The first eleven verses of John 8 are often omitted from modern
translations of the Bible. It would appear that the verses are absent
from the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, usually a good indication
that John did not write them but they were inserted by one of those
dreadful scribes or editors or redactors.
Eusebius may have the source for the story: "Papias published a story of
a woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." Eusebius 39:16
So perhaps some scribe, finding that the story was missing from John but knowing that Papias had recorded it as an apostolic story, decided to
insert it. Eusebius quoted Papias as saying, "If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings, what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples." So it may even have been
a story told by John himself but left out of his gospel as unimportant
and some later scribe, knowing that it was genuinely Johanine, stuck it in.
However there is one aspect of this well-known story that I want to
comment on. After Jesus had written in the dust and disposed of the
scribes and pharisees who brought the woman to him, He then says
something a bit odd.
"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said
unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" John 8:10
On the face of it, it was a silly question. That whole mob of scribes
and pharisees had been vociferous in condemning the woman! So either
Jesus was being rather fatuous, or He had something particular in mind - which I believe to be the case.
Jesus was asking her whether she had been properly tried and condemned
by a court of law? When the woman answered in the negative, thereby confirming that she had been dragged before Him by an illegal lynch mob, Jesus was free to tell her, "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no
more."
What He would have done if the answer had been in the affirmative, I am
not sure. I rather suspect that He simply would not have asked the
question! The fact that it was the woman alone who was dragged before
Him was probably a good clue that the whole thing was fishy. If caught
in the very act, as the mob had claimed, where was the man?
Nevertheless, the fact remains that by a strict reading of the law - the
law of God, no less - Jesus should not have dismissed her so lightly.
Which just goes to show that Jesus did not adhere to a strict reading of
the law when it would result in an injustice (the woman alone being
brought before Him).
The law - human or divine - is good and is (usually) intended for good.
When a strict reading of the law or a partisan interpretation of it
would result in harm, then Christians should do what Jesus did and turn
a blind eye to it.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I find it quite amazing that the bible, which you claim is inspired by
the Holy Spirit, had bits added to it that weren't kosher. This may not
have been a true story after all.-a Tut tut.
So she was obviously guilty, and should have been stoned. There's
nothing in Leviticus 20:10 that says they both have to be tried
together. They might have been in the throes of passion and the bloke, seeing the mob approaching, scarpers.
On 17/07/2026 02:02, John wrote:
I find it quite amazing that the bible, which you claim is inspired by
the Holy Spirit, had bits added to it that weren't kosher. This may
not have been a true story after all.-a Tut tut.
Who says that the story is "kosher"? I have explained the likely source
of the story, that it is probably an actual story told by John but
omitted by him from his gospel.
Actually, I am quite comfortable with the one or two additions, such as
the Trinity verse in 1 John. I know that they were not in the original
MSS, but I believe that God allowed them to enter the canon because they were valuable and true. On the other hand, due to the fact that they are additions, I would never use them to "prove" a doctrine.
So she was obviously guilty, and should have been stoned. There's
nothing in Leviticus 20:10 that says they both have to be tried
together. They might have been in the throes of passion and the bloke,
seeing the mob approaching, scarpers.
I have no doubt that she was guilty - she was caught "in the very act"
after all. On the other hand, the convenient disappearance of the man
makes me wonder if the whole thing was not a set-up engineered to
discredit Jesus, in which case she was more sinned against than sinning.
So if it isn't in the original, you know from the pen of John, guided by
the Holy Spirit, it obviously wasn't meant to be there.
The verse was added to add weight to the trinity.-a The original bible should stand on it's own merit.-a The bible is far from explicit where
the trinity is concerned but as the trinity idea took hold some dickhead thought it would be a good idea to add it. If God had wanted the be
explicit on the trinity, John would have been inspired to include it.
Just think, for nigh on 1500 years people were more led to believe the trinity based on this one erroneous verse, including the KJV, which was
the main bible from the middle ages to the late 19th century
It probably never happened, but I appreciate you enlightening me on it,See above. It may have been in the original MS. All we can say is that
as I wasn't aware that it wasn't in the original manuscripts.
On 17/07/2026 13:35, John wrote:
So if it isn't in the original, you know from the pen of John, guided
by the Holy Spirit, it obviously wasn't meant to be there.
Of course, we don't have the original. We have some early MSS, but
instead of being added in to later documents, perhaps the story was
omitted from these few earlier documents?
The verse was added to add weight to the trinity.-a The original bible
should stand on it's own merit.-a The bible is far from explicit where
the trinity is concerned but as the trinity idea took hold some
dickhead thought it would be a good idea to add it. If God had wanted
the be explicit on the trinity, John would have been inspired to
include it. Just think, for nigh on 1500 years people were more led to
believe the trinity based on this one erroneous verse, including the
KJV, which was the main bible from the middle ages to the late 19th
century
I doubt that one verse was what led people to believe in the Trinity.
You will notice I said more ledAnd I doubt that people were even "more led". I don't think that verse
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:48:11 |
| Calls: | 1,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,965 |