Why do we consider the later textual additions to the Gospels to be inspired?

[Luke_K]

It is to my understanding that it is widely agreed that the Gospel according to Mark originally ended at 16:8, and that the story of the woman caught in adultery in John was not originally in John. Why then do we consider these passages to be inspired? Were people aware that these were later additions when Mark and John were included in the canon?

 

[DianaCC]

Why then do we consider these passages to be inspired? Were people aware that these were later additions when Mark and John were included in the canon?

Because of the use of the Church. These textual oddities have been known from the beginning and even the ancients weren’t sure what the deal was with them. Wikipedia covers all this pretty well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery and articles on the other famous passages.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

They are considered canonical for the same reason that any other writing is in the canon – because the Church discerned that they were inspired and included them in the Scriptures.

There is the canon of the OT – those writings that gained univeral acceptance early – and the “deuterocanon” – those writings about which there was some controversy in early Christian history. The deuterocanon of the NT consists of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. The “deuterocanon” of the OT are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel 3:24-90, 13, 14).

“Deuterocanon” is a word used since the 16th century to identify those writings that were not universally accepted early on in the history of the Church, but were accepted at some later time. All of these are recognized by the Catholic Church as part of the biblical canon. They were all named to the canon at the very same time, at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393), Carthage III (397) and IV (419), and again at II Nicaea (787), Florence (1431-45), Trent (1545-63). Maccabees is as canonical as Matthew; Hebrews is as canonical as Isaiah.

Jim Dandy

 

[PJM]

=Luke K;8271496]It is to my understanding that it is widely agreed that the Gospel according to Mark originally ended at 16:8, and that the story of the woman caught in adultery in John was not originally in John. Why then do we consider these passages to be inspired? Were people aware that these were later additions when Mark and John were included in the canon?

Luke, PLEASE be careful with what you shoose to believe. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 tells us ALL of the Bible is isnpiried by God, and various Church Councels have affirmed this position.

There are Many THOUSANDS of competing christian Faiths taking shots at the CC because it is the ONLY one founded by Christ and the “Keeper of the the keys to heaven.”

Wakapedia is certainly NOT pro-Catholic and may not even be pro-Christian from some of the information I have read on there site. So BE CAREFUL.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Luke, PLEASE be careful with what you shoose to believe. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 tells us ALL of the Bible is isnpiried by God, and various Church Councels have affirmed this position.

There are Many THOUSANDS of competing christian Faiths taking shots at the CC because it is the ONLY one founded by Christ and the “Keeper of the the keys to heaven.”

Wakapedia is certainly NOT pro-Catholic and may not even be pro-Christian from some of the information I have read on there site. So BE CAREFUL.

God Bless,
Pat

???

2 Tim 3:14-17 refers to the Septuagint. These were the only “sacred writings” Greek-speaking Timothy knew from childhood. The NT would not be written, selected, canonized and named until the end of the fourth century. The Church Councils which established the canon didn’t refer to these verses, but perhaps that’s not what you meant.

RSV footnotes: 15. the sacred writings, the books of the Old Testament, which the Church interpreted as pointing to Jesus Christ. 16. All scripture, the Old Testament. Inspired by God, compare Gen. 2:7 where God breathes life into man.

Jim Dandy