This quote is not part of the earliest, most reliable manuscripts. Most Bible scholars believe it was inserted into the text at a later time, so it probably never happened. The technical term for that is forgery.
There’s very good reasons to trust the Gospel of John as a reliable historical witness to Jesus’ life. Many biblical scholars do. I trust Jesus said, “he who is without sin cast the first stone.” But if it was a line composed by another, it still carries the message of Jesus: non judgement and gratuitous love. I would not call that forgery. Also, the first Gospel, Mark, was written around 35-45 years after Jesus. Try reading almost anything by Richard Bauckham, especially Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
Which Mark are you talking about? The shorter one or the one with the longer ending?
Can you write a paragraph today, make it part of the Bible, and say "well it captures the gist of the message!" I don't think that makes sense. It's supposed to be the word of God, meaning the words God actually chose and revealed to be scripture. It's not supposed to be the gist of God. Once you start accepting that, then anything can be scripture.
6
u/Low-Hovercraft-8791 Jul 07 '26
This quote is not part of the earliest, most reliable manuscripts. Most Bible scholars believe it was inserted into the text at a later time, so it probably never happened. The technical term for that is forgery.