John 8:1-11

Burgon's 7 tests.

1. Antiquity, or Primitiveness

2. Consent of Witnesses or Number

3. Variety of evidence, or Catholicity (universal acceptance)

4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight

5. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition

6. Evidence of the entire passage, or Context

7. Internal considerations, or Reasonableness


No dancing, no twisting, no convoluted logic designed to point toward a pre-selected text, just a reasonable and supportable set of unbiased tests.

 

This text has been bouncing around in my head for a while. What does it effect if not original? I read somewhere that if not original then it is certianly in the character of what Jesus would do and perhaps even say and could be used in that vein

 

That's a good point go2church! It is definitely a historically credible incident. We do not have the "original" manuscript - the one we might say was "verbally inspired". Even though evidence does not seem to favor it being part of the initial gospel of John I still do not have a problem with its inclusion in the bible.

 

Jerome and Augustine both spoke of the Pericope as being present in both Latin and Greek mss.
Augustine complained because the Greeks removed it (or seemed to). I believe it was simply skipped over in the reading of the lexicons because according to Augustine they (Greeks) thought it would lead to the conclusion that adultery wasn't so bad a sin. Later it was just dropped from the text.

I also remember reading a LONG dialogue between Jerome and Augustine concerning this passage.

I'll try to find the source (but not too hard, its not that important to me, its Scripture).

HankD

 

This thread is an eye-opener. People dismissing parts of the Bible based on what the "scholars" say, etc. I can see what would drive some to "onlyism" in the light of such wavering loyalty to the word of God, putting the opinion of man above the word. If you doubt certain readings in the Bible, where do you stop? Liberal scholarship has already gone down the road of the "Jesus Seminar," and can you blame them when they don't have a final authority?

I'm just a simple preacher who has been exposed extensively to the versions issue and have learned some about "scholarship" on the way. If there is only one thing we have this world that we can consider trustworthy, it is the word of God!

Wannabe bible scholar, where does it stop?

Jason

 

Here is a reference:

In a paper The Pericope de Adultera by Chuck Louviere, quoting Jay P. Green
Used without permission from the Public Domain
found at http://www.holywordcafe.com/freaks/John.pdf

BTW, reading the whole dissertation is profitable.

HankD

 

The oldest Bibles don't have the Pericope in them. This isn't my opinion over the Word of God; it is looking at a copy of the Word of God and seeing that it doesn't contain the Pericope. Newer Bibles have the passage. When did it get added?

Where there are no variations of significance in the copies. For most of the Bible, there is no doubt.

Yes, I can blame them because you can chose readings at random and still end up with a thorougly orthodox Bible. We are not going down the path towards the Jesus Seminar. Liberal scholarship exists because of unbelief not because of a text issue.

Andy

 

One further thing, when I said "its not that important to me, it's Scripture", I was simply affirming its authenticity.

I should have said, it's not that important to me because I am convicted that it's Scripture.



HankD

 

In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament Metzger states that there are many early and diverse manuscripts that do not have the pericope.

Later he states, "At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John's narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52. Others placed it after 7.36 or after 7.44 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38. Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials."

 

Bob,how do you justify calling a Bible believer a liberal??? When we believe God preserved His word in the protestant texts(and the Bibles thereof)of the reformation;And that "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities) from Jesuit-Egyptian,pro-RCC manuscripts that had the Apocrypha as inspired scripture are nothing but door-stops.How is this,in your opinion,being a liberal? This position is not new;you know Church history;people have been rejecting those North African manuscripts,and the "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)thereof for centuries.If this is you veiw of a "liberal," I'm afraid you cant see the forest because of the trees.

 

Remember that critical scholarship is not bad. It is rooted in the desire to get more knowledge about what we believe - that's a good thing. Now certainly there are people (like the Jesus Seminar) who take it far beyond a good reasonable point! We're just humans so our grasp of Holy Scripture is by definition incomplete. By studying manuscripts, archeology, history etc we can learn more about our faith.

I believe in Christ because of what He's done with my life - I don't need any "proofs"! So therefore if I can learn more about God's Word it's good - even if what I learn is not what I may have initially thought or what I have been taught. So we shouldn't be afraid! If someone can pull the rug out from under us then we weren't standing on a very good rug!!

 

I agree with Dr. Bob that Only-ism is ERROR, no matter what the version is named Vulgate, Geneva, King James, NASB, NIV, etc, etc...

The individual's view of the quality of the underlying text is NOT error but a subjective choice and leads to healthy dialogue, which, hopefully will have closure at a future date.

HankD

 

So, Dr. Bob, what part of the evidence, both manuscript and historical, regarding the pericope do you find to be not credible?

 

How was Erasmus "humanistic" in the comtemporary sense of the word and how does his "humanism" differ from the "humanism" of Greisbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzgar, Martini, Wikgren, and others?

 

Erasmus was not necessarily a "humanist" in the modern sense (one who tends to minimize supernaturalism and emphasize individual worth and abilities). He was a great scholar of language and science (somewhat). His desire to learn and apply classical languages and philosophy stood in distinction to the dogmatic scholasticism that had become the norm in the medieval church. As such he was called a humanist. He is often referred to as "the great humanist".

 

Yes, I know. That was the point. Dr. Bob used the term "humanistic methodology" in an obviously pejorative way. It was meant to imply a strong negative which we, as Christians, abhor, i.e., the secular humanism of today. To use the term, as it correctly applies to Erasmus and all those of his day who desired to raise the educational level of all people, as a pejorative is extremely deceitful.

 

But they will abandon even Erasmus when it becomes a showdown between the 1611KJB English and the TR Greek.

HankD