Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 261:
Line 261: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story (view source)
Revision as of 13:24, July 26, 2010
, 13:24, July 26, 2010→Reversion explained: Argument explained
A lengthy diatribe was reverted because it opened with the false and unsupported claim that "conservatives" supported retention of the passage, and because the diatribe read like a copy of something published elsewhere. Only original work, please, and false claims about what "conservatives" think are particularly disfavored here, especially when made by liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
A lengthy diatribe was reverted because it opened with the false and unsupported claim that "conservatives" supported retention of the passage, and because the diatribe read like a copy of something published elsewhere. Only original work, please, and false claims about what "conservatives" think are particularly disfavored here, especially when made by liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:I never saw this revert, and it was neither a "diatribe, nor a copy of something published elsewhere, but a compilation of referenced material, and my own words of description. Moreover, the section opened with the words, "The strongest support for the retention of the pericope de adultera comes from certain conservatives" which is entirely true. As is the fact that liberals love to cut and paste from the Bible, and find Jesus calling adultery "sin" and commanding her to cease practicing it, to be repulsive.
:Rather than quickly deleting the whole thing, your objection to the opening claim could have easily been rectified by changing conservatives to commentators, and suspicions about plagiarism addressed to me, whom puts a priority upon referencing things. .
Below is the section that was nuked:
==Arguments for retention==
The strongest support for the retention of the pericope de adultera comes from certain conservatives, who contend that there is abundant evidence in support of its inclusion,<ref>See http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/bible_books_new_1.htm#_Toc6299687, part of which reads: Notwithstanding the weight of the external evidence of these important authorities, it is possible to adduce still more important testimony in favour of the authenticity of the passage. As for the manuscripts, we know on the authority of St. Jerome that the incident "was contained in many Greek and Latin codices" (Contra Pelagium 2:17), a testimony supported today by the Codex Bez of Canterbury (D) and many others. The authenticity of the passage is also favoured by the Vulgate, by the Ethiopians Arabic, and Slavonic translations, and by many manuscripts of the Itala and of the Armenian and Syrian text. Of the commentaries of the Greek Fathers, the books of Origen dealing with this portion of the Gospel are no longer extant; only a portion of the commentary of St. Cyril of Alexandria has reached us, while the homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Fourth Gospel must be considered a treatment of selected passages rather than of the whole text. Among the Latin Fathers, Sts. Ambrose and Augustine included the pericope in their text, and seek an explanation of its omission from other manuscripts in the fact that the incident might easily give rise to offense (cf. especially Augustine, " De coniugiis adulteris," 2, 7).</ref> as it is included or referenced,
(1) In many Greek uncials and minuscules mainly of the Majority or Byzantine text-type. It is found in all the MSS of Jerome and in Codex D.
(2) In the ancient versions or translations: Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic,
(3) In the writings of the Church Fathers: Didascalia, Ambrosiaster, Apostolic Constitutions, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine.<ref>http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html</ref>
Jerome (AD 340-420), who translated the Latin Bible called the Vulgate, states
<blockquote>
. . . 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.” Jerome considered the pericope genuine, and included it in his Vulgate.
</blockquote>
Likewise Calvin commented,
<blockquote>
it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage.
</blockquote>
Contextually, it is argued that that if John 7:53-8:11 is removed from the Gospel, then it leaves a awkward gap between the words 7:52 and 8:12, abruptly introducing Jesus in 8:12 where it is recorded that He spoke to them ''again.''<ref> http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm</ref>
The reliance upon ''Vaticanus'' and ''Sinaiticus'' to warrant excluding the pericope de adultera is countered by noting the multitudinous significant variants between the two, and notable absences of other words or verses included in the Majority Text. The conclusions of Dean Burgon, noted defender of the latter manuscripts, is invoked, as he asserted that the codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among “the most corrupt copies in existence.” “I am able to demonstrate that every one of them singly is in a high degree corrupt, and is condemned upon evidence older than itself” (John William Burgon’s The Revision Revised [Collingswood NJ: The Bible For Today, 1981 reprint], 548 pp)
Vaticanus is missing Luke 22:43-44, and has none of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation, while Sinaiticus adds part of the Apocrypha.
Burgon argues more extensively on this,<ref>http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/corruption.iii.xviii.html</ref> and his words provide an example of how strong many conservatives feel about the arguments to exclude periscope.
The enlistment of Jewish polemics is militated against by the fact that many of of such are fallaciously attack Christ, and here the periscope upholds the clear O.T. prescription of stoning for an adultery, (Deu 22:21-25) just as other sins (Deu_17:6-7: burning, sometimes commanded, is thought to have been done posthumously), versus the Jewish assertion that such would be strangled (though Phinehas used a sword: Num. 25:6-8). In addition, it is not unreasonable to assume the Pharisees actually were eyewitnesses to the iniquity.
The doctrinally based argument for the exclusion of pericope de adultera, that it promotes censoring any judging of others as sinful, is countered by the argument that this is a misappropriation of the text, and that, as in other instances of "wresting" scripture, context shows this to be another example (Mt. 7:1; 9:11; 12:2ff; 15:2ff) of Christ reproving a censorious spirit, while commanding believers to exercise righteous judgment. (Mt. 7:5; Jn. 7:54; cf. 1Cor. 5:12,13)
As often in other places, the scribes and Pharisees heart is what is reproved here, one that was not driven by reverence for the law of God and hatred of sin, (Ps. 119:53,158) but one that was blind to its own sins while being preoccupied with those of others, in seeking to justify itself. Concomitant with that, as revealed in other texts, (Lk. 20:20) they sought to find cause to crucify Christ. However, as the proverb states, "In the net which they spread is their own foot taken." so Jesus "turned the conviction of the prisoner upon the prosecutor", (Henry) and the two-edged Word of God slew them. Meanwhile, the women was told to "go and sin no more", exactly what He commanded in Jn. 5:14.
Moreover, the theme here can be seen to be consistent with John, contrasting the law of Moses with the grace and truth of Christ, with Him writing twice on the ground, with His finger, just as the law of Moses was inscribed twice by the finger of God.
While the manuscript evidence may be seen to have some warrant, such evidence cannot be conclusive, while seeking the exclusion of Jn. 7:53 - Jn. 8:12 due to its misappropriation by liberals would be far less viable. On this basis alone, its logic would favor many other texts being excised, from feeding the multitudes, to Jesus' rebuke of those in authority, which things is about all a "liberal Bible" effectively holds as authoritative.
In addition, it is noted that it is liberal scholarship which is at the forefront of seeking to deny Divine inspiration of biblical texts, in part of in whole, and including pericope de adultera . All the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek NT (including Philip Schaff, and Bruce Metzger) are charged with rejecting the doctrine of verbal inspiration, and believing that the Bible contains myths.
An example of why it is quite likely that this issue will continue to be the subject of debate till the Lord returns, can be seen here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-25572.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:24, 26 July 2010 (EDT)