Disputed authenticity of John 7:53-8:11

[OzSpen]

Do you think it is historical or simply a useful fiction? Lightfoot believes it is historical even though it is an interpolation.

The evidence points to it being an interpolation that was added later as it is not located in the two oldest full NT manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The New International Version states after Mark 16:8, 'The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20'.

I don't have assured evidence to confirm what Bishop Lightfoot stated that Mark 16:9-20 is historical in all its facts. However, there is MSS evidence that various aspects of these verses have been included in some MSS.

There is not enough evidence for me to consider it is part of the God-breathed original text (2 Tim 3:16-17 NIV).

Oz

 

[Wgw]

I consider the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus to be very likely Arian-influenced texts. I would note the Byzantine text type in continuous liturgical use in the Greek church, is supported by fourth-century translations that have an Orthodox provenance, for example, the Vulgate, the Peshitta amd various Coptic bibles. One would expect these would agree with the "Alexandrian" text type if it were in fact more reliable.

I also very much shudder at the theological consequences in terms of Pelagianism, rigourism and sinless perfection that might stem from omitting this pericope. Because as of now only a tiny minority of primarily Baptist and non-denom preachers on the one hand, and various progressive mainline pastors inclined to view the adultery pericope as "patriarchal" on the other hand, have taught against it, we don't yet know what the ramifications of its omission will be, and I find that an unsettling prospect.

 

[cloudyday2]

I also very much shudder at the theological consequences in terms of Pelagianism, rigourism and sinless perfection that might stem from omitting this pericope. Because as of now only a tiny minority of primarily Baptist and non-denom preachers on the one hand, and various progressive mainline pastors inclined to view the adultery pericope as "patriarchal" on the other hand, have taught against it, we don't yet know what the ramifications of its omission will be, and I find that an unsettling prospect.

I have noticed that when Christians learn to be more righteous, they almost always become smug and critical of those who are less righteous. This is Ash Wednesday for the Western calendar. It is ironic that succeeding in righteousness inevitably creates a feeling of superiority over others. It is almost better to fail than to succeed. However, Christians are supposed to try to be righteous.

You are right that the pericope is a useful reminder to Christians.

 

[Wgw]

I have noticed that when Christians learn to be more righteous, they almost always become smug and critical of those who are less righteous.

To the extent this is true, they have not in fact become more righteous; rather, they have merely fallen into the depths of prelest.

 

[cloudyday2]

To the extent this is true, they have not in fact become more righteous; rather, they have merely fallen into the depths of prelest.

Here is the Wikipedia article on that word for those like myself who have not heard it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelest

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have noticed that when Christians learn to be more righteous, they almost always become smug and critical of those who are less righteous. This is Ash Wednesday for the Western calendar. It is ironic that succeeding in righteousness inevitably creates a feeling of superiority over others. It is almost better to fail than to succeed. However, Christians are supposed to try to be righteous.

You are right that the pericope is a useful reminder to Christians.

Imagined righteousness is generally the antithesis of actual righteousness. We have, for example, the story of the Pharisee and the Publican to show us the difference. The confusion of moralism or rigorism with righteousness is often what in the Lutheran tradition we would call the Opinio Legis--the Opinion of the Law--which is part of the theology of glory and could be said to be man's most natural heresy.

The man who believes himself righteous, put most simply, isn't.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Here is the Wikipedia article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

So what do you believe about these verses?
- Are they an interpolation?
- If they are interpolation are they history or fiction?
- If they are fiction do you find them useful for inspiration?

There are other likely interpolations we could discuss, but this episode is interesting because so many people find it inspirational.

This would explain why Ted Cruz is not following Jesus' example in the story.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

American Standard Version (1901), Revised Standard Version (1946), New American Standard Version (1963), New International Version (1973), and the New King James Version (1980) all have marginal comments that basically say most of the ancient authorities omit John 7:53 – John 8:11 and those who contain it vary a lot from each other and contain variations of the text and the most reliable early manuscripts omit it.
I wonder how many Christians read the marginal comments in their versions.
I think based on its poor manuscript evidence we can most likely say it was added in at a far later time (at least for now).
Oh, and John 7:53 – John 8:11 does not appear in the Coptic, Syriac and the Armenian Bibles.
It does not appear in the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus and later Greek manuscripts omit it.
It does appear in the Textus Receptus but, don’t get me started on how defective the text is.
I have a few good books I can recommend on the subject if needed.

I believe that event should be in the Bible.
I am not a fan of the KJV Bible and like comparing greek texts with one another.

Here is a site that shows 5 of the greek texts:

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C008.htm

And one with various Bible versions:

http://biblehub.com/john/8-1.htm

I took this quote from another thread discussing this topic:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/woman-taken-in-adultery-john-7-53-to-john-8-11.7835594/

The Woman Taken in Adultery - John 7:53 to John 8:11.

John 7:53-8:11 - King James Bible 1611

7:53 And every man went unto his own house............................

8:
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.............................
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

These 12 entire verses have come under attack by the Bible agnostics - the modern Vatican Version/UBS/ Critical text scholars who do not believe that ANY Bible in any language IS or ever WAS the complete and infallible words of the living God. Yet the evidence for their inclusion in God’s Holy Book is massive and widespread.

If interested, see Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"

Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer

The Catholic Connection

The Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 have footnotes for these verses to the effect of "The story of the adulteress is missing from the best early Greek manuscripts, where is does not appear" (St. Joseph).

Likewise the ESV 2011 edition headlines in capital letters THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT INCLUDE 7:53-8:11" and the NIV 2011 edition now has two lines separating these verses from the rest of the gospel of John and prints the verses in smaller type and in italics. It notes at the top of this section: [The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11]

To find out more about what these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" are REALLY like, see "The Oldest and Best Manuscripts?" -

Oldest and Best Mss? - Another King James Bible Believer


In his book, the King James Version Defended, Dr. Edward Hills comments: “It is not surprising that the pericope de adultera (this whole section of Scripture from John 7:53 to John 8:11) is omitted in Papyri 66 and 75, Aleph (Sinaiticus) B, W and L. For all these manuscripts are connected with the Alexandrian tradition which habitually favored omissions.


All 12 of these verses are found in the Majority of all remaining Greek texts we know of including D 5th Century, and other uncial copies like E, G, H, K, M, S, T, U, Gamma, Lambda and Pi.

They are also found in the Old Latin copies air, c, d, e, ff2, g1, j and r1. Even the United Bible Society footnotes tell us these verses are found in some manuscripts of the Syriac Peshitta (they are in Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta), Harclean, Coptic Boharic, Slavonic and Latin Vulgate (404 A.D.) ancient versions.

Jack Moorman also lists some Armenian manuscripts and the Ethiopic ancient version as also including all these verses.

The UBS also tells us that they are found in the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century) and that portions of this section are quoted by such early church writers as Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, Pacian, Rufinus, Jerome, Faustus-Milevis and Augustine.

In his book, The King James Version Defended, Dr. Edward F. Hills discusses these verses at some length and explains why some early scribes began to delete these verses from their manuscripts.

He says on page 151 “The story of the woman taken in adultery was a problem also in ancient times. Early Christians had trouble with this passage. The forgiveness which Christ vouchsafed to the adulteress was contrary to the conviction that the punishment for adultery ought to be very severe.

As late as the time of Ambrose (374 A.D.), bishop of Milan, there were still many Christians who felt such scruples against this portion of John’s Gospel. This is clear from the remarks which Ambrose makes in a sermon on David’s sin.”

Mr. Hills then proceeds to quote Ambrose as saying: “In the same way also the Gospel lesson WHICH HAS BEEN READ, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation…Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously? It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds.”

Dr. Hills continues: “According to Augustine (400 A.D.), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. Augustine writes: “Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, REMOVED FROM THEIR MANUSCRIPTS the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said “sin no more” had granted permission to sin.”


Mr. Hills mentions that this whole section of Scripture “is cited in the Didascalia (Teaching) of the Apostles (3rd century) and in the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century), which are based on the Didascalia.”

Mr. Hills also refers to Jerome’s (415 A.D.) quote that “in the Gospel according to John IN MANY MANUSCRIPTS, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.”

Mr. Hills continues on page 153: “Also the Spanish Father Pacian (370 A.D.) appealed to the pericope de adultera when protesting against the excessive severity in discipline. “Are you not willing,” he asked, “to read in the Gospel that the Lord also spared the adulteress who confessed, whom no man had condemned.”


The only people who cast doubt on the authenticity of these 12 verses are those who today are promoting the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and Holman Standard. And YET they still include the verses in their “bible” versions. If they REALLY think they are not inspired Scripture, then they should be honest and consistent about their unbelief and simply REMOVE them. But they don’t. They just cast doubt on whether these 12 verses are inspired of God or not.

Not one of these men like James White, Dan Wallace, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur or John Piper believes that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was the complete and infallible Bible. Don’t believe it? Just ask any of these men to SHOW you a copy of this “infallible Bible” they PROFESS to believe in. They will NEVER do it.

In the sovereignty of God all these verses have been included in virtually every Bible in every language ever printed. They are included in the Modern Greek Bible and in the Modern Hebrew Bible.

They are also in the early Anglo Saxon Gospels that date from around 900 A.D. and are in all Reformation Bibles like Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 to the present Reina Valera of 2011, the French Olivetan to the modern French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Segond 2007, the Italian Diodati 1649 to the Nuova Riveduta of 2006.


Don’t let the Bible critics, Bible Rummagers and unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible rob you of your confidence in the absolute truth of God’s precious words. Trash your doubt causing “Yea, hath God said?” Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and get yourself a copy of God’s infallible Book, the King James Bible.

.

 

[cloudyday2]

I took this quote from another thread discussing this topic:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/woman-taken-in-adultery-john-7-53-to-john-8-11.7835594/

Thanks, @LittleLambofJesus , that is an interesting post arguing for its inclusion. Hmmm.

 

[bhsmte]

Here is the Wikipedia article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

So what do you believe about these verses?
- Are they an interpolation?
- If they are interpolation are they history or fiction?
- If they are fiction do you find them useful for inspiration?

There are other likely interpolations we could discuss, but this episode is interesting because so many people find it inspirational.

I think it was a later marketing decision. It was a cool story, so why not toss it in later.

 

[doubtingmerle]

We believe that the original autographs were God-breathed.

...but we don't know what was in the original autographs, so we don't really know what we believe is God-breathed?

 

[ChetSinger]

...but we don't know what was in the original autographs, so we don't really know what we believe is God-breathed?

We can't be certain to the letter, but we have enough data to have high confidence that the message is easily understood. And to me, that's what matters. I actually think we risk losing more through translation than through manuscript corruption.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Even if that passage is a well-meaning inclusion from oral tradition, and not merely made up on the spot (perhaps to push some individual's political or theological agenda), it still is ambiguous whether it is a fabrication or not. Oral tradition may sometimes be correct, but there is certainly no guarantee of that, especially after a few hundred years had passed. You could flip a coin at this point.


eudaimonia,

Mark