John 8:1-11

Here is some information from the <Bible Researcher Site>.

My understanding is that the textual support for the passage is quite meager. Consequently, I view the story as equivalent in authority and trustworthiness to the Apocrypha.

Preachers love to speculate on what Christ wrote on the ground, though! As one person said, He probably wrote, "The best and oldest manuscripts do not contain this passage."

Andy

 

But Andy,

The "best" and "oldest" manuscripts are by definition the originals which we don't possess, so no can say for sure concerning it's presence or absense.

The usual wording is the best and oldest "extant" manuscripts...

But again this is a subective call as to the criteria for "best". Of course "oldest" is objective, however in this case it can change if someone finds older mss than Aleph/B (which has happened with some of the papyri).

HankD

 

OK, how 'bout this (from the RSV):

"The most ancient authorities omit 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text."

Andy

 

The passage is missing from p66, p75, Aleph, A, B, C, L, N, T, W, X, Y, Delta, Theta, Psi, 053, 0141, 22, 33, 157, 209, 565, 1230, 1241, 1253, 2193.

It is contained in D, F, G, H, K, M, U, Tau, 28, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1344, 1546, 2148, all of the Byzantine manuscripts (about 400 of them). The old versions are split about 2 to 1 in favor of the reading.

So, the manuscript evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the passage.

 

I'd have to politely disagree that manuscript evidence is IN FAVOR of the passage. Most of the older manuscripts do NOT include it. P66, P75 in particular do not have it and neither do the early Syriac versions (which suggests that the story was perhaps npt accepted in the Eastern churches).

Two questions must be asked on a critical level.

1. Is it historical? I for one believe we should give the bible some credit for being God's word. In the opinion of most scholars, conservative and more liberal, the passage does seem to the markers of historical believability.

2. Is it Johannine? The answer to this is NO according to most scholars. It does not seem to fit where it is in John.

Anyway it's in our bibles so perhaps God wanted it there even if it did not make the first "draft" of John. I should mention that some suggest that it was removed early on in fear that it would make Jesus look too lenient on sin!

 

This assumes that all MSS are of equal value; however, they aren't. All of the most ancient Greek MSS on your list (p66, p75, Aleph, A, B, C, N, T, W) don't have it; it appears only in Greek copies of the 6th C. and later. It's not found in the oldest Greek MSS of the Alexandrian (p75, B) and Byzantine (A) text types. It's not found in the most ancient copies of the oldest versions -- Old Latin (a), Syriac (Old Syriac or the Peshitta), or Coptic (Sahidic). This ancient and widespread lack of attestation makes it highly suspect as a later addition to the text.

 

True, but who draws up the criteria to determine that value and their personal prejudices can skew the final weight.

HankD

 

Are you sure about that? If God did not breathe out this passage through John originally, then I highly doubt that God would want it included as Holy Scripture. Such action would be a violation of God's command against adding to His Word. What the modern versions do is appropriate -- translate it for the reader but note the legitimate doubtfulnes of its authenticity.

Andy

 

Good point Andy,

But can it still be authentic (an accurate historical account) and not be Johannine? Most scholars today (even conservative ones) doubt that Peter wrote 2 Peter but we embrace it in our bibles anyway (even though it was not included in a few early manuscripts). Just a thought!

 

Certainly. I want to maintain a distinction, though, between what may be a true historical account and what is inspired/God-breathed Scripture. When I use the word, authentic, I mean that it was part of the inspired originals, not that it was merely true historically.

Some manuscripts have this passage in Luke, so theoretically, Dr. Luke could have been the inspired penman.

This is a different issue but if Peter did not write 2 Peter, then I could not accept it as canonical. Notice that 2 Peter begins with, "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ to them that ...." If Simon Peter was not the author, then this opening statement is (1) a lie and (2) in error. I'm not sure who these conservative scholars are that you refer to that doubt Petrine authorship. They don't sound very conservative to me.

Andy

 

Good point! Whose bias is the better bias to be biased with?

 

Ultimately, it is up to each individual as a matter of soul liberty. For me, the older extant manuscripts hold much more weight than the greater number of younger manuscripts. But if you think the other way, that is fine. I don't beleive it is an issue of being conservative/liberal or smarter/dumber or godly/ungodly. It is true that the average layman probably has not studied the issue enough to make the most informed decisions but in the grand scheme of things it matters very little.

If I was teaching through John, I would not teach on 7:53-8:11 because I don't view it as authentic Scripture. On the other hand, I might teach through the longer ending of Mark, even though I don't view it as authentic either, only to correct misunderstandings that occur within that passage -- snake handling, baptisimal regeneration, etc.

Funny thing -- I posted a poll a while back asking if people thought the Pericope of Adultery and the Longer Ending of Mark were part of authentic Scripture. My understanding is that there is MUCH more support for the Longer Ending of Mark than the Pericope of Adultery but the poll came back with just the opposite view. I think it's because preachers like to preach on John 8:1-11 and speculate on what Jesus wrote on the ground.

Andy

 

They don't sound conservative to me either.

Both 1st and 2nd Peter claim to be written by Peter the apostle. If they were written by different people then ONE of them is a liar and fraud. Now the problem (if you believe such nonsense) would be which was written by the original Peter and which by the imposter? Without more Peterine writings this cannot be determined.

-kman

 

They don't sound conservative to me either.

Both 1st and 2nd Peter claim to be written by Peter the apostle. If they were written by different people then ONE of them is a liar and fraud. Now the problem (if you believe such nonsense) would be which was written by the original Peter and which by the imposter? Without more Peterine writings this cannot be determined.

-kman </font>[/QUOTE]Of course, Peter could've had scribes write for him as did Paul, with one scribe's writing style a little different from another's.(I don't know if Paul always used the same scribe or not.)

 

OK, but so far these criteria don't exactly line up with John Burgon's but seem skewed towards the W&H hypothesis of textual criticism.

So, Dr. Bob, if it's OK with you (when I have time to look them up and get them right the first time) Could I give his 5 tests of textual authenticity?

HankD