Lesson 24 (Gospel Doctrine): The Paraclete, A Woman in Labor, and Seeing

[Archaea]

Here's a cool article on John. Mind you, my Greek is in its infant stages, so I know nothing other than to read it, look it up and try to make sense out of it.

http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf

"One of our Greek cantors was finally able to find this pericope on St. Pelagia on October 8."

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Here's a cool article on John. Mind you, my Greek is in its infant stages, so I know nothing other than to read it, look it up and try to make sense out of it.

http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf

"One of our Greek cantors was finally able to find this pericope on St. Pelagia on October 8."

The woman taken in adultery pericope. Arch, if your interested in this pericope I saw an article in "New Testament Studies" that you may want to read:

The Pericope of the Adulteress Reconsidered:
The Nomadic Misfortunes of a Bold Pericope

JOSEP RIUS-CAMPS
Església St Pere de Reixac, Ap. 41, E-08110 MONTCADA I REIXAC,
Barcelona, Spain

This article considers afresh the origin of the pericope of the adulteress, which is absent from some important manuscripts. Comparison of the witnesses to the text reveals that it has been preserved in two distinct forms, one (attested by Codex Bezae and the minuscules 2722 and 1071) that is Markan in style, and the other (attested by f 13) that reproduces the style of Luke. The conclusion drawn is that the account was first composed by Mark (and placed after Mark 12.12) and subsequently adopted by Luke (after Luke 20.19). Because of the apparent moral leniency displayed by Jesus, the story would have been removed at an early date from both Gospels, and then later reinserted by some manuscripts but at different places.

I haven't read it, but it is on my list. Let me know if you want it and I will hook you up with a pdf.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Let me know

Sure, I'm not smart enough or skilled enough to make a final judgment, but it is fun to sit on the sidelines and watch the pros debate it.

Creekster might even read that one as he kinda believes it to be legit.

If you have any contrary stuff on the Lukan bleeding at every pore pericope as well, that would be interesting. The chiastic change is persuasive that it wasn't in the original, but who knows.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Sure, I'm not smart enough or skilled enough to make a final judgment, but it is fun to sit on the sidelines and watch the pros debate it.

That's exactly what I do to.

I just emailed the article to you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

That's exactly what I do to.

I just emailed the article to you.

I got it and am digesting it in between phone calls. It states that without the PA, the first and second attacks would illogically occur on the same day. So far it does not address the internal linguistic analysis.

They argue it was Markan originally, adapted by Luke and then removed by Church scribes due to the scrictness of the Church at the time. A fascinating debate.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

They argue it was Markan originally, adapted by Luke and then removed by Church scribes due to the scrictness of the Church at the time. A fascinating debate.

The "moral leniency displayed by Jesus" argument is interesting. Makes you think the article is by the Jay Santos' Biblical studies twin.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I got it and am digesting it in between phone calls. It states that without the PA, the first and second attacks would illogically occur on the same day. So far it does not address the internal linguistic analysis.

They argue it was Markan originally, adapted by Luke and then removed by Church scribes due to the scrictness of the Church at the time. A fascinating debate.

Marcan not Markan get with the program.