1

There are a number of biblical texts that have been rejected by scholars as later additions to the text. This seems to be a legitimate attitude when there is a strong basis for it, such as that the passage is missing from the earliest manuscripts. It's also personally convenient if the passage is theologically controversial or politically incorrect, such as Paul's supposed writings against women speaking in church, or the famous Johannine Comma.

But what if it is a beloved scripture, such as the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery, which apparently does not start appearing into relatively late in the manuscript tradition. Or, in the case of 1 Cor. 13, what if one becomes convinced that it is not actually a writing of Paul but that a later editor has inserted it. (See this question for details.) Does the fact that a beloved scripture was not part of the original text mean that it is not holy scripture?

Improve this question
2
  • 6
    The statements in the question are not based on the genuine science called 'Textual Criticism' which is the painstaking sifting of evidence before arriving at conclusions. Rather the above are expressions of opinion without proper and academic substantiation gathered from the 5,500 known manuscripts, the 96,000 Patristic Citations, the many translated Versions (Coptic, Old Latin etc) and the abundant mentions within the Lectionaries.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Nov 12 at 21:55
  • 4
    This needs to be aimed at some denomination in order to be a good question. Different traditions will resolve this differently. As Nigel notes, it is also likely premised on bad scholarship.
    – jaredad7
    Commented Nov 12 at 22:12

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

Does the fact that a beloved scripture was not part of the original text mean that it is not holy scripture?

Yes. By definition, if a passage was not part of the original text of a biblical book, then it is not part of scripture.

However, in practice this will be applied in a range of ways, because some textual questions are straight forward, while others can be very difficult.

  1. The woman caught in adultery (John 8) is an example of a text where there is real doubt as to its originality. The story reads authentically in that it is consistent with Jesus' character as we find it elsewhere in the gospels. But it is not found in the earliest manuscripts. If it is actually from the life of Jesus, it may have circulated orally at first, then been added later to John's gospel. This is why modern translations usually show the story in brackets, with a footnote explaining its special circumstances. Then people can make up their own mind.

  2. 1 Corinthians 13 is a different matter. My view would be that this is definitely part of scripture, because it's clearly part of the original text. As far as I know, there are no textual variants that might suggest an issue here. At most, there may be stylistic differences between chapter 13 and the rest of the letter. But in that case, all we are saying is that the author (Paul) drew on an already existing text or song. If a later editor has inserted the chapter, we would expect traces of that fact in the textual history.

Improve this answer
2
  • Peter. You say that by definition only the original text is Scripture. Where do you find this definition? It seems to me to be implied in the Chicago Declaration held to by some. Yet others believe it is the reception of a particular text by and in the Church that matters. The Holy Spirit may correct any errors in the original. And what actually is meant by original in cases where a book may have been constructed from separate fragments. The first to put them together?
    – davidlol
    Commented Nov 14 at 0:06
  • I suspect I may have misread the question! When I said "by definition", I was not thinking of official church positions. I was just thinking at a common sense level: If a person decides a passage was not in the original writing, then presumably they are also deciding it is not scripture. But I can see that might not be true. To take the eg in my answer, I suppose that a church is at liberty to accept John 8 as scripture even if they believe it was a later addition.
    – Peter Kirkpatrick
    Commented Nov 14 at 5:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .