Christianity Today story about Albania manuscripts discovery
Earlier today, Christianity Today ran its on-line story about the manuscripts that the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) discovered last summer. The story is abbreviated in the print version of CT for May 2008, and there is also a sidebar for the e-version that deals with the story of the woman caught in adultery. It should stimulate some important discussion. I thought you might be interested.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Christianity Today story about Albania manuscripts discovery
- New Local Church Network Site for The Theology Program
- Some Evangelicals Upset about the “Evangelical Manifesto”
- For those of you who like superheros
- Jesus Made Him Puke
juliej on 24 Apr 2008 at 7:54 am #
Is the lack of the adulterous woman story in John 7/8 in these discovered manuscripts, along with previous evidence, enough to revoke its canonicity? What would the process be? I have to admit that there is a certain sadness with this discovery as it is a beautiful story of the matchless grace of Christ….
Talacker29 on 24 Apr 2008 at 9:37 am #
That brings to mind a question I’ve thought about before: what if a new letter from Paul were to be discovered, say the Letter to the Laodiceans that is alluded to in other epistles in the New Testament? If scholars could agree (big if) that it is authentically Pauline, would that be reason to discuss its canonicity? Are all works of Paul considered inspired, or just a select few?
Joel D. on 24 Apr 2008 at 11:49 am #
If there is *any* good reason to doubt the authenticity of the story, someone please point it out to me. All I see is a line saying “many” scholars doubt it, basically because “Well, if I were John I wouldn’t have written it that way; someone else musta put it there.”
From what I can tell, the story is included in the vast majority of early texts. As far as this one single manuscript goes, it’s just as likely that the story was simply left out.
HenrykG on 24 Apr 2008 at 3:47 pm #
Could I refer those interested to the following article, which reaffirms the authenticity of this story, while postulating that it was originally written by Mark!
“The Pericope of the Adulteress Reconsidered: The Nomadic Misfortunes of a Bold Pericope” by JOSEP RIUS-CAMPS, New Test. Stud. 53, 2007, Cambridge University Press, pp. 379–405. DOI:10.1017/S0028688507000197
JoanieD on 24 Apr 2008 at 6:59 pm #
Henry I found the abstract of the article you would like us to read, but I don’t have the article.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=1030828
Abstract
“This article considers afresh the origin of the pericope of the adulteress, which is absent from some important manuscripts. Comparison of the witnesses to the text reveals that it has been preserved in two distinct forms, one (attested by Codex Bezae and the minuscules 2722 and 1071) that is Markan in style, and the other (attested by f13) that reproduces the style of Luke. The conclusion drawn is that the account was first composed by Mark (and placed after Mark 12.12) and subsequently adopted by Luke (after Luke 20.19). Because of the apparent moral leniency displayed by Jesus, the story would have been removed at an early date from both Gospels, and then later reinserted by some manuscripts but at different places.”
This story of Jesus with the adulterous woman has the ring of truth in it to me. I think someone took it out along the way and then someone got it back in! But I really am speaking on a “hunch.”
Joanie D.