Hi proudpapa,
You bring up an excellant point and the reason I specifically asked about the Pericope De Adultera because its message is as you admitt "quite clear and can be agreed as an accurate description of what we know of the attitude of Christ toward sinners."Could we agree that it did not accidently find its self into the text, for it certaintly is not just a scribal error, nor is it, and could we not agree that it is much to detailed to be just a scribes footnote that accidently got inserted into the text??
It did not get into the scripture by accident, it is either inspired or else it was mischievously inserted. And if we conclude that it was mischievously inserted than what was the spirit behind it being mischievously inserted?? and if this text was mischievously inserted than what scripture or scriptures can be completely relied apoun??
I think that you misunderstand the nature of the debate over that particular passage. As I explained, the argument about the text is not an “either/or” argument. The debate over the inclusion of this passage in John is older than the King James Version itself. I mentioned at least three pool of thoughts in my post: 1.) The passage is original to John and falls in perfect sequence with this particular rendering; 2.) It is not original to John and its origin cannot be verified; and, 3.) It is written by John but is out-of-sequence and was inserted into this passage at a later time.
However, there are other possibilities to also consider. Some scholars and even early Church leaders (such as Papias of Heiropolis circa 125 A.D.) attribute this passage to the Gospel of the Hebrews. Other scholars believe that the passage was fragmented from the Apostolic Constitutions (~375 A.D.). Others have argued that it was worded from a fragment and felt “authentic” to the point that it was inserted into the Book of John.
So, while we can say that it is either “inspired” or not, we can’t conclude that it was “mischievously inserted” regardless of inspiration. That would be like suggesting that the word “Easter” was “mischievously inserted” by translators of the KJV – even though we really don’t know the rationale.
So than the question we must ask ourself is Did God inspire it to be in the text or is the enemy behind its insertion??The only way I know of determing this is not by looking at two manuscripts that may be the oldest but that differ more than any other from the majority of all other manuscripts.
For such a theory of determining what should be Omitted or else included throws the entire biblical canon into question, because of these "oldest manuscripts that many text critics and scholars find to be the most reliable" are Referring mostly to the Sinaticus and Vaticanus.
Again, I think that you misunderstand the debate over this particular passage. It isn’t just two sources that doubt the full authenticity of the passage itself. Some of the early texts that actually included the passage did so with hesitation – noting it with an asterisk or lemniscus because of questions regarding authenticity, origin, sequence or placement.
The Sinaticus in which as with The Vaticanus I find to be exalted above measure, by modern text critics and scholars,. This Sinaticus also contained the Epistle of Barnabas, and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas.
So if We determine that their validity is supiour to that of the majority of all the other existing manuscripts based on their age, and conclude that it is justifiable to remove complete sound verses from our bibles, Than the next logical question is should we also include the Epistle of Barnabas, and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas. and if we add the Epistle of Barnabas, and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas to our biblical cannon, than the next logical question becomes Did God ever put His thumb of protection over any of the biblical cannon that we have today ? and if He did not, than could our entire cannon that has been excepted as authentic be brought into question? Do you see where this mindset leads? It leads men like Bart D. Ehrman to go from being a Moody graduate to Wheaton and from there to Princeton to study under Bruce M Metzger into complete agnostisicm and as an expert text critic and scholar writing 'Misquoting Jesus' 'Jesus Interrupted' and such, anti Biblical anti Christian literature.
I think that it is a stretch to conclude that those who might scrutinize or question the authenticity of passages of a particular disputed text are in danger of meandering into “complete agnosticism.” The goal of a text critic or translator is to do what they can to be accurate with their undertaking. Again: The translators of versions like the NIV did not omit the passage, but simply notated the fact that the earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses did not contain the passage. That is an accurate account from those translators.
As for the “Epistle of Barnabas:” If we are going to scrutinize the Sinaiticus for including it, then should we also question how “perfect and preserved” the King James Version actually is for including fifteen additional books of the Apocrypha until the 19th century?
As I mentioned previously, there are serious questions about how “perfect” the KJV can be if it lacks the “Book of Enoch” – which is mentioned in the Epistle of Jude. In fact, there are other books that are mentioned elsewhere in Scripture that didn’t make it into our “perfect and preserved” KJV. We don’t have the Book of Jasher, the Records of Nathan, the Book of Shemaiah, the Book of Jehu, the Book of Gad, the Acts of Uzziah or other books, writings or prophecies referenced elsewhere in the Word of God.
If one were to argue that the Bible is “perfect and preserved” and that the King James Version is the designated standard for that title, then why did it contain 15 books of the Apocrypha for hundreds of years yet lack the books actually referenced elsewhere in Scripture?
The view that we are in the process of reconstructing the originals takes no faith, It takes Zero faith. many none Christians such as Erhman work at trying to determine what the originals acctually said.
When you go down this path who is to say that the first Christians where not acctually the gnostics, and that latter forgers changed things, who is to say?? It is a slippery slope, a sea of doubt, It is a denial of the sovereign hand of God in willing the Bible that we have today.
Again, I think that what you are suggesting is well outside of where honest, sincere textual criticism will lead.
I think that it is very important to remember that we are blessed in this day and age with the Word of God (regardless of the language or scholarly version). Brother Ravenhill wrote a book entitled SODOM HAD NO BIBLE. It is about the judgment of God fell upon an area that really didn’t have access to Scripture. Yet, the same can be said of nearly ALL the world (at least until Johan Gutenberg came along).
The Bible was a set of writings that were eventually gathered together into one edition. The Israelites didn’t carry around the Book of Genesis in the desert. Jews didn’t carry around copies of the Gensis, Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs or even the Book of Kings in their pockets. Most early Christians didn’t have immediate access to Scripture in their homes. For the first 14-15 centuries after Christ, most people never had the opportunity to hold the Word of God in their hands or read it in their native languages. In the 15th Century, Johan Gutenberg created a press to print the Bible and spread it to the world in the native language of the reader. What an amazing and wonderful thing!
So, how did believers throughout the ages “learn” from God? While they didn’t have access to the written Word of God, they always had access to Jesus Christ -- the eternal Word.
During a mission trip deep inside of the rugged, pine-covered mountains of the Sierra Madre Occidental, I met a Tarahumara pastor who “found” the Lord without having ever heard about God, Jesus or the Bible. Most of the isolated Tarahumara do not speak Spanish and follow their own version of Animism (the belief in spiritual gods and beings that are seen or represented by the physical). If someone gets sick, they might think that they insulted a big tree or river. This Tarahumara man grew sick and undertook a seven-day run to a Mexican village that had a doctor who helped the Tarahumara. The doctor informed the Tarahumara that he was dying. He asked him, “Do you want to die here or at your home.” So, this Tarahumara man journeyed back to his cave in the mountain village where they lived.
One night (as his condition grew worse), he sat out on the mountain. He was looking up at the stars. The Tarahumara believe that each star is a spirit or god. In his yearning to know the truth, it dawned on him that there might be one god who was above all others. He wondered, “What if there is a single god that created EVERYTHING?”
Then, the Lord spoke to this dying Tarahumara man. He said, “I am the Lord God that created all things. If I heal you, will you serve me?”
This Tarahumara man said, “Yes.” He began to love and serve the “one true living God.” Over time, this man learned to speak and, eventually, read in Spanish. He eventually read a Bible (in Spanish) that he was given in a Mexican village. This man was astonished to find that many of the things that the “one true living God” was speaking to him were recorded in the Book. This man eventually began converting others to Christ and is now a pastor in that same village.
I am always astonished when I hear individuals scowl at other scholarly versions of the Bible or who argue that the KJV is the “perfect and preserved” version of the Word of God. If they aren’t suggesting some grand collusion of corruption (regarding non-KJV translations), they often fail to remember the history of the Word of God or just how scarce that it has been throughout the ages – and even now.
I was telling my wife about how I would spend $7 Billion if I had it. I told her that I would like to create an efficient printing press and publish quality physical copies of the Bible in every language possible…and then distribute them throughout the rest of the world for free. I would like to cover the Earth with the Word of God.
While my wife agreed that this would be a noble undertaking, she smiled and reminded me that the Word of God is available all over the Earth – and throughout the universe. In fact, He is as close as a prayer. I smiled and couldn’t help but think of that Tarahumara pastor now overseeing a growing congregation.
What do you suppose would be or would have been the effect had the NIV decided to be consistant in their translational methods by not inserting the last 12 verses of Mark nor the beloved 'Pericope De Adultera, John ch 7:53-8:11' ??Could the effect have possibly been similar to that of Zondervans TNIV translation that flopped because of the gender neutral controversy.
First of all, no hypothetical is necessary. The translators of the NIV did not omit these passages at all. They simply notated them and explained the “earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses” do not contain them. We shouldn’t meander into questioning “consistency” when they did what they did for the reasons that they gave. If you have further questions, I suggest that you contact them yourself. In fact, I have questioned them about such things and they were more than willing to explain their rationales and reasons.
As for the TNIV, it would be important for you to mention that it is a revision that is not connected to the translation process of the NIV. The TNIV simply used the NIV as its base…and nothing more. It is the equivalent of the NKJV in that the translators of the KJV did not have “say” in the creation of the NKJV.
Their is no more justification for ommitting many of those 17 sound verses in the NIV than their would be for ommitting the beloved 'Pericope De Adultera, John ch 7:53-8:11' other than to ommitt such a beloved and large portion of scripture would be likely to cause such an out cry of critics as to cause such a translation to become discontinued.
Again, each passage is different. There are different reasons for the decisions in wording and omission by the translators of various versions of the Word of God. I suggest that you contact the TRANSLATORS and ascertain their reasons rather than reading about them elsewhere. However, I would like to say that the NIV does contain EVERY verse that is in question. They are contained in footnotes with an accompanying explanation as to the reason why. This isn’t just true of what you call “omitted” verses (although you can’t “omit” something that the sources that you deem most credible do not contain), but also of alternate renderings. The KJV also contained alternate renderings and postulates in the margins as well as footnotes, but they weren’t allowed to keep those in the final printed editions.
I point this out because in past threads many have stated that they apperciate the modern translators sticking to their convictions and not inserting some of the scriptures because they are not found in a couple of the supposed oldest manuscripts, but if such is because of conviction of the translators, than how come are they not consistant in their translation methods??
I don’t think that they were “sticking to their convictions” except to produce a translation as honestly as they could. BTW, their sources were “supposed oldest manuscripts.” They were the oldest manuscripts that they had available. The translators of the NIV used EVERY possible manuscript for reference (including those from the Byzantine text-types and the gathered, sifted work at translation by Erasmus, the Textus Receptus). The translators of the NIV were not confined to a list of prohibitions, so they were able to include ALL of those passages and alternate renderings in the margins, text and footnotes. They were simply notated as such. This isn’t “sticking to convictions” but simply producing an accurate and honest scholarly translation.
BTW, if you read the writings of Erasmus about his effort, one could reason that he would have use Alexandrian text-type if it had been readily available to him. He simply used what he had, sifted through it and pieced them together in order to produce a single, cohesive “Received Text.” As mentioned, even his sources were limited to the point that he had to borrow from other texts to finish sections (like the Book of Revelation).
So how about rather than comming to a conclusion on omitting 17 complete verses and omitting many partial verses and changing some of the verses based on them not being found in a couple of the manuscripts.
Instead what if we challenged their validity simmaler to how a bank teller is trained to spot a counterfiet, that is by comparing it to all of the other authentics. By which I personally conclude all of the omitions as inspirational and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, and thus I find it unjustifiable to omit such sound verses.
Wow – that is quite some work and skill that you have! I didn’t know that you are fluent in ancient languages, manuscripts and text criticism so much so that you have examined and validated that Erasmus’s work was accurate (for the Textus Receptus) or that all of those ancient manuscripts that contained such verses or passages (including those that notated certain questions of validity) are beyond dispute. Or, did you simply read about such things?
You see, we can fancy ourselves with an ability to “spot a counterfeit” or “straining a gnat” when it comes to other versions, yet we so often find ourselves unwilling or unable to apply that same level of criticism to the KJV or even the Textus Receptus.
There are text critics, historians, manuscript experts and language experts who have done that. They are learned in Ancient Greek and are experts in manuscripts and text criticism. They have their reasons for why they believe as they do. I suggest that, instead of reading about why they believe as they do or decided as they did, you should CONTACT them and raise the very issues that you have raised here. They were kind enough to answer many of my questions (even though it doesn’t mean that I readily agree with them). However, they will likely provide you some insight into their reasons and rationale. They will also answer some of the myths, rumors or even accusations that are so often spread about certain versions (or translators) of the Bible.
