da_man1974 Posted January 11, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 25 Topic Count: 41 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 726 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 575 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/30/1974 Share Posted January 11, 2018 I heard an interesting theory last night. Some people think that this story may be from Luke but it is actually recorded in John in the Bible. Have any of you heard this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted January 11, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 106 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,808 Content Per Day: 1.29 Reputation: 4,791 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, da_man1974 said: I heard an interesting theory last night. Some people think that this story may be from Luke but it is actually recorded in John in the Bible. Have any of you heard this? Yes, and also that the story is not in any of the earliest manuscripts at all. I'm no textual critic - I've heard of the Byzantine text and Alexandrian text - but I really don't know the difference nor why the debate. I can explain the difference between the Latin Vulgate and the Textus Receptus, but only to children. HA!!!!! I couldn't hold my own in a conversation with scholars about them at all. With that being said.... Here's my thinking. There are three sections of the Bible that are questioned as to their inspired originality. the story of the woman caught in adultery the end of Mark about taking up snakes the Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8 Whenever these topics come up, you have to remember: God has for us today in his Word exactly what he wants for us to have There were millions of events and thousands of Jesus' words that did NOT get recorded These three passages do NOT contradict the Word, they do NOT add a new revelation to the Word, and they do NOT detract in any way from the truth of the Word. In fact, they agree with other truths in the Word There are thousands upon thousands of ancient texts and pieces of texts - I will leave 99% of the textual criticism to the scholars. Pastors should be wise and when preaching from these texts - should focus on the truths revealed and should use other scriptures as part of their pastoral texts of the day We will never know the hows nor whys. Just remember - you're Bible contains everything that God wants you to have. Read it daily. Edited January 11, 2018 by Jayne 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da_man1974 Posted January 11, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 25 Topic Count: 41 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 726 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 575 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/30/1974 Author Share Posted January 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jayne said: Yes, and also that the story is not in any of the earliest manuscripts at all. I'm no textual critic - I've heard of the Byzantine text and Alexandrian text - but I really don't know the difference nor why the debate. I can explain the difference between the Latin Vulgate and the Textus Receptus, but only to children. HA!!!!! I couldn't hold my own in a conversation with scholars about them at all. With that being said.... Here's my thinking. There are three sections of the Bible that are questioned as to their inspired originality. the story of the woman caught in adultery the end of Mark about taking up snakes the Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8 Whenever these topics come up, you have to remember: God has for us today in his Word exactly what he wants for us to have There were millions of events and thousands of Jesus' words that did NOT get recorded These three passages do NOT contradict the Word, add a new revelation to the Word, or detract in any way from the truth of the Word. In fact, they agree with other truths in the Word There are thousands upon thousands of ancient texts and pieces of texts - I will leave 99% of the textual criticism to the scholars. Pastors should be wise and when preaching from these texts - should focus on the truths revealed and should use other scriptures as part of their pastoral texts of the day We will never know the hows nor whys. Just remember - you're Bible contains everything that God wants you to have. Read it daily. Just to be clear I am not saying that the verses aren't true. I just find it interesting that they may have been recorded by a different author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted January 11, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 106 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,808 Content Per Day: 1.29 Reputation: 4,791 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 11, 2018 24 minutes ago, da_man1974 said: Just to be clear I am not saying that the verses aren't true. I just find it interesting that they may have been recorded by a different author. Yes, I understood that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GandalfTheWise Posted January 11, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 24 Topic Count: 40 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,459 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 2,377 Days Won: 2 Joined: 08/23/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted January 11, 2018 35 minutes ago, da_man1974 said: I heard an interesting theory last night. Some people think that this story may be from Luke but it is actually recorded in John in the Bible. Have any of you heard this? Verses 7:53-8:11 do not appear in the oldest manuscripts and appear only in a small number of older manuscripts. In these manuscripts where they occur, they are usually in the traditional location in John. However, a few manuscripts and lectionaries (basically commentaries on scripture) have them in Luke (after 21:38 and 24:53) and different places in John (after 7:36 and added at the end). Some manuscripts that have them flag them in some manner (like asterisks or brackets are used today). These verses are also found in other language traditions of the NT including Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Slavic (usually in the traditional location). The best summary I've seen of the manuscript evidence for these verses is in the footnotes of the USB4 Greek NT. My sense of everything I've read about this is similar to the footnote that @Yowm quoted. These verses appear to have been known to the early church but there was a mixed reaction to them with regard to being in the canon. Some early church fathers referenced them and some did not. Some manuscripts had them and some did not. The term scholars use for these verses is pericope adulterae. You can do an internet search for this term for more information. I will give a very strong caveat about being careful what you read about this. There is a rather heated split among Christians on topics like this that is related to the bigger picture of what Bible to use. Once you are aware of this, you will be able to understand where many people are coming from when they comment on this. Historically speaking, the NT was copied by hand. Over time, variations crept in. There are many reasons for these variations that scholars have identified. As copies of copies were made, different variations were propagated. Some of these tended to be regional (where copies of the first one brought to a region were made). Today, we have many manuscripts and small portions of various parts of the NT (as well as other writings which quoted or paraphrased scripture) ranging in date from early 2nd century to medieval times. Virtually every larger manuscript in existence has variations from other manuscripts. The majority of these are quite small and are typically stylistic and minor and do not affect the meaning. However, there are a few larger sections such as the pericope adulterae. Some Christians believe strongly in some version of a doctrine of preservation. In a nutshell and oversimplifying it, it is the idea that God created only one correct Bible which He preserved with word for word accuracy only in particular manuscripts. Some Christians identify which particular manuscripts and languages and versions are the "real" God's Word with the remainder being either error-ridden copies or satanic deceptions. When you read any discussions of manuscripts from people with this perspective, you should note that many of their conclusions are driven by the faith and conviction that God's revelation shows which scholarly decisions about manuscripts are the correct ones. An example of this is KJV-only advocates for whom the only valid manuscript traditions are those leading directly to those used by the KJV translators. For people holding some version of this type of view, all historical, linguistic, translational, and similar questions are to be decided solely on the basis of which manuscripts lead to the true preserved correct Word of God. Any discussion of manuscripts ultimately boils down to proving why this particular set are the real God's Word. Other Christians take the view that each of these NT manuscripts was indeed God's NT for the people who had them. Today where we have the luxury of owning as many Bibles as we want that have been carefully printed, few Christians through the centuries were rarely fortunate enough to have an entire hand copied one available for their use. Christians with this view are supportive of Christian scholars who study the various manuscripts to try to determine the most likely words of the originals. For those of this view, it is about evaluating each manuscript, variation, and various manuscript traditions to try to determine the most likely original reading for each verse. In this view, it is that the body of manuscripts as a whole are brought together and examined to see which witness is most credible for each verse. Any discussion of manuscripts ultimately boils down to weighing which readings are the most credible ones for a particular verse. The net result is an eclectic collection of readings based on the most credible witnesses to the reading for a particular verse. This also includes extensive footnotes commenting on when it is difficult to determine which witnesses are most credible. To summarize, some Christians look at the variations among manuscripts and ask, which of these manuscripts has God's uncorrupted Word in its entirety so we can reject the rest? Other Christians look at the variations among manuscripts and ask which of them is the most credible witness to the original reading on a verse by verse basis? Ultimately, this is what seems to me to be an irreconcilable difference. One side believes that God chose particular copyists, churches, and people to be entrusted with His uncorrupted Word over the centuries (and we have to make sure we figure out who has it). For them, it is mostly an all or nothing proposition of finding the right one in its entirety and having solid reasons why other manuscripts must be rejected in their entirety. The other side believes that God's Word as originally written is witnessed to in some way by each copyist, church, and person that had a NT manuscript of some form, and that we pull together as many of these witnesses as possible to determine which of them are the ones entrusted with the original readings of each particular verse. For them, it is about pulling together witnesses from churches and copyists across centuries and a wide spread of geography to discuss each verse and passage in detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted January 11, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,991 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,689 Content Per Day: 11.82 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 11, 2018 John 8: 1-11 The leaders were using the woman as a trap to trick Jesus. The Jewish leaders disregarded the law by arresting the woman without the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeyondET Posted January 11, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 118 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 2,868 Content Per Day: 1.23 Reputation: 816 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/29/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/01/1968 Share Posted January 11, 2018 The four gospels were orginally one account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis1209 Posted January 12, 2018 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 18 Topic Count: 347 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,458 Content Per Day: 2.70 Reputation: 5,371 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/27/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2018 7 hours ago, Jayne said: the Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8 That's interesting Jane. I wasn't aware of this dispute until you brought it up and I looked it up. WOW! There's a ton of expository writing on this subject with different interpretations as usual. A person could spend hours, days reading what's written about 1 John 5: 7-8 You learn something new everyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted January 12, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 106 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,808 Content Per Day: 1.29 Reputation: 4,791 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2018 36 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said: That's interesting Jane. I wasn't aware of this dispute until you brought it up and I looked it up. WOW! There's a ton of expository writing on this subject with different interpretations as usual. A person could spend hours, days reading what's written about 1 John 5: 7-8 You learn something new everyday Yes, the arguments are endless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted January 12, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 106 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,808 Content Per Day: 1.29 Reputation: 4,791 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2018 2 hours ago, BeyondET said: The four gospels were orginally one account. BET, What's your evidence of that? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts