Hi MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'd like to hear about John 8:7 from your point of view Seagoon. Have you seen the evidence that suggests it was added much later and is not in the original Greek texts?
Isn't it possible that a later scribe added this story as fact just because it teaches so well?
My fear is that this conversation is going to quickly get outside the scope of dialogue that this forum can usefully handle, and I just don't have enough time at present to get into what might become a highly technical discussion. That said, I'll try to answer your question.
First off, Evangelicals Christians do indeed believe in the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture, i.e. the idea that all the scriptures are nothing less than the Word of God as Paul put it in 2 Tim 3:16-17
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." The word inspired there is
theopneustos literally meaning "God Breathed." Because scripture is the Word of God, who is Himself infallible, it is inerrant.
But the doctrine of inerrancy applies only to the original autographs, the original copies of the scripture. We would concede that copyists occasionally made errors, and that certain ancient copies of the Bible are less reliable than others. However, this does not mean that because we do not have copies of the original manuscripts, we cannot reliably reconstruct them. As Dr. Morton Smith points out in his Systematic Theology -
"As to the preservation of the original, Kenyon says:
The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church is so large, that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.
The careful use of textual study enables us to reconstruct the original text on the order of 999 words out of every 1,000. In the New Testament there are only 375 variations that bear on the meaning of the passages, and even here there is no change of a doctrine, precept or fact.
Though the situation of the Old Testament differs from the New, there is reason for a similar confidence in it. Gleason Archer concludes his chapter on the textual criticism of the Old Testament with the following statement:
In conclusion we should accord to the Masoretes the highest praise for their meticulous care in preserving so sedulously all the consonantal text of the Sopherim which had been entrusted to them. They together with the Sopherim themselves gave the most diligent attention to accurate preservation of the Hebrew Scriptures that has ever been devoted to any ancient literature, secular or religious, in the history of human civilization.. Because of their faithfulness, we have today a form of the Hebrew text which in all essentials duplicates the recension which was considered authoritative in the days of Christ and the apostles, if not a century earlier. And this in turn, judging from Qumran evidence, goes back to an authoritative revision of the Old Testament text which was drawn up on the basis of the most reliable manuscripts available for collation from previous centuries. These bring us very close in all essentials to the original autographs themselves, and furnish us with an authentic record of God’s revelation.
Again Sir Frederick Kenyon says:
The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation, throughout the centuries.
[Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology, Vol.1, 1999, GPTS Press]
So for instance, we have fragments of the Gospel of John that date back to the beginning of the 2nd century (roughly 110 AD), and we find no great difference between those fragments and the modern translations of the gospel of John into English that we read. Certainly no differences that would affect the
theology of the bible.
Now regarding John 7:53-8:11 there have long been concerns amongst evangelicals as to whether this was a part of John's original manuscript, Calvin himself wrote in the 15th century:
It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our [spiritual]advantage. [Calvin, Commentary on John]
So this is no "new controversy" discovered by Ehrman, in fact most of his previous works are a rehashing and popularization of old controversies. New garments cut from old fabric so to speak.
Ultimately, while I doubt that the story itself was originally placed where it currently resides in John, I have no doubt that it was authentic, apostolic, and original rather than the whole-cloth creation of a later scribe.
Therefore I agree with Hendriksen when he writes:
"Much has been written with respect to the authenticity of this story. Is it to be considered a genuine part of the Fourth Gospel written (or at least dictated) by the apostle John? Also, regardless of whether John himself wrote it, does it belong in the Bible, or should it be removed from Scripture? In answer to the first question it should be clearly stated that the facts at our disposal do not enable us to declare definitely that the apostle himself wrote or dictated this account. As to the second, it is our conviction that these same facts indicate that no attempt should be made to remove this portion from Holy Writ.
(I'll include his factual reasoning regarding John 7:53-8:11) in the next post)
Our final conclusion, then, is this: though it cannot now be proved that this story formed an integral part of the Fourth Gospel, neither is it possible to establish the opposite with any degree of finality. We believe, moreover, that what is here recorded really took place, and contains nothing that is in conflict with the apostolic spirit. Hence, instead of removing this section from the Bible it should be retained and used for our benefit. Ministers should not be afraid to base sermons upon it! On the other hand, all the facts concerning the textual evidence should be made known!"
- SEAGOON
