From: George Athas (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Feb 12 1998 - 20:24:04 EST
Vincent Broman wrote:
> email@example.com wrote:
> > I cannot think of a single text critic in
> > any writing who has suggested that the pericope is genuine.
> Hodges and Farstad in the intro to their NT edition
> spend some time defending the pericope adulterae as
> part of the original text of John.
> My impression is: a number of writers have suggested
> that while the pericope is not due to John (or Luke)
> it still might well derive from a tradition of a real event
> in Jesus' life.
> Vincent Broman firstname.lastname@example.org +1 619 284 3775
This same view was expressed to me a few years ago by Dr John Pryor at the
University of Sydney. I think it has a lot to commend it.
PhD (Cand.), University of Sydney
Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological College
Phone: 0414 839 964 ICQ#: 5866591
(Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:03 EDT