he who is sinless cast the first stone

by eisenstein 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  eisenstein

  Does anyone know why the New World Translation omits John 8:1-11?

  John 8:1 - But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2- At daybreak, however, he again presented himself at the temple, and all the people began coming to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. 3- Now the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman caught at adultery, and after standing her in their midst, 4 they said to him: " Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of committing adultery. 5- In the Law Moses prescribed for us to stone such sort of women. What, really, do you say?" 6- Of course they were saying this to put him to the test, in order to have something with which to accuse him. But Jesus bent down and began to write with his finger in the ground. 7- When ther persisted in asking him, he straightened up and said to them: "Let the one of you that is sinless be the first to throw a stone at her." 8- And bending over again he kept on writing in the ground. 9- But those who heard this began goping out, one by one, starting with the older men, and he was left alone, and the woman that was in their midst. 10- Straightening up, Jesus said to her: "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" 11- She said: "No one sir." Jesus said: " Neither do I condemn you. Go your way; from now on practice sin no more."

  As far back as I can remember, no one has ever given a talk on these scriptures at the Kingdom Hall and it would always be skipped in the yearly bible reading, and yet it is such an important parable that Jesus taught his followers.
• 

  eisenstein

  pardon my typo should say "GOING OUT"
• 

  DJ

  Hey Einstein,

  Ok..you mean the dubs don't read it at the KH's right? You don't mean that it is actually omitted from the NWT do you??? I threw my NWT's away where they belong in the trashhhhh.

  If you are asking why they don't talk about that paragraph..well, I think it's obviously because they would condemn themselves. It would tend to (maybe) let people have those awful independent thoughts.

  Good point. Anyone ever learn that scripture in the KH's???? dj
• 

  Xena

  Well I hope you are happy, you made me drag out my NWT....

  I have the big fancy one (color me special) anyway it starts with Chapter 8:12...then down below it states:

  *Manuscripts xBSy omit verses 53 to chapter 8, verse 11, which read (with some variations in the various Greek texts and versions) as follows:

  Then the scriptures are inserted.

  Hope that helps
• 

  CHERYLWHERYL

  Maybe they think that if there was no one sinless to cast the first stone, then maybe no one would be left at the Kingdom Hall.

  I still don't understand why they don't incorporate the scriptures in the WTS teachings.

  Well, I guess it is because they are corrupt!
• 

  Mathetes

  I've been reading The Bible From 26 Translations, to avoid any NWT bias, and it has a footnote stating that "John 7:53 - 8:11 is now recognized as not adequately supported by original manuscripts." So it's not just peculiar to the NWT. I'm sure I read this scripture more than once as a JW, but whether it was just in my private reading, or heard from the stage, I can't recall.
• 

  Earnest

  eisenstein:

  There is a footnote in the NWT on this passage which states that :

  "Manuscripts Aleph B Sy s omit [7:53 to 8:11].

  Futher information can be found in the book "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" (United Bible Societies, 1971, pp.219,220) where Bruce Metzger comments:

  The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress [John 7:53-8:11] is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as p 66,75 Aleph B L N T W X Y Delta Theta Psi 053 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 565 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syr c,s and the best manuscripts of syr p ) as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the Old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (it a,l *,q ). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.

  When one adds to this impressive and diversified list the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel, and that it interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12ff., the case against it being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.

  Earnest
• 

  eisenstein

  Hi DJ!

  In the NWT it is sectioned off (the first 11 verses of chapter 8) It isn't actually omitted from the bible. And over the years on the weekly bible reading, when they got to this chapter, they totally skipped it. No mention of it, can you believe this? I find this disturbing because it is such a basic teaching of Christianity.
• 

  Xena

  Here are some other items I found of interest regarding this passage:

  The textual controversy

  Before giving some analysis to the passage, let us first briefly comment upon the matter of the genuineness of the context. Virtually every translation of the English Bible, this side of the 1611 King James Version, at least footnotes the passage, calling attention to the weak manuscript evidence behind the section embraced by John 7:53-8:11. All of the best Greek manuscripts, including the two oldest papyri (P66 and P75 dating from about A.D. 200) omit it. Most scholars including many conservative ones doubt that this section was a part of Johns original Gospel. On the other hand, some very respectable names defend it. The famous critic F.H.A. Scrivener affirmed that the arguments in its favor, internal even more than external, are so powerful, that we can scarcely be brought to think it an unauthorized appendage to the writings of John (p. 610). One of the best summaries of the controversy is found in R.C. Fosters, Studies in the Life of Christ (796ff).

  The passage which is to be before us has long been the subject of controversy. Its authenticity has been questioned even by godly men. John 7:53 to 8:11 inclusive is not found in a number of the most important of the ancient manuscripts. The R.V. places a question mark against this passage.

  Apparently there is a lot of controversary regarding this scripture, now just by the JW's
• 

  AjaxMan

  OK, this is my Opinion:

  These chapters are not mentioned or read by them because that way, they can be judgemental of others. Let's see:

  • how judgemental are the JWs of other religions and creeds?
  • How judgemental are the elders, especially on JCs and when disfellowshipping?
  • How judgemental are JWs toward apostates, opposers, non-JWs or anyone against the WTS or JWs?

  It also seems to me that the JWs don't mention or teach those verses as they think these verses don't apply to them and that they are above those verses. If they ever mention these verses, then it will be in the context of applying other religious groups. Kinda hypocritical, isn't it?