The Adulterous Woman

  • Thread starter Thread starter Augustine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Augustine3

Guest
I’ve heard the argument regarding the story of the Adulterous Woman in John chapter 8 is not found in the most ancient manuscripts and it was only found centuries later after the gospel had been written. Furthermore this story has been found in the gospel according to Luke. This story was not part of the original gospel, hence it’s uninspired.

How do we Christians defend this?
 
I’ve heard the argument regarding the story of the Adulterous Woman in John chapter 8 is not found in the most ancient manuscripts and it was only found centuries later after the gospel had been written. Furthermore this story has been found in the gospel according to Luke. This story was not part of the original gospel, hence it’s uninspired.

How do we Christians defend this?
I would need more proof than that to even begin to speculate what that was all about.
 
I’ve heard the argument regarding the story of the Adulterous Woman in John chapter 8 is not found in the most ancient manuscripts and it was only found centuries later after the gospel had been written. Furthermore this story has been found in the gospel according to Luke. This story was not part of the original gospel, hence it’s uninspired.

How do we Christians defend this?
is there a problem with its message?
i’m not sure what there is to defend
somebody who knows more about these things than i do included it in the Gospel
it reveals something about the nature of God and Jesus and the reasons for His persecution
i don’t have a problem with it
 
is there a problem with its message?
i’m not sure what there is to defend
somebody who knows more about these things than i do included it in the Gospel
it reveals something about the nature of God and Jesus and the reasons for His persecution
i don’t have a problem with it
There’s also some charming morals in the apocalypse of Peter or the gospel of Barnabas yet these are deemed fraud. I’m focusing more on textual criticism and I’m wondering how this story made it into the gospel when it’s not found among the earliest manuscripts?
 
I’ve heard the argument regarding the story of the Adulterous Woman in John chapter 8 is not found in the most ancient manuscripts and it was only found centuries later after the gospel had been written. Furthermore this story has been found in the gospel according to Luke. This story was not part of the original gospel, hence it’s uninspired.

How do we Christians defend this?
Why would it be ‘uninspired’? Not an original part of John’s gospel maybe, but how does that make the pericope ‘uninspired’?

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
 
Why would it be ‘uninspired’? Not an original part of John’s gospel maybe, but how does that make the pericope ‘uninspired’?
Don’t get me wrong, I love this story, it gives a sinner like me hope 😉

I just don’t understand how this could be inspired if there is no evidence of this story in any of the manuscripts for centuries. You were open to the possibility that it may have not been part of St John’s original gospel. So how else could you know if it’s inspired? Is there a criterion the church used? There’s mention of it being in the vulgate as an argument. So what? St Jerome could have simply copied an uninspired story into the Vulgate…
 
Don’t get me wrong, I love this story, it gives a sinner like me hope 😉

I just don’t understand how this could be inspired if there is no evidence of this story in any of the manuscripts for centuries. You were open to the possibility that it may have not been part of St John’s original gospel. So how else could you know if it’s inspired? Is there a criterion the church used? There’s mention of it being in the vulgate as an argument. So what? St Jerome could have simply copied an uninspired story passed down into the Vulgate…
 
Don’t get me wrong, I love this story, it gives a sinner like me hope 😉

I just don’t understand how this could be inspired if there is no evidence of this story in any of the manuscripts for centuries. You were open to the possibility that it may have not been part of St John’s original gospel. So how else could you know if it’s inspired? Is there a criterion the church used? There’s mention of it being in the vulgate as an argument. So what? St Jerome could have simply copied an uninspired story into the Vulgate…
Papias (ca. AD 125) speaks of a story of Jesus and a woman “accused of many sins” as being found in “the Gospel of the Hebrews.” The Didascalia Apostolorum also refers to the story, albeit without naming from which gospel it came from.

But if thou receive not him who repents, because thou art without mercy, thou shalt sin against the Lord God; for thou obeyest not our Saviour and our God, to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgement in His hands, departed. But He, the Searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her: “Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter? She saith to him: ‘Nay, Lord.’ And he said unto her: ‘Go thy way: neither do I condemn thee.’” In Him therefore, our Saviour and King and God, be your pattern, O bishops, and do you imitate Him, that you may be quiet and meek, and merciful and compassionate, and peacemakers, and without anger, and teachers and correctors and receivers and exhorters; and that you be not wrathful, nor tyrannical; and that you be not insolent, nor haughty, nor boastful.

The Alexandrian writer Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) refers to the pericope as being found in “several copies”; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its usual place in some Greek manuscripts in Alexandria elsewhere from the 4th century onwards. In the West, at around the same tme, St. Jerome reports that the story was to be found in its usual place in “many Greek and Latin manuscripts” in Rome and the Latin West. This information is confirmed by his contemporaries Sts. Ambrose and Augustine; in fact, Augustine thought that passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in his area in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery.

If you’re going to ask me, I personally think that this story perhaps originally did not belong to any gospel but was something transmitted via oral tradition. Then somehow it ended up in the gospel of John (and in a few copies, in Luke).

Besides, I’m a sinner too, and I also love this story, but I don’t think that it all stands or fall on this one passage. I mean, there are a good other passages in Scripture that talk about forgiveness and such.
 
wait until coptic christian finds this thread. Go ask him. He is awesome.
 
I’ve heard the argument regarding the story of the Adulterous Woman in John chapter 8 is not found in the most ancient manuscripts and it was only found centuries later after the gospel had been written. Furthermore this story has been found in the gospel according to Luke. This story was not part of the original gospel, hence it’s uninspired.

How do we Christians defend this?
Just so you know who’s writing that argument, that he is nowhere near being Catholic, and that he wants
to retain the ability to edit my own material . . .
:bible-researcher.com/biog.html

One thing I noticed was that he ends up at the very least semi-contradicting himself by first claiming:
We can no more canonise this passage, if it were not genuine Scripture from the beginning, than we can the books of the Apocrypha, or any other writings.
But a little further on he claims (green highlights mine)
Though I am fully satisfied that this narration is not a genuine part of St. John’s Gospel, and though I regard the endeavors to make the evidence appear satisfactory to be such as would involve all Holy Scripture in a mist of uncertainty, I see no reason for doubting that it contains a true narration. There is nothing unworthy of the acting of the Lord Jesus detailed in this history.** And thus I accept the narrative as true**
So what’s he really saying ? He’s talking in circles. He found a pseudo-anomaly and so he personally subsequently becomes the infallible authority on Sacred Scripture. :doh2:

Saint Augustine gave a very reasonable explanation for it, yet Marlowe casts St. Augustine’s commentary into doubt - that’s where he really blows it. In essence, he is thus saying “I should be believed - not St. Augustine” . . . isn’t he ?

continued in next post . . .
 
continued. . .

Here’s the explanation (peculiar how similar some of his wording is to this) from the Navarre Bible on this passage of the Gospel according to John. For anyone who doesn’t know , the University of Navarre’s Theology faculty thoroughly researched these translations of sacred scripture. Several excerpts from their foreword first, to THE NAVARRE BIBLE, The Gospel of Saint John in the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate with a commentary by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre:
. . . The commentaries contained in the notes are the result of looking up thousands of sources (sometimes reflected in explicit references given in our text)-documents of the Magisterium, exegesis by Fathers and Doctors of the Church, works by important spiritual writers (usually saints of every period) and writings of the founder of our University. It would have been impertinent of us to comment on the Sacred Bible using our own expertise alone. Besides, a basic principle of exegesis is that Scripture should be interpreted in the context of Sacred Tradition and under the guidance of the Magisterium.
With this context in mind, let’s proceed to the commentary provided (my Navarre copy is the separate Gospel of John and the commentary is found on page # 120) pertaining to John 8:1-11 [It’s tied to what patrick457 posted in post # 6] .
THE NAVARRE BIBLE,
The Gospel of Saint John in the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate
with a commentary by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre:
Commentary; John 8:1-11
This passage is absent from many ancient codexes, but it was in the Vulgate when the Magisterium, at The Council of Trent, defined the canon of Sacred Scripture. Therefore the Church regards it as canonical and inspired, and has used it and continues to use it in the liturgy. It is also included in the New Vulgate, in the same position as it occupied before.
St. Augustine said that the reason doubts were raised about the passage was that it showed Jesus to be so merciful that some rigorists thought it would lead to a relaxation of moral rules - and therefore many copyists suppressed it from their manuscripts (cf. *De coniugiis adulterinis *, 2 , 6).
In commenting on the episode of the woman caught in adultery Fray Luis de Granada gives these general considerations on the mercy of Christ : "Your feelings, your deeds and your words should be akin to these, if you desire to be a beautiful likeness of the Lord. And therefore the Apostle is not content with telling us to be merciful; he tells us, as God’s sons, to put on ‘the bowels of mercy’ (cf. Col 3:12). Imagine, then, what the world would be like if everyone arrayed themselves this way.
"All this is said to help us understand to some degree the great abundance of the goodness and compassion of our Saviour, which shine forth so clearly in these actions of his, for . . . ]in this life we cannot know God in himself; we can know Him only through his actions. . . . ] But it should also be pointed out that we should never act in such a way in view of God’s mercy, that we forget about his justice ; ;nor should we attend to his justice forgetting about his mercy; for hope should have in it an element of fear, and fear an element of hope .
We may clearly conclude : The Church under the guidance of the Magisterium, interprets Scripture in the context of Sacred Tradition , and is edified by St. Augustine’s intellect , faith and wisdom as to why doubts were raised about that particular passage . Marlowe is confused, doesn’t accept St. Augustine’s explanation - ergo the opinion of the Magisterium , so remains hung up on his own personal doubt. The further he pursues it, the more doubts he will encounter. Kind of sad really . . .
 
Thanks guys for your responses. I guess ultimately speaking whatever the magisterium deems inspired, we must trust to be inspired in accordance with the authority Christ has given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top