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.
Well, if it was removed from Luke and then re-inserted into John, then it would be inspired.
Not if it was added to Luke, too. And what don't you think I'm addressing?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.
And what don't you think I'm addressing?
The problems with the "addition" theory:
Some suggested answers out there just don't make any sense (like, say, the suggestion of a 5th century addition based on oral tradition).
- 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?
i doubt very serious if was added that late. More likely it was added before there was a Bible.
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.
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.The problems with the "addition" theory:
Some suggested answers out there just don't make any sense (like, say, the suggestion of a 5th century addition based on oral tradition).
- 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?
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.
A lot of work gas been done. And it favors my view.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.
The evidence against it is: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.
I've listened to a textual critic give a long and detailed explanation as to why it's not scripture. I'm satisfied.
It doesn't matter to you. That's okay.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.
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.
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.
It's not in my Bible.
Sorry, just felt like being snarky.
The problems with the "addition" theory:
Some suggested answers out there just don't make any sense (like, say, the suggestion of a 5th century addition based on oral tradition).
- 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?
The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8).; Concerning the Ending of Mark; Concerning the Story of the Adulteress; The Quo Vadis ; etc.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?