Evidence for God from Science

I don't know if any of you are interested in John 7:53-8:11 and the fact that the earliest manuscripts don't include it (critics use this to blast the Gospel of John), but I have a couple of links that discuss these verses.

https://danielbwallace.com/2013/06/26/w ... ally-from/

https://taarcheia.files.wordpress.com/2 ... lterae.pdf

It's a fair inclusion. The event illustrates the hypocrisy of the religious Jews in regards to how their deeds contradicted their statements in John 7, and it illustrates how Christ lead by example and not just words.

SoCalExile wrote:It's a fair inclusion. The event illustrates the hypocrisy of the religious Jews in regards to how their deeds contradicted their statements in John 7, and it illustrates how Christ lead by example and not just words.

If there are Lukeisms in these passages then how did it end up in the Gospel of John and not Luke?

John was the last Gospel written. A copyist may have borrowed from Luke and placed the event in context to further illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in contrast to Christ. That doesn't make it uninspired, since the event did occur in the other gospels.

Compare it to a modern harmonization, such as The Life of Christ in Stereo, the fact that it combines all the gospels into one doesn't take away from each individually. In other words, it's still the gospel.

SoCalExile wrote:John was the last Gospel written. A copyist may have borrowed from Luke and placed the event in context to further illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in contrast to Christ. That doesn't make it uninspired, since the event did occur in the other gospels.

Compare it to a modern harmonization, such as The Life of Christ in Stereo, the fact that it combines all the gospels into one doesn't take away from each individually. In other words, it's still the gospel.

I agree, there is only one Gospel.

But, a copyist borrowing does not explain why the most reliable manuscripts do not include it.

FYI:

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016 ... -new-book/

Christian2 wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:John was the last Gospel written. A copyist may have borrowed from Luke and placed the event in context to further illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in contrast to Christ. That doesn't make it uninspired, since the event did occur in the other gospels.

Compare it to a modern harmonization, such as The Life of Christ in Stereo, the fact that it combines all the gospels into one doesn't take away from each individually. In other words, it's still the gospel.

I agree, there is only one Gospel.

But, a copyist borrowing does not explain why the most reliable manuscripts do not include it.

Or you could say that those manuscriptrs are not terribly reliable. The whole "old = reliable" thing is something of a fallacy. Maybe true that the Alexandrian texts are more reliable, but you can't really argue that so much from their age.

Thank you to all who replied.