The WOMAN caught in ADULTERY & Conclusion with Dr. David Alan Black
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лип 2024
- In the third and final part of my discussion with Dr. David Alan Black, we talk about the story of the woman caught in adultery, we talk about its prevalence in the western text and it's situation among the Byzantine Text manuscripts. Should we relegate it to the footnotes, keep it in like the critical text but leave a note, or should it be left out altogether.
~~~ RESOURCES ~~~
Dr. David Alan Black's Blog:
blog.daveblackonline.com/?m=1
The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism:
www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Text...
Can We Recover the Original Text of the New Testament?
www.amazon.com/Can-Recover-Or...
~~~ CONTENTS ~~~
0:00 The story of the woman caught in adultery
0:43 Preach it like the apocrypha?
2:12 Western attestation and strong Latin support
3:50 Western and Byzantine readings among church fathers
4:44 English translation of these text types
5:45 We have not lost the Words of the New Testament
7:20 Dont be intimidated by textual criticism
8:13 Conclusion
I really feel that Dr Black has the right take on the text of scripture . His approach is about as honest as any human can get in this matter of textual confidence. Thanks for having him on . Bring him back brother Dwayne.
This was great! Dr. Black is great to listen to and his enthusiasm is really infectious!
This was one of my favourite interviews!
Thank you, both, for this conversation. Metzger is full of mind-reading and storytelling that is presented as fact.
According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. “Certain persons of little faith,” he wrote, “or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” (33) Also, in the 10th century a Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of “casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus . . . saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things.” (34) . S. S. Patrum J. B. Cotelerius, Antwerp, 1698, vol. i, p.235.
that´s acctually very good example of higher criticism in work - butchering the scripture based on human opinion. (I mean those who wanted to remove it)
Here is evidence of an education that is guided by the Holy Ghost. Thank you for sharing this.
I have read much of Augustine, but this one slipped past my radar.
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith C.S. Lewis also makes the point that the writing in the sand a literary technique that wasn't developed until modern novels which means it was observed by an eyewitness. Blessings.
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith Welcome. Blessings.
Papias is very underrated evidence for this discussion. He was the apprentice of John the Apostle, the author of the Gospel. He is even John’s scribe for the penning of the Gospel according to tradition. Papias says the adulterous woman story is not original to John’s Gospel. That’s the best conclusion. There’s no reason to disagree with a written historical record that is generally agreed upon to be authentic.
thank you. that is strong evidence.
Mark 16:15: my first steps in ministry were in the Henry Martin Hall in Cambridge, where 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature' was inscribed around the fire place (in gold letters, I think). That was also where I was taught, I think, that Mark 16: 9-20 was a summary compiled from Acts and the other gospels.
Read Nicolas Lum's The Original Ending of Mark. Did you know that Mark 16:9-20 is in all the Greek manuscripts except 3. You can't get all of Mark 16:9-20 out of Acts and the other gospels.
I’m trusting in my KJV.
AMEN!
KJV only is silly. I hope you are not saying you are KJV only
@@br.mI also trust the KJV much more then other versions and I am not KJV only.
@br.m
For me? I have always been KJV 1st. I am considered Byzantine Priority where the text is concerned. In the English, that leaves us with the KJV. To update grammar it's fine, but the modern critical text (codex A and B) has changed the text.
I choose the KJV because it is closest to the most ancient Byzantine texts.
If you take out John 7:53-8:11, then John 8:12 flows seamlessly from 7:52.
In the THGNT, John 7:53-8:11 has been omitted from the text but is in the apparatus.
That's right, thanks for the clarification.
In study when reading out of the NKJV then comparing ESV so much has been omitted or very questionable misguided notes.
That particular scripture, the woman caught at adultery is right from the start highly suspect. (John 8v1-11). As the Leviticus 20v10, says that both the man and the woman should be executed, yet in this instance there is no mention of her guilty companion.
Leaving this out of translations, has led to accusations of altering scripture, even usually there is explanations at the back for doing so.!
If you put your view above that of scripture, claiming to correct the text that was long before you, how high of a view do you really have towards scripture? To say that you have a high view of that which you think should be changed, this is hypocrisy.
Did Erasmus have a low view of scripture when he decided that he knew better than the Vulgate?
@@MAMoreno
Your argument is moot, as Erasmus produced a Byzantine text.
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith Erasmus produced a generally Byzantine text with a number of Western readings sprinkled in, and in doing so, he rejected the Bible that was accepted in the West for a thousand years. I don't really see why "producing a Byzantine text" is particularly compelling for people who aren't Eastern Orthodox, since that's _their_ standard edition throughout the Middle Ages. You might as well take the Orthodox Church's view on the superiority of the LXX while you're at it.
@@MAMoreno Eastern orthodox isn't Christian. They have a different gospel and a different Jesus. Like Mormons, Muslims, Catholics... They make up a fake Jesus and a fake salvation. Big business. It's sad but it's the truth. Good luck
Without the latter ending of Mark, you remove the only prophetic witness of Christ regarding the Apostles. To argue against the Word of God is foolishness. Why give these people a platform to preach this foolishness?
I include the deuterocanical books in my sermons and teaching all the time. I believe they are Scripture but I'm not dogmatic about it.
That's too bad. I'm sorry you feel that way! I think you spelled it wrong too by the way.
The guy is giving horrible humanistic advice on choosing a bible. 2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God". Basic "born again believer" 101, the person should go to the Lord and ask Him. The Lord wants you to read what He inspired. 2 Tim 3:16 doesn't limit the inspired text to original manuscripts only, nor does it apply to all Bibles. The parameter for being Scripture is, it has to be God inspired. The last part of 2 Tim 3:16 tells what scripture is good for and it has to be scripture and not a book created by academia and man's opinion. Learn the law stating how an alter is to be built. They were instructed to use stone that no tool had be used on. It is man's desire to reshape a stone into blocks. A block is man made, while a stone is God made. God wants you to use what He inspired because man will remove or dumb down God's word to suite man's desires. Those desires appeal to the intellect of man while wisdom from God is greater than all intellect. The believer is promised the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. But the modern church wants to figure it out on its own. The bad advice on which bible to use was "use all of them". Trying to figure it out on your own. Why born again believers don't go to the Lord for this answer boggles my mind. This guy telling you to use "all of them" isn't guiding you into truth. You going to follow him or the Lord?
Wow you make a lot of sense and some really good points. Yet at the same time are wrong and out of line. Incredible. If talking about English translations, then YES use them all... Check them all. See how the translations compare.
Then check out the Hebrew and Greek too. Let scripture interpret scripture. Scripture must interpret scripture. Christians must not go beyond what is written in scripture. Christians must abide in Christ, or they do not have God.
2 John 9
1 Corinthians 4:6
@@br.m What I posted is spiritual understanding and wisdom I received from the Lord. If you think He made a mistake, your comments should be directed to Him. If I am wrong, He will correct me. If you are wrong, He will correct you. The problem with the modern church is it wants to practice "intellectual Christianity", rather than be spiritual. God magnifies His word above His own name (Psalms 138.2) because He is that serious about it. There are copyright laws preventing ppl from rewriting a book, by an author, and claiming the rewrote book is by the author. "God's word" denotes ownership. God is the one who inspires scripture. Any Bible version, NOT inspired by God, can never be claimed as "God's word." Doing so gets into the realm of a false prophet. That is claiming God said something He didn't. And if God didn't inspire it, why are you using it? What does it say about your spiritual walk when you follow different "words"? Just who is the Word of God that said "follow Me?" John chapter 1. If God's inspired word alone isn't good enough for you, then Jesus alone won't be good enough for you either. Go to the Lord, present your case.
@@catdude5567
What Bible do you want me to read?
The guy said all new testament bibles agree 99% and thats a lie.