Why remove John 8:1-11 in the NWT if these verses speak highly of Jesus
by I_love_Jeff 24 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
JWdaughter
Its funny, it was only recently that I learned there was any question about those verses. It is kind of interesting to consider-would Jesus have said such a thing when there was a biblical injunction on her behavior already?
-
Vanderhoven7
Some would say that, if this incident was indeed authentically historical, Jesus broke the law.
-
bohm
Q: "Why remove John 8:1-11"?
A: "these verses were removed in the NWT as well as some other bibles because they were added later"
seems to make good sense to me..
-
dropoffyourkeylee
I have a copy of 'Eight Translation New Testament' which contains at the end a section called 'Guide to the Ancient Manuscripts', by Philip W. Comfort. This is my go-to guide to understanding the different NT readings, and why certain verses are omitted. The verses in John 7:53 - 8:11 are given about half a page of explanation. Basically it says the story of the adulterous woman is an addition in the text from an oral tradition. None of the oldest NT manuscripts contain the verses, and it is believed to be an oral tradition that eventually found its way into the Latin Vulgate, and later into the Textus Receptus. Nearly all modern translations will have a footnote about the verses, if not omit them entirely.
-
JWdaughter
There were others I knew of that were spurious,but I had always accepted that without question as to whether it was supposed to be there. I DID wonder at some of the explanations about it though because while "go and sin no more" was nice and all, it doesn't really fit with the strict understanding of the OT which Jesus always supported (abeit in a kinder gentler way-that was VERY lenient considering the LAW was clear about it and there are not a lot of extenuating circumstances to think that her adultery was somehow excusable. (not like a mercy on a missing sheep on the sabbath or anything)
-
CyrusThePersian
This is a rare instance where the New World Translation is actually correct. The reason the Pericope Adulterae (as this passage is called) isn't in there is because it doesn't belong there.
Even though the passage is quite old (the story may even date back to nearly the time of the Apostles; Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, may have referred to the story) there is evidence that the story doesn't belong in John.
For one thing the story (or pericope) doesn't appear in either the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus, the oldest complete New Testament manuscripts we have. It appears for the first time in the much later Codex Bezae of the fifth century. For another, it has words and phrases that are not found in other places in John. For instance, the term "scribes and Pharisees" in verse 3, while common in the synoptics, isn't a Johannine phrase.
Even though the story may fit nicely with Jesus' teachings, if it doesn't belong there, it shouldn't be there, at least from an academic point of view.
(Copy and Paste from the other thread.)
-
adamah
Cyrus said-
This is a rare instance where the New World Translation is actually correct. The reason the Pericope Adulterae (as this passage is called) isn't in there is because it doesn't belong there.
Even though the passage is quite old (the story may even date back to nearly the time of the Apostles; Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, may have referred to the story) there is evidence that the story doesn't belong in John.
For one thing the story (or pericope) doesn't appear in either the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus, the oldest complete New Testament manuscripts we have. It appears for the first time in the much later Codex Bezae of the fifth century. For another, it has words and phrases that are not found in other places in John. For instance, the term "scribes and Pharisees" in verse 3, while common in the synoptics, isn't a Johannine phrase.
Even though the story may fit nicely with Jesus' teachings, if it doesn't belong there, it shouldn't be there, at least from an academic point of view.
Interesting post, Cyrus.
But isn't saying "it doesn't belong there" simply 'begging the question', since it has BEEN there for over a millenia now, so why did God and Jesus allow it to appear in the Bible all this time (and it still appears in many other translations)?
I suspect many are missing the bigger picture here, in that JWs are 'cherry-picking' by relying on secular Bible scholars only when doing so aligns with their desired policies, eg the consensus of NT scholars is that the epistle of 2nd Peter was written much later than "Apostle Peter's" death, yet IT remains in the RNWT. Why? 2nd Peter supports Xian doctine by claiming Noah preached salvation before the Flood (which Genesis itself doesn't indicate; in fact, other NT passages says Noah preached a message of condemnation). Also, despite offering his daughters up to a mob to be raped, per 2nd Peter, Lot was saved due to HIS righteousness. Both were loose ends that needed to be tydied up for Xian doctrine, and 2nd Peter fit the bill.
In contrast, Jesus' refusal to condemn the adulteress is problematic for the JW's shunning policy, as stoning was the precuror of the Jewish practice of shunning but it only arose after secular authorities prohibited religion adherents putting each other to death for religious offenses (sins).
Of course, the concern with the account of the adulteress in the early Xian church was that Jesus was seen as being too liberal and giving permission to commit adultery, and Gentile Xians were obviously unfamiliar with the OT and Talmudic teachings that would prevent commiting such intentional sins, and might see it as simply getting off with a stern warning by Jesus. The scenario was a 'hanger', and likely caused a bit of controversy.
I wrote an article called, "Would Jesus Shun?", using the pericope of the adulteress to ask the question.
BTW, the article was written BEFORE the RNWT was released (so it's likely a coincidence, since the decision to drop the account from the RNWT had to happen long before, given the lead time needed to put out a new version):
http://awgue.weebly.com/would-jesus-shun.html
Adam
-
CyrusThePersian
But isn't saying "it doesn't belong there" simply 'begging the question', since it has BEEN there for over a millenia now, so why did God and Jesus allow it to appear in the Bible all this time (and it still appears in many other translations)?
I'm not a believer in the Bible as an inspired work of God. I'm merely a student of the Bible as a work of ancient literature, so I will not comment on whether the inclusion of the pericope in many modern Bible translations is from the hand of God. I will say though, from a more practical standpoint, that since the pericope was included in the Latin Vulgate, the translation that was the basis for many subsequent translations, that the pericope was able to find its way into these translations is by no means a miracle.
You do however, bring up some excellent points as to why the Watchtower would choose to delete this story from their new Bible. In the guise of being intellectually accurate they may be stealthily removing a passage that for them is uncomfortable and borders on disarming their doctrine-good catch!
CyrusThePersian
-
peacefulpete
The thousands of Gospel varients in the existing ancient manuscripts are a very interesting study in the early Proto-orthodox church's attempt to harmonize the texts and interject 'clarifying interpolations' to oppose competing interpretations. Literally hundreds of years of largely unchecked editing took place. We can only see by comparing 3-7th century versions, the very late attempts. The WT's, or any church's, choice to accept a passage or not is as much driven by theology as manusript support. The choice to accept verses like Luke 22:44 (sweating blood) with its antiDocetic tone, without strong manuscript support is due to its sharing the view of the interpolator that placed it there. The choice to not accept the story of forgiveness of a sinning woman in John (with similar manuscript support) may well reflect the minds and hearts of the NWT commitee.