After reading Chapter 30, I realize that the New Testament, the one I thought I was so familiar with, is actually very unfamiliar to me. It is not only unfamiliar, but this chapter made me realize that I could possibly be believing certain convictions found within the New Testament that was merely inserted by someone other than the author of the book. Scribes changing whole passages, verses, and women’s names to portray their own beliefs or beliefs of the community of that time is disturbing to me. I understand how scribes mistakenly copied down the wrong word or sentence or misspelled a few words, but changing the meaning of the actual translation, I believe, is truly upsetting. The beliefs that these scribes wanted to portray, in essence, basically overpowered oral and written tradition. I find this ironic because tradition is a major theme within the teachings of Catholicism and other Christian denominations. Nevertheless, words and sentences were changed, and those mistakes and intentional changes compose the New Testament we have today.
An intentional change that I question is the insertion of John 7:53 – 8:11, which is the “Story of Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery.”[1] While we mentioned this in class, after reading the text along with the other passages that were changed (i.e. Luke 22:44), I wondered why was this story inserted? Why was the man involved with the woman not mentioned within the verses? After researching the story, I found that others pose these questions as well. While I had no knowledge about why such a story would be inserted, F. T. Gench’s article states that historians believe “that the story is a truly ancient one with all the earmarks of an authentic incident from Jesus' life” which was concealed due to the disturbing image it would represent to the community. [2]
I believe I can apply Gench’s above stated reason with my own insights to answer my question about why the man was not convicted for committing adultery. I reason that the woman was seen to be below the man in the society; therefore, she was the one who was wrong. Maybe the man in question was someone of importance? No matter his class, he was a man, who was superior to the woman.
This passage being inserted does demonstrate a great lesson to everyone, but I wonder, what other changes were done throughout the New Testament earlier on that we will never know about?
[1] B.D. Ehrman, “Do We Have the Original New Testament?” 498.
[2] F.T Gench, “John 7:53-8:11,” I 60: 4 (2009), 398-400.
Bibliography
Ehrman, Bart D., “John 7:53-8:11.” In The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 4th Edition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 498.
Gench, Frances T., “John 7:63-8:11.” Interpretation 60:4 (2009): 398-400.
No comments:
Post a Comment