Skip to main content

John 8:1-9:12 #eebc2018

The first thing we need to address are those awkward brackets/italics/footnotes involving 7:53-8:11 in most newer Bible translations. What does it mean when it says that "The earliest mss do not include" these verse? Why does anybody tinker with the Bible?

To wrestle with this takes a minute or two, so bear with me. As a foundation, I would remind you that I believe the original text of Scripture, in its original languages, is divinely inspired and without any mixture of error in its content. That is, what John wrote in the language John wrote it is inerrant. We start there.

Now, the challenge comes as we examine what the original text actually was. We have no "originals" (known as "autographs") in our possession. What we have are copies. Lots of copies, to be certain, with more copies of the New Testament than of any other ancient writing of similar age. These are in the form of full copies, partial copies, comments by ancient Christians, and quotations. They exist in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Syriac, and several other languages.

This results in a form of study called "textual criticism," which strives to examine the available texts (called "extant" texts) and determine what the original text was. And, for the most part, there is somewhere between 95 and 99% agreement with each other. (Read Daniel Wallace's Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament for a full examination of the issue.)

Now, we get to our text, a problem arises that is hard to sort out. When one looks at the copies of John from the first several centuries, John 7:53-8:11 is not there. (see here: https://danielbwallace.com/2013/06/26/where-is-the-story-of-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-really-from/ )It's also not cited by ministers of the Early Church. John Chrysostom's sermons, for example, go sequentially through John...and go straight from John 7:52 to John 8:12. But, the passage shows up in other copies in other Gospels, and then it turns up in John in the Greek texts used for the King James and other early English versions. (It's also in the Latin Vulgate, which dates back hundreds of years earlier.)

So it seems like it could belong, but there is some uncertainty. We can see the character of Jesus clearly here, but there is nothing new that we learn. So there is no theological reason to set it aside. That's why most Bible translations try to hit the middle ground and note the textual problem but maintain the passage. Personally, I'm in favor of leaving it in, but I'm a pastor more than a scholar and I see how carving out passages like this can undercut our understanding of God's Word. If we are not careful, we start moving Scripture out of the hands of God's people and back to an "experts-only" situation. That's not healthy for the church.

The rest of the passage deals with Jesus pointing out the difference in what the religious leaders taught and what God had said and what God was saying, right there, through Him. The wrap-up of John 8 has Him reminding the Jewish leaders (usually, John uses the term "the Jews" for the leaders, not all of the Jews; some folks misconstrue this into anti-Semitism) that He pre-existed Abraham. Putting it is "I am" pretty well showed them what He meant.

Chapter 9 then opens with the healing of the man born blind. Jesus points out that his blindness is for the glory of God. More on him in the next section.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…

Independence Day 2017

I don’t know if Thomas Paine will be aggrieved that I paste his thoughts from Common Sense here, from the electronic edition. It’s a Public Domain work at this point, so hopefully none will be bothered that I am not paying for it...I think there is value in seeing the underlying reasons of Independence. I find a couple of things noteworthy in his introduction:First, he speaks of those who disagree and, while calling those out, holds the strength of his affirmative argument will be enough to straighten them out. We could do well to think more like that.Second, his final sentence should be a required view: the influence of reason and principle. Not self-interest masquerading as principle. Not party propaganda disguised as reason.That being said, not everything Paine said is right. If he and I lived at the same time, we’d argue religion over a great deal. However, the idea of “natural rights of man” follows from the idea of humanity as a special creation—that all are created equal and en…