A few days ago I waded in on the discussion about the pericope adulterae (John 7:53 – 8:11), suggesting that long and continual lectionary use of this story was what gave it a place in the canon, irrespective of the question of original text. For some who interacted and commented this is clearly an odd position for me to take. In the most recent comment Mike asks me about the long ending to Mark.
The honest answer is that I have no idea, but I think it is for the same reasons: long lectionary usage. Does that mean we have to treat it as part of the gospel? I see no reason why we should. It is clear that the church has long read the passages as scripture. It is equally clear that they are not part of the original text. Why is that a problem? Is it because such a view poses too many problems for the priority of scripture over the church?
Update and Clarification: When I said “part of the gospel” I intended to mean “part of the particular gospel narrative in which they have long been found” – a literary judgement, not a theological one.
Recent Comments