Holy book or holey book?

[Zzyzx]

.
Holy book or holey book?
Case of Jesus and the Adulteress

Most of us are familiar with the tale in John 8 about Jesus saving an adulteress from being stoned.

What most are probably NOT familiar with is that the tale does NOT appear in the earliest known copies of the Bible. Neither the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus contain that story.

Those two, the earliest known existing copies of the Bible, do not contain the “Pericope Adulterae" (story of Jesus and 'let the one without sin cast the first stone'). So where did that story come from, why was it added to the Bible, and by whom and what authority.

Did someone make up that tale?

Weren't the sinaiticus and Vaticuanus accurate and correct Bibles?

[JP Cusick]

.
Holy book or holey book?
Case of Jesus and the Adulteress

Most of us are familiar with the tale in John 8 about Jesus saving an adulteress from being stoned.

What most are probably NOT familiar with is that the tale does NOT appear in the earliest known copies of the Bible. Neither the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus contain that story.

Those two, the earliest known existing copies of the Bible, do not contain the “Pericope Adulterae" (story of Jesus and 'let the one without sin cast the first stone'). So where did that story come from, why was it added to the Bible, and by whom and what authority.

Did someone make up that tale?

Weren't the sinaiticus and Vaticuanus accurate and correct Bibles?

There are many parts of the Bible which are disconnected or added sections in both the old and New Testaments, and way back 1800 years and beyond they did not have a printing press and did not even have a pencil or paper, so yes the old writings are not of the highest quality as we expect today.

The birth of Jesus story in Matthew (the first 3 chapters) are text added onto the 1st Gospel, and the other birth story in Luke (the first 3 chapters) is a story added onto the 3rd Gospel, and the feeding of the 5000 multitudes is another addition.

And no credible Scholar views any part of the Gospel of John to have actually been written by the Apostle John.

It is totally possible that the adulteress story in John 8 is probably some oral tradition which was added later, so it might be true or might not be told correctly or it might be a big mistake, but that story does not seem to be added with some malice intention because who ever inserted that story must have found it to be true or fitting or appropriate.

That story seems harmless to me.

The only justification to view that story as a lie or a deceit or even as a fake is because it is saying that the people intended to stone that woman and I find that hard to believe as realistic.

[Divine Insight]

Did someone make up that tale?

I think it's crystal clear that the tale was made up. This tale doesn't even fit in with the rest of the religion.

This tale makes it look like the men who were going to stone the adulteress were doing so because this is what they wanted to do. But in this religion the God of the Old Testament had actually commanded men to stone adulterers to death. So this wasn't the idea of men, this was God's commandment.

When Jesus said that those who are without sin should cast the first stone makes absolutely no sense. Are people who are without sin supposed to stone this adulterer to death? If so, then why wasn't it made clear in the Old Testament that the only people who are to do this must be sin free?

Moreover, in this religion no human other than Jesus can be sin free anyway. So that wouldn't help.

Therefore it makes no sense that Yahweh had commanded men to stone adulterers to death if only sin free people are supposed to do it.

So the story is an oxymoron.

Of course, this entire religion is filled with self-contradictory proclamations, so this is hardly anything new. But yes, this story give this religion away as being nothing more than the made up fables of men. As do many other stories in the Bible.

So yep, the Bible is a holey book alright.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Weren't the sinaiticus and Vaticuanus accurate and correct Bibles?

No. Even today scholars debate whether one manuscript variant is superior to another.

For instance, in 2 Cor. 5 the manuscript evidence is divided over one word

The options are "to clothe" and "to clothe over". You will find various English translations opting for either.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

What strange lines of reasoning some have taken to refuse the faith?!

I think it's crystal clear that the tale was made up. This tale doesn't even fit in with the rest of the religion.

What? So the story is unhistorical because we find characters acting contrary to their faith?! Does this mean that every time I act in a way unbefitting my beliefs, I therefore have not actually acted in such a way? I am most relieved.

This tale makes it look like the men who were going to stone the adulteress were doing so because this is what they wanted to do. But in this religion the God of the Old Testament had actually commanded men to stone adulterers to death. So this wasn't the idea of men, this was God's commandment.

They explicitly site the Law of Moses. They are well aware they are operating by commandment.

When Jesus said that those who are without sin should cast the first stone makes absolutely no sense. Are people who are without sin supposed to stone this adulterer to death? If so, then why wasn't it made clear in the Old Testament that the only people who are to do this must be sin free?

Why do historical people have to act in perfect conformity to their religious tomes? Perhaps Jesus was inconsistent? Perhaps felt he had an authority to reinterpret the Law? Perhaps he was just ticked off that they were clearly trying to trap him, so he decided trap them?

Moreover, in this religion no human other than Jesus can be sin free anyway. So that wouldn't help.

Therefore it makes no sense that Yahweh had commanded men to stone adulterers to death if only sin free people are supposed to do it.

Your theological arguments do nothing against the historicity of the account. Either it happened, or it didn't. Whether or not Jesus contradicted the Law is irrelevant to the question of whether he did either.

You seem very befuddled over the difference between your theological repugnance and the historical evidence.

Perhaps a parallel will help: the gods of Greece and Rome are clearly more like humans than a deity you would respect. Does that mean that every historical account made by someone, or depicting someone, who believed in such gods is dubious?

I am very befuddled as to why your theological convictions outweigh historical considerations. Is it that you can only react against one branch of Christians: innerrantists and literalists and fundamentalists? Is it a situation of "all or none" for you?

If so, what (a sincere question) do you make of someone like me?

[JP Cusick]

Your theological arguments do nothing against the historicity of the account. Either it happened, or it didn't. Whether or not Jesus contradicted the Law is irrelevant to the question of whether he did either.

You seem very befuddled over the difference between your theological repugnance and the historical evidence.

Perhaps a parallel will help: the gods of Greece and Rome are clearly more like humans than a deity you would respect. Does that mean that every historical account made by someone, or depicting someone, who believed in such gods is dubious?

I am very befuddled as to why your theological convictions outweigh historical considerations. Is it that you can only react against one branch of Christians: innerrantists and literalists and fundamentalists? Is it a situation of "all or none" for you?

If so, what (a sincere question) do you make of someone like me?

This comment above got me to thinking that maybe other people here are just consciously or subconsciously projecting the ancestral Gods of their own ancestry?

As like myself being of Irish descent then my old Celtic roots might push me into a particular view? it could be in the blood?

So too as quoted above the old Greek and Romans had human Gods, so their ancestors today could still lean in that direction?

There is no evidence that after people migrated to the USA and then later generations simply lost their old ancestry and just merged into the nasty American melting pot.

As such some people read the Bible looking for human Gods and they only see mystical Gods, and therein is another source of confusion.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

There are several schools of thought and we can only speculate. Some believe the event was based on an actual event others that it was simply "made up"... personally I'm not convinced it was an actual event or if it was it might be based on distorted reports of something Jesus did do.

I don't know exactly how a legally sanctioned stoning would take place but from the stoning of Steven it seems the execution would actually take place outside of the city where it would be unlikely Jesus would simply have been walking by (Act 7:58) . Although the Pharisees were not adverse to simply picking up stones in mad rage and resorting to mob justice this isn't presented as such.

Death penalties could only be handed down by the High Court and it seemed from the narrative that that is what had taken place ie that she had been tried and convicted. It would be out of character for Jesus to interviene in such a decision as in Luke 12:14 he denied as specific request to do so.

When people privately sought his favor he did not hesitate to go against convention if he thought the request was sincere but to intervene in a duly tried legal execution? I don't think so.

JW

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

What strange lines of reasoning some have taken to refuse the faith?!

I think it's crystal clear that the tale was made up. This tale doesn't even fit in with the rest of the religion.

What? So the story is unhistorical because we find characters acting contrary to their faith?! Does this mean that every time I act in a way unbefitting my beliefs, I therefore have not actually acted in such a way? I am most relieved.

Why should anyone care what you might do? You are just a mortal human.

Jesus was supposed to be the divine Son of Yahweh. Not only that but he was supposed to be on a mission to have an extremely important message for all of humanity. A God who had supposedly orchestrated such a message can hardly afford to be as inefficient and undependable as you, a mere mortal human.

So why are you comparing Jesus behavior with your behavior? Are you reducing Jesus in this religion to being no more reliable than yourself? What sense does that make?

This tale makes it look like the men who were going to stone the adulteress were doing so because this is what they wanted to do. But in this religion the God of the Old Testament had actually commanded men to stone adulterers to death. So this wasn't the idea of men, this was God's commandment.

They explicitly site the Law of Moses. They are well aware they are operating by commandment.

But Jesus didn't seem to acknowledge this. Jesus told them that only those who are without sin are to cast the first stone. That was never in the Old Testament. So Jesus was wrong.

When Jesus said that those who are without sin should cast the first stone makes absolutely no sense. Are people who are without sin supposed to stone this adulterer to death? If so, then why wasn't it made clear in the Old Testament that the only people who are to do this must be sin free?

Why do historical people have to act in perfect conformity to their religious tomes? Perhaps Jesus was inconsistent? Perhaps felt he had an authority to reinterpret the Law? Perhaps he was just ticked off that they were clearly trying to trap him, so he decided trap them?

So are you suggesting that Jesus was just another mortal man like you or me? If that's the case then you have already conceded that the claims that he was the Son of God sent with an important message to humans is clearly wrong.

Moreover, in this religion no human other than Jesus can be sin free anyway. So that wouldn't help.

Therefore it makes no sense that Yahweh had commanded men to stone adulterers to death if only sin free people are supposed to do it.

Your theological arguments do nothing against the historicity of the account. Either it happened, or it didn't. Whether or not Jesus contradicted the Law is irrelevant to the question of whether he did either.

Where have I ever claimed that a mortal man named Jesus never existed?

You seem to be missing the points here entirely. It wouldn't matter if a man named Jesus had actually existed and did these things. What I have pointed out is that he couldn't have divine knowledge if that was the case. Therefore if there is any historical truth that some guy named Jesus was shooting his mouth off about religious matters he had no clue what he was talking about.

So it ultimately wouldn't matter whether such a man existed or not.

You seem very befuddled over the difference between your theological repugnance and the historical evidence.

And you seem to be very befuddled over the difference between Jesus being just another mortal man versus being the Son of God who supposedly had divine knowledge. If you agree that Jesus was mistaken (as you have already suggested above) then we're done. You can't have the "Son of God" being mistaken about religious matters.

Perhaps a parallel will help: the gods of Greece and Rome are clearly more like humans than a deity you would respect. Does that mean that every historical account made by someone, or depicting someone, who believed in such gods is dubious?

No one ever claimed that the Greek Gods were trustworthy. In fact, the Greek Gods were seen to be just as flawed as humans in how they behaved. So those Gods could lie to us, or say things to confuse us just because they felt like it.

Moreover, there is nothing in Greek Mythology that claims that anyone will be condemned for not believing in these Gods. Keep in mind that the Biblical God will condemn those who don't believe in him. And he's supposed to be trustworthy and honest. So you can't compare the Biblical God with the Greek Gods. There's no comparison.

I am very befuddled as to why your theological convictions outweigh historical considerations. Is it that you can only react against one branch of Christians: innerrantists and literalists and fundamentalists? Is it a situation of "all or none" for you?

The theological considerations absolutely must outweigh historical considerations. If a supposedly trustworthy God does things that are dishonest, or reveal an ignorance of his own agenda then the theology fails. Therefore the idea that Jesus was the Son of God fails. So it wouldn't even matter if we had historical evidence that some guy came back from the dead, the theology would still be dead anyway. There would need to be some other explanation. And the most rational explanation is that no one ever came back from the dead to begin with. What most likely happened (if these stories contain any truth at all) is that some guy was thought to be dead, but never really died, and then when he recovered people thought he rose from the dead, when the simple truth is that he just never actually died.

Why do you refuse to even remotely consider that possibility?

You claim to rule this out, but in truth you cannot.

If so, what (a sincere question) do you make of someone like me?

I see you being so focused on the idea that some guy was supposedly resurrected from death based on ancient rumors, that you flat-out refuse to even consider how absurd this would be even within the context and framework of this religion overall.

I have many reasons to believe that the God described in the OT is already impossible because he contradicts the very character he is supposed to have. And the stories in the OT contradict their own plots. So that God is already demonstrated to be necessarily false.

The NT doesn't fair any better as it has Jesus associated with many self-contradictory tales as well. Not the least of which is the story of the adulteress. And we also have Jesus casting evil demons out of people into pigs which is extremely problematic on many levels.

So Jesus couldn't have been "God" either.

Therefore if there are any historical rumors that Jesus rose from the dead, they are most likely wrong. The most likely explanation is that Jesus simply survived the crucifixion and never actually died to begin with.

At that point we're done. But you refuse to accept this. Instead you continually proclaim that we have "historical data" that Jesus supposedly rose from the dead. But we don't. What we have are "historical rumors" that's not the same as "data".

The rumors could simply be wrong, and they most likely are. Yet you refuse to accept his obvious explanation. Even when the theology itself reveals that these stories are inconsistent with the theology overall. It's not even a workable theology. So it's not like the "only problem" is whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. Even if we accepted that this theology would still contain a myriad of contradictory problems.

So Jesus being raised from the dead would hardly save this theology anyway. There would still be countless self-contradictions associated with it.

[1213]

Did someone make up that tale?

If someone made up that, why would he give credit to Jesus and not take it to himself? By what I know, people are selfish and don’t give credit of their own good things to others.

Weren't the sinaiticus and Vaticuanus accurate and correct Bibles?

Bible is a book that consists of many books, or letters. We have many versions of Bible’s and not all of them have same collection of books. For example, Lutheran Bible doesn’t have all the books Catholic Bible has. Still they are as correct, they just don’t’ have entirely same content.

Similarly, if those early Bible didn’t have all the books possible, it doesn’t mean the books that are not there, are not correct, or that the included books are not correct.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

Why should anyone care what you might do? You are just a mortal human.

Jesus was supposed to be the divine Son of Yahweh. Not only that but he was supposed to be on a mission to have an extremely important message for all of humanity. A God who had supposedly orchestrated such a message can hardly afford to be as inefficient and undependable as you, a mere mortal human.

I see at least two options which presuppose the historicity of the event.

Jesus was not God; the event is historical.

Jesus was God incarnate: a combination which almost by definition will mean he will act differently from what you would do, and his behavior may even challenge your presuppositions.

The theological considerations absolutely must outweigh historical considerations. If a supposedly trustworthy God does things that are dishonest, or reveal an ignorance of his own agenda then the theology fails. Therefore the idea that Jesus was the Son of God fails.

So then, whatever the details of the resurrection, it could not have happened because it would validate the picture of God painted by the religious texts, and that picture is repugnant to you? First: This is not logically necessary. The power that raised Jesus may be an entirely different power; or maybe human error may have entered the religious texts.


Or maybe all your arguments boil down to a single syllogism: If I were God, I would do x in situation y. But Jesus (or Yahweh) did not do x in situation y. Therefore, Jesus (or Yahweh) is not God.

I do not see how this can be anything other than pure subjectivism: you are not God, so why should you expect such a being to behave as you?

I have many reasons to believe that the God described in the OT is already impossible because he contradicts the very character he is supposed to have. And the stories in the OT contradict their own plots. So that God is already demonstrated to be necessarily false.

Perhaps (I am sure it has been done a thousand times) this requires a separate OP.