There perhaps are as many as two dozen differing lines of transmission that appear to exist (assuming that various "mixed" combinations of readings within von Soden's mu-groups are considered as separate lines).
MAR said:
ReplyDelete"Given Rius-Camps' thesis, one should wonder why a more modest claim favoring Johannine originality of the PA at the traditional location is considered far-fetched by most textual critics. :-)"
Yes, that was something I thought too! His implausible thesis made other theses seem more plausible.
MAR: "Given Rius-Camps' thesis"
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of an anecdote, when I last heard Rius-Camps, or actually Jenny Reid-Heimerdinger who read their joint paper on some aspect of the text of Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis. They were all the time referring to the "author" of the Gospel, i.e., D reflects the original Luke. In the final session Hugh Houghton did a brilliant job in summing up all the conference papers but in regard to Rius-Camps/Heimerdinger he accidently slipped when he referred to the "editor" of the text of Codex Bezae (which reflected the view of everyone in the room except the two authors, who of course corrected him).