New manuscripts

by Wallflower 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Wallflower

  On another post Shotgun quoted a scripture from John 8.

  I have a copy of the New International Version Bible, first published in 1973 by the International Bible Society.

  Regarding the above scripture it says and I quote :

  "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11"

  I'd be glad if anyone can shed any light on what are "the earliest and most reliable manuscripts" and who are the "other ancient witnesses"?

  Also, the WTS try to give the impression that they strive for the purity of the Bible - how can they square this and not note in the NWT that there is some doubt over the above scripture (to name but one) ?

  Wallflower
• 

  Mysterious

  From the NWT:

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

  It's also in smaller type.
• 

  Earnest

  I'd be glad if anyone can shed any light on what are "the earliest and most reliable manuscripts" and who are the "other ancient witnesses"?

  Also, the WTS try to give the impression that they strive for the purity of the Bible - how can they square this and not note in the NWT that there is some doubt over the above scripture - Wallflower, 30-Dec-03 22:23 GMT

  Wallflower, when the WTS first published the NT in 1950 they noted in the footnote :

  aleph [codex Sinaiticus, fourth century], B [codex Vaticanus No.1209, fourth century], Sy [Syriac Sinaitic codex, fourth century] omit verses 53 to chapter 8, verse 11...

  This is also in the footnote of the NWT with References (1984).

  Other early, reliable manuscripts that omit these verses are the papyri p66 (Bodmer II, ca.200) and p75 (Bodmer XV, third century) as well as manuscripts L (codex Regius, eighth century), N (codex Petropolitanus Purpureus, sixth century), T (codex Borgianus, fifth century) and W (codex Freerianus, fifth century). A (codex Alexandrinus, fifth century) and C (codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, fifth century) are defective in this part of John. However, there would not have been enough space on the missing leaves to include this section along with the rest of the text so they may also be included.

  The other ancient witnesses include the Syriac Sinaitic codex which the NWT refers to, as well as other Syriac versions (Curetonian and the best manuscripts of the Peshitta), the Coptic versions (Sahidic, sub-Achmimic and the older Bohairic manuscripts), the Gothic version and several Old Latin manuscripts.

  Earnest
• 

  Narkissos

  Another interesting element is that where the text is present (in SOME manuscripts of the Western group) 1) it is often "marked" as spurious by signs like asterisks and obeli, and 2) it is not always inserted at the same place (mainly after John 7:52, but also after 7:36, 7:44, 21:25 or even Luke 21:38).
• 

  Wallflower

  Thanks for the answers. I don't have a copy of the NWT, but in all my time growing up in the 'truth', I don't remember the footnotes anywhere, or perhaps was never interested enough to follow asterisks. It surprised me that in the NIV it was so blatant.

  Wallflower
• 

  Leolaia

  The Gospel of John went through several editions. The ordering of material within the book got reshuffled, new endings were added, and the pericope you mentioned (the story about the woman accused of many sins) was also later added. The intriguing thing about this story is that a similar version was reported by the early second-century writer Papias as related to him by John the Presbyter. John the Presbyter was an important leader in the Asian Christian community, and he was most likely the author of 2 and 3 John (and perhaps Revelation, tho this is controversial). Later tradition attributes authorship of the Gospel of John to this individual (John the Presbyter's main gnostic opponent was Cerinthus who also claimed to have written GJohn himself) and then confused him with Apostle John. In my opinion, the Gospel of John is probably known as such because it passed through John the Presbyter's hands, who edited and revised an earlier version of the gospel and added chapter 21 (which most scholars recognize as a later addition), and may have something to do with the addition you mentioned in chapter 8. Chapter 21 is linguistically different from the rest of the gospel, follows the originial conclusion of the gospel in 20:30-31, and closely resembles the language in 2 and 3 John (cf. John 21:24 = 3 John 12). There is also some controversial evidence that Aristion the Presbyter, a close associate of John the Presbyter and known as well to Papias around A.D. 120 or 130, was responsible for the inauthentic ending to Mark (16:9-20).