And more wrongness at r/Academic Biblical

 Multiple comments on this question post about "The Woman Taken in Adultery" pericope are wrong, based on the text-critical issue (along with narrative and redaction criticism issues) of John 7:53-8:11 most certainly not being part of the "original" Gospel of John. I put "original" in scare quotes because the original version of John did not have John 21, most likely did not have John 1:1-18, and due to various Gnosticizing vs. anti-Gnosticizing battles, did not have John 6 in its current form. Reminder: a few manuscripts place it in the Gospel of Luke, and in two different places, no less. The link also notes what critical scholars know otherwise: it grossly interrupts the flow of the Johannine narrative. (Bible Gateway, the passage link, also notes that a few mss put the pericope after John 7:36, a worse interruption of the flow, or at the end of the entire gospel, which, as with the mss putting it at the end of Luke 21, indicate that some scribe thought the pericope was of value.)

Per its most common location? John 8:2

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts

Makes clear that, if not the author of the pericope, an early editor, was deliberately inserting it at this point.

Perhaps the original core of the pericope is just 8:3-11, with all of 7:53-8:2 being a transitional device. In that case, we have an independent pericope that could reflect any sort of "community." It could parallel John 4, with the "sinful" Samaritan woman, where Jesus brings up the issue of living water just like in John 7.

That said, how did it come to be attached to Luke in some cases? 

The most interesting insertion point, though, is the mss that put it at the end of Luke 21. But, that's all triple tradition, and the idea that Luke would have made this addition doesn't make sense. But, although not specifically Lukan in style, the pericope seems to match him than John, or the other two Synoptics.

(This is also a refutation of fundagelical stances on inerrancy, of course, the idea that this was a "free-floating" pericope, valued by ante-Nicene communities but of uncertain provenance, so being stuck "somewhere." It's a refutation because it shows that scribes 1700-1800 years ago did NOT work and think that way.)

In addition, the one commenter citing the piece from Torah.com about Sukkoth at the time of the change of eras? That itself is perhaps somewhat dated in light of Yonathan Adler's new book, "The Origins of Judaism," though per Part 3 of my extended review, he does not talk too much about Sukkoth himself. On the other hand, the piece does well in picking up on Hyam Maccoby's contention that Jesus was entering Jerusalem at Sukkoth, not Passover. While the piece focuses on John, its insight is equally applicable to the Synoptics, both as far as the imagery and that of the three great festivals of Second Temple Judaism, it was Sukkoth that has the most Messianic tinges by far.

Anyway, even if John 8:2 is an original part of the pericope, the pericope as a whole, internally, has nothing to do with Sukkoth.

That said, it is nice to see "Religion Prof" self-outed as James McGrath.

Nones vs dones

 "Nones," as many of my readers likely know, is the common current sociology of religion term to agglomerate all people who are not religious, from "spiritual but not religious" through agnostic and on to atheist.

But, this PsyPost piece says we should probably distinguish between "nones" and "dones."

What it's getting at is that there's a difference between people who, whatever their metaphysical beliefs are, have rejected a religious system they were raised with  and those who never were raised with such a system in the first place, the former being "dones" and the later being "nones."

I get the idea, but reworking the idea of "nones" seems open to confusion.

Rather, maybe call the former the "never at alls" and the latter the "not nows."

That said, the piece IS interesting for social psychology differences between the two groups, including being open about their non-religiousness, or not. I can certainly agree with the general idea from personal experience. The Gnu Atheist types should take thoughts like this into account, even though they surely won't.

Top blogging of the second quarter

 As on my main blog, I do a roundup of popular posts. But, since I don't blog here as often, I do this on a quarterly, not monthly, basis. As there, not all these may have been written in the past three months, but they're the most popular of that time frame.

With that, let's dig in.

No 1? "The Cross and the Swastika," my eventual second header for the piece about fascism in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and how current President Matthew Harrison set himself up for trying to put out this fire. (It's already in the top 10 for the year.)

No. 2 focuses on the guy who, to pun on his own moniker for himself, I call "The Self-Besotted Philosopher," Jonathan M.S. Pearce (and some of the other toffs who formed Only Sky) after Patheos closed its non-religious vertical. Pearce had drawn my critical eyeball back then, and it's only increased with the move (and Only Sky overall has also gotten skeptical criticism from me), and it increased with his bluntness about supporting the West fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. On top of his previously documented Islamophobia, it showed him to be another Gnu Atheist, or semi-Gnu, who is NOT a secular humanist.

No. 3 is also about Only Sky, and why I think an allegedly secularist Jew still celebrating Hanukkah is silly.

No. 4? An oldie from 2020. I did not post the full blog post link on a Facebook page that's about the now defunct St. John's College (one owned by the LCMS, not Catholics), but did post a link about which I had blogged. The college myth biting the dust was the claim that St. John's College graduate (and token Black claim to fame?) Paul Hill wrote "Lean on Me."

No. 5 is about "Yet more on the wrongness of Heidegger," and based on a response comment and an edit by me, will have a more in-depth follow-up just after this.

No. 6 is about how the homily for a graduation Mass at a local Catholic high school, and also the valedictorian's speech, which loosely reflected homily ideas — a homily by the presiding bishop of the Fort Worth Diocese, no less! — totally falls apart when you recognize the total ahistoricity of John 21 and Acts 23, the bible passages upon which it was based.

In No. 7? Three and a half years ago, I wrote about "Wittgenstein the overrated Platonist." He is still both overrated and very much a Platonist. I still remember when that light bulb came on.

No. 8? From this second-quarter time frame a year ago, calling Catholic May Crowning a sort of Juggernaut, or, to be precise and original, Jagannath, and wondering if the latter possibly influenced the former. Probably will be in the top 10 for future second quarters if it draws Google searches.

No. 9? One of my most recent posts, as I've been loving me kicking some Only Sky in the nads, and I talked in June about other political nuttery they got wrong. (It, too, like the Self-Besotted Philosopher, was Russia-Ukraine related.)

No. 10? I said goodbye to History for Atheists six years ago, and have no problem telling others to tell the same to papal-fellating cultural Christianist atheist Tim O'Neill all the time.