Bible verses added at later times?

MontChevalier · Nov 22, 2011

-MontChevalier

Mike30 · Nov 22, 2011

MontChevalier said:
Just recently, a poster made a comment about how there are certain Bible verses which weren’t in the original manuscripts. This has really troubled me, and I would like some feedback on what’s going on.

I would like to point out the verses…

John 7:53-8:11

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

And then there are these:

1 John 5:7-8

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

Mark 16:9-20

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Mark_16:9.E2.80.9320_in_the_manuscript_tradition

Luke 22:43-44

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ%27s_agony_at_Gethsemane

John 5:3-4

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_5#Interpolation

Matthew 16:2-3

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_16:2b%E2%80%933

The Lord’s Prayer

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_prayer#.22For_thine_is_the_kingdom.2C_and_the_power.2C_and_the_glory.2C_for_ever_and_ever._Amen.22

The Last Supper

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper#Institution_of_the_Eucharist

This is all so…disturbing.

Please help.

-MontChevalier

Why exactly is it disturbing? We don’t have the originals of any of the manuscripts and in fact the earliest evidence that we have, P52 is from about 125 AD and it is only the size of a credit card. Since we are not like the Muslims and do not believe that the entire Bible is the actual, literal word of God does it really make any difference?

YoungTradCath · Nov 22, 2011

So? I mean, I can’t really express it past that. When I was a Protestant, if I heard this, I’d probably be appalled. What exactly makes the Bible “as is?”

Belloc_Fan · Nov 22, 2011

MontChevalier,

No need to be disturbed.

First of all, the human authorship is less important than the Divine authorship.

Second, the Holy Spirit can inspire additions to texts, as well. For example, there’s no denying that Moses isn’t the author of the last chapter of the Torah: it’s Deuteronomy 34, and it’s about Moses’ death. Yet it’s always been accepted as part of inspired Scripture, by even the most conservative of Jewish factions (the Sadducees, who had only the first five Books in their Bible).

Third, many of these “additions” may be “subtractions.” For example, Luke 22:43-44 is reported from a very early date. It may well have been simply omitted in one of the translations because a copyist skipped a line.

Fourth, the material in these “additions” is ancient in origin. Nobody is claiming that these are Medieval additions. For example, the doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:13) is attested to in the Didache, which is as old as the New Testament.

Fifth, all of the controverted sections are orthodox. None teach anything contrary to the rest of Scripture: in fact, whether originally written by the human authors, these statements all seem to be true.

Sixth, as Catholics, we don’t believe in sola Scirptura. Even if the entire Bible were lost tomorrow, we could know the Gospel through extra-Scriptural attestation from a very early period.

Seventh, there’s no reason to hang your faith on this one way or the other. What difference should it make for your immortal soul whether or not the pool of Siloam was stirred by an angel or not?

To the extent that additions exist, most of them are from what are called glosses. The idea is this. An early Christian wrote notes in his copy of, say, the Gospel of Luke. When another Christian went to copy his personal Gospel of Luke, the notes got included along with the main text. No conspiracy, no apparently intentional Bible-tampering, just an innocent mistake.

God bless!

MontChevalier · Nov 22, 2011

If none of this is a problem, then where do we Catholics stand? Is the church our guide?

-MontChevalier

Catholic1954 · Nov 22, 2011

The Church is our guide. Jesus left us a Church, not the bible.

Mike30 · Nov 22, 2011

MontChevalier said:
If none of this is a problem, then where do we Catholics stand? Is the church our guide?

-MontChevalier

The Church is our guide. The Church interprets scripture. We don’t do that as Catholics. Protestants to a great degree rely solely on scripture and each individuals interpretation of it. That has never been the Catholics Church’s teaching. Scripture is interpretated in the light of tradition by the Church and always has been.

That is one of the big differences between Catholicism and the various protestant groups.

Bible verses added at later times?

MontChevalier

Guest

Mike30

Guest

YoungTradCath

Guest

Belloc_Fan

Guest

MontChevalier

Guest

Catholic1954

Guest

Mike30

Guest