tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1706023147467671922..comments2024-03-28T14:13:51.996+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Should we preach and teach the story of the woman caught in adultery?P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53360536735874817852017-12-19T09:36:42.417+00:002017-12-19T09:36:42.417+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.vinothika0895@gamil.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04215584792745304135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-72507654057306281282017-12-16T23:13:15.675+00:002017-12-16T23:13:15.675+00:00I think the extant Palestinian Aramaic evidence fo...I think the extant Palestinian Aramaic evidence for the PA derive from manuscripts copied in the late phase of the CPA. Virtually no evidence from John survives from the early phase of the CPA. I don't see what this has to do with the Pentecost lection (perhaps you did not intend to make that connection). Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-85974289183150095632017-12-15T16:29:58.327+00:002017-12-15T16:29:58.327+00:00Tommy W,
I think the reading for Pentecost was ass...Tommy W,<br />I think the reading for Pentecost was assigned in the 100's; the full lectionary-cycle developed later (and never stopped being developed). See my book, A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11 (already available as an e-book on Amazon). I hope you have thoroughly covered the Palestinian Aramaic evidence that pertains to this passage.James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-35673702139799106432017-12-15T15:00:23.252+00:002017-12-15T15:00:23.252+00:00The assumption that the PA is unoriginal to John&#...The assumption that the PA is unoriginal to John's gospel is not one that I find fully convincing, but for the sake of the question, I'll suppose it's true. In this case, recognized scripture might help answer the question of whether or not it should be taught or preached. From an evangelical standpoint, inspired scripture should, I hope, serve as an authority on the issue of how we ought to preach.<br /><br />The strongest example is Jude, which can reasonably be described as preaching from a couple of texts (the story about Moses' burial in Jude 1:9 and 1 Enoch in Jude 1:14-15) not recognized as canonical today (at least, not in evangelical circles), and perhaps not even recognized as canonical when Jude's epistle was written.<br /><br />On more than one occasion, Paul uses secular literature to teach certain points. A clear example in his preaching occurs in Acts 17:28, although there is some debate as to whether this counts as an example of effective preaching. Paul affirms a point made by another Greek poet (a "prophet of their own") in Titus 1:12. I don't think this elevates the works of these poets to scripture, but where scripture affirms their statements, can we say it incorporates those statements into scripture?<br /><br />A more timely example, though it is more remote, is the reference to Hanukkah ("the feast of the dedication") in John 10:22. Unless the themes of the discourse that follows can be shown to have a clear link to the feast, the mere reference is not sufficient to apply this example to the question of teaching or preaching. But the fact that the author recognizes the feast and assumes that his readers can do the same still seems worth noting, since the Maccabees books are also not recognized as canonical in evangelical circles.<br /><br />I realize that these examples relate far more to the question of canonicity rather than originality, so they may fall short of answering the question. But I hope they're useful in some way!Joey McCollumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352192479713307345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-20955853778002753522017-12-14T19:07:47.762+00:002017-12-14T19:07:47.762+00:00I think readings from John for Pentecost were assi...I think readings from John for Pentecost were assigned much later, in a gradual development of the lectionary. There is a lot to say about this topic, but more on that in my forthcoming book, To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story. It will cone out during 2018.Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-90208298259687532552017-12-14T18:35:26.972+00:002017-12-14T18:35:26.972+00:00In milieus close to the Catholic Church they used...In milieus close to the Catholic Church they used sometimes to define a fake made by clergymen for good aims (such some indulgences allegedly coming from very old popes who did not know the very notion of indulgence) a "pia fraus". But also calling "autographa" copies updated by scribes centuries after their original composition seems a sort of linguistic "fraus", I don't dare to say wheter "pia" or not. Paolo Trovatonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86305935711581089092017-12-14T16:49:05.739+00:002017-12-14T16:49:05.739+00:00Tommy,
Yes. Hughes Oliphant Old's volumes ar...Tommy, <br />Yes. Hughes Oliphant Old's volumes are very helpful for tracing the development of lectionary-cycles. There need not have been a full annual cycle, though, for local customs to arise in which particular passages were assigned to be read at the major annual feasts, such as Easter-time and Pentecost. <br /><br />TW: "When do you think this passage was chosen for Pentecost?"<br /><br />In the mid to late 100's. <br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-81317271546568772482017-12-14T11:28:40.180+00:002017-12-14T11:28:40.180+00:00Yes, but have you thought about the theory in rela...Yes, but have you thought about the theory in relationship to the origin and development of the actual lectionary system and specifically the assignment of a particular lection in John 7:37ff for Pentecost.Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40956228956860535372017-12-14T03:30:42.623+00:002017-12-14T03:30:42.623+00:00I will ask a question after citing below from Mich...I will ask a question after citing below from Michael Grisanti's JETS article that appeared some 16 years ago, "INSPIRATION, INERRANCY, AND THE OT CANON: THE PLACE OF TEXTUAL UPDATING IN AN INERRANT VIEW OF SCRIPTURE," JETS 44:4 (Dec 2001): 577-98.<br /><br />http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/44/44-4/44-4-PP577-98_JETS.pdf<br /><br />"This paper seeks to show that the initial composition of a biblical book and any editorial revisions of a biblical book before the finalization of the OT canon are part of God-breathed Scripture (see figure 1)" (580).<br /><br />"I would argue that the textual updating, though limited in scale, that occurs at various points in OT books is not part of mere scribal activity after the completion of the autographa of a given book or set of books, but of the inscripturation process that results in God-breathed Scripture. . . . I would view a given biblical book before the completion of the canon as a preliminary canonical form of that biblical book. Once the OT canon reaches completion, every OT book is in its final canonical form. Since that form of a biblical book is susceptible to change (though on a relatively small scale), I prefer not to call the preliminary form the “autographa” in the technical sense. Rather, I would describe the final canonical form of a biblical book as the autographa" (598).<br /><br />Now my question, which is the same one Peter Gurry hints at in the comments: Can the passages in question in this blogpost relate or extend to the discussion of Grisanti regarding the OT, and if so, how?Jonathan C. Borlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-2109148230525449832017-12-13T22:14:29.473+00:002017-12-13T22:14:29.473+00:00(Typo alert: that should've been a reference ...(Typo alert: that should've been a reference to 267 copies that lack the PA, not 287.)James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-9480592886234873912017-12-13T22:12:20.611+00:002017-12-13T22:12:20.611+00:00Tommy Wasserman,
I think that John 7:37-52+8:12 w...Tommy Wasserman, <br />I think that John 7:37-52+8:12 was the lection for Pentecost (with some localized variation) whenever the subject comes up, of course!James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-20442402070573683782017-12-13T21:46:03.479+00:002017-12-13T21:46:03.479+00:00JS: "There is stronger evidence that the PA w...JS: "There is stronger evidence that the PA was dropped from the text due to a very early copyist’s simple mistake when he misunderstood early marks to signify the contours of the lection for Pentecost as if they were intended for him rather than the lector."<br /><br />This theory does not hold up. When do you think this passage was chosen for Pentecost?Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38797075821036712052017-12-13T20:59:15.260+00:002017-12-13T20:59:15.260+00:00One additional minor point: not all interpolations...One additional minor point: not all interpolations are written by interpolators. We do not know that the woman caught in adultery was written for John's Gospel. You simply cannot say that about something like the interpolation in John 5.4 or 1 John 5.7. <br /><br />Keep the objections coming. You may convince me yet.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-42134672392572575832017-12-13T20:56:15.728+00:002017-12-13T20:56:15.728+00:00Right. You have made my point that Mark's endi...Right. You have made my point that Mark's ending is far better attested than the woman caught in adultery. As for your rephrase, the element it still lacks is that these are stand-alone narratives. You cannot say that about any other textual accretion in the NT. They really are unique and this is why they grab so much attention.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-90133678860949653272017-12-13T20:39:03.594+00:002017-12-13T20:39:03.594+00:00Peter Gurry,
Okay, I rephrase the final paragrap...Peter Gurry, <br /><br />Okay, I rephrase the final paragraph:<br /><br />But what is this saying to the interpolators of the past – working from your current false assumption that these are both scribal interpolations – if not, “Small adulterations that have received the near-universal acceptance of the church will be rejected; large adulterations that have received the near-universal acceptance of the church will be accepted”?<br /><br />It should be obvious to all that Mark 16:9-20 has the near-universal acceptance of the church, in Greek MSS, Vulgate MSS, Syriac MSS, in patristic references, etc.<br /><br />And regarding the pericope adulterae, an argument might be made that its inclusion in the Vulgate and the inclusion of 8:3-11 in the Greek (Orthodox) lection-cycle constitutes near-universal acceptance; granting that it is absent from 287 Greek MSS, it is present in 1,476 (or, at least, these were the totals in 2015; now they're a bit higher) -- and 124 or so of the MSS that do not have it are MSS of Theophylact's Commentary on John, which effectively boils down the weight of those 124 copies to that of Theophylact's copy. Without Theophylact and his echoes in the picture, the statistic is something like 163 MSS for non-inclusion and 1,500 for inclusion (and this is not even considering the Menologion's inclusion of 8:3-11) -- roughly 90% in favor of inclusion.<br /><br />Of course a consideration of mere quantities is not a good way to practice textual criticism, but if one is gauging canonicity on the basis of "near universal acceptance by the church," then it seems very relevant.<br /> James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-21753442393787283942017-12-13T17:59:10.797+00:002017-12-13T17:59:10.797+00:00These are good thoughts, James. Thanks. I’m not in...These are good thoughts, James. Thanks. I’m not interested in litigating the originality of the two passages here. But, given my view of that question, your last paragraph isn’t a fair representation. It would be better to say that uniquely long interpolations that have near universally acceptance by the Church ought to be accepted still, just not as part of Mark or John proper. <br /><br />I will say that I am much more inclined to accepting Mark 16.9–20 on these grounds than I am John 7.53–8.11. That’s why I quoted Tommy instead of myself! I’m still mulling it in my own mind. The push back here is all helpful. <br /><br />But I remain unconvinced that the criteria of canonicity can’t apply to these two uniquely long interpolations. I recognize that settling the canonical question on text-critical grounds is the easiest way to resolve the question; but easy is not the same thing as right. <br /><br />The question is simply this: what basis do we have for rejecting the apostolic authority which has so often been ascribed to these two passages? (Maybe the answer for the woman caught in adultery is that it has no been ascribed “so often.” But for Mark, it really has been.)Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-37084579931770119792017-12-13T17:24:42.400+00:002017-12-13T17:24:42.400+00:00Peter Gurry,
As an example of how one prominent ...Peter Gurry,<br /> <br />As an example of how one prominent evangelical handles the PA, you may consult John Piper's sermon on the passage – at https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/neither-do-i-condemn-you-- in which he declines to use the PA as Scripture, but is willing to use it as a pedestal from which to proclaim things that are affirmed by Scripture. Which is just a small concession to the popularity of the story of the adulteress.<br /><br />I have heard others, however, acknowledge the PA as Scripture on the basis of something like “the internal testimony of Scripture,” which seems indistinguishable saying, “A lot of Christians like it, and regard it as authoritative, and Jesus promised that His sheep would know the Shepherd’s voice, so the church should treat it as authoritative.” Which is a malleable approach, and capable of being applied to different positions, but there it is. <br /><br /><< With a text like John 7.53–8.11, there is strong evidence that the author of John’s Gospel did not write it as part of that Gospel.”<br /><br />There is stronger evidence that the PA was dropped from the text due to a very early copyist’s simple mistake when he misunderstood early marks to signify the contours of the lection for Pentecost as if they were intended for him rather than the lector. <br /><br /><< It does not follow from that that an inspired writer did not write it. At best, you can say we don't know who wrote it. But then I do not know who wrote Hebrews either. >><br /><br />If you would just go so far as to affirm that the author of the Gospel of John did not write the PA, that is all that is needed, istm, to justify removing it from the text of the Gospel of John, and, at the most, framing it as a small 28th book of the New Testament.<br /><br /><< The real difficulty with my approach, as I have admitted before, is whether the principle of accepting a secondary accretion based on its wide attestation in our MSS would then have to apply to all textual variants. >><br /><br />I suspect that such an approach might lead to something like Lachmann’s text – the text that was in the hands of those who standardized the canon in the late 300’s. What text did they regard as canonical? Taking Apostolic Constitutions as a model/example, it was a text that included both John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20. It would certainly simplify things to consider the text as it existed at that point to be the initial text, and everything that preceded it to be matters of higher criticism – treating the New Testament the way one might treat the book of Psalms, as a collection of books that expanded over centuries not only by the accumulation of books but also by textual adjustments. But this would also render much of New Testament textual criticism superfluous. <br /><br /><< I do not think it needs to since both Mark 16.9–20 and John 7.53–8.11 are, by all accounts, unique in terms of their length and importance. >><br /><br /><< The latter two [i.e., Jn 7:53-8:11 and Mk. 16:9-20] can easily function as self-standing narratives and that is not something that can be said of John 5.4. >><br /><br />But what is this saying to the interpolators of the past – working from your current false assumption that these are both scribal interpolations – if not, “Small adulterations will be rejected; large adulterations will be accepted”?<br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44341068860851157442017-12-13T15:34:13.874+00:002017-12-13T15:34:13.874+00:00TJ,
You seem to equate original with canonical. &...TJ,<br /><br />You seem to equate original with canonical. "If not original than it is not God’s Word and should not be preached." I think you are missing the point that PG made. Original to who? If it is not original to John it doesn't necessarily follow that it isn't God's word. What would to you do with the signs of editing that exist in the OT? I think your position cannot be consistently defended.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06933555653123426860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-35943882305639027762017-12-13T09:14:33.089+00:002017-12-13T09:14:33.089+00:00Yes "fact" wasn't the best word for ...Yes "fact" wasn't the best word for me to use there. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-73169056317543251572017-12-13T03:36:29.511+00:002017-12-13T03:36:29.511+00:00PG,
No one is claiming that John wrote all of scri...PG,<br />No one is claiming that John wrote all of scripture! This argument is a non-starter! We are arguing that if the PA, which is in John’s Gospel, almost exclusively, is either Scripture or not based on whether it is original to John. <br />Your argument seems to be, if it was written by someone in the 1st century and you like what it says and it is long enough, regardless of its originality in any portion of the NT, it is scripture. This is surely a unique description of what constitutes scripture.<br /><br />TimTimothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40535030060256185722017-12-12T21:39:13.038+00:002017-12-12T21:39:13.038+00:00ERIC,
I also would say that for some evangelicals,...ERIC,<br />I also would say that for some evangelicals, even if the historicity were proven, without the confirmation of it by an apostolic author, it still wouldn’t be preached.<br />Tim Timothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-88260960241615364832017-12-12T20:27:07.509+00:002017-12-12T20:27:07.509+00:00Hebrews is not original to John but is still inspi...Hebrews is not original to John but is still inspired and canonical. Why can’t John 7.53–8.11 be the same? “Original” is a relative category and that is my point. It doesn’t necessarily settle the issue in these two cases, in my opinion. They can and probably did stand alone at some point. Why can’t they do that again?Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53587006517232955482017-12-12T19:43:39.677+00:002017-12-12T19:43:39.677+00:00PG,
You confuse categories. Just because a text i...PG,<br />You confuse categories. Just because a text is long and important has nothing to do with its actual originality, at least from a text critical standpoint. <br />Second, you seem to assume that there is a third category, canonical, that is not related to originality.<br />Finally, you continue to confuse originality with authorship. The letter to the Hebrews author may be open to discussion, but that is a historical question not a TC one. James and I do not agree on whether this passage is original, but I would suggest it is you who has to explain more clearly this category of ‘ non-original but canonical’<br />TimTimothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-21521867945997243952017-12-12T18:51:40.465+00:002017-12-12T18:51:40.465+00:00Pete, this is an enticing position. But I need to ...Pete, this is an enticing position. But I need to know more about the logic implied by your last sentence.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-83409853473977510362017-12-12T18:47:53.847+00:002017-12-12T18:47:53.847+00:00Good questions, James, but you don’t really give a...Good questions, James, but you don’t really give any reason why we should think that the text-critical question resolves the canonical one. We do want what the inspired authors wrote, I agree. But what they wrote has only come to us through what scribes wrote, so these two categories need more clarification before they solve anything.<br /><br />With a text like John 7.53–8.11, there is strong evidence that the author of John’s Gospel did not write it as part of that Gospel. It does not follow from that that an inspired writer did not write it. At best, you can say we don't know who wrote it. But then I do not know who wrote Hebrews either.<br /><br />The real difficulty with my approach, <a href="http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2016/05/is-longer-ending-of-mark-inspired-with.html?showComment=1462262986312#c1912853741545991802" rel="nofollow">as I have admitted before</a>, is whether the principle of accepting a secondary accretion based on its wide attestation in our MSS would then have to apply to all textual variants. I do not think it needs to since both Mark 16.9–20 and John 7.53–8.11 are, by all accounts, unique in terms of their length and importance. In other words, I am not (yet) convinced that I need to ask the same <em>canonical</em> question of, say, John 5.4, that I need to ask of the ending of Mark or the story of the woman caught in adultery. The latter two can easily function as self-standing narratives and that is not something that can be said of John 5.4.<br /><br />Now, I am open to changing my mind on all this. But I want to see an actual argument for why, <em>in these two cases</em>, “non-original” necessarily means “non-canonical.”Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.com