Maurice Robinson, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 чер 2022
- “The Woman taken in Adultery: A Pastoral/ Congregational Quandary.”
Lecture held at the Lanier Theological Library, May 20, 2022
The overwhelming majority of Johannine commentators and New Testament textual critics consider the narrative of the woman taken in adultery (the pericope adulterae or PA, Jn 7:53-8:11) to be pseudepigraphical in the sense that it is (a) considered non-Johannine, and (b) is either a literary creation or an interpolation from some unknown gospel-type work. Standing alone, the PA might parallel similar fragmentary non-biblical pericopes such as those appearing in the Gospel of Peter, P.Oxy. 840 or P.Egerton 2.
The general scholarly consensus is not merely a liberal point of view, but also reflects the prevailing view within the evangelical community, and even within some fundamentalist circles. Issues involved concern a putative narrative historicity, fabrication as a skilled literary creation, or even Johannine originality, with most scholars appearing to maintain a historical core for the passage.
Since the passage appears in virtually every translation of the New Testament (usually with footnotes or brackets that might question Johannine authenticity), the problem for the pastor is how to deal with this pericope in exegesis, preaching and application; the problem for congregants is how they might understand this passage in relation to its presence in their Bibles along with questions raised both in translational notes and commentaries, as well as in reaction to how it is presented in pastoral exposition. The basic question is whether the passage even should be utilized, and if so, then what to do with its presentation in practical and spiritual terms.
This was informative, mostly because of the ability to hear how the challengers received and questioned the content. What do you think regarding the challengers? Do you think they were genuinely engaging, or more plain "knee-jerk" reacting with the same standard arguments? It seemed to me that there was literally nothing new here in terms of the response, just the same tired rehearsed backwards and fowrwards.
Thank you, Pastor Dwayne, for posting this interesting discussion!
Who gave these people the authority to determine what is included and excluded in the Sacred Scriptures!
Thank you for this presentation. May I ask; What happened to Faith? Where is faith and the Holy Ghost in all of this textual critical analyses? Do we still walk by faith? I am reminded of Prov. 3:5-6. “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy paths.” Please tell me where this textual critical argument aligns with the passage quoted?
I think it would be good if there is not yet one, to add a course of formal and factual sciences in the theology studies, because it gives the impression that they confuse the scientific procedure with a procedure that gives variable conclusions depending on who applies them. , and a process that has such a failure, for another type of discipline that is considered scientific, would be totally unfeasible. Can't it be said that 85% represents consensus? Can't you say that a text that only appears in a geographical area is local? I wonder, are they really taking scientific criteria?
He based his exaggerated conclusion at the end not from science and basic text criticism, but from long history, divine providence, and such things. A good and fair presentation at the beginning, but his own conclusion - strange and not based on strict text critical evaluation.
Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.
The Christian Protestant faith is forever reforming. Thus, then is it possible that , to be true to the biblical text, the Christian can and should have confidence in the Byzantine text - as there Canicol historical value in the text- most of the refuted texts , do not come in conflict in doctrine . However, Often critical text is historically subjective subjective in translational decisions that often disavows certain biblical passages and causes more harm than good. Say you have on hand, 5000 consistent maps leading us through a treacherous river passage, and 2 older maps that lead up down a tributary, which map does one use?
The King James version is THE HOLY BIBLE for English speaking people.
The idea that they think there has to be footnotes in a bible is ridicules. It was footnotes bibles that made King Jame commission and Authorized the Bible we all have used since. Completely nuts to have a “Holy Bible” on the cover and footnotes full of doubt and confusion throughout.