Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Yet another opinion about the Shroud of Turin

he "Precise Parallel New Testament" states in a footnote: 3
"The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts.: here, or after 7:36 or at the end of this gospel, or after Luke 21:38 or at the end of that gospel"

"The Five Gospels" states: 4
"The story of the woman caught in the act of adultery...was a 'floating' or 'orphan' story. It is almost certainly not a part of the original text of John, but is a noteworthy tradition nonetheless...While the Fellows [of the Jesus Seminar] agreed that the words did not originate in their present form with Jesus, they nevertheless assigned the words and story to a special category of things they wish Jesus had said and done."

"The New Commentary on the Whole Bible" says: 2
"This story is not included in the best and earliest manuscripts [of John]. In fact, it is absent from all witnesses earlier than the 9th century, with the exception of a fifth century Greek-Latin manuscript. No Greek church father comments on the passage prior to the 12th century."

The "Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible" states: 1
"7:53-8:11: This passage is omitted or set off in modern editions of the gospel since it does not appear in the oldest and best manuscripts and is apparently a later interpolation. In some manuscripts it occurs after Luke 21:38."

And what does the NIV say??

The New International Version of the Bible states:
"The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11."


The vast consensus among serious scholars is this was added in the middle ages.

No, that is not so. I had read and been taught the Bible in my childish way. That said, it was HEARING the Word preached that brought me to conviction and repentance. Then later, I came to understand what I believed by reading the Bible as I matured as a person and a Christian.

Sure, I think a person can be saved without reading or knowing the Bible. But merely being saved is not the end all and be all of being a Christian.

AS,

So, you agree that it is "in dispute?"

You agree that there are other views?

TF

No serious views with any substantial supporting evidence.
Just like Second Peter, the vast consensus is it was forged.

I don't need to read that guys book any more than I need to read your book Ringman. I'm good with the flood, and the only thing that I 'do' reject is your ideology and your interpretation of Scripture and your agenda.


Yep.

AS

Well, so you agree that it is in dispute.

And you retreat to what Wiki would call an �appeal to authority� logic fallacy, rather than examine it yourself.

It is included for a reason and yet you ignore that and seize on the footnote. Majoring in minors?


So, I offer the �lifted� following. Rather lengthy so you may choose to scan what is bolded and underlined.



John 8:7 - The controversy

Numerous commentators and well-known teachers state that this text is not found in the oldest and best MSS. (What they really mean is the oldest are the best because they are older) But just because there is an older manuscript that doesn�t mean it is the best. Therefore the argument it that because it was not found in the oldest MSS it was not part of the original Gospel written by John and therefore not canonical. On the other hand there are those who state without qualifications that though the textual evidence against its inclusion is very strong there is also adequate evidence that this episode was in the original and therefore is canonical. The main argument against inclusion is that it is not in the oldest MSS.

So, what is the argument for John 8:7?

Augustine who lived in the 5th century says that some people had removed this section from their Bibles because they were afraid it would give wives a justification for adultery. Remember that in the early church they were dominated by asceticism, so that any sexual involvement was wrong. It is more likely in asceticism to remove a passage that deals with adultery than to add a passage that deals with adultery. So there is a reason why it could have been taken out of some copies very early. It would have been taken out of some copies very early and the reason it would not be in some old MSS is because it was taken out of the manuscript that they were copied from. The earliest of the MSS was dated about 325 AD but, as another scholar points out, the canon was pretty much solidified by 200, so that after 200 AD (the oldest MS we have is 325) it would be virtually impossible to add or delete something. None of the old MSS go back before 200 but whatever they were copied from would come from before 200, so the oldest MSS argument has some real problems.

It has various stylistic traits that are unique to the apostle John. For example, in 8:5 the Pharisees make the statement: �Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?� Then in verse 6 John explains the significance of that: �They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him.� This phrase in the Greek is touto de elegon peirazo [touto de e)legonpeirazw], and it means they said this to tempt Him. This same phrase is used by John and only by John in the New Testament�John 6:6; 7:39; 11:51; 12:6, 33; 13:11, 28. So this is a very consistent style trait of the apostle John. Secondly, when Jesus addresses the woman in v. 10 He addresses her by the vocative gunai [gunai], �woman.� He did that with His mother Mary at the wedding at Cana. Only John records the Lord addressing women in this manner. Third, the phrase �sin no more� is also found in John 5:14 when Jesus healed the crippled man at Bethesda. Jesus doesn�t mean don�t sin ever again. In fact, the NIV recognises that this is much more of an idiom and catches the thrust of this: �Go now and leave your life of sin.� Jesus is saying, Don�t go and commit this sin anymore. A fourth thing related to the style is, if it is a late addition it is written and added by someone other than job he does a remarkable job of imitating John�s style, and he includes of a lot of tiny details that are historically accurate that somebody living 100 years after Jerusalem has been destroyed by the Romans would not be aware of. So it has the atmosphere of textual veracity. It fits the narrative of John.

Further commentary- �..Technically, the �Codex Sinaiticus� and the �Codex Vaticanus� are some early manuscripts that leave these verses out. Yet, both Iranaeus and Hippolytus quote these scriptures in the mid to late second century. Who is Iranaeus? Well, if one looks at the discipleship line. A famous Christian named Polycarp discipled Iranaeus when Polycarp was aged. And who discipled Polycarp? The Apostle John! I just refuse to believe that a church leader just two people removed from John would have memorized and taught others a fake scripture. ��
[b][/b]

Any chance you could explain that to my wife?

Not replying to any post in particular, but let me ask this:

After the death of Christ, and before the bible was compiled, how did people come to know Christ?

To quote Dr. Bart Ehrman, "...It turns out it was not originallly in the Gosphel of JOhn. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by latter scribes. ...In fact, scholars who work on the manuscript tradition have NO DOUBTS about this particular case. ... The story is not found in our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John, its writing style is very different from what we find in the rest of John including the stories immediately before and after; and it includes a large number of works and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel. The conclusion is unavoidable: this passage was not originally part of the Gospel.

You may call this an appeal to authority, but Dr. Ehrman is perhaps the most eloquent modern spokesman for this arcane art. As for your assertion that it was quoted in the second century, as I mentioned above, references to it did not appear in any of the critiques prior to the 9th century.

antlers,



I am "interpreting" Scripture the same my "interpretation" of your posts? I actually believe you write what you mean!



Help me out here. I didn't know I had an agenda so would you be kind enough to tell me what it is, please?

If you mean the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus hundreds of people were eye witnesses of Him. For them it was a personal testimony of their real life experiences and then writings by witnesses and the apostles.

God sometimes uses allegory in the Bible to facilitate our comprehension of things that are beyond our limited understanding.

Evidently your agenda is to turn others 'away' from God, the Bible, and Christianity. And it also seems you don't want others to have a one-on-one relationship with their Creator.

AS,

Re: John 8:7

You stated: ".... references to it did not appear in any of the critiques prior to the 9th century."

What you state is simply not true. If you would do your own research you would see that.

So, your "appeal to authority" is now Bart Ehrman. You are choosing to ignore other sources that would dispute Mr. Ehrman.

"All Hail Bart Ehrman! He ALONE is true authority!"

TF

I'm pretty sure you know what I mean.

The bible as we have it wasn't complied until at least a century after Christ appeared to anyone. Most of it wasn't even written for decades afterward.

In the mean time, how did anyone come to know Christ? See acts 2 if you need an example.

I'm pretty sure I answered your question.



If you read enough you would have encountered William F. Albright Ph.D archaeologist. He was not a Christian and yet he maintained the entire New Testament was written prior to the year 70AD. For those who try to place questionable verse in the middle ages seem to not realize the New Testament was cannonized sometime around the year 300.



See my answer above. Acts 2 is an example of what I said.

RM, the first person to publish a list consistant with what was later canonized was a Bishop of Alexandria in 367 CE, but it wasn't accepted until the Council of Trent 30 years later.

The first suggested NT Cannon was by Marcion around 135 CE which included only the Gospel of Luke, and about 8 of Paul's letters.

As for Albright, he was the son of a Methodist minister.

antelope_sniper,



It looks like I was close.



Check his writings. He was not a Christian. And what was your family history?

AS,

Ok, I get it. Albright is "dismissed" because he was the son of a Methodist minister.

So, how about we dismiss Bart Ehrman as he is simply an agnostic. Many question his scholarship anyway. I mean c'mon a self professed agnostic ranting about Jesus? This is just his way of selling books and getting rich. He cannot be a trusted academic source, just an old fashioned muckraker finding a way to get someone to buy his books.

So, please, no more mention of this Ehrman guy...OK?

TF

TF

Are you really asserting that Albright's upbringing as the son of of a Methodist Minister had no influence on his work?