Is The Bible Reliable?

[Skinzo]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1285103773' post='2175151']
I also have a new american Catholic Bible, wondering if it is the same one, (it is a dull pumpkin color with a yellow cross). It says that Matthew was written by an unknown author and was based off of Mark and other sources. It says the post-70 AD dating is confirmed by the mention of the destruction of Jerusalem, while Mark was around 70 AD. It says it is approved by the national conference of catholic bishops and whatnot
[/quote]

The Gospels in fact do not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem as a past event. They record Jesus' prediction but none of the writers say "this came to pass". This fact supports the idea that the Gospels were written before 64 A.D. John A. Robinson, an otherwise liberal Episcopalian wrote an interesting book called "Redating the New Testament" in which he made a good case that the later dating theories were based on an "almost wilful blindness". If there was anything the early Christian community had to crow about it was the destruction of Jerusalem. What better way to present Jesus as a very accurate prophet? Yet the Gospels are silent on the subject as is the rest of the New Testament.

S.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Skinzo

[Socrates]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1285955144' post='2177326']
The Gospels in fact do not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem as a past event. They record Jesus' prediction but none of the writers say "this came to pass". This fact supports the idea that the Gospels were written before 64 A.D. John A. Robinson, an otherwise liberal Episcopalian wrote an interesting book called "Redating the New Testament" in which he made a good case that the later dating theories were based on an "almost wilful blindness". If there was anything the early Christian community had to crow about it was the destruction of Jerusalem. What better way to present Jesus as a very accurate prophet? Yet the Gospels are silent on the subject as is the rest of the New Testament.

S.
[/quote]
Good points.

Modernist scholars do not believe Christ actually could accurately prophesy future invents, and for this reason insist the prophecy must have been written after the fall of Jerusalem. Just as they insist that accounts of miraculous events in the Gospels must have been later additions to the original story of Jesus.

Much of their dating is based not in sound history, but on materialistic a priori assumptions against Christ's divinity and the reality of the supernatural.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285695792' post='2176462']
 This is not the same thing as Genesis, which is clearly a parable/fable type of story. 
[/quote]
That's a rather broad statement, too broad really. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement but if you are referring to the existence of Adam and Eve (often thought these days by many "scholars" even Catholic ones to be a "fable") the Church has asserted quite the contrary as Pope Pius XII made clear in Humanii Generis. The Church does affirm the existence of Adam and Eve. 





S. 

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285697770' post='2176477']
Okay I found it, it is in the book "God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald." Chapter 10 has a section called "Gospels and Gospel Writers"  in which the future pope talks about this problem at length. It goes on for so long that I can't reproduce it here without it being a text dump, but he does talk about how most scholars that Matthew probably didn't write the Gospel According to Matthew. How it was probably an oral tradition handed down to somebody else. Maybe get your hands on this book and see if it answers any questions!

EDIT: And Ratzinger also talks about doubt, too, in another part. He says it's never quite past... so don't lose yourself to despair that you have some doubts. It's part of the human experience.
[/quote]

The problem with the Seewald book is that Cardinal Ratzinger is merely relating what some Scripture scholars think without offering his own point of view. A better source of  his opinion would be his "Erasmus Lecture" of 1988 in which he addressed the problems of modern biblical criticism in a more explicit manner. It's quite a long address but this passage is quite relevant:

"In fact, at the heart of the historical-critical method lies the effort to establish in the field of history a level of methodological precision which would yield conclusions of the same certainty as in the field of the natural sciences. But what one exegete takes as definite can only be called into question by other exegetes. This is a practical rule which is presupposed as plainly and self-evidently valid. Now, if the natural science model is to be followed without hesitation, then the importance of the Heisenberg principle should be applied to the historical-critical method as well. Heisenberg has shown that the outcome of a given experiment is heavily influenced by the point of view of the observer. So much is this the case that both the observer’s questions and observations continue to change themselves in the natural course of events. When applied to the witness of history, this means that interpretation can never be just a simple reproduction of history’s being, “as it was.” The word “interpretation” gives us a clue to the question itself: every exegesis requires an “inter,” an entering in and a being “inter” or between things; this is the involvement of the interpreter himself. Pure objectivity is an absurd abstraction. It is not the uninvolved who comes to knowledge; rather, interest itself is a requirement for the possibility of coming to know.

Here, then, is the question: how does one come to be interested, not so that the self drowns out the voice of the other, but in such a way that one develops a kind of inner understanding for things of the past, and ears to listen to the word they speak to us today?" 


See: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/04/biblical-interpretation-in-cri

Essentially, the historical-critical method has major limitations and should not be accepted as if it were some kind of scientific truth. Too much theory is involved.

Scott Hahn has an interesting take on the whole issue: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9609fea1.asp

One can never tell when evidence will emerge that upsets some theories. For example, some critics used to deride the mention of Gallio as a pro-consul that Paul appeared before in Acts 18. This concerns Paul's time in Corinth. These scholars insisted that no such person ever existed as there was no verification from any Roman sources that anyone named Gallio was ever a proconsul. Therefore, they claimed, the authenticity of Acts was questionable. For many years, this was the prevailing point of view among some biblical scholars. However, in 1905 a researcher in Paris  was sorting through some Roman inscriptions originally  found in the city of Delphi. These inscriptions were shown in fact to be a letter from the Roman emperor Claudius and sure enough it was addressed to the "proconsul Gallio of Achaia" ! The inscription was succesfully dated to 52 A.D. which places Paul's arrival in Corinth at 49/50 A.D. 

One can never be sure. 




S. 

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1285097894' post='2175128']
As far as the only extent edition being from 300 a.d. I dont have time now to answer that, other than God's providence guides the translations.
[/quote]

This of course, explains the protestant translations.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1285956124' post='2177332']
Good points.

Modernist scholars do not believe Christ actually could accurately prophesy future invents, and for this reason insist the prophecy must have been written after the fall of Jerusalem.  Just as they insist that accounts of miraculous events in the Gospels must have been later additions to the original story of Jesus.

Much of their dating is based not in sound history, but on materialistic a priori assumptions against Christ's divinity and the reality of the supernatural.
[/quote]




Well said. I think many of them are biased against Christ's divinity and the possibility of miracles.

Another point Robinson makes is that the NT does not refer to the deaths of Peter and Paul though most scholars put their deaths at or around 67 A.D. Ditto for St. James the Just. The historian Josephus dates the death of James to 62 A.D. Yet the NT never mentions it. 





S.

[mortify]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1285696826' post='2176470']
Yes, you can cast doubt on anything if you so choose, but you still haven't made a positive case for the Gospel being unreliable.[/quote]

We're relying on texts written by unknown authors who were not eye witnesses to the supposed events that were recorded. We don't have the original texts of these authors, all we have are copies of copies. Analysis of these copies shows that changes were made to the texts, and at times they were consciously driven by a theological motive, i.e. the scribe's bent towards a particular theological position motivated their changing the text a particular way. With this in mind, how can you consider the NT a reliable text?

[quote]Christian tradition has always regarded Matthew as the oldest Gospel, and written by an eyewitness. Mark was not an eyewitness, though he was a disciple with Paul, and thus had contact with the original apostles who personally knew Christ when He was on earth. His Gospel was likely largely based on that of Matthew, but shortened and adopted for a largely Gentile audience. [/quote]

What are the sources of this tradition? How reliable are those sources?

[quote](Modernist "biblical scholars" typically assert that Mark was written first, because it was shorter and contained fewer miraculous events - but that assertion is based on the presumption that Jesus Christ was not divine and the miraculous events never happened, rather than any actual historical evidence.)[/quote]

Virtually all biblical scholars accepted that Mark was written first and it has more to do with Matthew copying Mark than an inability to accept miraculous events.

[quote]Someone compiling events from original first-hand sources does not prove either account false.
If I (who have never been to Vietnam) were to write a book about the Vietnam War, which used earlier written sources by reliable eye-witnesses who had actually fought in or reported on the war, it would not prove either written account false or unreliable.[/quote]

You're assuming those primary sources were original eyewitness accounts.
[quote]
For someone with so much doubt about the truth of the Gospel, you sure take the words of the NAB footnotes as inerrant gospel truth![/quote]

The point is the Church recognizes the opinions of scholars that are at odds with you.

[quote]Not all manuscripts we have are necessarily complete, and it's quite possible that the story of the woman caught in adultery was part of the original Apostolic tradition that was not actually written down in that particular account until later. If something is canonical, it does not mean it was necessarily written down by the same person, but assures that it is in fact true and inspired, regardless of the human author. Remember, the Bible itself was compiled from the works of many human authors.[/quote]

This works for the person of faith who believes the Magisterium is divinely preserved from error, however it doesn't help the person trying to objectively ascertain the reliability of such a story. Generally speaking, if someone inserts a passage into an author's work centuries later, such an account is rendered unreliable.
[quote]
I see no reason to doubt that event really happened. Given, that all the Gospels contain the Resurrection of Christ from the dead, and numerous miracles, there is no reason not to believe that Christ forgave a woman caught in adultery.[/quote]

Except for the fact it's not in any of the early manuscripts and that no Church father other than Augustine comments on it.
[quote]
If you knew the whole story of Jesus was a lie (as you would if you were one of the original followers of Christ), would you have rather died, rather than give up the lie?
I find that simply ridiculous and implausible.
[/quote]

Maybe they didn't think it a lie but really *though* He did resurrect.

[quote]I can't force Faith or belief in Christ on you, but I suggest you throw out that NAB croutons, get a real Bible, and reflect prayerfully on its message.[/quote]

The Church does not regard the commentary as croutons, in fact, the Hierarchy is fully aware of the textual issues associated with the Bible, and it's probably why things like "no salvation outside of the Church" aren't taken as seriously as they used to.

[Micah]

[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4][quote]We're relying on texts written by unknown authors who were not eye witnesses to the supposed events that were recorded. We don't have the original texts of these authors, all we have are copies of copies. Analysis of these copies shows that changes were made to the texts, and at times they were consciously driven by a theological motive, i.e. the scribe's bent towards a particular theological position motivated their changing the text a particular way. With this in mind, how can you consider the NT a reliable text? [/quote][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]Can you please provide examples of said corruption. For example, some scholars believe a "retractor" added a chapter to the end of the Gospel of John, but considering that this chapter is in unity with the rest of scripture and Christians believe the Bible is divinely inspired, the burden lies on the critic to define what he/she means by unreliable, and if it is unreliable. If by unreliable you mean it was not authored by John, then once again the burden rests on the critic to provide evidence, which after roughly 19 centuries is still naught but circumstantial. [/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4][quote]Generally speaking, if someone inserts a passage into an author's work centuries later, such an account is rendered unreliable. [/quote][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]How. so. ? This way of thinking reflects a historians line of thought. I would know; I'm a history student. It's only pertinent so far as the insertion somehow corrupts the manuscript, which we, Christians, know will never occur absolutely. And if you don't believe in divine handiwork, then the Bible is just so many letters and you need not worry.. [/size][/font][/color][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/like.gif[/img]

[Skinzo]

Mortify,

  Have you ever read Scott Hahn on the John 7:53 controversy? This is what he said in "Scripture Matters" :

"The misuse of this passage is not something new. In fact, the story is actually missing from many ancient manuscripts of John's Gospel, and many modern versions of  the Bible relegate it to a footnote or place it in brackets. (Indeed, some of the ancient manuscripts that omit the story do so with an indication that "something has been left out." This is otherwise unprecedented in the New Testament.)

Apparently, in the early Church, the passage was sometimes omitted in order to avoid scandal. St. Augustine explained that moral rigorists tended to exclude the story because they feared it could lead people to a lax attitude about adultery.

At the Council of Trent, when the biblical canon was defined, this passage was authoritatively included in the Vulgate. The Magisterium confirmed the story's place in the New Testament more than once in the twentieth century."


S. 

[mortify]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1286248448' post='2177906']
Apparently, in the early Church, the passage was sometimes omitted in order to avoid scandal. St. Augustine explained that moral rigorists tended to exclude the story because they feared it could lead people to a lax attitude about adultery.
[/quote]

There are two problems with this hypothesis, one being that the earliest manuscripts we have exclude the story, and secondly none of the early Church fathers comment on it.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286251042' post='2177913']
There are two problems with this hypothesis, one being that the earliest manuscripts we have exclude the story, and secondly none of the early Church fathers comment on it.
[/quote]

St. Jerome stated that it was present in early Latin and Greek codices , and of course it was accepted by the Council of Trent hence it is canonical.

S.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286220381' post='2177828']
We're relying on texts written by unknown authors who were not eye witnesses to the supposed events that were recorded. We don't have the original texts of these authors, all we have are copies of copies. Analysis of these copies shows that changes were made to the texts, and at times they were consciously driven by a theological motive, i.e. the scribe's bent towards a particular theological position motivated their changing the text a particular way. With this in mind, how can you consider the NT a reliable text?[/quote]
The authors did not sign their names to the text (as that was not standard practice at the time, and they were writing down the Gospel already preached by the whole Church), yet early Christian tradition, handed down from the Apostles is unanimous as to the authorship of the Gospels.

We have some very old fragments of copies, which shows that the originals were written down well within living memory of the life of Christ. Before the printing press, everything written was hand-copied, and in most cases of ancient history, we don't have the original copy, and in many cases the earliest copies we have were written centuries after the original. So, by your standards, we'd have to dismiss the reliability of [i]everything[/i] recorded in ancient history.

Can you give any specific examples of parts of the Gospels that were significantly changed from the original? Or is that pure hypothesis on the part of modernist scholars? After all, if we don't have the original copy, it's hard to prove that it said something different from the copies we have.
And I'm not sure how you (or the modernist scholars) are able to know the inner motivations of men who lived almost 2000 years ago.
Sounds like you're making some quite audacious claims based on flimsy evidence.

And if, as the modernists commonly claim, the Gospels as we know them teach things very different than what the original Christians believed about Christ (for instance, they often claim that the original Christians didn't believe in Christ's divinity or resurrection, but these were added by later Christians), wouldn't there be some rather serious conflicts between these two groups? Especially as claiming a man to be God was a huge issue in Jewish belief.
However, we have absolutely no historical record of such a conflict. (In fact, the earliest conflicts we have record of involved Gnostic heretics who denied Christ's full [i]humanity[/i].)

[quote]
What are the sources of this tradition? How reliable are those sources? [/quote]
The source is the ongoing and unbroken tradition of the Church going back to the Apostles. The Early Church Fathers were unanimous regarding the authorship of the Gospels. It wasn't until a couple centuries ago that anybody denied the truth of these traditions.

If we are to believe you, everything believed by Christians was lies and ignorance, until 200 years ago, when the truth was suddenly (miraculously?) discovered by liberal protestants.

[quote]
Virtually all biblical scholars accepted that Mark was written first and it has more to do with Matthew copying Mark than an inability to accept miraculous events.[/quote]
That's been the fashion lately, but the opinion is not unanimous. There are contemporary Biblical scholars who make a strong case for the truth of the Christian tradition of Matthew being the first Gospel to be written.

Since neither you nor the modernist scholars had a time machine and actually witnessed Matthew copying Mark, I don't know how you can say that with such certainty.
Mark being shorter or less detailed than Matthew does not prove that it was written first.

And yes, an inability to accept miraculous events has everything to do with denying the primacy of Matthew, as well as for denying the historical truth of the Gospel events. Most of the modernist scholars do in fact deny that the miraculous events in the Gospel are real historical events, and this a priori bias colors their conclusions.

Some good articles on the topic:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea2.asp"]PROBLEMS WITH THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM[/url]


[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea1.asp"]THE EVOLUTION OF THE GOSPELS[/url]

[quote]

You're assuming those primary sources were original eyewitness accounts.
[/quote]
You're assuming they're not.

Again, you have no solid evidence to prove the tradition of the Church wrong on this matter.
You can doubt and contradict til you're blue in the face, but you've still got nothing to make a positive case.

[quote]The point is the Church recognizes the opinions of scholars that are at odds with you.[/quote]
It's never proclaimed such opinions infallible truth, and the Church has always maintained the Apostolic origins and literal truth of the Gospels.

I find it ironic that you're attempting to use the alleged authority of the NAB notes to discredit the authority of the Gospels themselves.

Another article on the issue:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9605scrp.asp"]DEI VERBUM AND THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS[/url]


[quote]This works for the person of faith who believes the Magisterium is divinely preserved from error, however it doesn't help the person trying to objectively ascertain the reliability of such a story. Generally speaking, if someone inserts a passage into an author's work centuries later, such an account is rendered unreliable.


Except for the fact it's not in any of the early manuscripts and that no Church father other than Augustine comments on it.
[/quote]
Others here have answered your objection. I don't think we have any solid reason to believe that this account did not exist earlier or was not apostolic in origin. Given the other deeds of Christ, there's nothing particularly unbelievable about Christ forgiving this woman. It's quite consistent with His other deeds in the Gospels.

[quote]Maybe they didn't think it a lie but really *though* He did resurrect.[/quote]
Do you mean "thought He did resurrect"?
It seems extremely unlikely to me that such large numbers of people were either hallucinating or were fooled into believing they saw the resurrected Christ, much less be willing to lay down their lives on account of this.
That people would be willing to dedicate their lives and even lay down their lives on account of a delusion or hoax is unlikely.

And if Christ was not resurrected, it seems it would be easy enough for the Jewish authorities to show Christ's body in the tomb and put and end to that nonsense.


[quote]The Church does not regard the commentary as croutons, in fact, the Hierarchy is fully aware of the textual issues associated with the Bible, and it's probably why things like "no salvation outside of the Church" aren't taken as seriously as they used to.
[/quote]
"No salvation outside the Church" is still taken quite seriously by believing Catholics. And see the article I linked to earlier.

Some more relevant articles:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0803fea1.asp"]Are the Gospels Myth?[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510clas.asp"]The Authenticity of the Gospels[/url]

[mortify]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1286281062' post='2177937']
St. Jerome stated that it was present in early Latin and Greek codices , and of course it was accepted by the Council of Trent hence it is canonical.

S.
[/quote]

No early Greek manuscript contains it, and for over a thousand years since Christ no Greek Father ever commented on the story, even though many composed verse by verse commentaries on the Gospels. The first Greek Father to touch on it was Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century, and he even added that accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it.

The Council of Trent canonized the version of scripture they had which included the account.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286300309' post='2177994']
No early Greek manuscript contains it, and for over a thousand years since Christ no Greek Father ever commented on the story, even though many composed verse by verse commentaries on the Gospels. The first Greek Father to touch on it was Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century, and he even added that accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it.

The Council of Trent canonized the version of scripture they had which included the account.
[/quote]

You can pretty much think what you want to think. The Council of Trent has pronounced on the subject and that of course is authoritative : "But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books [b]entire with all their parts[/b], as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church."

No early Greek manuscript WHICH SURVIVES has it but as noted St. Jerome did see it in the Latin and Greek codices, (Contra Pelagium, II, xvii) Not all the Fathers wrote "verse by verse" commentaries. And we cannot be sure of what might be missing from the historical record. Origen's commentaries for example
are missing. St. Ambrose and Augustine reasoned that this pericope was missing for the cause cited in earlier posts, and that is reasonable to accept I think.

S.

[mortify]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1286301950' post='2177998']
You can pretty much think what you want to think. The Council of Trent has pronounced on the subject and that of course is authoritative[/quote]

I'm looking for objective reasons for accepting the Bible's reliability.

[quote]No early Greek manuscript WHICH SURVIVES has it but as noted St. Jerome did see it in the Latin and Greek codices, (Contra Pelagium, II, xvii)[/quote]

We can consider what St Jerome said but we can't take that as the sole and infallible evidence for the story. There is substantial evidence that this story does not belong in the Gospel of John, and other than the internal and stylistic differences, it is missing numerous diverse and ancient manuscripts, and some of those manuscripts predate Sts Jerome and Augustine by over a hundred years. Furthermore, the texts that do contain the story don't agree on it's placement. Some manuscripts have it in Luke, other manuscripts have it various places of John's Gospel. Lastly, many a time scribes would warn future scribes that a particular verse or text is questionable by marking it with an asterisk, and in numerous copies containing the story we find that scribes did precisely that. For these and other reasons that a textual scholar could enumerate, the passage is considered an insertion.

[quote]Not all the Fathers wrote "verse by verse" commentaries. And we cannot be sure of what might be missing from the historical record. Origen's commentaries for example
are missing.[/quote]

==QUOTE==
[color="#0000FF"]Though the mere silence of ecclesiastical writers is no proof that they were unacquainted with a particular section, yet that silence becomes significant when they wrote expressly on the subject to which it relates, and when they wrote in such a way as to show that they could hardly by possibility have been acquainted with it. So, too, with regard to such ecclesiastical writers as wrote Commentaries.

Thus it may be held for certain, that Tertullian (2) and Cyprian knew nothing of the passage; while Origen and Chrysostom show in their Commentaries, that they were not aware of its existence. It has been indeed objected that nothing is proved by Origen's silence; because he often passes by portions of St. John's Gospel, and he had no occasion to mention this narrative: but, in reading his Commentary on this part of the Gospel, it is difficult (if not impossible) to imagine that he knew of anything between vii. 52 and viii. 12: for he cites and comments on every verse from vii. 40 to 52, and then at once continues from viii. 12 in the same manner (iv. p. 299, ed. De la Rue). The silence of Chrysostom on the subject, as well as that of Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, was long ago noticed.

The omission of this section by Nonnus, in his metrical Paraphrase of this Gospel, is worthy of notice; for though he does pass by parts, yet no narrative portion of certain genuineness, and of such length as this, is unnoticed.[/color]

==END QUOTE==

From:[b] Samuel P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London, 1854), pages 236-243.[/b]

[quote]St. Ambrose and Augustine reasoned that this pericope was missing for the cause cited in earlier posts, and that is reasonable to accept I think.
[/quote]

St Augustine was aware this passage was missing from several manuscripts in his own time and we have to recognize that his explanation for the difference is merely speculative. There are reasons to question the speculation. For one thing, why would verses 7:53, and 8:1-2 have been omitted? Why is this verse from so many ancient and diverse manuscripts? It would would be impossible for a sole scribe to accomplish such an omission.

Ultimately we are left with a section of verses recording Jesus doing and saying things he may not have done.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286309257' post='2178031']
I'm looking for objective reasons for accepting the Bible's reliability.



We can consider what St Jerome said but we can't take that as the sole and infallible evidence for the story. There is substantial evidence that this story does not belong in the Gospel of John, and other than the internal and stylistic differences, it is missing numerous diverse and ancient manuscripts, and some of those manuscripts predate Sts Jerome and Augustine by over a hundred years. Furthermore, the texts that do contain the story don't agree on it's placement. Some manuscripts have it in Luke, other manuscripts have it various places of John's Gospel. Lastly, many a time scribes would warn future scribes that a particular verse or text is questionable by marking it with an asterisk, and in numerous copies containing the story we find that scribes did precisely that. For these and other reasons that a textual scholar could enumerate, the passage is considered an insertion.



==QUOTE==
[color="#0000FF"]Though the mere silence of ecclesiastical writers is no proof that they were unacquainted with a particular section, yet that silence becomes significant when they wrote expressly on the subject to which it relates, and when they wrote in such a way as to show that they could hardly by possibility have been acquainted with it. So, too, with regard to such ecclesiastical writers as wrote Commentaries.

Thus it may be held for certain, that Tertullian (2) and Cyprian knew nothing of the passage; while Origen and Chrysostom show in their Commentaries, that they were not aware of its existence. It has been indeed objected that nothing is proved by Origen's silence; because he often passes by portions of St. John's Gospel, and he had no occasion to mention this narrative: but, in reading his Commentary on this part of the Gospel, it is difficult (if not impossible) to imagine that he knew of anything between vii. 52 and viii. 12: for he cites and comments on every verse from vii. 40 to 52, and then at once continues from viii. 12 in the same manner (iv. p. 299, ed. De la Rue). The silence of Chrysostom on the subject, as well as that of Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, was long ago noticed.

The omission of this section by Nonnus, in his metrical Paraphrase of this Gospel, is worthy of notice; for though he does pass by parts, yet no narrative portion of certain genuineness, and of such length as this, is unnoticed.[/color]

==END QUOTE==

From:[b] Samuel P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London, 1854), pages 236-243.[/b]



St Augustine was aware this passage was missing from several manuscripts in his own time and we have to recognize that his explanation for the difference is merely speculative. There are reasons to question the speculation. For one thing, why would verses 7:53, and 8:1-2 have been omitted? Why is this verse from so many ancient and diverse manuscripts? It would would be impossible for a sole scribe to accomplish such an omission.

Ultimately we are left with a section of verses recording Jesus doing and saying things he may not have done.
[/quote]




Your point of view can be considered as speculative too. As you've skipped some of the points I made I won't bother further with this. 


Ulitmately we are left with the solemn definition of Trent which trumps everything.




S. 

[mortify]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1286297909' post='2177989']
Can you give any specific examples of parts of the Gospels that were significantly changed from the original? Or is that pure hypothesis on the part of modernist scholars?[/quote]

Yes, there are examples, one would be the changes made in response to the adoptionist controversies. Adoptionists like the Ebionites believed Jesus possessed only a human nature, was born naturally by a consumation between his father and mother (i.e. they rejected the virgin birth), but was ultimately chosen by God as His righteous servant. So what changes do we find among the manuscripts? In the Gospel of Luke there is a passage where Joseph and Mary present Jesus in the temple. Older manuscripts read,[b] "His father and mother were marveling at was said to them"[/b] (Luke 2:33) which can be taken to indicate Jesus had a human father. Later manuscripts have the verse as [b]"Joseph and his mother were marveling..."[/b]. A similar change was made in a later part of the Gospel where Luke records Joseph and Mary finding Jesus in the temple. Older manuscripts read, "His parents..." whereas the later manuscripts read "Joseph and his mother..." Another example is in the baptismal scene recorded by Luke. The Ebionites pinpointed Jesus "adoption" as the son of God at his baptism. In that scene the voice of God is heard and is recorded in older manuscripts as, "You are my son, today I have begotten you" which would lend credence to the adoptionist view. But later manuscripts have it recorded as "You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." These are three examples of changes made to scripture to curb a particular interpretation that was regarded as heretical.

[quote]After all, if we don't have the original copy, it's hard to prove that it said something different from the copies we have.
And I'm not sure how you (or the modernist scholars) are able to know the inner motivations of men who lived almost 2000 years ago.
Sounds like you're making some quite audacious claims based on flimsy evidence.[/quote]

Perhaps if Mark's original Gospel was unearthed we would find even more differences, but we can only go off of what we have. There may be even more changes that we don't know about because we don't have the originals, thus more questions raised against the Bible's reliability.

With regards to motive, all that can be said is that if a change is made intentionally, there must be a reason for that change. If a verse was changed from "His parents..." to "Joseph and his mother..." we can reasonably infer that the motive is to counter the opinion that Jesus had a human father.

[quote]And if, as the modernists commonly claim, the Gospels as we know them teach things very different than what the original Christians believed about Christ (for instance, they often claim that the original Christians didn't believe in Christ's divinity or resurrection, but these were added by later Christians), wouldn't there be some rather serious conflicts between these two groups? Especially as claiming a man to be God was a huge issue in Jewish belief.
However, we have absolutely no historical record of such a conflict. (In fact, the earliest conflicts we have record of involved Gnostic heretics who denied Christ's full [i]humanity[/i].)
[/quote]

Well, you're simply uninformed on this issue.

The Ebionites mentioned above were a very early Jewish-Christian group that fit precisely the description you mention above. They rejected the virgin birth, rejected the Divinity of Christ, believed him to be only a man, and firmly held on to Jewish Law. St Ireneus mentions them in his, "Against the Heresies," and so there most certainly was an early theological conflict with them.
[quote]
The source is the ongoing and unbroken tradition of the Church going back to the Apostles. The Early Church Fathers were unanimous regarding the authorship of the Gospels. It wasn't until a couple centuries ago that anybody denied the truth of these traditions.[/quote]

How can you be certain there is such an unbroken tradition that goes back to the Apostles?

[mortify]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1286311915' post='2178042']
Ulitmately we are left with the solemn definition of Trent which trumps everything.
[/quote]

I think it's vital to conform our minds to reality, i.e. objective truth.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286329127' post='2178097']
I think it's vital to conform our minds to reality, i.e. objective truth.
[/quote]

Quite right. And that is why the teachings of Trent must be accepted. 


S. 

[OraProMe]

Mortify,

Awesome reading. Do you have a reference for the stuff you've said about the ebionites changing the old manuscripts?