S
- Status
S
Shoshana
Guest
:dts:
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Personally, I like yours and RedRoseTea’s idea.Exactly what I said!Why else would they walk away? Knowing her sin? They knew her sin…it’s just that they did not know that Jesus would know THEIR sin!
To each boy in the crowd, they saw a different message.
Sam…August 30th…I saw you.
Joe…It was April 10th…I saw you.
Pete…It was May 1st…2nd…3rd…well you… I don’t have enough time
S
Shoshana
Guest
J
jcrichton
Guest
Rather, they observed His demeanor and caught His challange as He demanded that the one amongst them without sin may cast the first stone!Exactly what I said!Code:
…if the crowd gathered was at least ten people Jesus would have had to have witten at least ten deeds… it could be exponentially, if He was noting all of their collective sins throughout their lifetime–just imagine if He also wrote down their names and any specific data that would singularly identify each of them…
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
J
jcrichton
Guest
But why do you believe that they were compelled to leave only if Jesus wrote down their sins?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
J
jcrichton
Guest
B
Beltany13
Guest
As I understand it, the story of the adulterous woman did not appear in John’s actual writing; it was added later by the Church.
I don’t know if that’s true or not, but that’s what I heard.
I don’t know if that’s true or not, but that’s what I heard.
J
jcrichton
Guest
I doubt that the Church sought to enhance the Holy Scritpures by adding text/stories to the Sacred Writings–could you research that statement? …perhaps we would find that, as it happened hundreds of years after the fact, some of the copies of the original Scrolls had a variation (as with the sources used by the Catholic Church in the compilation of the Bible–based on the Greek texts, and that of the Jews, which happened after the fact–based on the Hebrew texts).
Maran atha!
Angel
B
Beltany13
Guest
From Wikipedia (and its referenced): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulteræ
The Pericope Adulterae is a traditional name for a famous passage (pericope) about an adulterous woman—verses 7:53-8:11 of the Gospel of John. The passage describes a confrontation between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees over whether a woman, caught in an act of adultery, ought to be stoned.
Although in line with many stories in the Gospels and probably primitive (Didascalia Apostolorum refers to it, possibly Papias also),** most scholars agree that it was not part of the original text of John’s Gospel.[2]** The standard Greek texts of John, and almost all modern translations, mark it off with double brackets—…]]—indicating this opinion.
So, I don’t know. I’m not saying one way or the other; I just know I heard it before and clearly I was not mistaken.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Hiyas jcrichton,
I just thought of some thing:
If Jesus didn’t “write” some thing…why doesn’t the Gospels say some thing like - Jesus drew in the sand.?
I know this is all speculation on all of our parts, but it’s an interesting question.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Hiyas Beltany
From Wikipedia (and its referenced): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_AdulteræThe Pericope Adulterae is a traditional name for a famous passage (pericope) about an adulterous woman—verses 7:53-8:11 of the Gospel of John. The passage describes a confrontation between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees over whether a woman, caught in an act of adultery, ought to be stoned.
Although in line with many stories in the Gospels and probably primitive (Didascalia Apostolorum refers to it, possibly Papias also),** most scholars agree that it was not part of the original text of John’s Gospel.[2]** The standard Greek texts of John, and almost all modern translations, mark it off with double brackets—…]]—indicating this opinion.So, I don’t know. I’m not saying one way or the other; I just know I heard it before and clearly I was not mistaken.
That link is interesting. Thank you.
Did you see this link.? tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html
J
jcrichton
Guest
Thank you for the reference source.
From Wikipedia (and its referenced): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulteræ
The Pericope Adulterae is a traditional name for a famous passage (pericope) about an adulterous woman—verses 7:53-8:11 of the Gospel of John. The passage describes a confrontation between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees over whether a woman, caught in an act of adultery, ought to be stoned.
Although in line with many stories in the Gospels and probably primitive (Didascalia Apostolorum refers to it, possibly Papias also),** most scholars agree that it was not part of the original text of John’s Gospel.[2]** The standard Greek texts of John, and almost all modern translations, mark it off with double brackets—…]]—indicating this opinion.
So, I don’t know. I’m not saying one way or the other; I just know I heard it before and clearly I was not mistaken.
If you felt that I was questioning your statement, please accept my apologies; my intent was to secure the source of the cited material.
…the quoted source appears to be genuine; yet the content seems vague (“probably primitive,” “possibly Papias,” “most scholars,” “indicating this opinion”) since it does not mention the number of scholars or their names or religious affiliations; it also does not include the determining factors why this particular passage was deemed not (probably) part of the original text.
I am curious as to who these “scholars” are since a few years ago “some scholars” claimed that the Gospel of John was not genuine because it spoke about a pool that was not found in any of the other Gospels… years later one of those science/history channels had a program where this very same non-existing pool was uncovered… needless to say, the nay sayers “scholars” did not respond to the findings!
Maran atha!
Angel
B
Beltany13
Guest
According to the reference they have on that page, it says:
‘Pericope adulterae’, in FL Cross (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Unfortunately, that’s a book and not a Web page. I’ve searched a little more and haven’t come up with much yet. I’ll see about looking around some more.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, kimmielittle!Hiyas jcrichton,
I just thought of some thing:
If Jesus didn’t “write” some thing…why doesn’t the Gospels say some thing like - Jesus drew in the sand.?
I know this is all speculation on all of our parts, but it’s an interesting question.
I am not suggesting that Jesus did not write on the sand; my concern is that (when reading through this thread) too many are claiming that Jesus wrote down pertinent material on the sand and that the people seeking to harm the woman or Jesus’ Ministry responded not to Jesus’ body language and challange but to some “perceived” list of sins written on the sand…
speculation is an exercise of the mind… I find no fault with it… but when postulation replaces actual Scripture we all lose…
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…but which scolars? …what determining factors did they have that “others” were not able to access? …since they do not quote actual scrolls, what are the sources they use to determine what is or is not part of the original scrolls? …who determined that that source is genuine/correct?
Maran atha!
Angel
K
kimmielittle
Guest
I found this non denominational site fascinating. adultera.awardspace.com/TEXT/MSS-top10.html
I have bracketed things I found interesting ]
"Codex D and the Pericope de Adultera
Codex D is obviously a unique and fascinating early textual witness. We cannot hope to untangle its mystery here. However, we can sum up a few salient points:
(1) Although D is a late 4th or early 5th century manuscript, it certainly represents a much older text. This is evident from its many early and primitive readings throughout. Whether some textual variations were ‘blended’ in or found in the master-copy from which it was made, these readings came from even older manuscripts. It cannot be dismissed as simply a 5th century ‘creation’ out of free literary or editing activity. Almost all of its significant readings, even the unique ones, demand serious attention from scholars, and many can be independantly confirmed as ancient.
(2) Regardless of its character, and even the character of the passage (John 7:53-8:11) under consideration, Codex D remains a powerful witness to the popularity of the Pericope de Adultera among both Latin and Greek readers prior to the 5th century. One critic has tried to dismiss this singular survivor as a mere ‘blip’ on the radar. But it appears to be the tip of a long lost iceberg.
(3) Although dated slightly after Jerome’s time (circa 380 A.D.), it is clearly not a copy of Jerome’s Vulgate. This is significant, because it confirms Jerome’s statement that there were many copies “both Greek and Latin containing the Pericope de Adultera in his own time”. Jerome obviously believed it was an ancient reading even then, for he explicitly states he bypassed the ‘editions’ of his contemporaries and sought out the most ancient manuscripts he could find to produce his Latin Translation. And here Jerome leaves no doubt as to his assessment of the passage, since he includes it in his Latin Vulgate, and it has stood there ever since.
And this is no real surprise after all. We have at least five early fathers testifying of its existance and authenticity at the turn of the 4th century: Ambrose, Didymus, Jerome, Augustine, etc., and many later fathers.
At least one critic has tried to get some mileage out of the fact that Codex D is the only 4th/5th century MS containing the verses. If Codex D didn’t exist, it is noted, the earliest surviving manuscript with the passage would be from the 7th or 8th century.
But this is a really a mistatement of the significance of the evidence. If pigs could fly, then yes, the Pericope de Adultera could be said to have flown into the stream of transmission in the 8th or 9th century. But pigs don’t fly, and the testimony of codex D alongside that of a dozen early fathers, some of whom were brilliant scholars and multilingual masters, makes it clear that our passage existed where it is today from times of the earliest surviving manuscripts.]"
It is lengthy view at early writings, BUT I enjoyed it. I only posted it’s summation. This sample is found near the bottom.
I think we can rest assured that before this sample, Church Fathers knew of this teaching and it’s significance.
I leave it for all.
I have bracketed things I found interesting ]
"Codex D and the Pericope de Adultera
Codex D is obviously a unique and fascinating early textual witness. We cannot hope to untangle its mystery here. However, we can sum up a few salient points:
(1) Although D is a late 4th or early 5th century manuscript, it certainly represents a much older text. This is evident from its many early and primitive readings throughout. Whether some textual variations were ‘blended’ in or found in the master-copy from which it was made, these readings came from even older manuscripts. It cannot be dismissed as simply a 5th century ‘creation’ out of free literary or editing activity. Almost all of its significant readings, even the unique ones, demand serious attention from scholars, and many can be independantly confirmed as ancient.
(2) Regardless of its character, and even the character of the passage (John 7:53-8:11) under consideration, Codex D remains a powerful witness to the popularity of the Pericope de Adultera among both Latin and Greek readers prior to the 5th century. One critic has tried to dismiss this singular survivor as a mere ‘blip’ on the radar. But it appears to be the tip of a long lost iceberg.
(3) Although dated slightly after Jerome’s time (circa 380 A.D.), it is clearly not a copy of Jerome’s Vulgate. This is significant, because it confirms Jerome’s statement that there were many copies “both Greek and Latin containing the Pericope de Adultera in his own time”. Jerome obviously believed it was an ancient reading even then, for he explicitly states he bypassed the ‘editions’ of his contemporaries and sought out the most ancient manuscripts he could find to produce his Latin Translation. And here Jerome leaves no doubt as to his assessment of the passage, since he includes it in his Latin Vulgate, and it has stood there ever since.
Code:
This having been said, it must be admitted that the version of the story in Codex **D** has suffered a few minor omissions and the dislocation of a verse, in comparison to the common version of the story found in the traditional Byzantine text.
But the value of Codex **D** is not so much in the word for word accuracy of its text (it may have been conformed to the Latin in places by its own scribe/editor). Rather it is in the undeniable testimony of the ***existance*** of the **Pericope de Adultera** in its standard place in John earlier than the 5th century.At least one critic has tried to get some mileage out of the fact that Codex D is the only 4th/5th century MS containing the verses. If Codex D didn’t exist, it is noted, the earliest surviving manuscript with the passage would be from the 7th or 8th century.
But this is a really a mistatement of the significance of the evidence. If pigs could fly, then yes, the Pericope de Adultera could be said to have flown into the stream of transmission in the 8th or 9th century. But pigs don’t fly, and the testimony of codex D alongside that of a dozen early fathers, some of whom were brilliant scholars and multilingual masters, makes it clear that our passage existed where it is today from times of the earliest surviving manuscripts.]"
It is lengthy view at early writings, BUT I enjoyed it. I only posted it’s summation. This sample is found near the bottom.
I think we can rest assured that before this sample, Church Fathers knew of this teaching and it’s significance.
I leave it for all.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
No, it was there. Then it was removed due to worries that it condoned adultery (not removed by the Church, but by individual copyists). Then it was added.
- Status