Re: E Hobbs and arrogance

From: Andrew Kulikovsky (
Date: Sun Feb 15 1998 - 01:41:05 EST

you wrote:
> From: Edward Hobbs <>
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:24:24 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: Re: John 8:7
> Colleagues:
> It is awkward for the Chair of B-Greek to respond to posts which challenge
> his accuracy or fairness or competence, since to do so might seem to take
> advantage of that position. But Andrew Kulikowsky's criticism of my simple
> reply about textual criticism and John 8:7, having provoked several other
> replies, seems to deserve some response from me.
> His post was:
> - ----->>>>>>>>>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edward Hobbs []
> > Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 6:03 AM
> > To:
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: John 8:7
> >
> <snip>
> > On this passage (John 7:53--8:11), see [Bruce Metzger's] _Textual
> > Commentary on the Greek New Testament_, which has a lengthy discussion
> > of this most-famous non-original pericope in the GNT.
> [Andrew]
> Don't you mean "the pericope which many believe (including E
> Hobbs) to be non-original". Considering we don't have the originals and
> only a handful of manuscripts and fragments from the early centuries it
> does seem a little premature to pronounce the pericope as definitely
> "non-original".
> cheers,
> Andrew
> <<<<<<----------------------------
> Alkl of us on this B-Greek List use (or surely use?) either the UBS-GNT or
> the Nestle-Aland GNT. These standard texts, like all critical texts for
> the last century, bracket this passage, as one of those "which are
> regarded as later additions to the text, but which are of evident antiquity
> and importance" (UBS Intro), or "are known not to be a part of the original
> text" (Nestle-Aland Intro).


I do use the UBS4 GNT (and I don't support the Majority Text), I have
Metzger's textual commentary and I am quite familiar with textual
criticism and the problems that this pericope presents.

However, I still stand by what I initially said - we do not have the
originals so we can't be exactly sure. Consensus is not a valid test for
truth as I am sure you already know. All we can say is that there is a
lot of evidence that suggests it wasn't originally in John. We can't say
that it definitely wasn't there (which is what your original implies)
because we definitely don't know.

In any case, as someone else on the list mentioned, the pericope was
most probably an accurate account of an actual event in the life Christ.

> Metzger writes of this passage: "The evidence for the non-Johannine origin
> of this pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming." He then cites the
> massive evidence of its absence in early centuries. After other issues
> (style, language, etc.) are discussed, he says: "...the case against its
> being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive." "... the
> Committee was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the
> Fourth Gospel...."
> It was inserted into the text of John in three different places, as well as
> into the Gospel of Luke in some MSS.
> But a majority of the Committee, "in deference to the evident antiquity of
> the passage," decided to print it within double brackets (whose meaning is
> quoted above).

I don't dispute what Metzger says, except the "...appears to
conclusive." Yes, there is a great deal of evidence suggesting such but
we don't have ALL the evidence, do we?

Hence my cautious approach.

> All of this surely says that it is "the most-famous non-original pericope in
> the GNT." This description is hardly controversial, and certainly not the
> opinion of "many including E Hobbs".

Huh? If you read my post again, I never said anything about it being

"certainly not the opinion of many including E Hobbs" - well according
to what you just wrote 2 paragraphs previously, it IS!

> If Andrew cannot read a statement like this, and statements like several
> others which he has recently responded to, without firing off a flame
> (even rejecting one comment on Genesis because the poster did not know the
> author of Genesis), then he should consider whether he should continue
> to read the messages posted to this List.

I find this incredibly offensive Edward....

You seem to be taking me as some kind of nitt-witt who can't read. My
comments were NOT flames they were merely as correctives and pleas for
people to phrase their ideas in a way that is not so arrogant.

Occasionally, comments appear on b-greek that are made with an air of
arrogance as if people are saying "I am an authority. This means this
and if you don't think so then you're a moron." Of course they don't use
those words but it seems quite clear from their posts that is what they
mean. Thankfully this only happens occasionally.

I realise there are many different kinds of people on this list and I
don't really care if they don't agree with me, but I would prefer if
people wrote "I believe..." or "I take this to mean..." or some other
less arrogant way.

Quite frankly Edward, the general tone of these comments and others you
make on this list reveal that you are breath-takingly arrogant and
completely full of yourself!

> This is NOT an invitation to a new thread on the subject. If anyone wishes
> to make a response, please address it personally to me or to my Co-Chair,
> Carl Conrad. There has been too much heat, and too little light, in some
> recent postings. More light! More light! (--to quote Mr. Capulet)

Here is another show of your arrogance - in fact downright rudeness. You
treat me like a nitt-witt IN PUBLIC, then expect me to respond in

You are some piece of work Edward - You're a disgrace.

Therefore, I'm going to ignore this request. You made it public, so I
will keep it public!

Less arrogance! Less arrogance!


| Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS
| Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia)
| & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College)
| Adelaide, Australia
| ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231
| email:
| Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page:
| "God is dead." -- Nietzsche
| "Nietzsche is dead." -- God

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:03 EDT