The Evangelical Universalist Forum

"...to seek and save the lost": Added or Deleted

Theology Biblical Theology
#22

As a pastor, I really should be more aware of these kinds of issues than I am. I’m familiar with the most obvious ones, such as the woman caught in adultery and the end of Mark, but even in such cases, I’m often at a loss as to how to treat such passages. Should I skip them entirely, or preach them with a disclaimer? I’ve heard preachers preach them with disclaimers quite well. I’ve heard other preachers not give a disclaimer, yet subtly not treat them as authoritative (I kind of got that impression from Peter Hiett in a sermon on the woman caught in adultery, in which he quickly moved to Old Testament passages and used the passage in John 8 as more of an illustration…not sure if that was on purpose or not, but I did find it interesting).

Anyway, as Jason pointed out, pertaining to the Son of Man coming to seek and to save the lost, Luke 19:10 says the very same thing, and (as far as I know) there’s no question that this verse is authentic.

#23

STP, there is no reason to suppose that the story of the woman caught in adultery was invented, even if John didn’t include that story in his memoirs of Christ. Likewise with Luke 9:56. As Jason, and now you, pointed out, "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost,” is found in Luke 19:10.
I wish I could verify that with the pre-300 manuscripts. Unfortunately, none of the extant pre-300 papyri contain it. However, all three major codices, Vaticinus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus contain the verse.

Whether or not such words are authentic is not the reason I brought up the fact of the omissions (in the earliest manuscripts) of the first part of Luke 9:56 and the story of the woman caught in adultery. As I have pointed out more than once, my purpose was to quash the false idea that they are omitted in the newer translations because the translators wanted to discredit them.

#24

I agree. I do tend to think that the story in John 8 actually happened (or at least some version of it). So I would likely at least comment on the passage if I were preaching systematically through John. But I don’t think it was part of John’s original gospel account (just like the end of Mark). And if “preaching” is the proclamation and exposition of God’s word (the Bible), then it is just a little weird to “preach” a “passage” that wasn’t even originally in the Bible, but kind of found it’s way in.

Anyway, I see your point, and I completely agree. The newer translations were merely trying to be faithful to what the manuscript evidence points to. I guess what I was saying is just the same thing; in my preaching, I want to be faithful to the what the manuscripts point to.