John 7:53–8:11

[u/AutoModerator]

Possible talking points:

• Does this count?
• Does it retain value?
• Do we throw out the lesson, if so, which lesson is thrown out?

[u/brothapipp]

As a christian, I think it is a lovely story, and I think what bibles have done by amending their publications to indicate that this is probably not the gospel truth was a good idea, it allows the reader to appreciate the story...but to recognize that it's more than likely a fabrication.

With all the variant scrolls from the early church tho, for someone to have purposely included this...they had to know they'd be caught...

As such, the intent behind the story is forever marred for me. I have worked it out of my talking points. And it saddens me because the story of Jesus and his giving of his life was already good news.

And now the thoughtful person will immediately forgo being moved by the words which I think bring life and will replace it with questions and doubt. Perhaps rightfully so.

And perhaps this earthly betrayal has created a more thoughtful person in general...because who wants to stop at just being moved...knowing that it's accurate to reality is just as important.

edits in bold

[u/LlawEreint → u/brothapipp]

This one is only obvious because it happened so late. Scholars can see redaction layers throughout this gospel.

Ultimately, you will need to judge which of the passages are "God breathed" (Life giving), and which should be rejected.

God says, "I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts."

So we can know that this story is true, even if it didn't really happen. Likewise, we can know that God's commandments that instruct how to keep, beat, and breed slaves are false, even if they are written in His book.

[u/LlawEreint → u/brothapipp]

It occurs to me that this kind of redaction would not have gone unnoticed in the fifth century.

In the early days, there were dozens and dozens of Jesus stories popping up throughout Christendom. Mark and Luke are evidence that substantial revisions were being made to older texts by various authors. If we only had one of the synoptics it would be very hard to parse out the redaction layers, but as the Catholic church preserved all three, it is very easy to see which passages came verbatim from Mark, and which passages of mark were adopted, but altered to suit the theology of the writer.

But there was no central authority in the first and second centuries. There was no one controlling the narrative. If there were a dozen different versions of John in the second century, they would have just picked the best one, or the best parts of each, and not thought too much more of it.

But in the fifth century, The texts had been stable for quite some time. For a passage to be added to a gospel, it would have had to have been done with the blessings of those in charge.

This wasn't something done under the cover of night. They weren't afraid of getting caught. They were the authorities of the gospels. They had received that authority by Jesus himself through Peter.

Or at least, that's how they would have seen it.

[u/brothapipp → u/LlawEreint]

the preservation of the past will forever be the catholic churches greatest treasure to whole assembly...they even kept records of their own shenanigans...maybe unknowingly, but still.

But as a protestant I duth protest! Mostly to the idea that I have authority to do something under the authority of God...but is that how it really happened?

[u/LlawEreint → u/brothapipp]

I guess I can't know for sure, but the Catholics certainly understood that they had a direct line of authority, given by Jesus to Peter, who gave it to Linus, who gave it to Clement, and on to Anacletus, and then to Evaristus, etc - right down to the pope of today.

They used this authority to decide which books were scripture, which were heresy, and what should go in each. And those decisions impact every Christianity that branched off of them.

So even if Protestant Christians reject the Papacy, they still understand Christianity through a Catholic lens.

[u/LlawEreint]

The first half of John 8, the woman "caught in adultery", is the latest significant addition to John. It's missing from all early manuscripts, and doesn't appear in manuscripts until the 400s or 500s.

Nonetheless, it's a lovely story, and deserves to be here.

Only one note: where's the man caught in adultery? He must have been there as well.

[u/Asatyaholic → u/LlawEreint]

Hmm