ב"הAgain, very dishonest Ish. It wasn't one church father it was a doze . It would be hard to list one Greek scrap because there were 1,400.
I know you're not trying to defend ideas now, just preserve your facade of expertise but in this case the direct evidence in support of the Pericope, in the form of early church fathers attesting to it's presence in the "ancient" texts, to some of the texts that omit it having a blank space where it would fit, to manuscripts that are likely direct copies of very early texts to the fact that it was in 1,400 of the texts. 1,400. One thousand four hundred texts. If you can't admit that there is at least a debate to be had here and the burden of proof is on you to justify removing it and burden is of a necessity very high, then you are blinded by intellectual arrogance.
Obviously I'm not trying to convince you at this point. I'm trying to establish the truth so that when others read these threads in the future they will not be led astray. So I will contest the "last word" on this until I am sure that no one will think there is a thread of a victory here for your view that the Pericope is undeniably a falsehood added into the Bible.
I will admit that there are interesting questions about why it was cut out of 300 texts but conversely it would be even more interesting to explain why it was so universally added in to so many texts.
At the end of the day you want to latch onto one aspect of the debate, some limited early texts that you deem trustworthy, and completely ignore and dismiss the mountains of evidence that don't rely on textual criticism.
Saying there are mountains of evidence doesn't make it so. There are zero Greek texts in the first 500 years of this era with this story in John.
Period. I'll back that up when I write up the post in the new thread I made. Also, there are zero church fathers who comment on this section of John. They just pass right over it in their comments because it was not in the book of John which they were looking at. They stop with John 7:52 and continue with John 8:12 like it wasn't even there. Because it wasn't back then.
The story may have existed somewhere as a midrash (extra biblical story) but it was certainly, and I mean certainly not in the the Greek Gospel of John that anyone was looking at up through 500 AD.
I'll invite you to respond to my full evidentiary post in a couple of days when I have time to assemble it as a case study for textual criticism; I'll be leading with a famous Baptist scholar I greatly respect. I know it's hard to let go of certain ideas like a certain English language translation is inerrant or something, and I'm sorry to be causing you this pain brother.
It's better me than some lefty embarrassing you with this at the job or in public somewhere... I hope you can see that.
Now either way you'll have an answer for the faith that is in you and you won't be broadsided by this kind of information.
I'm gonna do as VerifyVeritas the moderator recommended to us and stop interacting with you for a day or so. Let you cool down some.
shalom