I very often I hear that we have a few passages (at least 6) that were not in the best original and preserved NT manuscripts. I have read once that The printing press was invented in 1439, so for the first 1400 years of Christianity all of the books were copied by hand. For the first 300 years, that work was done by literate church leaders rather than by a class of professional scribes and monks as was the case later on. The same Christians that were preserving and copying the texts that became the New Testament were also embroiled in several theological debates. We now know, based on comparisons of the surviving manuscripts from the history of the Church, that those early copyists made changes to the text. Most of those changes were minor mistakes like spelling, word order, skipping a line or just a simple misreading. But in some cases, entire verses or passages were inserted by the scribes to bring the text in line with their theological views and to bolster their position in the debates of the day.
Here are 6 passages that supposedly were added later:
1) Mark 16:9-20
2) John 7:53 and 8:11
3) John 21
4) Luke 22:17-21
5) Luke 22:43-44
6) 1 John 5:7-8
Now here is the question:
1) What is the evidence that this verses were actually added later on and by whom?
2) Do these changes have a direct impact on the doctrines of Christianity? If so, in which doctrines?
Thanks in advance for each comment on it.
Coimbra1982 said
I very often I hear that we have a few passages (at least 6) that were not in the best original and preserved NT manuscripts. I have read once that The printing press was invented in 1439, so for the first 1400 years of Christianity all of the books were copied by hand. For the first 300 years, that work was done by literate church leaders rather than by a class of professional scribes and monks as was the case later on. The same Christians that were preserving and copying the texts that became the New Testament were also embroiled in several theological debates. We now know, based on comparisons of the surviving manuscripts from the history of the Church, that those early copyists made changes to the text. Most of those changes were minor mistakes like spelling, word order, skipping a line or just a simple misreading. But in some cases, entire verses or passages were inserted by the scribes to bring the text in line with their theological views and to bolster their position in the debates of the day.Here are 6 passages that supposedly were added later:
1) Mark 16:9-20
2) John 7:53 and 8:11
3) John 21
4) Luke 22:17-21
5) Luke 22:43-44
6) 1 John 5:7-8
Now here is the question:
1) What is the evidence that this verses were actually added later on and by whom?
2) Do these changes have a direct impact on the doctrines of Christianity? If so, in which doctrines?
Thanks in advance for each comment on it.
When people hand copied texts from generation to generation you have to expect SOME odd situations. If an entire chapter, like my favorite John 21 suddenly “appears” in text it could simply be because older or more authoritative copies have surfaced. I don’t see any “new” or “altered” texts that could support some position. The story of Jesus’ seaside breakfast or the woman “taken in adultery” are in keeping with the Gospels in general.
When people hand copied texts from generation to generation you have to expect SOME odd situations. If an entire chapter, like my favorite John 21 suddenly “appears” in text it could simply be because older or more authoritative copies have surfaced. I don’t see any “new” or “altered” texts that could support some position. The story of Jesus’ seaside breakfast or the woman “taken in adultery” are in keeping with the Gospels in general.
So Poohbear, my friend, let me ask you a question. If a sealed jar was dug up in the sands of Egypt, preserved for 2000 years, that contained a manuscript of a previously unknown but authentic letter of Paul, what would the proper attitude towards it be? Should it be added to the New Testament? Excluded?
Poohbear said
When people hand copied texts from generation to generation you have to expect SOME odd situations. If an entire chapter, like my favorite John 21 suddenly “appears” in text it could simply be because older or more authoritative copies have surfaced. I don’t see any “new” or “altered” texts that could support some position. The story of Jesus’ seaside breakfast or the woman “taken in adultery” are in keeping with the Gospels in general.
Hello Poohbear first of all thanks for your comment and contribution to my topic.
I tend to disagree on what you said cause it is really hard to convince myself that additions to a text would happen because let´s say; “older or more authoritative copies have surfaced.” in that sense it seems more reasonable to say, I think, that John 21 issue is not a text critical matter. Scholars frequently postulate that it’s not original not on text critical grounds but in terms of the structure and purpose of the gospel. Aland and Aland point out that despite this widespread theory there isn’t a hint of the later addition, or the existance of two editions of G John in the manuscripts.
Moreover, John 21 seems like it was tacked on to an already finished book, but there are no surviving manuscripts that omit John 21. So, the only evidence that this passage was added by a scribe is the internal evidence of the text itself. If it is an addition, that would help make sense of John 21:24 which speaks of the author of the book in the third person.
Coimbra1982 said
I very often I hear that we have a few passages (at least 6) that were not in the best original and preserved NT manuscripts. I have read once that The printing press was invented in 1439, so for the first 1400 years of Christianity all of the books were copied by hand. For the first 300 years, that work was done by literate church leaders rather than by a class of professional scribes and monks as was the case later on. The same Christians that were preserving and copying the texts that became the New Testament were also embroiled in several theological debates. We now know, based on comparisons of the surviving manuscripts from the history of the Church, that those early copyists made changes to the text. Most of those changes were minor mistakes like spelling, word order, skipping a line or just a simple misreading. But in some cases, entire verses or passages were inserted by the scribes to bring the text in line with their theological views and to bolster their position in the debates of the day.Here are 6 passages that supposedly were added later:
1) Mark 16:9-20
2) John 7:53 and 8:11
3) John 21
4) Luke 22:17-21
5) Luke 22:43-44
6) 1 John 5:7-8
Now here is the question:
1) What is the evidence that this verses were actually added later on and by whom?
2) Do these changes have a direct impact on the doctrines of Christianity? If so, in which doctrines?
Thanks in advance for each comment on it.
1) Mark 16:9-20 missing from earliest greek manuscripts/papyri. Various other endings exist. Eusebius says its not to be considered original. Reads as if out of place and does not flow smoothly from 16:1 to 16:9. All doctrines contained elsewhere in NT
2) John 7:53 to 8:11 – missing from earliest greek manuscripts/papyri. Contained however in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Later takes over the Greek manuscript tradition. Doctrine affected – nobody has authority to execute the law of stoning for adultery.
3) John 21 – no manuscript evidence against it but John 20 appears to be original ending with 21 a later epilogue.
4) Luke 21:17-21 – many variants exist – longer version contained in majority of greek manuscripts, including oldest. Some variants would appear to have Luke lacking an atonement sacrifice.
5) Luke 22:43-44 – missing from important early manuscripts. Luke’s passion without these verses would otherwise appear to be passion-less.
6) 1 John 5:7-8 – missing from almost all greek manuscripts – missing from Jerome’s Latin vulgate. However this only applies to part of 1 John 5:7-8 (the comma Johanneum). There rest of 1 John 5:7-8 does not have textual evidence against it and has the same theological doctrine as the comma Johanneum.
brenmcg said
6) 1 John 5:7-8 – missing from almost all greek manuscripts – missing from Jerome’s Latin vulgate. …
The great mass of Latin Vulgate mss. do have the verse, about 95%.
Also the Old Latin mss. have the versel Back to c. 500 AD.
Early church writers consistently utilized the verse.
And the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, from Jerome first person to Eustochium, specifically discusses the tendency to drop the verse. This is in the oldest extant Vulgate ms., Codex Fuldensis.
The Latin evidence for the verse is massive and consistent through the centuries. The interpolation theories are very weak, and have to deal with some very unusual claims, such as a Latin interpolation fixing a Greek solecism in back-translation.
In general, interpolation is a very difficult theory, while the dropping of text can be quite simple.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)