Getting stoned

[Tellyontellyon]

Hi,
John 8 1-11 seems like one of the key Bible stories and carries an important lesson.
But my Bible (NIV) seems unsure if it belongs there. There seems to be a whole debate about what verses, and even what books should be in the Bible.
How can we be certain if something is biblical or not if we can't define what is or isn't part of the Bible? Especially when so much seems to hang on the subtle nuances of what is written.

Would you include John 8 1-11 in the word of God?

 

[Albion]

There's no question about John. The only books, not passages, that might be considered questionable would be the Apocrypha--always in question among Jews and, later, Christians--but which contains almost nothing that bears upon worship or doctrine, plus three or so books that were accepted into the New Testament and about which there had been some question. The rest of the NT books had been accepted by the churches even before canonization.

 

[Phronema]

Hi,
John 8 1-11 seems like one of the key Bible stories and carries an important lesson.
But my Bible (NIV) seems unsure if it belongs there. There seems to be a whole debate about what verses, and even what books should be in the Bible.
How can we be certain if something is biblical or not if we can't define what is or isn't part of the Bible? Especially when so much seems to hang on the subtle nuances of what is written.

Would you include John 8 1-11 in the word of God?

Yes, the entire Bible is the Word of God. The Gospels are held in a very high regard because they give us the very meaning of what, and why Christ did what He did for us, but the entire Bible is the Word of God.

So that portion is important as you've mentioned.

In particular in regards to John 8:5, and 8:7-11.

8:5 - The law dictated the death penalty for adulterers (Lv 20:10). This ordinance was not observed to the letter in the days of Jesus; the Pharisees brought this particular woman because they saw an opportunity to test Him. If Christ objected to the punishment, He could be accused of opposing the Law; if He upheld the punishment, then He could be accused of showing no mercy to sinners.

8: 7-11 - Christ’s answer confounds the Pharisees, for He upholds a great principle of the Law—that the wages of sin is death (Gn 2:17; Rom 6:23)—without neglecting its greater aspect of mercy (Dt 13:17; Ps 116:2–117:4; Hos 6:6). This mercy is offered freely to all repentant sinners. In order for us to receive this gift, we must in turn flee from sin.

Those are footnotes from the The Orthodox Study Bible, Thomas Nelson.

In regards to another of your questions as to how can we be certain if something is Biblical, or not. It boils down to what, and which books are included in the original Canon of the Bible. So for that I'd suggest a look to the history behind the Holy Scriptures, and see which Books were Canonized. If it is apart of the original Canon then it is important.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hi,
John 8 1-11 seems like one of the key Bible stories and carries an important lesson.
But my Bible (NIV) seems unsure if it belongs there. There seems to be a whole debate about what verses, and even what books should be in the Bible.
How can we be certain if something is biblical or not if we can't define what is or isn't part of the Bible? Especially when so much seems to hang on the subtle nuances of what is written.

Would you include John 8 1-11 in the word of God?

Does the Catholic Church say John 8: 1-11 is in the Bible? Do the Orthodox agree? Then don't worry about it. The Catholic Church accepts Jn 8; 1-11 as Scripture. I can't speak for the Orthodox but an Eastern Orthodox person has just said so in the post above. Don't lose sleep over it.

 

[crossnote]

No major doctrine is affected by the few scribal differences in the manuscripts. Often what is missing in a translation will show up elsewhere (in a different form) in the same translation as Scripture has a way of interpreting itself.

Would you include John 8 1-11 in the word of God?

Yes, as the same principles are taught elsewhere (e.g. Romans 2 thru 3)...
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.
(Rom 2:1)

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Hi,
John 8 1-11 seems like one of the key Bible stories and carries an important lesson.
But my Bible (NIV) seems unsure if it belongs there. There seems to be a whole debate about what verses, and even what books should be in the Bible.
How can we be certain if something is biblical or not if we can't define what is or isn't part of the Bible? Especially when so much seems to hang on the subtle nuances of what is written.

Would you include John 8 1-11 in the word of God?

lol yes, the entire world wide Church aka (Nicene Creed professing Christians) have accepted this as the word of God for over 1600 years, (probably around 1640 years if we want to be nit picky). This is quite an achievement, because certain books like Revelation and the later Catholic epistles books that every other Christians accept, were not accepted by the Assyrian Church of the East, aka Nestorian Christians, but John and 2 dozen or so others were. Anyway the speculations of Jesus Seminar folks, Higher Biblical Criticism scholars etc. has little bearing on what other Christians believe, the Canonical debates being over since the classical age. These issues being settled because of various heretical movements with their various spurious "Gospel" and "epistle" works.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

So why does my NIV question the presence of verses 1-11? It says the earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11

 

[bling]

Hi,
John 8 1-11 seems like one of the key Bible stories and carries an important lesson.
But my Bible (NIV) seems unsure if it belongs there. There seems to be a whole debate about what verses, and even what books should be in the Bible.
How can we be certain if something is biblical or not if we can't define what is or isn't part of the Bible? Especially when so much seems to hang on the subtle nuances of what is written.

Would you include John 8 1-11 in the word of God?

Among most Christians what is in the Bible the Holy Spirit did an excellent job of protecting and preserving, with total doctrinal consistency. John 8: 1-11 is totally consistent with everything else in scripture, so it does not add or take away, but does add to the emphasis. John might have seen the need and added it later, after sending out his letter without it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So why does my NIV question the presence of verses 1-11? It says the earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11

I'll answer your question with a different question. What authority do the editors of the NIV have to determine what is and isn't Scripture? None of course. It's their cumulative opinion. Nothing more.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

I'll answer your question with a different question

Well why are they saying it then.
It's no good asking me I'm not even a Christian.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well why are they saying it then.
It's no good asking me I'm not even a Christian.

Sorry. I didn't notice that.

Just trying to make the point that the Editors of the NIV don't have any official standing to say what belongs or not. They can decide anything they want in their version but they have no authority outside of having a printing press and a copyright to their particular translation.

The Catholic Church recognizes it as Scripture. Pretty sure the Orthodox do as well. They have the authority and have already ruled on it. The Church accepts John 8 in it's entirety.

 

[ChetSinger]

So why does my NIV question the presence of verses 1-11? It says the earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11

They're right. That passage is missing in some manuscripts, moved elsewhere in others, and even appears in one important manuscript family of Luke's gospel. At least one scholar says that the style is Luke's and that's where it belongs. Go figure.

I'll let the scholars work it out. In the meantime, does the gospel change if it's not there? I don't think so. The lessons it teaches (Jesus forgives sins and we're not to be judging others) already appear multiple times elsewhere in the NT.

My own opinion, fwiw, is that the event actually did happen and it became part of an oral tradition that eventually found its way into John's text (and sometimes Luke's). So I think it's legitimate.

 

[icxn]

So why does my NIV question the presence of verses 1-11? It says the earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11

Because the ancient Christians did not read the scriptures just to fill their head with knowledge, but for putting the little they knew into practice... and sometimes they omitted some verses:

Quote from the Desert Fathers:

Abba Abraham told of a man of Scetis who was a scribe and did not eat bread. A brother came to beg him to copy a book of the scriptures. The old man whose spirit was engaged in contemplation, wrote, omitting some phrases and with no punctuation. The brother, taking the book and wishing to punctuate it, noticed that words were missing. So he said to the old man, 'Abba, there are some phrases missing.' The old man said to him, 'Go, and practice first that which is written, then come back and I will write the rest.'​

 

[BNR32FAN]

Hi,
John 8 1-11 seems like one of the key Bible stories and carries an important lesson.
But my Bible (NIV) seems unsure if it belongs there. There seems to be a whole debate about what verses, and even what books should be in the Bible.
How can we be certain if something is biblical or not if we can't define what is or isn't part of the Bible? Especially when so much seems to hang on the subtle nuances of what is written.

Would you include John 8 1-11 in the word of God?

You have to remember that the scriptures were written in Hebrew & Greek, so modern translations can’t add to or take away from the original message. If they do then they should be rejected.

 

[PloverWing]

You have to remember that the scriptures were written in Hebrew & Greek, so modern translations can’t add to or take away from the original message. If they do then they should be rejected.

The Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies that we have differ from each other in small ways, however. Where they differ, it is not always easy to determine what the original manuscripts said. This is one of those situations where we are not sure what was in the originals.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies that we have differ from each other in small ways, however. Where they differ, it is not always easy to determine what the original manuscripts said. This is one of those situations where we are not sure what was in the originals.

Typically the older versions tend to be held in higher regard than the newer.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Typically the older versions tend to be held in higher regard than the newer.

Presumably though all the ancient manuscripts that were originally written by the apostles are now long gone, we have copies of copies of copies... how can we really know which ones are older?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Presumably though all the ancient manuscripts that were originally written by the apostles are now long gone, we have copies of copies of copies... how can we really know which ones are older?

Im not aware of any real major changes in the manuscripts. I do know that some of the newer versions have additions. Like for example in The Lords Prayer the words “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever” was not present in the older manuscripts as well as a few other bits here and there but nothing that could affect doctrinal issues that I’m aware of.

 

[public hermit]

Hi,
John 8 1-11 seems like one of the key Bible stories and carries an important lesson.
But my Bible (NIV) seems unsure if it belongs there. There seems to be a whole debate about what verses, and even what books should be in the Bible.
How can we be certain if something is biblical or not if we can't define what is or isn't part of the Bible? Especially when so much seems to hang on the subtle nuances of what is written.

Would you include John 8 1-11 in the word of God?

You are correct. This beloved account is not found in the earliest extant manuscripts. What does that mean? It could mean that it is not rooted in an accurate historical account. It could have been added later. Or, maybe it came from another accurate tradition, and was added later. Who knows? The problem is, all it would take is to find one manuscript that does contain it and also predates all the extant copies we now have. Is that impossible? Surely not. Is it probable? I don't know. How would one figure the priors?

Maybe the more important questions are 1) Is it in harmony with everything else we have about Christ? I would say, yes. 2) Is it of value for the edification of the body and the glory of God? Yes. So, it's an interesting academic debate. But, whether it is accurate history or not, it is still true that those in need of grace need not throw stones.

 

[ChetSinger]

Presumably though all the ancient manuscripts that were originally written by the apostles are now long gone, we have copies of copies of copies... how can we really know which ones are older?

Good question. That's the task of scholars called "textual critics", whose job it is to trace and catalog copies of ancient documents in an attempt to get as close to the originals as possible. The New Testament is by far the best-preserved ancient document in the world: there are more than 5,000 manuscripts written in the original Greek, ranging in size from the palm of your hand to entire bound books. So textual critics of the New Testament have a lot of material to work with.

From Wikipedia's article on "textual criticism":

The objective of the textual critic's work is to provide a better understanding of the creation and historical transmission of the text and its variants. This understanding may lead to the production of a "critical edition" containing a scholarly curated text. If a scholar has several versions of a manuscript but no known original, then established methods of textual criticism can be used to seek to reconstruct the original text as closely as possible. The same methods can be used to reconstruct intermediate versions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history, depending on the number and quality of the text available.[\QUOTE]