Is it inconsistent...

[Yeshua1]

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.

There is nothing that would be found in those passages that disagreed with what is alrteady seen by all has being scripture, so not adding nothing novel and new here. Now if say the passage about Baptism being done for the dead was in the same condition, not attested to by any early sources though?

 

[Felipe Rios]

...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?

Even if it is not real scripture I don't see a problem to preach from it. As long as the story is biblical why not use it to preach a good sermon, right? That is just my opinion.

 

[rlvaughn]

Would it be OK to preach from this text?

I rejoiced with you greatly in our Lord Jesus Christ, for that ye received the followers of the true Love and escorted them on their way, as befitted you--those men encircled in saintly bonds which are the diadems of them that be truly chosen of God and our Lord; and that the steadfast root of your faith which was famed from primitive times abideth until now and beareth fruit unto our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured to face even death for our sins...

It's not "real scripture," but seems to be consistent with the scriptures, nothing found in this passage that disagrees with what is already seen as being scripture, not adding anything novel and new here; I suppose one could make a good sermon out of it.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[atpollard]

Would it de OK to preach from this text?

Definitely not.

Where do you draw the line?

At archaic grammar and vocabulary ... who uses the word 'diadem' anymore?

 

[rlvaughn]

... who uses the word 'diadem' anymore?

Everybody that hasn't quit singing "All hail the power of Jesus name"!

 

[atpollard]

Everybody that hasn't quit singing "All hail the power of Jesus name"!

Ha, poll the twenty-somethings and see how many know what it means.

 

[rlvaughn]

At archaic grammar and vocabulary ...

OK. Found this newer translation:

I have greatly rejoiced with you in our Lord Jesus Christ because you have followed the example of true love. You have accompanied, as is fitting, those who were bound in chains—the appropriate ornaments of saints, which are the real crowns of the true elect of God. The strong root of your faith, spoken of in days long passed, have lasted until now and borne fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered even to the point of death for our sins, but whom God raised from the dead...

Would it be OK to preach from this text?

 

[rlvaughn]

Ha, poll the twenty-somethings and see how many know what it means.

Perhaps they need a little education.

 

[atpollard]

Perhaps they need a little education.

Here is a plot of the use of the word "diadem" over time. I think it is just a word fading from common usage. [Sorry.]

 

[rlvaughn]

Droll, but ultimately beside the point of the OP, and the specific question -- revised for you with a newer translation that might suit.

The real question is not about how many people might use the word diadem, but whether we should preach and teach from texts that the preacher or teacher does not think is inspired scripture.

 

[atpollard]

OK. Found this newer translation:
Would it be OK to preach from this text?

Since you went to all this trouble ... No, it would not be OK to preach from this as scripture. Fortunately for non-Greek speaking (reading) dullards like me, the heavy lifting in the question of "What is Scripture" was done long before I was born. I have been handed down "The Bible" by "The Church" which has come before me. They have the manuscripts that I cannot read. What I can do is compare the English Translations from the time of the KJV through the multiple from around 1900 with those being made today. Different teams of experts living in different times with different goals and agendas and personal doctrinal beliefs all striving to do their best to render what they believe is the closest to the original to the then current English language.

That some manuscripts include it (enough that some expert translators chose to include it), is enough to allow me to accept it as 'scripture' ... original or not. That some manuscripts do not include it (enough that some expert translators chose to exclude it), is enough that I will not base any personal doctrine exclusively on that text. When and if the original autographs are discovered (an unlikely event) or a very early manuscript is found (a possibility) we may have a more definitive answer. Until then, I will trust in the Bible that I have been given, believing that God has been able to preserve what is important and defend his word from gross error.

I have no problem preaching from anything that God has given me (except for the part where I don't generally preach because I am not a preacher). However, I have a very large problem preaching from any 'new revelation' and claiming that is the word of God.

Sorry, I can't preach from even your new translation.

 

[TCassidy]

Ha, poll the twenty-somethings and see how many know what it means.

So you think the majority of twenty-somethings are all ignorant?

 

[atpollard]

So you think the majority of twenty-somethings are all ignorant?

I don't know. I can't get them off their iPhones to actually communicate verbally rather in texts.

... But most are probably not familiar with words whose popularity peaked sometime before 1800.
Do you see many flocking to churches that still sing "All hail the power of Jesus name"?

 

[TCassidy]

I don't know. I can't get them off their iPhones to actually communicate verbally rather in texts.

If you expect an answer, you should probably text them.

By the way, I took three of my grandsons out for lunch today. I asked if they knew what "diadem" means. The youngest (9) said no. The other two (16 and 18) both knew it was a jeweled crown. But then, my grandsons are exceptionally smart and well read (they take after my wife).

But most are probably not familiar with words whose popularity peaked sometime before 1800.

1779. But it is still considered a modern English word.

Do you see many flocking to churches that still sing "All hail the power of Jesus name"?

We sang it this past Sunday. About 700 of us. Attendance was down due to so many taking mom out for lunch on Mother's Day.

 

[atpollard]

We sang it this past Sunday. About 700 of us. Attendance was down due to so many taking mom out for lunch on Mother's Day.

I loved the rest of your post. Just a quick clarification (since I was unclear) that I meant do you see lots of twenty-somethings flocking to churches that sing that (and other old) songs? Old music tends to appeal to older church members and young church members tend to be drawn to more contemporary worship music. (Based on my admitted limited sample size).

 

[Steven Yeadon]

As to the OP, I would never personally think of teaching any of the verses that are overwhelmingly considered to be later additions as scripture in my books or personal teaching. I just have a problem with my conscience to do so, since I would never consider the section of scripture you mention as authoritative for my own life.

 

[TCassidy]

Old music tends to appeal to older church members and young church members tend to be drawn to more contemporary worship music.

That is probably true, as a basic rule. Probably based on young people being so entertainment oriented.

However, my grandsons, mentioned above, like the "Old People's" service (Traditional Service).

They say they can sing the old hymns better than the new songs, and that the old hymns have a spiritual depth many of the new songs lack. But then, my boys are very unusual when compared to most young people. But I may be just a bit biased.

 

[rlvaughn]

Old music tends to appeal to older church members and young church members tend to be drawn to more contemporary worship music.

Even if so, often the old hymns get new garments in CCM arrangements, such as Chris Tomlin's All Hail the Power.

 

[rlvaughn]

However, I have a very large problem preaching from any 'new revelation' and claiming that is the word of God.

Sorry, I can't preach from even your new translation.

The problem with the introduced text is not that is an old translation or new translation, but that it is not and never has been a biblical text (it's from Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians). But I think your point about the texts such as Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, etc., having been long regarded as scripture is a good one that should give pause to those who reject them.

 

[FollowTheWay]

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.

Thanks for the interesting source. My position on this level of textual criticism is the same as the primary qualification for singing in the choir. I know when to keep my moth shut and let the experts take over (well at least in that area).