Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
Working through John I was surprised to find that this story is not in the original. The three earliest sources have no trace of it and are in that sense unanimous - FF BRUCE simply skips it!
The commentators I have read give the reason it is still "in" modern versions as lack of bottle. Nobody wanting to take a stand.
My point is, if John wrote his gospel as a tightly argued document why allow this insertion to persist? If this was a Shakespearian play there would be a real move to restore the integrity of the original. Why so reticent with scripture?
The other 'error' was the angel stirring up the pool of Bethsaida. This latter addition appears to give the superstition of the day - but fails to identify it as superstition.
Working through the gospel do I cover it with my kids or ignore it as BRUCE does. I suppose it is a teaching point - having no doctrinal impact.
Have any versions actually gone as far as omitting it?
The commentators I have read give the reason it is still "in" modern versions as lack of bottle. Nobody wanting to take a stand.
My point is, if John wrote his gospel as a tightly argued document why allow this insertion to persist? If this was a Shakespearian play there would be a real move to restore the integrity of the original. Why so reticent with scripture?
The other 'error' was the angel stirring up the pool of Bethsaida. This latter addition appears to give the superstition of the day - but fails to identify it as superstition.
Working through the gospel do I cover it with my kids or ignore it as BRUCE does. I suppose it is a teaching point - having no doctrinal impact.
Have any versions actually gone as far as omitting it?