Yuku free message boards

Prof. Hodges in his article defending the PA cited Leon Morris "The textual evidence makes it impossible to hold that this section is an authentic part of the Gospel.

Later Hodges says, "Yet this general agreement is also attended by a significant irony. For while rejecting the authenticity of the passage as an original part of the Fourth Gospel, many writers would equally accede to the observation of Hort that 'the story itself has justly seemed to vouch for its own substantial truth.'"

Now note what Dr. Morris said after denying the authenticity of the PA. "Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story is authentic.

gconan you are insightful.

HL: I'm not sure what you mean by "account for the sources." How do I account for the fact that 3 men with doctorate degrees who have studied this a lot, disagree with me? Nothing remarkable about that.

These three defenders of the PA are notable Greek scholars. If it they accepted the PA, then it cannot be impossible for the it to be authentic. If on the other hand, you feel these three men are bungling idiots for failure to see something that is so obvious because you their intellectual superior, then your arrogance may be a hindrance to a fruitful discussion.

BTW do you have a doctorate? If you do, what did you defend in your dissertation? What works have you produced?

HL: I haven't read Dr.Johnson's thoughts. Could you paste them here?

Yes, in due time.

HL: I don't see a problematic gap at all. What's wrong with this flow:

Burgon:
"But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch. 7:37 and 52, and note (a) That two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (ver. 40-42); (b) That some were for laying violent hands on our LORD (ver. 44); (c) That the Sanhedrin, being assembled in debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Him prisoner, and disputing one against another (ver. 45-52). How can the Evangelist have proceeded,'Again therefore JESUS spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world'? What is it supposed then that St. John meant when he wrote such words?"

The Dean is correct. The transition from the 7th to 8th chapter of John's Gospel is strange without the PA. This discontinuity does not exist if the PA is present, since the meeting of the chief priests and Pharisees breaks up, everyone goes home, Jesus leaves the Temple and goes to the Mount of Olives, and 8:2 begins a new day, with a new challenge interrupting his teaching, after which those in the original audience who were of the (non-accusing) Pharisees engage him in conversation. Thank you, but I will continue to accept the PA as far more correct in this position than any omission of such with the discontinuity it creates.

Even Dr. Wallace in the NET Bible cites the similar evidence as favoring the PA: "Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the "last great day of the feast" (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in "booths" for the week while visiting Jerusalem."

Wallace cites other evidence in favor of the passage, though he does not accept it as genuine. You give me the impression there is no evidence favoring the inclusion of the passage.

HL: The more I hear from Burgon, the less impressed I am with his observations. Does he insist that "oun" always means therefore? Maybe that is his problem.

The opponents of Burgon (able text critics I might add) did not disparage Burgon in this manner. KJVO extremists disparage their opponents. We should not.

HL: How does this pertain to the writing style of the Pericope? If your point is that he examined the pericope extensively, then, ok... But there is no argument there about the style of the Greek writing.

On an earlier occasion you said "There really is no question about it, that this passage is a very different style of writing from John's. Someone who says it is not different, absolutely doesn't know what he is talking about."

Dr. Robinson does know what he is talking about as evidenced by the depth of his research. It still remains "plausible" and not "impossible" the PA is genuine.

Prof. Hodges makes this point in his critique of Dr. Metzger's excellent Textual Commentary on the GNT:

Of much greater value are positive testimonies. There are many, but the comment of Jerome is particularly to the point. Metzgers Textual Commentary is silent (!) about Jeromes statement, but of course it is well known to all practicing textual critics. According to Jerome (ca. 420), in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.46 The significance of this observation is very great. For here is the earliest recorded patristic comment on the textual data and it accords perfectly with the inferences that have already been drawn from the surviving manuscripts. Jerome, whose travels in both the East and the West would have permitted wide exposure to Greek and Latin texts, must often have looked at manuscripts as old or older than any that now survive. If his judgment was that the pericope de adultera was widely attested, this judgment cannot be lightly set aside by those who live fifteen hundred years after his time! Moreover, as was earlier mentioned, Jerome included the passage in the Vulgate.
Equally famous is the observation of Augustine (ca. 430) to the effect that certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith,
BSac 136:544 (Oct 79) p. 331
fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lords act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said sin no more had granted permission to sin.47 (This comment is also passed over in silence by Metzger!4 Whatever may be thought of Augustines assessment of the source of the trouble, there is obviously no question about what he believed to be the authentic text!
That the passage created sensitivity in very early times is manifest from the comments by Ambrose (ca. 397):
At the same time also the Gospel which has been covered, could produce extraordinary anxiety in the inexperienced, in which you have noticed an adulteress presented to Christ and also dismissed without condemnation. How indeed could Christ err? It is not right that this should come into our mind.49
But obviously it did come into some minds, as Ambroses cautionary remarks make perfectly plain. In this light it is strange indeed that modern criticism has been reluctant to acknowledge that a perfectly obvious motive existed in antiquity which could tempt toward the excision of a passage viewed by some as scandalous.To assert that such an excision could not have occurred would be a proposition no one could logically defend. But if it did occurand at a very early datethen the data of both manuscripts, versions, and Fathers is not at all difficult to understand.
_________________________________________________
46. Jerome, The Dialogue against the Pelagians (2.17), trans. John N. Hritzu, in Saint Jerome: Dogmatic and Polemical Works (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press of America, 1965), p. 321.
47. Augustine, Adulterous Marriages (2.7), trans. Charles T. Huegelmeyer, in Saint Augustine: Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1955), p. 107.
48. It is perhaps vaguely alluded to by the words, Sometimes it is stated that the pericope was deliberately expunged from the Fourth Gospel because it was liable to be understood in a sense too indulgent to adultery (Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 221). Candor might have been better served if the reader had been informed that the idea can be traced back to the fifth century!
49. Ambrose, Apologia David altera (1.1, 3), in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 32: S. Ambrosii Opera, Part 2, ed. Carolus Schenkl (Vindobonae: F. Tempsky, 1887), pp. 359-60.
Dallas Theological Seminary. Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 136. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979; 2002.

Charles: I do think that the use of computers (as helpful as they are and as useful as I find them to be myself) can lead us to some rather erroneous views.

Please read Dr. Alan Johnson's article:
us.f1.yahoofs.com/bc/5f7c...DBhiZCzNyl