NT scholar on discovery of giant trove of Bible manuscripts

Greg, I am a tad bit surprised you posted this link! I read this article earlier and then wondered like some others are saying: what are you going to do with the story of 'Jesus and the woman caught in adultery' that is missing in some of these old manuscripts? If it is not in the older manuscripts, how did it ever get in the later ones? Where did it come from?

I do not want to open a hornets nest here...and if this is too controversial, Greg, delete it, please...

ginnyrose

This is just fascinating stuff!

[i]"Well, they actually had one of their manuscripts on display not too long ago. This is the one that everyone knew was definitely there. It is a purple codex from the 6th century. A purple codex is one where the parchment has been dyed purple and all the ink is in silver or silver and gold. And in case of the Gospel, which is what this manuscript was, all the narratives were in silver and all the words of Jesus are in gold. So it is sort of like the first red letter edition except it is the first gold letter edition.[/i]"

Had never heard of this before. From the link to the [url=http://www.csntm.org/Albania2007.aspx]CSNTM[/url];

[i]"The oldest manuscript in the collection is Codex Beratinus, a codex that had been dyed in purple, with silver and gold letters written on it. Containing only Matthew and Mark today, this codex, written in the sixth century, is very rare because it is a royal codex. Only a handful of purple biblical codices still exist. The NA staff told of some of the great lengths that they had to go to to protect this document. For example, during World War II, Hitler learned of it and sought it out. Several monks and priests risked their lives to hide the manuscript. Codex Beratinus is now registered with UNESCO as a world treasure.[/i]"

Ginnyrose;

[i]Codex 1709 is a twelfth century manuscript that belongs to a very important group of manuscripts known as family 13. It is one of the earliest members. In fact, this particular codex is the reason that CSNTM came to Albania in the first place. Jac Perrin, a pastor in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, is completing his doctorate at the University of Birmingham, England, under Professor David Parker, an internationally respected textual critic. Perrin is writing his doctoral thesis on the relationship of the family 13 manuscripts. There was one that he still needed to gain access to—codex 1709. It was because of this lead that CSNTM found out that the manuscripts in Albania had not been photographed. As it turns out, 1709 might not be the only family 13 manuscript in Albania. More research needs to be done, but one or two others may also belong to this family. If so, they would be the oldest members of the family.

In addition to these manuscripts, some of the newly discovered manuscripts show a good deal of promise. This can be seen in a single passage, the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7.53–8.11). Most scholars today would argue that this story is inauthentic, added fairly early on in the transmission history of the text, largely because it is so moving and speaks of the compassion of Jesus. It’s my favorite passage that’s not in the Bible. There is much emotional baggage associated with these twelve verses, but the truth must win out over emotion. And for this reason many scholars and preachers are both adamant that this text is not authentic and simultaneously silent on the matter in the pulpit. The pericope adulterae, as it is called, has enjoyed this scholarly tradition of timidity for a long, long time, well after biblical scholars recognized its poor pedigree.

The vast majority of the nearly 1700 manuscripts that have John’s gospel in them also have this story wedged between John 7.52 and 8.12. Although they represent the majority, almost all of these manuscripts are late. Relatively speaking, there are very few manuscripts that do not have the passage at all, and an even smaller number that have it but place it at the end of the four gospels. The manuscripts that lack it number about 250; of this number, 111 are manuscripts without commentaries. To this number can now be added one more manuscript, Albanian National Archive (ANA) 15, an eleventh to twelfth century minuscule manuscript that contains the four gospels. At John 7.52, the scribe simply continued on to write John 8.12. A later scribe, incensed at what he thought was an oversight, took a piece of paper and carelessly stitched it into the front of the next parchment leaf (using only five stitches!) and scribbled the passage on it![/i]

From the link above. There is a bit more said there in this regard but I do not know that this is all that much to be concerned over.

I don't know what it is about hearing these things, these discoveries' that just thrills the heart. Great stuff.

Most scholars today would argue that this story is inauthentic, added fairly early on in the transmission history of the text, largely because it is so moving and speaks of the compassion of Jesus. It’s my favorite passage that’s not in the Bible. There is much emotional baggage associated with these twelve verses, but the truth must win out over emotion.

If it can be proven this scripture is not authentic in the older manuscripts, it will take a lot of wind out of the sails of those who cry "judge not" when confronted with sin. On the other hand you will have to deal with the issue of ALL scripture being inspired and thereby reliable.

I do have one question about John 7:52-8:12: did the early church writers use it in their writings?

My opinion on this issue is that it will NOT challenge my confidence in the reliability of the WORD.

I, too, find this immensely interesting. If truth be told, regardless where one stands on this issue, it will not change the Gospel message one twit. The greatest problem still remains to be obedient to the directives that are clearly understood and not argue with them! Hits us all, I would venture to say...

ginnyrose

[b]Joh 8:3 - And the Scribes and Pharisees[/b],.... The members of the sanhedrim, who had been so miserably disappointed the day before, were no less diligent and industrious in their wicked way, seeking all opportunities, and taking all advantages against Christ; and fancying they had got something whereby to ensnare him, and bring him into disgrace or danger, they pursue it; and

[b]brought unto him a woman taken in adultery;[/b] who, as some conjecture, might have been taken in it the day before, in one of their booths; being drawn into it through intemperance and carnal mirth, which at this feast they greatly indulged themselves in; which shows, that they were far from drawing the Holy Ghost at this time upon them; that on the contrary, they fell into the hands, and under the power of the unclean spirit: who this woman was, is not material to know; what is pretended to be taken out of the annals of the Spanish Jews, is no doubt a fable; that she was the wife of one Manasseh of Jerusalem, an old man, whose name was Susanna (d):

[b]and when they had set her in the midst[/b]; of the company, as the Persic version reads, to be seen by all the people. This history of the woman taken in adultery, is wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in other ancient copies; nor is it in Nonnus, Chrysostom, and Theophylact; nor in any of the editions of the Syriac version, until it was restored by De Dieu, from a copy of Archbishop Usher's; but was in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions, and in the Harmonies of Tatian and Ammonius; the former of which lived about the year 160, and so within 60 years, or thereabouts, of the death of the Evangelist John, and the other about the year 230; it was also in Stephens's sixteen ancient Greek copies, and in all Beza's seventeen, excepting one; nor need the authenticness of it be doubted of; Eusebius (e) says, it is in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; nor should its authority be called in question.

(d) Vid. Selden. Uxor Hebr. l. 3. c. 11. p. 377. (e) Hist. Ecless. l. 3. c. 39.

John Gill

Thought I would just throw this in here only for more consideration. It is something that came to mind ... what was the context of the preceeding verses etc. But I guess I have never had any difficulty accepting this even knowing of these issues because it certainly is in keeping with the Lord's character ... It doesn't seem out of place at all in the context... Of course none of that has any bearing on anything.

This might be helpful;

http://adultera.awardspace.com/