Claim: Vatican I added disputed passages of scripture

[Brian_Crane]

According to the wikipedia article on the development of the NT canon:

Vatican I on April 24, 1870 approved the additions to Mark (16:9-2), Luke (22:19b-20, 43-44) and John (7:53-8:11) which are not present in early manuscripts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

Now this appears to me to be misleading at best, but I want to know if others agree. These three passages have long been discussed as to whether they are later additions, but the Church has maintained since at least the Council of Trent that these passages are both canonical and inspired…I think.

Vatican I merely sought to reaffirm Trent’s decrees in the wake of textual critics in the late 18th and early-mid 19th century seeking to cast doubts on the inspiration of certain passages of scripture (including the three above.) This is the way I read it anyway.

So, has the Chuch declared authoritatively that the Johannine comma, the pericope adulterae, and the long version of Mark are canonical and inspired? I think that’s the case, but please correct me if I’m wrong. I think what’s open to dispute is whether those passages were part of the original manuscripts or whether they were later additions. Is that correct?

Furthermore, wikipedia and other sites will say:

Pope Pius IX, on June 2, 1927, decreed the “Comma Johannem” was open to dispute.

I can’t find that document online. So, if that is correct, did Pius IX merely refer to the fact that it was allowed to dispute whether it was part of the original or whether it was a later addition? Its canonicity or inspiration is not open to dispute is it?

 

[NoelFitz]

This seems to me the ultimate nit-picking. I thought this record was held by the anti-semitic comma in Paul.

Early texts had no commas, or any punctuation for that mateer. Thus the problem of a Johannine comma does not exsist.

I quote from *A Textual Commentary on the GNT * (2nd Ed., (B. M. Metzger et al.) :

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming…Although the Committee was unamimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decised to print it…

 

[Verbum]

These passages may not have been in the very first manuscripts, but they have been received by the Church as canonical and inspired. How when and by whom they were added is something for the amusement of textual experts.

Verbum

 

[NoelFitz]

These passages may not have been in the very first manuscripts, but they have been received by the Church as canonical and inspired. Verbum

Verbum,

many thanks for your post.

It is vital for Catholics who are interested in the Bible to realize that it is the inspired word of God.

I enjoy studying the Bible, but it would be harmful to doubt that the Bible is inspired.

Your post is an important reminder of something we may take for granted.

 

[Hesychios]

The reason the Gospel of John was accepted as inspired was because it was believed that John wrote it.

He definitely did not write the story of the adulteress. Now if the Latin Catholic church wants to declare this anonymous piece is inspired, fine. I am not objecting.

Just as long as it is perfectly clear that John did not write it.

BTW, it’s great story.

 

[NoelFitz]

The reason the Gospel of John was accepted as inspired was because it was believed that John wrote it.

He definitely did not write the story of the adulteress. Now if the Latin Catholic church wants to declare this anonymous piece is inspired, fine. I am not objecting.

Just as long as it is perfectly clear that John did not write it.

BTW, it’s great story.

 

[NoelFitz]

The reason the Gospel of John was accepted as inspired was because it was believed that John wrote it.

He definitely did not write the story of the adulteress. Now if the Latin Catholic church wants to declare this anonymous piece is inspired, fine. I am not objecting.

Just as long as it is perfectly clear that John did not write it.

BTW, it’s great story.

Sorry about previous post. It was sent before I had completed what I wanted to wrtite.

Of course the author of the Fourth Gospel was John, because this is what we call its author.

But who was John? Was he one of the sons of Zebedee? Was he John the Seer who wrote Revelation/Apocalypse? Was he the beloved disciple? Who knows, but we call him John.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has:

Of still greater importance is the testimony of St. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons (d. about 202), linked immediately with the Apostolic Age as he is, through his teacher Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John. … He cites in his writings at least one hundred verses from the Fourth Gospel, often with the remark, “as John, the disciple of the Lord, says”. In speaking of the composition of the Four Gospels, he says of the last: “Later John, the disciple of the Lord who rested on His breast, also wrote a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia” (Adv. Haer., III, i, n. 2). As here, so also in the other texts it is clear that by “John, the disciple of the Lord,” he means none other than the Apostle John(newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm)).

It has been suggested that Mary Magdalene was the author (ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html)).

I note:

Which “John” wrote the fourth Gospel?

John, the son of Zebedee, of Galilee?
John, the author of the Book of Revelation?
A third “John”, mentioned with Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, in chapters 3 and 4?
Most scholars eliminate the first two, and none even considers the third option. However, I would like to suggest that he is the true author of the 4th Gospel! The tradition rightly remembered his name was John, but failed to identify him sufficiently in either the Gospels or Acts.anamchara.com/2008/06/11/guest-blogger-which-john-wrote-the-fourth-gospel/

 

[Hesychios]

Of course the author of the Fourth Gospel was John, because this is what we call its author.

But who was John? Was he one of the sons of Zebedee? Was he John the Seer who wrote Revelation/Apocalypse? Was he the beloved disciple? Who knows, but we call him John.

I am afraid that you may have missed what I was trying to state.

I am not disputing that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John. I don’t think anyone is competent to make that statement or dispuute it (although it does not really matter). I understand that the Gospel is the inspired word, even if we are not exactly clear “which” John or even if he really went by the name. We can just take it on Faith that, regardless of the reasons some early church Fathers considered the Gospel inspired, it is indeed inspired.

What I am saying is that the interpolated story of the adulteress (with Jesus writing in the sand) was not written by the same author as the rest of John’s Gospel.

It’s OK if the church regards that piece as inspired, but it was not in the original.

Michael

 

[NoelFitz]

Michael
you wrote:

I am afraid that you may have missed what I was trying to state.

I am not disputing that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John. I don’t think anyone is competent to make that statement or dispuute it (although it does not really matter). I understand that the Gospel is the inspired word, even if we are not exactly clear “which” John or even if he really went by the name. …
What I am saying is that the interpolated story of the adulteress (with Jesus writing in the sand) was not written by the same author as the rest of John’s Gospel.

It’s OK if the church regards that piece as inspired, but it was not in the original.

Sorry if I missed your point. I do not think I really did.
I consider that I agree fully with you.

The Bible is the inspired word of God. The Gospel of John is in the Bible. Therefore…

Also the pericope about the adulteress is in John; again therefore…

We are full in agreement. It does bot matter who was the human author of the different parts of the Bible. God is the author. Whether John, the Evangelist, another John or Mary Magdalene wrote the fourth Gospel is not significant.

 

[NoelFitz]

Michael
you wrote:

I am afraid that you may have missed what I was trying to state.

I am not disputing that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John. I don’t think anyone is competent to make that statement or dispuute it (although it does not really matter). I understand that the Gospel is the inspired word, even if we are not exactly clear “which” John or even if he really went by the name. …
What I am saying is that the interpolated story of the adulteress (with Jesus writing in the sand) was not written by the same author as the rest of John’s Gospel.

It’s OK if the church regards that piece as inspired, but it was not in the original.

Sorry if I missed your point. I do not think I really did.
I consider that I agree fully with you.

The Bible is the inspired word of God. The Gospel of John is in the Bible. Therefore…

Also the pericope about the adulteress is in John; again therefore…

We are full in agreement. It does bot matter who was the human author of the different parts of the Bible. God is the author. Whether John, the Evangelist, another John or Mary Magdalene wrote the fourth Gospel is not significant.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The only way to prove that the disputed passages were not the originals would be to produce the originals.

If anyone has the original text of the gospel of St. John I’d like to see it!

 

[NoelFitz]

Jerry-Jet

You might like to look at P66. It was written about 150-200 CE, round about 50 to 100 years after John’s gospel was first written. It does not contain the pericope about the adulteress.

ntgreek.org.uk/p66.htm

 

[peary]

For anyone interested, here are the official Decrees of Vatican I:

piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

I don’t find the additions of scriptural passages in them, but the decrees are here in their entirety.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If the choice came down to P66 versus St. Jerome–I’d take St. Jerome any day.

 

[NoelFitz]

If the choice came down to P66 versus St. Jerome–I’d take St. Jerome any day.

Jerry-Jet

It depends on what the question is.

P66 is older and thus presumably closer to the original. The Vulgate has been used by the Church throughout centuries.

Personally, I prefer to consider the pericope of the adulteress as part of the Bible - the inspired word of God, whether it was in the original or not.

Many other later interpolations may be included in the Bible. If they have been accepted for centuuries, I am happy to considee them part of the inspired Bible.