The Adulteress Brought Before Jesus

Hammster said:

There was still an oral tradition. It could have been a story passed along. But if it didn't come from the writer of whatever gospel it might be paired with, it isn't inspired. And shouldn't be there.

Click to expand...

Well, if it was removed from Luke and then re-inserted into John, then it would be inspired.

And I note that you're not even attempting to tackle the problems with the "addition" theory.

Architeuthus said:

Well, if it was removed from Luke and then re-inserted into John, then it would be inspired.

Click to expand...

Seriously? Why? So it can preserve your notion of Biblical inerrancy?

Hammster said:

And what don't you think I'm addressing?

Click to expand...

The problems with the "addition" theory:

• Why would someone add a story to the Bible? What would justify that? Why would it be accepted? Where did the story come from?
• When was this addition supposed to have happened?

Some suggested answers out there just don't make any sense (like, say, the suggestion of a 5th century addition based on oral tradition).

Architeuthus said:

The problems with the "addition" theory:

• Why would someone add a story to the Bible? What would justify that? Why would it be accepted? Where did the story come from?
• When was this addition supposed to have happened?

Some suggested answers out there just don't make any sense (like, say, the suggestion of a 5th century addition based on oral tradition).

Click to expand...

i doubt very serious if was added that late. More likely it was added before there was a Bible.

smaneck said:

i doubt very serious if was added that late. More likely it was added before there was a Bible.

Click to expand...

That's equivalent to saying that the earliest written gospels came in two versions: one with the story and one without.

Now that fits most of the available evidence quite well (early references to the story, manuscripts existing in both versions, Augustine's comments); but it lends support to those people who want to use the version of the Bible with the story.

Architeuthus said:

That's equivalent to saying that the earliest written gospels came in two versions: one with the story and one without.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about all the gospels. And as far as I know there were many versions, not just two.

Now that fits most of the available evidence quite well (early references to the story, manuscripts existing in both versions, Augustine's comments); but it lends support to those people who want to use the version of the Bible with the story.

Click to expand...

Again, there is no Bible at this point.

Hammster said:

We can speculate all day long as to how/when it happened. I don't know what that will accomplish. But the actual evidence is much stronger that it's a later addition. If you don't want to believe that, I'm okay with it.

Click to expand...

You're missing my point. If you just ask "is it in the oldest manuscripts?", then it looks like a later addition.

If you consider a whole package of more specific hypotheses of the form "It was added/removed in the X century for Y reason", and then ask "what's the most likely of those hypothesis, taking into account manuscripts, other writings, and the kind of people who would have done the adding/removing?", then I think you get a different answer.

And I think you HAVE to take that more sophisticated approach. In the same way you get the rule of thumb "prefer the more difficult reading," since when scribes accidentally reword, they generally do so in a way that makes the text read more easily. Or, if you like, there's an analogy to the Markov models used in computing maximum-likelihood evolutionary trees, where one has to distinguish the probabilities of different mutation events.

Architeuthus said:

I'm sure you are. I'm not. And I think we still need to do a lot of work to put textual criticism on a solid mathematical footing, the way that evolutionary theory has been.

Click to expand...

The evidence against it is:
1. That א, (A), B, (C), (L), X, (Δ), 33, 131, and 157 omit it. A and C are here defective, but they leave no sufficient space for its insertion; L and Δ leave gaps, to notify some omission, which the copyist for some reason did not or dared not fill. Though found in D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, V, T, Δ, Λ, Π, and numerous cursives, it is nevertheless obelized in some of the former as doubtful.
(8) The pericope adulterae. (a) Excursus on the genuineness of Jn 7:53-8:11. It is our duty to examine the various grounds on which this passage has been almost universally concluded to have formed no portion of the original Fourth Gospel; and then the internal grounds on which it has been rejected, and some of the speculations as to its origin and value. Doubts have beset the authenticity of the passage from the fourth and fifth centuries in the Eastern Church, both on external and internal grounds. The authority and practice of Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome gave it a secure resting place till the criticism of Erasmus re-awakened doubt. Calvin expressed a more favourable opinion concerning it. Jansenius rejected it. Grotius considered it as an addition to John’s Gospel from the hand of Papias or one of his friends and fellow disciples of John. Wettstein, Semler, Griesbach, and Wegscheider seemed to leave for it no place in Scripture. Lachmann omitted it from his text. It has been condemned as spurious by the great bulk of modern critics, even of different schools and on somewhat different grounds. Some have rejected it as a spurious forgery (see Hengstenberg, in loc.); Keim derives much the same conclusion from its supposed teaching; Others (Scrivener) that, from its interruption of the narrative, it has no place here, but may be possibly regarded as an appendix to John’s Gospel, or a part of the later edition of that Gospel which contained Joh_21:1-25.
A very damaging note accompanies it in 1 (see Tregelles, who gives it at length). The following critical editors have either displaced it or entirely rejected it from this place in John’s Gospel, though many among them admit its virtual authenticity as a record of a genuine occurrence in the life of our Lord: Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Lucke, Meyer, Godet, Milligan, Scrivener, Moulton, Westcott and Hort, the Revised Text, and even Weiss and Wordsworth.

Ancient versions, such as some of the Italic, AEgyptian, Old Syriac, Gothic, early manuscripts of the Peschito and Armenian versions, omit it. It was not read by Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Theodore of Mopsuesfia, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theophylact, where it might have been expected. The defenders of its authenticity allege that Origen’s commentary and homilies are lacking or mutilated over the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters. While this is true, Origen (’Tom.,’ 19.) points out the connection between Joh_7:40 and Joh_8:12 without making the faintest reference to this pericope. "No catenae as yet examined contain notes on any of these verses" (Westcott and Hort).
With the exception of the ’Apostolic Constitutions,’ the Greek writers and commentators are ignorant of it, and there is no proof of its existence in any extant manuscript earlier than the sixth century.The Pulpit

Hammster said:

I've listened to a textual critic give a long and detailed explanation as to why it's not scripture. I'm satisfied.

Click to expand...

But it is scripture. It's in the Bible. It doesn't matter whether Paul wrote the pastoral letters, they are in the Bible so they are scriptures. It doesn't matter if the Book of Isaiah had one author or three. It's in the Bible, so its scripture. Same with II Peter, Revelation, etc.

Architeuthus said:

I'm sure you are. I'm not.

And I think we still need to do a lot of work to put textual criticism on a solid mathematical footing, the way that evolutionary theory has been.

Click to expand...

Mathematical footing?

LoAmmi said:

It's not in my Bible.

Sorry, just felt like being snarky.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't take a word out of the Book of Isaiah no matter how many authors it had.

Architeuthus said:

The problems with the "addition" theory:

• Why would someone add a story to the Bible? What would justify that? Why would it be accepted? Where did the story come from?
• When was this addition supposed to have happened?

Some suggested answers out there just don't make any sense (like, say, the suggestion of a 5th century addition based on oral tradition).

Click to expand...

They would add a story, because someone along the line, felt the story would add to the theology they are trying to state in the NT. Not unlike all the verses added much later to Mark, so it would align with the other gospels.

In essence, it was a marketing decision.

Architeuthus said:

You're missing my point. If you just ask "is it in the oldest manuscripts?", then it looks like a later addition.
If you consider a whole package of more specific hypotheses of the form "It was added/removed in the X century for Y reason", and then ask "what's the most likely of those hypothesis, taking into account manuscripts, other writings, and the kind of people who would have done the adding/removing?", then I think you get a different answer.

Click to expand...

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8).; Concerning the Ending of Mark; Concerning the Story of the Adulteress; The Quo Vadis ; etc.
http://bible-researcher.com/title.html Can God speak authoritatively today, and if so should such revelation be regarded as on a par with Scripture — or perhaps even be added to Scripture? In other words, is the canon closed? Moreover, whence do we have the information about which books are canonical? While the Greek word kanon does occur in the New Testament it cannot be translated by "canon" in English. In each case it is more suitably translated "rule" or "standard" (2 Cor.10:13,15,16; Gal.6:16; Phil.3:16). Movement in this direction occurred when "in the second century in the Christian church kanon came to stand for revealed truth, rule of faith."
It was not until the fourth century that the church began to refer to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as ho kanon ("the canon"). A parallel development took place in the history of the Latin term. In ecclesiastical Latin, canon came to mean "a catalogue of sacred writings." The term "canon" as we use it when referring to the canon of Scripture is therefore not a use of the term in its biblical sense, but conforms to ecclesiastical usage from the fourth century onwards In the nature of the case such a statement of divine approval is impossible for the New Testament. We have no post hoc pronouncement from Christ to the effect that these 27 books, and these only, are authoritative, inspired and canonical. So how do we proceed? We cannot separate the a priori of our faith from the a posteriori of historical development. However, the recognition of a closed collection of documents above all other literature was a gradual process that was not complete till the end of the fourth century. The tradition of which the New Testament speaks is therefore not an unchanneled stream which is then perpetuated as the faith or theology of the Church. It is rather the authoritative proclamation entrusted to the apostles, as the witnesses of Christ and as the foundation of the Church. By the year 220 the status of the various writings of the New Testament are broadly as follows:
(i) The Gospels: They are one of the best attested sections of the New Testament during this period. In contrast to Marcion's one Gospel (Luke) and the Gnostics' Gospel of Truth, Irenaeus maintains that the Church recognizes four Gospels. Acts: By this time it is acknowledged as the work of Luke. It has a secure position between the Gospels and the letters of Paul. Paul: All thirteen letters are universally received and accepted. The unity of the Pauline material was recognized. Hebrews: There is a sharp difference in the Church at this time concerning its canonicity. In the Western Church it was not accorded canonical status till late in the fourth century. James is an epistle over which there is again a sharp division of opinion. In the Eastern Church it is one of the books accepted without question, although in some circles as late as 325 it is regarded as a forgery. 1 Peter has a firm place in the canon. The opposite is true for 2 Peter. Its history is very uncertain. There is no evidence of its canonicity before 350. It was rejected by the Syrian Church till the fifth century. There is nothing of the modern trend to play off its theology against that of 1 Peter. 1 John was generally received. From a historical perspective 2 and 3 John have an uncertain position. Only by the fourth century are they received as canonical. Because of their brevity, 2 and 3 John may have circulated with 1 John. The Muratorian Canon refers to two epistles of John. Jude is accepted in the Muratorian Canon and appealed to by Clement, Tertullian and Origen. However, it is not universally accepted. Around 360 it is not part of the canon in the Syrian and African Churches.
However, 1 Clement never enjoyed widespread canonical recognition. The Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, and the Acts of Paul (Latin) were other such documents. They were accepted for a time in limited circles, but eventually were excluded by all. (95 A.D.)
1. W.F. Arndt & F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, second edition, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1979, 403.

2. C.T. Lewis & C. Short, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon, 1962, 280.

3. e.g. Belgic Confession, Article 5, and Westminster Confession of Faith (I:3).
Clement 42:1,2, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, second edition, edited and translated by J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, edited and revised by M.W. Holmes, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992, 75.