Hebrew Gospel and Other Gems on June Sale

Denise said:

by members of the literalist denomination, all of which prefer sales

[:D] [:)] [:D] [:P] [;)] [:D] [6]

Interesting book. Thanks for the info.

Adieu to Q. I like the sound of that!

Denise said:

Regarding the adulterous woman (just one of course), my neural net pattern matcher couldn't detect any measureable difference between the syntax mix in the adulterous text block and John in general, suggesting if independent, it was plugged in by a near-final redactor (which doesn't exclude the author of John).

These problems must be treated as a series of distinct questions. The first question is whether the story of the adulteress was part of the original Gospel according to John or whether it was inserted at a later period. The answer to this question is clearly that it was a later insertion. This passage is not found in any of the important early Greek textual witnesses of Eastern provenance (e.g., in neither Bodmer papyrus); nor is it found in the OS or the Coptic. There are no comments on this passage by the Greek writers on John of the 1st Christian millennium, and it is only from ca. 900 that it begins to appear in the standard Greek text. The evidence for the passage as Scripture in the early centuries is confined to the Western Church. It appears in some OL texts of the Gospels. Ambrose and Augustine wanted it read as part of the Gospel, and Jerome included it in the Vulgate. It appears in the 5th-century Greco-Latin Codex Bezae.

However, a good case can be argued that the story had its origins in the East and is truly ancient (see Schilling, art. cit.). Eusebius (Hist. III 39:17; GCS 91:292) says, “Papias relates another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.” If this is the same story as that of the adulteress, the reference would point to early Palestinian origins; but we cannot be certain that our story is the one meant. The 3rd-century Didascalia Apostolorum (II 24:6; Funk ed., I, 93) gives a clear reference to the story of the adulteress and uses it as a presumably well-known example of our Lord’s gentleness; this work is of Syrian origin, and the reference means that the story was known (but not necessarily as Scripture) in 2nd-century Syria. From the standpoint of internal criticism, the story is quite plausible and quite like some of the other gospel stories of attempts to trap Jesus (Luke 20:20, 27). There is nothing in the story itself or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus. Becker argues strongly for this thesis.

The second question is whether or not the story is of Johannine origin. The fact that the story was added to the Gospel only at a later period does not rule out the possibility that we are dealing with a stray narrative composed in Johannine circles. The Greek text of the story shows a number of V 29, p 336 p 336 variant readings (stemming from the fact that it was not fully accepted at first), but in general the style is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar. Stylistically, the story is more Lucan than Johannine.

Nor is the manuscript evidence unanimous in associating the story with John. One important group of witnesses places the story after Luke 21:38, a localization which would be far more appropriate than the present position of the story in John, where it breaks up the sequence of the discourses at Tabernacles.

The second question is whether or not the story is of Johannine origin. The fact that the story was added to the Gospel only at a later period does not rule out the possibility that we are dealing with a stray narrative composed in Johannine circles. The Greek text of the story shows a number of V 29, p 336 p 336 variant readings (stemming from the fact that it was not fully accepted at first), but in general the style is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar. Stylistically, the story is more Lucan than Johannine.

Nor is the manuscript evidence unanimous in associating the story with John. One important group of witnesses places the story after Luke 21:38, a localization which would be far more appropriate than the present position of the story in John, where it breaks up the sequence of the discourses at Tabernacles.

Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 29, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 335-336.

Denise said:

My 'bottom-line remains 'who could afford those (very) lengthy writings?'. I think they're like tombstones .... only the rich.

To which writings do you refer?

Denise said:

But in any event, each is lengthy ... just trying to copy one today is a major pain.  Ditto Romans ... who in their right mind would read it, much less copy it (until much later). And what happened to the rest of the writings (eg Mark, Luke, John, Paul). I can't imagine they exhausted themselves on a single attempt.

There were basically two methods (no Xerox machines then):  One scribe would read and write what he saw (or thought he saw) or one person would read aloud while other scribes would write what they heard (or thought they heard) with the results being reviewed by a diorthotes (editor).  Yet, there were many errors; no manuscript is error-free.  You can imagine how difficult impossible it would be to produce an error-free manuscript — try it yourself with a moderately long English document.  Why didn't God see to it that the Xerox was invented before that time ?!!  [;)]

Veli Voipio said:

Denise said:

Damascus are ... on sale

Do you mean https://www.logos.com/product/15479/the-damascus-covenant-an-interpretation-of-the-damascus-document and what is special in this book by Philip Davies?

Why are the sales always on things I already have?  [:(]  (or that I don't want)?

Charlesworth's "The Pesharim and Qumran History" has just been released by Logos as an individual resource:

https://www.logos.com/product/43904/the-pesharim-and-qumran-history