The testimony of Hippolytus on Susanna is important, because it substantiates much of Origen's (c. 230 A.D.) testimony and viewpoint about the passage.
Because Hippolytus bears testimony to the attitudes of early Christians concerning Susanna (and Greek Daniel generally), the background picture becomes clearer to Origen's discussion of the same passage.
This in turn gives us important information as to the perspectives and attitudes of early Christians regarding such textual problems, and the issue of "tampering" with Holy Scripture.
Yet ANOTHER Case of Missing Verses: The Koran and Stoning for Adultery
One might be tempted to regard the textual omission of the Story of Susanna (O.T./Judaism) and the textual omission of the Pericope De Adultera (N.T./Christianity) as simply a remarkable coincidence.
One might argue that the cases are dissimilar enough to suggest both different motives for the quarrel over the stories, and also different verdicts regarding authenticity as well.
Yet while Augustine's propositions regarding the motives of the omission of John 8:1-11 may be conjectural and oversimplistic, it is hard to deny that there is a strong overlap in both the content (adultery, stoning, accused woman, rescuer) and the parties likely to be offended (Judaen Religious authorities, Pharisees, Scribes).
Few people have turned OUTSIDE these two traditions (Christianity and Judaism), to look for more evidence concerning attitudes and activities of "religious editors".
Yet when we turn the the THIRD "great Religion of the East, ISLAM, we find the same stunning editorial activity!
Once again, verses dealing with STONING, for ADULTERY, magically and suspiciously "vanish" from a supposedly "inerrant", "perfectly preserved" text: the "Holy Quran".
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him." (See also: Vol. 8, No. 817 and Vol. 9, No. 424; Sahih Muslim, No. 4194)
Thus we have the THREE Great Religions of the Middle East, all acting in an extreme and hysterical fashion, daring to actually mutilate their own "Holy" texts, over the issue of "stoning for adultery".
It hardly seems worth pointing out the strange relation between 'religious authorities' and 'adultery/stoning', a bizzare behaviour that cries out to us about "coverups" over "sexual sins".
Once again, it seems that unforeseen evidence, this time from the field of psychology and sociopathic behaviours, comes in to bear upon the issue of providing plausible motives for removing controversial verses of a "Holy Book".
This case is so intriguing, it seems to demand further investigation in this direction.
Just what is it with religious people, that adultery and stoning seem to drive them mad, drive them to commit what is in the eyes of most one of the ultimate sacreligious acts, the actual MUTILATION of Holy Texts within their own traditions?.
Peace, Nazaroo
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 8th November 2007 at 01:25 AM.
and in the SMALLER microcosm, John's Gospel contains strong reversing chiastic patterns.
These patterns are in undisputed areas of John's Gospel.
Now, there is evidence of two more Chiastic Patterns:
Another Hidden Superstructure in John
Perhaps lesser known, but equally important is yet another chiastic structure, presented recently by W. Dicharry in his book, Paul and John, Human Authors of the NT Vol. 2 (1992, The Liturgical Press Minnesota).
Here Mr. Dicharry exposes a significant 'chiasmus' which remarkably centers upon the Pericope de Adultera.
Dicharry's Chiasmus (pg 161 )
(with slight modifications: i.e. color boxes)
Chiasm inside a Chiasm
What is surely remarkable and easily noticed is that there is a chiasm inside the chiasm, when the following (passage/paragraph - level) chiastic structure is combined with Mr. Dicharry's.
This, taken also along with the sister-chiasm above (centering upon the Hour of Glory) awards the Gospel of John with a DUAL focus, two simultaneous 'cores'.
It seems that the Pericope De Adultera is far more deeply embedded into the Gospel of John than anyone has previously suspected.
Peace,
Nazaroo
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
We have added a page excerpting Edward Miller's brief but excellent account of the origins of codex Aleph and B from his Guide to the Textual Criticism of the NT.
His clear and plausible account shows that even 19th century textual critics of all persuasions had a very good idea of where these two manuscripts came from.
Skeat (Curator of Ancient Manuscripts for British Museum) over 100 years later made the same basic assertions in reconstructing their history.
Please copy and download all files and pictures now
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, fellow Christians and God fearing seekers and researchers:
Many of our links, pictures, files, charts, photos, graphs, and articles have been stored on servers, web providers who have graciously given us free webspace and free use of storage to make available these often rare items.
We can no longer guarantee the future provision for said space, nor will it be easy to relocate many of the links and files and provide them again.
We will try to maintain independant copies of our websites and documents etc., but in case service is not continued,
Please download and store all photos, charts, diagrams, manuscripts, articles, and webpages that you can. Many of the items appearing in these threads are actually links to files stored elsewhere on other servers and websites, and they may not be repairable if services are cut off in the near future.
Again, if you want this information, please download and freely copy it, and store it on permanent media such as a dvd or a cd rom, or a removable hard drive etc.
Thank you for your patience and your support and blessings.
We have been warned that on at least one website/server storage provider, that this service may be ending within 2 months.
Peace, Nazaroo March 4th 2008
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
It has been brought up on a number of Textual Criticism lists that Philip Comfort in his 2005 publication, Encountering the Manuscripts:
An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism has tried to claim the papyrus P39 as some kind of evidence against John 8:1-11.
This action can only described as incredible (as in having no credibility at all).
The reason is simple: P39 is actually only two fragments of a single page of John's gospel, from an entirely different part of the book. The entire first 7 chapters of John, and the remaining ones as well, are completely missing.
Comfort attempts to reason from a very imprecise 'reconstruction' of the entire book via letter counting in other manuscripts dated centuries later (such as Vaticanus & Sinaiticus). From this flimsy beginning Comfort 'proves' (to himself) that P39 did not contain the Pericope de Adultera.
What can we say? If Comfort's conjuring is accepted, we might as well catalog every other fragment of John extant, which doesn't cover the PA, and list it also as evidence against the passage.
Thus a fragment of John chapter 12 would be stronger evidence say than a fragment of John chapter 20 against John 8:1-11. Wow!
I suppose a fragment of John chapter 2 would the strongest evidence of all, since the presumption should be that the book was likely never completed during the copying.
Exerpt from:
Encountering the Manuscripts:
An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism
By Philip Wesley Comfort (2005, B&H Publishing Group)
Chapter 7, pg 354
"...the end of page 74 (John 8:19-22), 24,309 characters by the end of page 73 (John 8:14-18), and 23,967 characters by the end of page 72. We then subtract 180 characters for John 8:12-13, which would have been on page 72, making the total 23,796 (rounded to 23,800) characters by the end of either John 8:11 (assuming the inclusion of the Pericope of the Adulteress - John 7:53 - 8:11) or by the end of John 7:52 (assuming the exclusion of the Pericope of the Adulteress).
In order to figure out if the scribe included 7:53-8:11, I did my figuring as follows.
1. I calculated that Codex Vaticanus has 25,450 characters from John 1:1-7:52. This was based on a count of the transcription provided by Tischendorf. (33)
2. The second process in the calculation was to subtract from the Vaticanus text the number of letters that would be excluded through the use of the nomina sacra in P39. The extant text of P39 shows nomina sacra for Ihsous, pater, anthropon. Given this kind of presentation, it would seem that the scribe used the full repertoire of nomen sacrum for kurios, theos, christos, pneuma, yios, as well. This contrasts with Vaticanus, which has nomen sacrum for only kurios, theos, christos, Ihsous. In John 1:1-7:52 this accounts for the lessening of about another 215 characters.
3. The scribe of P39 also used the raised line for the final nu on the end of a line. It is hard to judge how often this would have occured, but P66 and P75 seem to have about two per page. The slimmer columns in P39 could double the number. This subtracts another 300 characters.
In total, one could subtract 515 characters from 25,450 in the Vaticanus count, yielding 24,935, which differs from the 23,800 by 1,135 characters. In other words, we still have another 1,135 characters to account for - up until John 7:52. If we were to add John 7:53 - 8:11, we would have to account for the scribe fitting another 820 characters. According to the extant manuscript, the scribe accommodated about 333 characters per page. To fit another 1,135 characters, he needed 3.4 pages; to fit another 820 characters beyond that he would need almost 6 pages total. Thus, it is very unlikely that P39 could have included the Pericope of the Adulteress.
The way the scribe could have fit the extra 1,135 characters was for the manuscript to have about one extra line per page than what is shown in the extant pages of P39. The extant sheet shows the upper and lower portion of the page. One would expect uniform height of letters and space between lines on all the pages. Thus, to conceive of even one extra line per page is difficult. To include the extra 820 characters to accommodate John 7:53 - 8:11 means that the scribe would have had to add two extra lines per page. (34) Given the regular format of this manuscript, that seems absolutely impossible.
In the end, therefore, it is very likely that P39 did not contain the Pericope of the Adulteress (John 7:53 - 8:11); it could be listed in support of its exclusion as "P39vid, just as are the listings for A vid and C vid.
______________________________________________
Footnotes missing from Google Book Sample
Just saw this pop up in my subscribed threads.....glad to see you still posting on this bro
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Saint and Martyr William Tyndale (1494-1536)
LLOJ's Patron Saint
“I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!”
William Tyndale cried out "Lord, open the King of Englands eyes"
2 kings 6:17 And 'Eliysha` is praying and saying "YHWH, open! please! his eyes and he shall see"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
