Help with understanding please

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Am not sure what exactly it is that is bothersome.
1) the way Jesus dealt with the woman caught in adultery, and the implications for us today... or
2) the "fact" that some early copies of text don't include this story.

Most of the discussion seems focused on #2. IMHO, if this is what bothers you (or any one),

• there are lots of other scriptures that are said to be missing from otherwise "reliable" sources, including some that many evangelical Christians believe to be foundational specifically for evangelism, the Trinity, and baptism.
• there are entire books of "the scriptures" that some denominations accept, while other reject (the 14 books of "the Apocrypha")
• Some (but not all) scholars question that Matthew the apostle even wrote the book we call the "Gospel according to Matthew" (Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, Gospel of Matthew - New World Encyclopedia)

• Jesus, while on earth, never said anything in English, so whichever English version people use on this Forum, what we have are translations. And translations are ALWAYS biased because there is no absolutely unique equivalent for a word in original Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew in English. If you, like many, think the only reliable English version in The King James Authorised version, then I suggest you read the preface - where you will (if it is the original ;-) !) that King James authorised the translation that bears his name because the only pre-existing English transaltion did not support HIS (King James') views of the structure and role of the organised, English Church. In other words the translation committee were explicitly instructed to translate the sources texts in a way that suited "His Majesty" ... as head of the English church.
  
• Rather than literal translations, what is sought is the essential messages being communicated. Step back and think of translating the original Bible into a language that does not have words for "sheep" or "shepherd," "bears" and "lions," "horse" or "chariot," "snow" or myriads of other words in the language of pastoral people of the ancient middle East. How to translate the many scriptural messages given to us through images relating to sheep, sheep rearing, the Good Sheperd, the lost sheep, etc etc.? Yet the scriptures continue to be translated to languages without this vocabulary. In other words, when reading the scriptures we always get only a close approximation of the sense given based on as many source texts (and languages) as possible.

If there is any discussion around #1 above - what Jesus is portrayed as doing when confronted with the woman caught in adultery, then an even greater puzzle may be found as the very basis of the story of Hosea, whom God ( in apparent contradiction to the Law of Moses) commanded to marry an adulterous woman, and keep going back to her, in spite of her wayward habits. Yet one of the most profound messages in Hosea's book in much the same as in the story of Jesus and the adulteress ... the incredible, unceasing, deep, high, wide and enduring love of God.

Well thank you so much! And now I’m seriously confused. I didn’t know that about king James but gives me so much to think about. Thanks for being helpful!

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Is what is learned/taught by the story in line with other scriptural teachings? Yes.

Everyone keeps saying this and I understand that. So is it ok to just make up stuff and say Jesus said something to prove a point? Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

That passage does not brother me because we know it is added and it is consistent with the person of Jesus. The I John 5:7 verse does bother me, but it has been removed by better translations.

I would think that it shouldn’t be ok to add something just because it lines up with Jesus character.

 

[eleos1954]

Everyone keeps saying this and I understand that. So is it ok to just make up stuff and say Jesus said something to prove a point? Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not?

People who are questioning whether something is true or not ... (including "scholars") with the word of God put forth their "opinions" ... that don't make it true ... it's their opinion(s) ... were they there? No

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

No ... it's not ok to make things up

I am assuming you are referring to John 8:1-11

According the scripture the account of the adulteress woman is a true account that happened (that is ... it is not a parable), verified because He was actually talking to the scribes and Pharisees (who were always trying to come up with ways of discrediting who He was and they tested him) ... several eye witness there.

 

[luze]

You don’t think it’s a little bit bothersome if the conversation Jesus had with the adulteress woman is just made up and not true?

What if it was there and not added later The Council of Trent, held between 1545 and 1563, declared that the Latin Vulgate (the Gospels of which were produced by Jerome in 383, based on Greek manuscripts which Jerome considered ancient at that time, and which contains the passage) was authentic and authoritative. The actual message is what's important.

 

[mmksparbud]

I would think that it shouldn’t be ok to add something just because it lines up with Jesus character.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I would think that it shouldn’t be ok to add something just because it lines up with Jesus character.

John 21:25 There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I think the whole world would not be big enough for all the books that would be written.

His character and the above text is why I see no problem. We do not know if he did it. But, there is a good odds he did. I do not know the earliest manuscripts it appears in. But, we know when I John text was added.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

CHURCH FATHERS: Tractates on the Gospel of John (Augustine)
John 8 does show up in Augustine.

 

[Knee V]

Lots of antichrists say lots of things to try to discredit the Christian faith. I pay them no mind.

 

[hedrick]

I think there are three separate questions

• Did John write it?
• Is it part of Scripture?
• Did it actually happen?

The first one is the easiest to answer. It's very unlikely that John wrote it. The first Greek text that has it is from the 400s or 500s. But there's one early manuscript from the early 300s that has it in a different place in John.

Now the question arises: what defines Scripture? Unfortunately God didn't give us tablets defining what books are included. The Church, over quite a long process, decided what to accept. This story was quoted as Scripture fairly early, e.g. by Augustine. It has generally been considered Scripture. There are references to it starting around 230, most of which don't specifically call it part of John, and at least one of which cites a lost gospel. I think pretty much everyone accepts it as Scripture.

Did it actually happen? We can only speculate, but I'd say it probably did. There were certainly stories about Jesus that didn't make it in the Gospels. I'd guess that this is one of them. If you look at the "apocrypha" you'll find plenty of silly stories that didn't make it in the Bible and shouldn't have. But those stories always contain ideas that we know were popular in certain parts of Christianity. The story of the adulteress does not. The early church tended to be moralistic. It's very hard to believe that anyone would have made up this story. So my guess (and it can only be a guess) is that this is a true story that circulated separately from the Gospels, and was eventually added to John.

Augustine says it was removed from many manuscripts because people objected to it on moral grounds. It's even possible that he's right, and we just don't have any of the earliest manuscripts that have it. But Augustine was no expert on the Greek text. I doubt it was actually in the original manuscript and was removed, but he's probably right about why it was controversial, and circulated separately.

 

[RDKirk]

Hi everyone. I really am confused about the story of the adulteress woman. I’ve read that most scholars agree that it was a later addition and isn’t original. Does this bother anybody else?

Ask yourself a different question:

Why does every translation team--who spend years on issues such as this--still keep it in the bible, even if with a parenthetical comment?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Ask yourself a different question:

Why does every translation team--who spend years on issues such as this--still keep it in the bible, even if with a parenthetical comment?

I can’t answer that question. If it’s not certain that it happened why would it be in there? I always thought truth meant 100% certainty without question. Maybe I’m wrong in that though. I really am trying to understand. Thanks

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I think there are three separate questions

• Did John write it?
• Is it part of Scripture?
• Did it actually happen?

The first one is the easiest to answer. It's very unlikely that John wrote it. The first Greek text that has it is from the 400s or 500s. But there's one early manuscript from the early 300s that has it in a different place in John.

Now the question arises: what defines Scripture? Unfortunately God didn't give us tablets defining what books are included. The Church, over quite a long process, decided what to accept. This story was quoted as Scripture fairly early, e.g. by Augustine. It has generally been considered Scripture. There are references to it starting around 230, most of which don't specifically call it part of John, and at least one of which cites a lost gospel. I think pretty much everyone accepts it as Scripture.

Did it actually happen? We can only speculate, but I'd say it probably did. There were certainly stories about Jesus that didn't make it in the Gospels. I'd guess that this is one of them. If you look at the "apocrypha" you'll find plenty of silly stories that didn't make it in the Bible and shouldn't have. But those stories always contain ideas that we know were popular in certain parts of Christianity. The story of the adulteress does not. The early church tended to be moralistic. It's very hard to believe that anyone would have made up this story. So my guess (and it can only be a guess) is that this is a true story that circulated separately from the Gospels, and was eventually added to John.

Augustine says it was removed from many manuscripts because people objected to it on moral grounds. It's even possible that he's right, and we just don't have any of the earliest manuscripts that have it. But Augustine was no expert on the Greek text. I doubt it was actually in the original manuscript and was removed, but he's probably right about why it was controversial, and circulated separately.

I just get confused when we can so nonchalantly say John probably didn’t write it. If he didn’t right it and we are reading the Gospel according to John then what is it doing in there. Thanks for your post

 

[RDKirk]

I can’t answer that question. If it’s not certain that it happened why would it be in there? I always thought truth meant 100% certainty without question. Maybe I’m wrong in that though. I really am trying to understand. Thanks

These translation groups are people of the Body of Christ who pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit in how to interpret the languages and choose the correct manuscripts.

The Holy Spirit has consistently told them all, without exception, to include that passage--for over 1700 years.

There you go.

 

[hedrick]

I just get confused when we can so nonchalantly say John probsbky didn’t right it. If he didn’t right it and we are reading the Gospel according to John then what is it doing in there. Thanks for your post

I'd say it was stuck there because it was regarded as Scriptural, and it didn't make sense to have a separate Gospel of the Adulteress.