Is it inconsistent...

[rlvaughn]

...for preachers who support the critical text to preach from John 7:53-John 8:1-11?

I thought about this today as I heard a preacher preach from John 8:1-11 -- the woman caught in adultery, and the Scribes and Pharisees trying to trap Jesus. Supporters of the critical text usually view this (and some other places) as a late addition to the Greek scriptures.

Bruce Metzger says, “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.” The note in the Lexham English Bible is “John 7:53–8:11 is not found in the earliest and best manuscripts and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John;” and in the New American Standard Bible: “Later mss add the story of the adulterous woman.”

This post is not a debate on whether this and other passages (Mark 16:9-20, e.g.) are part of the original manuscripts, but...

If you or someone else believes these passages are not part of the original inspired text of scripture, should you preach from them? Do you? Why or why not?

 

[TCassidy]

I don't think so as the consensus of scholarly opinion accepting the Alexandrian textform as true, is that while the pericope is not part of the Gospel of John in that place, most believe it is nevertheless scripture, perhaps imported from some other place in John, or from some other place in the Gospels.

As a Byzantine Preferred person I have no problem with it where it is and find the criticisms in support of the textual issue to be unconvincing.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think so as the consensus of scholarly opinion accepting the Alexandrian textform as true, is that while the pericope is not part of the Gospel of John in that place, most believe it is nevertheless scripture, perhaps imported from some other place in John, or from some other place in the Gospels.

As a Byzantine Preferred person I have no problem with it where it is and find the criticisms in support of the textual issue to be unconvincing.

I support the Critical text, but would also agree with you that this passage could have very well come in from another passage not aware of of the present time.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If you or someone else believes these passages are not part of the original inspired text of scripture...

I believe the Gospel of John is inspired. I believe this passage is inspired. At the same time, textual evidence suggests that this was not in the earliest manuscripts of John's gospel, but it has John's literary style.

It could be a tradition that was preached by John or one of his disciples and then added to the gospel since it was a true account told by John of the ministry of Jesus.

should you preach from them?

Sure. I would point out the textual concern, but go for it.

Do you?

I have preached from this passage about half a dozen times and taught it in Bible studies for more than 30 years.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks for the comments.

What about Mark 16:9-20? If you or someone else believes this passage is not part of the original inspired text of scripture, should you preach from it? Do you? Why or why not?

 

[TCassidy]

I do and it is. The evidence in support of it is overwhelming.

 

[rlvaughn]

I agree. Nothing inconsistent about that. But if someone thinks it is not, why would he preach from it?

 

[HankD]

This is a somewhat difficult read but here is some detail (not just about the Latin text)

The Text of the Gospels: Early Latin Evidence for John 7:53-8:11
Why the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery Belongs in the Bible

Also see The Causes Of The Corruption Of The Traditional Text, Burgon, p.250.

 

[rlvaughn]

This post is not intended as a debate on whether these passages (e.g. John 7:53:8:11; Mark 16:9-20) are part of the original manuscripts -- at least no more than to the extent of the question about preaching from these texts. My opinion is that there are preachers who argue for the critical text, would fundamentally argue that certain passages are not in the best manuscripts, and at least imply they are not original or inspired -- then nevertheless fudge around and preach from them when it suits their purposes. That seems inconsistent, and perhaps even hypocritical, to me.

 

[HankD]

This post is not intended as a debate on whether these passages (e.g. John 7:53:8:11; Mark 16:9-20) are part of the original manuscripts -- at least no more than to the extent of the question about preaching from these texts. My opinion is that there are preachers who argue for the critical text, would fundamentally argue that certain passages are not in the best manuscripts, and at least imply they are not original or inspired -- then nevertheless fudge around and preach from them when it suits their purposes. That seems inconsistent, and perhaps even hypocritical, to me.

Well, my apology but your O/P did seem to invite that discussion.

Anyway I have never doubted the authenticity of either passage (Also IMO 1 John 5:7 is inspired) so perhaps I spoke out of line.
Although at times I do take note of "variants" in researching the text.

 

[atpollard]

What about Mark 16:9-20? If you or someone else believes this passage is not part of the original inspired text of scripture, should you preach from it? Do you? Why or why not?

This one is actually even easier to answer. It can be shown that everything contained within the 'questionable' text of Mark 16:9-20 is actually taught somewhere else in scripture. In fact, it presents no unique teachings. That being the case, it is hardly a matter of vital importance whether it is 'original' or not. Everything it states is already "scripturally sound".

One might, therefore, teach from it even if one thought it was not original to Mark because it offers a concise collection of Biblical Truths that would require jumping around to cover from other passages.

I do not preach from it, but only because I do not preach at all. On the other hand, I have no problem including it as scripture, either.

 

[rlvaughn]

Well, my apology but your O/P did seem to invite that discussion.

Hank, I guess my reply came across as snippy. Sorry about that.

 

[HankD]

Hank, I guess my reply came across as snippy. Sorry about that.

Not a problem bro.

 

[Reformed]

If you or someone else believes these passages are not part of the original inspired text of scripture, should you preach from them? Do you? Why or why not?

As an ardent CT proponent, I have preached from these passages. Why? 1. There is always the possibility my assessment is wrong. 2. The passages are consistent with the surrounding text and the style of the author. 3. None of these passages contradicts any other portion of scripture.

 

[rlvaughn]

I am fascinated by this approach. What about 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37? I suppose these might be a little harder to use since you'd have to preach from the footnotes in many English Bibles? But I would think a CT proponent might agree to at least some possibility of assessing these wrongly, that they are consistent with the surrounding text, and surely neither of these passages contradicts any other portion of scripture?

 

[HankD]

I am fascinated by this approach. What about 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37? I suppose these might be a little harder to use since you'd have to preach from the footnotes in many English Bibles? But I would think a CT proponent might agree to at least some possibility of assessing these wrongly, that they are consistent with the surrounding text, and surely neither of these passages contradicts any other portion of scripture?

There is misinformation concerning 1 john 5:7.

While most of its support is from the Latin church there are several late Greek mss containing the Comma.

I believe it was omitted (probably by accident) early on in the Greek copies but was retained in the Latin translations from an earlier day.

Research book: A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 Michael Maynard, Comma Publications, 1995.

 

[Jerome]

Mark 16:9-20, e.g....If you or someone else believes these passages are not part of the original inspired text of scripture, should you preach from them? Do you? Why or why not?

As an ardent CT proponent, I have preached from these passages. Why? 1. There is always the possibility my assessment is wrong. 2. The passages are consistent with the surrounding text and the style of the author. 3. None of these passages contradicts any other portion of scripture.

I am fascinated by this approach. What about...Acts 8:37?

The 1689 Confession cites to such passages!

 

[atpollard]

While most of its support is from the Latin church there are several late Greek mss containing the Comma.

I had always heard that ancient Greek (like used in early manuscripts) doesn't use any punctuation ... so there shouldn't be ANY comma's or periods anywhere in the original.

Could someone who reads Koine Greek confirm this or correct the misinformation that I have heard?

 

[HankD]

I had always heard that ancient Greek (like used in early manuscripts) doesn't use any punctuation ... so there shouldn't be ANY comma's or periods anywhere in the original.

Could someone who reads Koine Greek confirm this or correct the misinformation that I have heard?

That is the short name of 1 John 5:7 and has nothing to do with Koine punctuation:

The Comma Johanneum, also called the Johannine Comma or the Heavenly Witnesses, is a comma (a short clause) found in Latin manuscripts of the First Epistle of John at 5:7–8. The comma first appeared in the Vulgate manuscripts of the 9th century.
Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia
Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia

 

[rlvaughn]

The 1689 Confession cites to such passages!

View attachment 2165

And 1 John 5:7 in Paragraph 2.3