[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 186 KB, 1280x1009, 1280px-GuercinoAdultress1621Dulwich.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17856385 No.17856385 [Reply] [Original]

Are there any books that defend the authenticity of the Pericope Adulterae (the story of the woman taken into adultery)? Bart Ehrman, James White and Daniel Wallace all argue against the authenticity because it's not in the oldest manuscripts and because it's found in two separate gospels (John and Luke).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42pEHx301IA

>> No.17856402

>>17856385
This is what Muslims mean when they say Christianity is corrupted from its original form.

>> No.17856405

Yeah, I've read their takes on that. I guess you can only take a posture of putting your faith on the stuff in the TR that got omitted in the other codexes as being legitimate and removed for "a reason"

>> No.17856438
File: 44 KB, 443x900, c4123f6bd0ed47108930158d51d7c89e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17856438

I believe the Holy Spirit watches over the Scriptures and guides them, meaning everything in the Bible is there because it's supposed to be there.

>> No.17857259

>>17856438
Basec

>> No.17857263

>>17857259
Based*

>> No.17857860

>>17856385
>and because it's found in two separate gospels (John and Luke)
What does this imply to the question of the passage’s authencity?

>> No.17857870

>>17856385
>oldest manuscripts
Do we have all of them in their enirety?

>> No.17857897

>>17856402
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bo4eWMk_JyY

>> No.17858471

>>17857870
We have all of the parts that are supposed to contain the doctrine I think.

>> No.17858604

>>17856385
One can suppose that the absence of this passage in many ancient manuscripts testifies to a fear of suggesting that adultery was only a light fault. St. Augustine (4th century) said in De Conj. adult, II,7 that this is the reason for its absence. The passage, present in the Codex Bezae (IV-Vth) is mentioned in texts from various countries, including the Didascalia of the Apostles (IIIrd) - not to be confused with the Constitution -, those of Eusebius of Caesarea (IVth), quoting Papias of Hierapolis (Ist-IInd) - who can only speak of "the" adulterous woman -, Didymus the Blind, Pacian of Barcelona, St. Ambrose of Milan, and St. Jerome of Stridon (IVth), etc.
Despite the debates about whether John is its author, it is generally accepted that it does come from an ancient tradition (Metzger). Kyle R. Hughes, taking up the work of Bart Ehrman, has shown that its grammatical style was that of St. Luke, who would have transmitted the narrative separately (clearly quoted in the Didascalia): it would have been included later in the Gospel of John. Given all these elements, it is difficult to affirm that the story was simply invented in the fourth century and ended up in all the manuscripts of the Mediterranean basin (textual criticism does not do this).

>> No.17858637

>>17856438
>magical thinking

>> No.17858646

How come this particular passage has caused so much debate over the years?

>> No.17858666

>>17858646
because it seems to be a much latter addition

>> No.17858733

>>17856385
Yes.

Wilson, A. "The Adultress and Her Accusers: An Examination of the Internal Arguments relating to the Pericope Adulterare"

>> No.17858780

>>17856402
Islam is itself corrupted by the Hadiths.