John Ch. 8

[chubbspeterson]

Hello. I'm new here so please forgive me if this has been addressed before. I was watching a video arguing for the validity of the New Testament and I learned that John 8:1-11 is not found in the earliest manuscripts they have and in some manuscripts it is placed in Luke instead. This bothered me a little bit since this is one of my favorite passages and I was just wondering if anyone on here knew anything else about it. Thanks.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Hello. I'm new here so please forgive me if this has been addressed before. I was watching a video arguing for the validity of the New Testament and I learned that John 8:1-11 is not found in the earliest manuscripts they have and in some manuscripts it is placed in Luke instead. This bothered me a little bit since this is one of my favorite passages and I was just wondering if anyone on here knew anything else about it. Thanks.

Just because a manuscript is old means nothing, all it means is that it's old. People were corrupting the Words of God even from the beginning of the church. Those corrupted manuscripts received little use in the beginning while the Received Text got so much use that it was worn out over time. Since the originals have long ago worn out all we have today are copies of copies. That's why the Received Text isn't found to be as old as these other manuscripts.


Those people who say that this thing or that thing is not found in the older manuscripts are overlooking the fact that we have letters that date further back than our oldest manuscripts. These letters testify to the truth of the Received Text. Some people won't tell you that.


2Co:2:17: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.


Proverb:22:28: Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

 

[HammerStone]

There's some disagreement on it, but it's present in quite a few manuscripts dating back to the around the 4th and 5th centuries. I believe Eusebius quotes the bishop of Hierapolis quoting the passage and this would be in the 2nd century. There's nothing found within it that doesn't agree with Scripture elsewhere so I don't see a strong argument for not including it. There are at least a few questions about some of the manuscripts that don't contain this passage to say the very least.

 

[chubbspeterson]

Thank you for your replies. I was also wondering if anyone knew of a good book on the early Church history.

 

[jiggyfly]

There's some disagreement on it, but it's present in quite a few manuscripts dating back to the around the 4th and 5th centuries. I believe Eusebius quotes the bishop of Hierapolis quoting the passage and this would be in the 2nd century. There's nothing found within it that doesn't agree with Scripture elsewhere so I don't see a strong argument for not including it. There are at least a few questions about some of the manuscripts that don't contain this passage to say the very least.

Very good response Hammer.