When Your Holy Text Isn't...

The man above is a "sofer" or Jewish scribe. To become a sofer, a Jewish person must master the art of Hebrew calligraphy, document restoration, and the many rules and traditions governing the writing and restoring of a Torah. Because Jews believe the Torah to be the very words of Yahweh, this job is not taken lightly.

*steaming mad*

I read this article today in Christianity Today. It isn't helpful - at all.

If you didn't read it, let me paraphrase it for you. It basically says, "You know that story about Jesus catching the woman in adultery and then saving her life by saying, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'? You know that story? Yeah, well, it's not in early manuscripts of the New Testament, so we're pretty sure it's not real."

What?

The problem is, this is one of my favorite stories about Jesus. Caught between a rock and a hard place, Jesus is faced with a tough decision: if he doesn’t condemn the woman, then he’s saying that the moral law (from God) isn’t valid and adultery is okay. But if he does condemn her, then he’s a real jerk, because the last time I checked, it takes two to tango and the man from this situation is nowhere to be found. How can Jesus survive this test? His response is like something out of a movie.

Kill her. Go ahead. And whoever is without sin, go ahead and cast the first stone.

I love the details of the story. The text says, “At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.” The older ones left first – isn’t that always the way. The older folks – the ones who were seasoned enough with life to understand they’d been handed their theological lunch.

So with one sentence (one sentence!) Jesus protects the woman from self-righteous, judgmental Pharisees, and yet with the kind of all-encompassing love Jesus is famous for, tells her, “I saved your life. Now go and stop this lifestyle and live like you were meant to? Okay?”

Love, I have learned recently, is about two things: an unfailing, unflinching love and real and articulated boundaries. One affirms the person, the other protects their character. This story is a perfect, genius story that show Jesus embodying both values, simultaneously.

And yet, one scholar, Dallas Theological seminary professor Daniel Wallace said this:

"A person hearing these words should recognize that they have no authority as authentic words of Jesus," he said. Christians who are reading the story, he said, should give it the same authority as any other unsubstantiated early Christian teaching about Jesus.

And this follow-up article from J.I. Packer (J.I. Packer, for Pete’s Sake) isn’t helpful either.

He writes:

Text criticism serves inerrancy; they are friends. Inerrancy treasures the meaning of each writer's words, while text criticism checks that we have each writer's words pure and intact. Both these wisdoms are needed if we are to benefit fully from the written Word of God.

But this is confusing for average Joes like me. What happens if you have a deep, unflinching love for a person based on stories that now you’re being told simply are not true. Stories that made your heart open up. Stories that ring true to the very depths of your soul. What if you’re told, suddenly, by guys 2000 years later - oh , you know what, that story was a lie. It was made up. Never happened.

I’m sorry – what? What is this? It’s in the Bible, but it’s not inspired? What does inerrancy mean, then?

The article goes on to say:

Biblical scholars do agree on two things: The Bible story should be set apart with a note, and Christians should be cautious when reading the passage for their personal devotions.

Look, I’m not textual criticism student. I have to use an archaeological study Bible to make sense of the context. But since when does the fact that some manuscripts have the story, and some don’t mean that it’s not really part of the Bible? I mean, didn’t all the Gospels start off as oral stories? This one got written down later, but was included all the way up to the 9th century, and suddenly, it’s not really Jesus?

After the article, someone wrote this comment, saying:

It strikes me sadly characteristic that some Christians are only finding textual criticism pertinent when it means no longer being obliged to obey the commandment "do not judge."

Maybe that’s what going on. I just don’t see how any scholar can say, with complete confidence “You know what – this book actually ISN’T the words of God – well, at least this part.”

What about the Westminster Catechism - and our confidence that God actually protected the content of this book, to ensure that it got into our hands? Is that made-up too?

As someone who takes the Bible seriously, this is really rather unsettling.