The focus of Bible study

During Sunday school this morning, an interesting discussion broke out that wasn't related to the passage we are currently studying. We started to discuss Biblical inerrancy, authority, translation, and hermeneutics. At stake, and at question, was how we know that we can rely on the Bible we have to truly tell us what God says to us today.

Obviously, this is too big a discussion for one blog post, but I really think there are two big answers to the questions raised during our class. The first is that the Bible we have today is reliably the Word of God. I think in all the discussions raised in critical circles about various passages and discrepancies in modern texts and translations, we lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of the Biblical text is essentially undisputed, and that even if we cut out every passage with textual uncertainty we would have the message of God's redemptive plan clearly stated for us. I'm neither advocating cutting anything out without a solid textual basis nor stating that close textual study is not needed; I only want to emphasize that we can have confidence that we have God's Word to read and teach us in the Bible.

The second answer is that no matter what text or translation you use, you have to study the Bible as it is written to understand what it says and means. Reading a gospel, a psalm, an epistle, and a prophetic book all the same way will lead to distortions of sense and meaning. One of the chief errors I find in the teaching of many contemporary preachers and teachers is the ignoring of literary and historical context in their study. (My students and members of my church may get tired of how often I bring up "context" when we're studying. I'll keep doing so until they get it!) If you rip a verse out of its context and apply it as you wish, you may very well find yourself teaching heresy, despite an alleged "Biblical" proof.

I think it takes a while for us to learn this as we study the Bible. We're so used to trying to find a verse that says what we're looking for that we'll take anything, no matter what it meant in its context. Perhaps the classic example is those who say that we're supposed to always be in good health and have success as long as we are focused on God, because in 3 John it says, "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper in be in good health, even as thy soul prospereth." (v. 2, KJV) Apart from some issues of language that has changed over the past 400 years, this verse means nothing like that for contemporary believers. It's part of a greeting in a letter, a polite wish that the recipient might be experiencing good things in his life. It isn't a promise, and it isn't meant for anyone other than Gaius. (And don't tell me this is ridiculous; I've heard more than one preacher use this verse for the exact purpose I mention.)

I think one of the motivating factors to study the issues of obscurity and textual discrepancies in the Bible for some people is that it allows them to avoid studying the plain and simple truths presented in Scripture. There is much that can be learned just from reading and studying the most plain passages of the Bible, enough to keep a Christian busy for years trying to master the material in his or her life. We can't let the small questions and minor issues of text, transmission, and translation turn us away from applying what is clear to us in our daily lives.

Now, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't study textual transmission, translation, and hermeneutics. Anyone who's read this blog for any length of time knows I"m in favor of that! But we can't let our study of details derail our study of the obvious. So study the Bible. Study hard. Then let the Word do its work in you, and put it into practice in your life.

John 7:53-8:11 and Textual Criticism

This is a brief discussion of the textual question that I will provide as a bulletin insert this Sunday.

Why is John 7:53-8:11 set apart in my Bible?

The passage we are studying today, John 7:53-8:11, is set apart in most modern translations. There is usually an explanatory note that says that this passage was probably not part of the original writing of John. Why do scholars think that is so, and why is this passage still included in our Bibles?

We have a great number of manuscripts of the New Testament in existence today, dating back to the 2^nd century. We have more manuscripts from later periods, and also a large number of manuscripts of early Bible translations. Very few manuscripts read exactly alike; there is usually some variation between them. This is due to the fact that they were copied by hand, and occasionally the copyist would make a mistake.

Fortunately, we have so many manuscripts of many different types that we are able to figure out by studying them what the original wording was. The process by which we do this is called “textual criticism.” This isn’t the kind of criticism that questions the reliability of the Bible, but is the process of recovering as best we can the original wording of the Bible.

We have a lot of confidence that most of the New Testament we have today is exactly what was written by the original human authors. Where there are differences, they do not affect any point of Biblical teaching or call into question any doctrine we believe.

This passage is one of the longer passages that are questioned by scholars. Here are a few of the reasons for this:

1) This passage is not found in the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament.

2) This passage is not found in the oldest translations of the New Testament.

3) The earliest commentators on the New Testament do not mention this passage.

4) Many manuscripts which include this passage set it apart from the rest of the text, much like we do in our modern translations.

5) Where this passage is found, it sometimes is put in a different place in John, and in some manuscripts it is even found in Luke instead.

So if there are so many questions, why do we keep this passage in our Bibles today? Some reasons scholars keep this passage:

1) Some very early church writers mention a story circulating at their time that sounds much like this one.

2) Jerome, who made the Latin translation we call the Vulgate, around AD 400, mentions it as existing in many manuscripts he used.

3) Augustine (also around 400) writes that he believes the passage was “removed” by some who were concerned that the passage gave license to adultery.

4) There is a general consensus that this story is a genuine account of an incident in the life of Jesus that circulated in the early church. It eventually became attached to a gospel account (which is why it shows up in different places). The sayings and actions of Jesus here are very much in character with what we see of Him in the rest of the Gospels.

I believe that we have here in this passage a genuine story about Jesus, acting in mercy toward a sinner, and that we can study this passage with profit.