Thursday, July 27, 2006

Yet more from SNTS

SNTS has been continuing apace. We're due to go to Drum Castle tonight. The buses are just waiting outside my window.

I've been acquiring lots of books. I did not previously know about:

Bernhard Mutschler, Das Corpus Johanneum bei Irenäus von Lyon (WUNT 189; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). XV + 629 pages, which I couldn't resist.

Prof. Tjitze Baarda (Amsterdam) kindly gave me a copy of his book, Early Transmission of Words of Jesus: Thomas, Tatian and the Text of the New Testament (VU Boekhandel, 1983), which is a collection of his essays.

The textual criticism section today was Josep Rius-Camps giving a paper entitled 'The Pericope of the Adulteress Reconsidered: The Nomadic Misfortunes of a Bold Pericope'. The thesis was, to say the least, unusual and I cannot say that everyone was convinced (understatement). He argued that the PA was originally part of Mark, whence it got into Luke. It was then chopped out of Mark and Luke, was transmitted separately for a wee while and then put into John. The evidence that it comes from Mark, I hear you asking: the PA in D (Bezae) contains 3 historic presents and these are often found in Mark.


  1. Originally located in what part of Mark--16:9ff?

  2. Finding a spot in another gospel where the PA could fit is one thing--and it does appear to fit here--is one thing, but accounting for the discordant shift in John's gospel when it is absent, is another. If a discordant ending to the original Mark is unacceptable--thus the various theories attempting to account for it--then why should we accept the idea of an original abrupt shift in John from a conversation amongst the Pharisees in their chambers to a Jesus' sermon to them "again" in the Temple? The NIV couldn't handle such an abrupt shift and essentially emended the text from "spoke to them (obviously the Pharisees, 7:47-8:13) again, saying" to "spoke again to the people."