由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
TrustInJesus版 - 谁加进圣经的?John 7:53-8:11 A Woman Caught in Adultery
相关主题
聖經的增添 (Misquoting Jesus)John 16 I have overcome the world
基督徒不能回答的問題 (十) 聖經翻譯耶稣?荷鲁斯?巧合?抄袭?
'Jesus said to them, "My wife ..." 'Study and Exposition of Romans 1:1-7
An Inquiry into the Mental Health of Jesus: Was He Crazy?《耶稣福音》摘选 1
你还要多少证据才能相信圣经呢?跟老七分享我在信仰经历
问题:圣经是否曾被破坏,改写,剪接,修订或篡改?Emergence of the Four Gospel Canon
ZT - The Gospel for Today, from "The Message of Acts" byThe Reliability of the Gospels
突然觉得每个基督徒心中都有一个潜在的法利塞人主耶穌已駕雲降臨,帶著審判、帶著公義
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: john话题: jesus话题: pericope话题: mss话题: 53
进入TrustInJesus版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
G******e
发帖数: 9567
1
1、American Standard Version (1901). Marginal note: "Most of the ancient
authorities omit John vii. 53--viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much
from each other."
2、Revised Standard Version (1946). 7:53-8:11 given in the margin, with the
note, "Most of the ancient authorities either omit 7.53-8.11, or insert it,
with variations of the text, here or at the end of this gospel or after Luke
21.38." Since 1971 the section is printed as ordinary text, with the note,
"The most ancient authorities omit 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the
passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with
variations of text."
3、New American Standard Version (1963). "John 7:53-8:11 is not found in
most of the old mss."
4、New International Version (1973). "The most reliable early manuscripts
omit John 7:53-8:11." Later editions of the NIV have, "The earliest and most
reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11
."
New King James Version (1980). "NU [that is, the United Bible Societies'
Greek text] brackets 7:53 through 8:11 as not in the original text. They are
present in over 900 mss. of John."
5、English Standard Version: [The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–
8:11.]
6、New Living Translation: [The most ancient Greek manuscripts do not
include John 7:53–8:11.]
7、Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:
This verse and the first eleven verses of the following chapter are wanting
in several MSS. Some of those which retain the paragraph mark it with
obelisks, as a proof of spuriousness. Those which do retain it have it with
such a variety of reading as is no where else found in the sacred writings.
Professor Griesbach leaves the whole paragraph in the text with notes of
doubtfulness. Most of the modern critics consider it as resting on no solid
authority.
8、Vincent's Word Studies:
This verse, and the portion of Chapter 8, as far as John 8:12, are generally
pronounced by the best critical authorities not to belong to John's Gospel.
9、Scofield Reference Notes:
Jn 7:53-8:11 is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts. Augustine
declares that it was stricken from many copies of the sacred story because
of a prudish fear that it might teach immorality! But the immediate context
Jn 7:12-46 beginning with Christ's declaration, "I Amos the light of the
world." seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the
hearts of the Pharisees, as recorded in Jn 7:9; as also, it explains the
peculiar virulence of the Pharisee's words (Jn 7:41).
10、NET Bible:
This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope
adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost
certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern
commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the
section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the
Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine
origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187).
External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì66,75
א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition
codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that
neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there
would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the
pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that
include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include
part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope
after John 7:36, Ë1 places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12,
Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke
24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “
floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the
authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations
regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All
Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the
Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.)
In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels
A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and
Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same
designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the
only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion.
Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early
mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the
Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “
Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss
are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and
best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary
importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally
part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well
. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:
53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers
to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to
the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the
week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2
behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the
Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus
returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:
2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by
Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior
to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John
presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the
woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows,
because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the
inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the
introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be
noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’
reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that
no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must”
somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption.
The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is
allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have
expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12
does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author
may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his
readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early
Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness
motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the
motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the
reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent
tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not
Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “
Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,”
NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically
to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of
mss (Ë13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the
final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the
external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It
is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be
made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the
fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of
internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up
very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an
original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic
tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed
represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the
bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced
(see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).
Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most
likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. In spite
of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the
transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.
E*****m
发帖数: 25615
2
摘錄 Misquoting Jesus
The Woman Taken in Adultery
The story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is arguably the best-
known story about Jesus in the Bible; it certainly has always been a
favorite in Hollywood versions of his life. It even makes it into Mel Gibson
's The Passion of the Christ, although that movie focuses only on Jesus's
last hours (the story is treated in one of the rare flashbacks). Despite its
popularity, the account is found in only one passage of the New Testament,
in John 7:53-8:12, and it appears not to have been original even there.
The story line is familiar. Jesus is teaching in the temple, and a
group of scribes and Pharisees, his sworn enemies, approach him, bringing
with them a woman "who had been caught in the very act of adultery." They
bring her before Jesus because they want to put him to the test. The Law of
Moses, as they tell him, demands that such a one be stoned to death; but
they want to know what he has to say about the matter. Should they stone her
or show her mercy? It is a trap, of course. If Jesus tells them to let the
woman go, he will be accused of violating the Law of God; if he tells them
to stone her, he will be accused of dismissing his own teachings of love,
mercy, and forgiveness.
Jesus does not immediately reply; instead he stoops to write on the
ground. When they continue to question him, he says to them, "Let the one
who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her." He then
returns to his writing on the ground, while those who have brought the woman
start to leave the scene—evidently feeling convicted of their own
wrongdoing—until no one is left but the woman. Looking up, Jesus says, "
Woman, where are they? Is there no one who condemns you?" To which she
replies, "No one, Lord." He then responds, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and
sin no more."
It is a brilliant story, filled with pathos and a clever twist in
which Jesus uses his wits to get himself—not to mention the poor woman—off
the hook. Of course, to a careful reader, the story raises numerous
questions. If this woman was caught in the act of adultery, for example,
where is the man she was caught with? Both of them are to be stoned,
according to the Law of Moses (see Lev. 20:10). Moreover, when Jesus wrote
on the ground, what exactly was he writing? (According to one ancient
tradition, he was writing the sins of the accusers, who seeing that their
own transgressions were known, left in embarrassment!) And even if Jesus did
teach a message of love, did he really think that the Law of God given by
Moses was no longer in force and should not be obeyed? Did he think sins
should not be punished at all?
Despite the brilliance of the story, its captivating quality, and its
inherent intrigue, there is one other enormous problem that it poses. As it
turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact, it was not
originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes.
How do we know this? In fact, scholars who work on the manuscript
tradition have no doubts about this particular case. Later in this book we
will be examining in greater depth the kinds of evidence that scholars
adduce for making judgments of this sort. Here I can simply point out a few
basic facts that have proved convincing to nearly all scholars of every
persuasion: the story is not found in our oldest and best manuscripts of the
Gospel of John;18 its writing style is very different from what we find in
the rest of John (including the stories immediately before and after); and
it includes a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to
the Gospel. The conclusion is unavoidable: this passage was not originally
part of the Gospel.
How then did it come to be added? There are numerous theories about
that. Most scholars think that it was probably a well-known story
circulating in the oral tradition about Jesus, which at some point was added
in the margin of a manuscript. From there some scribe or other thought that
the marginal note was meant to be part of the text and so inserted it
immediately after the account that ends in John 7:52. It is noteworthy that
other scribes inserted the account in different locations in the New
Testament—some of them after John 21:25, for example, and others,
interestingly enough, after Luke 21:38. In any event, whoever wrote the
account, it was not John.
That naturally leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not
originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible? Not
everyone will respond to this question in the same way, but for most textual
critics, the answer is no.
1 (共1页)
进入TrustInJesus版参与讨论
相关主题
主耶穌已駕雲降臨,帶著審判、帶著公義你还要多少证据才能相信圣经呢?
有没有比较新的福音电影问题:圣经是否曾被破坏,改写,剪接,修订或篡改?
問一下 taoseeker 這個的出處ZT - The Gospel for Today, from "The Message of Acts" by
蔡金玲:剖析《犹大福音》突然觉得每个基督徒心中都有一个潜在的法利塞人
聖經的增添 (Misquoting Jesus)John 16 I have overcome the world
基督徒不能回答的問題 (十) 聖經翻譯耶稣?荷鲁斯?巧合?抄袭?
'Jesus said to them, "My wife ..." 'Study and Exposition of Romans 1:1-7
An Inquiry into the Mental Health of Jesus: Was He Crazy?《耶稣福音》摘选 1
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: john话题: jesus话题: pericope话题: mss话题: 53