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.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Doug,
This raises some problematic questions like: what else is fraudulent in the Bible? How else is the church in error? Could other forgeries and lies have crept into the text?
I think that thoughtful reflection and careful analysis can give sufficient answers to these questions, but they are particularly troublesome for a Sola Scriptura Christian - what exactly *is* the Scriptura that we’re Sola-ing here? For those who take a more holistic view of tradition and Scripture together, it’s probably not as worrisome.
-JAK
May 4th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Does that mean we have to treat it as part of the gospel?
Another great post, with a fair question. But does “length” matter, really? You also rightly point out, “It is equally clear that they are not part of the original text.” So you are right too to ask “Why is that a problem?” and “Does that mean we have to treat it as part of the gospel?” and “the priority of scripture over the church?”
My only protests to this “line” of argument are more questions: Is the sermon on the mount part of the “original text”? Fair enough, it’s there in Matthew, there in the canon, but missing and entirely absent are the original words of Jesus; in other words, all we’ve got is a Greek translation with more-or-less corroboration of part of it with a snippet from Luke’s gospel. Does the “Jesus” seminar really go far enough? Or can’t we all agree that all we’ve got is what we must hope is something inspired, accurate, and equal to the “original” Aramaic, not ever an original “text” at all.
When we get to questions of the parables, then isn’t there a whole different similar problem? Not only is the “length” of tradition and the “originality” of a “text” irrelevant but so is the question of exactly which words are the ones Jesus uttered, right? Why would he say over and over (what comes to us in translation as) “for the one who has ears to hear let that one hear”? Are we hearing only the battles and wars of “scripture over church” and “canon over questionable canon”? Am I hearing what clearly I am supposed to hear with those kind of ears that make me change?
May 4th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
If thats the case, I don’t think we should treat the pericope adulterae as part of the gospel either. The very simple fact is that the textual quality of that passage is even worse than that of the long ending of Mark.
With your clarification about what is and is not gospel in your view, I think I better understand your position about what is and what is not scripture.
Thanks for the dialogue, Doug.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Literary? How can literary be distinguished from theological? The PA is thorough Gospel - that’s why it’s in. It fits from a literary point of view too. It is to John what the Johanine thunderbolt is to the synoptics. It’s a synoptic bit in John. And without it, we would not know that Jesus wrote in sand. My old JB sys - ‘there are no grounds for regarding it as unhistorical’ - isn’t that a 60s line!
An old e-list collaborateur on the Johanine literature list (yahoo group) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/message/5494 see the last paragraph. Not conclusive for me since I have not done the necessary work to duplicate his results - but not a bad idea IMO.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:07 am
As a Catholic the PA is really a non - issue. Though I can understand why it’s a problem for Protestants. For me the Church is determinative. It was the Church that produced the Scriptures. It was the Church that decided what would, and would not be Scripture. And it was the Church that Canonized the Scriptures.
We know that Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine all believed the PA should be counted as Scripture. And that it was found in a variety of Greek and Latin texts in their time. Some believe the story can be found in the writings of Papias and probably reflects a historical incident.
Be that as it may, it was in the texts that were canonized at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo, (late 4th and early 5th centuries). Those Councils and their decisions were confirmed by the reigning Pope and were later implicitly reconfirmed by the Seven Ecumenical Council. Interestingly, the above Councils also canonized the Deutero-canonical books at the same time.
This was the Canon that was definitively - at least for Catholics - reconfirmed at the Council of Trent.
So for me, the PA is Scripture. If you want to footnote it, that’s fine with me.
Though I do have one nagging question? For those who would like to get rid of the PA, why stop there?
Why not throw out Second Peter, too? Most scholars think it wasn’t written by him and dates to well after his death.
Pax,
John
May 6th, 2008 at 9:15 am
John, you need to address that question to Mike and the others. Like I said, it’s what the church reads as scripture that is scripture.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
My apologies Doug. I wasn’t directing my comments specifically to you, but to those who want to remove it. I was also just throwing my two cents into the collective pot.
Pax,
John