We Often Hear One Side of This Story About Jesus, But Not the End.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Many of us often hear the account written in John chapter 8 verses 1 to 11 of the woman taken in adultery to be judged by Jesus (John 8). But how many people have read the Inspired Version of John 8:11?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more. And the woman glorified God from that hour, and believed on his name.

[prospectmom]

In my mind reading the origional version I think what Jesus did had a profound influence on the woman.

So the inspired version only confirms what I already felt...

[jameslentz]

In the movie Finding Faith in Christ they show that scene and use that version as the script...but I just love the way Christ is portrayed in that video and also in the Testaments....

[Snow]

Many of us often hear the account written in John chapter 8 verses 1 to 11 of the woman taken in adultery to be judged by Jesus (John 8). But how many people have read the Inspired Version of John 8:11?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more. And the woman glorified God from that hour, and believed on his name.

It's called The Pericope Adulterae - and it's wasn't part of the original Gospel of John. It's an interpolation that was inserted later. It is not found in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts nor the Papyrus 66 codex of John, nor Papyrus 75 nor the Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaticus. It doesn't pop up until the 5th century Codex Bezae. Additionally, the Pericope is stylistically atypical from the rest of John.

[Vort]

It's called The Pericope Adulterae - and it's wasn't part of the original Gospel of John.

The OP's point is not about the story itself, but about the JST addendum.

It's an interpolation that was inserted later. It is not found in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts nor the Papyrus 66 codex of John, nor Papyrus 75 nor the Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaticus. It doesn't pop up until the 5th century Codex Bezae. Additionally, the Pericope is stylistically atypical from the rest of John.

According to that bastion of truth and well-researched fact, Wikipedia:

Until recently, it was not thought that any Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 12th Century; but in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) was discovered in Egypt, including a reference to the pericope adulterae as being found in "several gospels"; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its canonical place in a minority of Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria from the 4th Century onwards. In support of this it is noted that the 4th century Codex Vaticanus, which was written in Egypt, marks the end of John chapter 7 with an "umlaut", indicating that an alternative reading was known at this point.

It goes on to say that Augustine felt it had been improperly excluded from many contemporary accounts because it seemed to give license to adulterous women.

You seem to have overstated the supposed falseness of the account. I also have very little confidence in (or patience for) purely stylistic arguments, and I know I'm not the only one who finds them weak and unconvincing.

[Snow]

The OP's point is not about the story itself, but about the JST addendum.

That's incorrect. With your line of thinking all we would have to talk about is: "And the woman glorified God from that hour, and believed on his name" which would be kinda pointless without the rest of the story; and if you didn't notice, the poster didn't just post the JST addition, she also posted the KJV verse 11.

You seem to have overstated the supposed falseness of the account. I also have very little confidence in (or patience for) purely stylistic arguments, and I know I'm not the only one who finds them weak and unconvincing.

Have I?

"... scholars who work on the manuscript tradition have no doubts about this particular case. ... basic facts that have proved convincing to nearly all scholars of persuasion:" Bart Erhman, Misquoting Jesus, Harper Collins p64-65.

[Dr T]

It's called The Pericope Adulterae - and it's wasn't part of the original Gospel of John. It's an interpolation that was inserted later. It is not found in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts nor the Papyrus 66 codex of John, nor Papyrus 75 nor the Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaticus. It doesn't pop up until the 5th century Codex Bezae. Additionally, the Pericope is stylistically atypical from the rest of John.

Thanks Snow. That is new to me. I've never read about that verse. I'd like to look into it more. Thank you again for that Snow

[Snow]

Thanks Snow. That is new to me. I've never read about that verse. I'd like to look into it more. Thank you again for that Snow

It's a very interesting topic. The New Testament has a good number of late additions (called interpolations) that were not part of the original.

Three of the big ones are: The story of the woman taken in adultery, the long ending of Mark (the last 22 verses on the 16th chapter) and the Johannine Comma (and addition to 1 John 5:7,8) that changes the verses to make them look like they support the trinity).

An interesting thing her at the Pericope Adulterae (a pericope is a set of verse that form one unit or one coherent thought), is if the passage was not in the original text but added later (which in my mind seems like some sort of fraud), why would Joseph Smith give an inspired version of the passage - at first glance it might seem Joseph got caught in a mistake. The answer might be, even though it was not part of the original text, it seems to have been a real event that was passed down through the oral tradition upon which most New Testament Gospel stories are based.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Snow
correct spelling

[Dr T]

It's a very interesting topic. The New Testament has a good number of late additions (called interpolations) that were not part of the original.

Three of the big ones are: The story of the woman taken in adultery, the long ending of Mark (the last 22 verses on the 16th chapter) and the Johannine Comma (and addition to 1 John 5:7,8) that changes the verses to make them look like they support the trinity).

An interesting thing her at the Pericope Adulterae (a pericope is a set of verse that form one unit or one coherent thought), is if the passage was not in the original text but added later (which in my mind seems like some sort of fraud), why would Joseph Smith give an inspired version of the passage - at first glance it might seem Joseph got caught in a mistake. The answer might me, even though it was not part of the original text, it seems to have been a real event that was passed down through the oral tradition upon which most New Testament Gospel stories are based.

Thanks again Snow. I've heard about the long end of one of the Gospels and the Johannine Comma sounds kind of familiar. Since we do not have a copy of the original version then my question would be how do we know then that it was not in the original text? I'm guessing it is base on comparisons of that verse and the other textual findings. Is there something I missed there? Thanks

[Snow]

Thanks again Snow. I've heard about the long end of one of the Gospels and the Johannine Comma sounds kind of familiar. Since we do not have a copy of the original version then my question would be how do we know then that it was not in the original text? I'm guessing it is base on comparisons of that verse and the other textual findings. Is there something I missed there? Thanks

Here's a brief but useful introduction:

Textual criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

Higher criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Still_Small_Voice]

I believe the account of Christ recorded in John chapter 8 verses 1 to 11 is true.

[Guest Alana]

I like what "They Miracle of Forgiveness" says about this, that she didn't gain forgiveness in that moment because she didn't yet have time to fully repent. This makes this passage even more powerful to me. She had sinned, Jesus loved her (still) and she could go forth and work on her repentance and work on changing her life. It was a profound moment, but not the end of the story.

[boyando]

It's called The Pericope Adulterae - and it's wasn't part of the original Gospel of John. It's an interpolation that was inserted later. It is not found in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts nor the Papyrus 66 codex of John, nor Papyrus 75 nor the Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaticus. It doesn't pop up until the 5th century Codex Bezae. Additionally, the Pericope is stylistically atypical from the rest of John.

Snow, I wonder if you could tell me, in your studies, has anyone ever felt that the parable of the talents doesn't really fit? My problem with the parable has to do with the king, that represents Father, who is said to "reap were you do not sow". To me, that doesn't sound like our Father in Heaven.

Thanks for your thoughts, in advance-boyando

[robspectre]

I personally believe that the story is true. I also believe JS was and is a Prophet.

"many plain a precious truths..."

The Spectre

[prospectmom]

Ok ... here goes....... Is it so very inportant that this is real or not???? that it really happened???? The story and the message behind it are very inportant... isn't that what we should be looking at and not whether it really happened or was added fiction........

I know it is interesting to find out the facts but they sometimes take away from the message itself..

[prisonchaplain]

This string confirms two of my humble opinions. The word of God is inspired, and so we take every part seriously. When questions arise, we pray and put our best minds to work on the available materials. Like Dr. T., I was aware of the other two passages Snow mentioned. If I wished to teach/preach on either passage, though they may appear in some translations, others have either left them out, or noted the difficulty, I would want to bolster the lesson with other supporting passages.

The second point--I prefer more modern translations because the archeology is so much better--they have a far greater pool of biblical manuscripts to work with. Not only do they have more manuscripts, but the modern versions rely on far more ancient, and therefore usually more accurate, ones.

Don't discard the KJV. But, have an NIV, or an NASB if you prefer a more literal version, available. I even make use of The Message, because, if Jesus were here today, He'd talk the way Peterson has him talking, not the way the KJV translators present.

[Traveler]

This string confirms two of my humble opinions. The word of God is inspired, and so we take every part seriously. When questions arise, we pray and put our best minds to work on the available materials. Like Dr. T., I was aware of the other two passages Snow mentioned. If I wished to teach/preach on either passage, though they may appear in some translations, others have either left them out, or noted the difficulty, I would want to bolster the lesson with other supporting passages.

The second point--I prefer more modern translations because the archeology is so much better--they have a far greater pool of biblical manuscripts to work with. Not only do they have more manuscripts, but the modern versions rely on far more ancient, and therefore usually more accurate, ones.

Don't discard the KJV. But, have an NIV, or an NASB if you prefer a more literal version, available. I even make use of The Message, because, if Jesus were here today, He'd talk the way Peterson has him talking, not the way the KJV translators present.

Not to sound cynical but I am told by many individuals that they have a “personal” relationship with Christ and/or G-d. If this is the case why would anyone with a personal relationship with the source rely or the opinions of scholars or best guess translations?

I would submit that if anyone lacks understanding (wisdom of sacred things) that they ask G-d. In fact I believe that scripture (book of James) tells us exactly that. I would also submit that if two claiming to have a personal relationship with G-d come up with different answers that one or both are exaggerating what their real relationship is with G-d.

BTW if Jesus were to speak today – I would assume that he would speak to each individual in a manner that would not leave them confused. I do not believe His Word (his voice) is ever confusing to the sheep of his fold nor do I believe his sheep need scholars or anyone other than the spirit to assist them with the meaning. But I believe the spirit may assist through another individual also influenced by the spirit.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Snow, I wonder if you could tell me, in your studies, has anyone ever felt that the parable of the talents doesn't really fit? My problem with the parable has to do with the king, that represents Father, who is said to "reap were you do not sow". To me, that doesn't sound like our Father in Heaven.

Thanks for your thoughts, in advance-boyando

No - I don't recall reading that it might be a later addition to the text but I have read that it is speculated that the original source of the parable comes from Q (Q document - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, not sure I get what you're saying. Are you arguing that there should only be one translation per language, or for none? Or...what? I understand your words, but not how they relate to this matter.