# John's gospel



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 7, 2014)

Scholars agree that John's gospel is a patch work from a common source. Meaning that they believe two accounts were messhed together to create one. Or account A was meshed with account B to create account C. They agree that accounts A and B are from the same source. Maybe John. This is clearly seen with the double ending of John. One might conclude that the last chapter was added. But I saw this week on Erhmans blog where he had put together a partial explanation of a bigger picture. I would love to paste it here but feel as though I don't have that right since his blog is for paid members. [all going to charity] One of the examples Erhman gave blew me away that I had not noticed it. Strange how we overlook so much. There are many examples like this, but for now I only mention this one. Jesus says at the end of chapter 14 "arise, we must go" yet chapter 15, 16 and 17 have him not leaving but rather going into a long discourse starting with "I am the vine". At the end of chp 17, after praying, they leave. I thought this was strangely interesting. In his blog, he pointed out several similiar issues but put together a theory of what happened which dovetailed together perfectly, which left itself almost bullet proof. Interesting stuff


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 7, 2014)

Actually, it was not this weeks blog but rather several months ago. I had not been on his site in months and was catching up on what I had missed.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

A giant peeve of mine with John is that believers will use John 7:53-8:11 as their inspiration and basis of proof that Jesus is more compassionate and forgiving than the OT God and we should not follow the OT verses that COMMAND stoning, but they are basing their beliefs on verses that were not in the earliest copies of the original texts/writings.
Most of them that use those verses have no clue that they were later additions. They find excuses like" well you can take those verses out and it does not change the message"....UHHHH YEAH it does!!!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> A giant peeve of mine with John is that believers will use John 7:53-8:11 as their inspiration and basis of proof that Jesus is more compassionate and forgiving than the OT God and we should not follow the OT verses that COMMAND stoning, but they are basing their beliefs on verses that were not in the earliest copies of the original texts/writings.
> Most of them that use those verses have no clue that they were later additions. They find excuses like" well you can take those verses out and it does not change the message"....UHHHH YEAH it does!!!


I have never heard this argument, probably because I have never heard this was added. Any details will be appreciated


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I have never heard this argument, probably because I have never heard this was added. Any details will be appreciated



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7:53-8:11&version=NIV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

http://www.religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm

http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Any quick search will bring up many sources that range from atheists to devout Christians and everything including historians in between.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

Very in depth explanation
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/John/Jesus-Forgives-Woman-Taken


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> A giant peeve of mine with John is that believers will use John 7:53-8:11 as their inspiration and basis of proof that Jesus is more compassionate and forgiving than the OT God and we should not follow the OT verses that COMMAND stoning, but they are basing their beliefs on verses that were not in the earliest copies of the original texts/writings.
> Most of them that use those verses have no clue that they were later additions. They find excuses like" well you can take those verses out and it does not change the message"....UHHHH YEAH it does!!!



That is an opinion that has a lot of support ... but it is disputed by many.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> That is an opinion that has a lot of support ... but it is disputed by many.



Agreed.

The way I side with one or another is when One side says it was not included in the earliest copies....and then show through their research of studying those earliest copies that the earliest copies do not contain it.

Compared to

The side that says it in fact was contained in the earliest copies but do not show those copies and instead show later copies where the text was included , shockingly, later.......After earlier copies where the text does not exist.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Very in depth explanation
> http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/John/Jesus-Forgives-Woman-Taken


Thanks, I will ck it out when I get home from working


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> A giant peeve of mine with John is that believers will use John 7:53-8:11 as their inspiration and basis of proof that Jesus is more compassionate and forgiving than the OT God and we should not follow the OT verses that COMMAND stoning, but they are basing their beliefs on verses that were not in the earliest copies of the original texts/writings.
> Most of them that use those verses have no clue that they were later additions. They find excuses like" well you can take those verses out and it does not change the message"....UHHHH YEAH it does!!!



1.  Is John 7 the only NT passage that shows Jesus' compassion?

2.  If John 7 was added to the text, when was it added?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> 1.  Is John 7 the only NT passage that shows Jesus' compassion?


LOLOLOL, okay we will go this route.
We are talking about the passage that YOU brought into the conversation. Don't now start with the "well even if this one wasn't original, there are others that are/might be".....



centerpin fan said:


> 2.  If John 7 was added to the text, when was it added?



Not my only source...not necessarily the best source...but quite possibly the easiest source that you can use to check further into it if you like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery



> The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century. It is also the earliest surviving Latin manuscript to contain it; 17 of the 23 Old Latin manuscripts of John 7-8 contain at least part of the Pericope. Papias (circa AD 125) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which may well refer to this passage; there is a very certain quotation of the pericope adulterae in the 3rd Century Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum; though without indicating John's Gospel. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book II.24 refers to the passage “And when the elders had set another woman who had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and were gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of the hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being answered No, He said unto her: “Go thy way therefore, for neither do I condemn thee.” Book II is generally dated to the late third century (Von Drey, Krabbe, Bunsen, Funk).[11] Codex Fuldensis, which is positively dated to AD 546 contains the adulterae pericope. The Second Epistle of Pope Callistus section 6[12] contains a quote that may be from John 8:11 - "Let him see to it that he sin no more, that the sentence of the Gospel may abide in him: “Go, and sin no more.”" However the epistle quotes from eighth century writings and is not thought to be genuine


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> LOLOLOL, okay we will go this route.
> We are talking about the passage that YOU brought into the conversation.



Yes, but you're the one saying that Christians would be stoning people if it weren't for a passage that was added to John.




bullethead said:


> Not my only source...not necessarily the best source...but quite possibly the easiest source that you can use to check further into it if you like:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery



As I said before, I'm well aware that many scholars take this position.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes, but you're the one saying that Christians would be stoning people if it weren't for a passage that was added to John.


I am asking why they are not stoning people and doing the many other things God commands in the OT and why they choose to obey some commands to the letter and disregard others despite what the NT says.






centerpin fan said:


> As I said before, I'm well aware that many scholars take this position.


  And is there a reason why they would be incorrect?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I am asking why they are not stoning people and doing the many other things God commands in the OT and why they choose to obey some commands to the letter and disregard others despite what the NT says.



Haven't we discussed this ad nauseum?  




bullethead said:


> And is there a reason why they would be incorrect?



When they take the position that the "earliest manuscripts" don't include this passage, they're usually talking about Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, two 4th century documents.  However, Jerome's Vulgate (also 4th century) includes it as do most of the Old Latin manuscripts.  Ambrose, Augustine and Chrysostom (all 4th century luminaries) also quoted it and considered it valid.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Haven't we discussed this ad nauseum?


Not enough to get a straight honest answer






centerpin fan said:


> When they take the position that the "earliest manuscripts" don't include this passage, they're usually talking about Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, two 4th century documents.  However, Jerome's Vulgate (also 4th century) includes it as do most of the Old Latin manuscripts.  Ambrose, Augustine and Chrysostom (all 4th century luminaries) also quoted it and considered it valid.



So you have 4th Century (400 years) documents that finally contain the passage. That would be at least 300 years(longer than the USA is a country so far) after the original texts were written....that the passage finally shows up in a copy of the original. 
That would back up that the earlier texts did not contain the passage. 
That would be like now inserting something into the Preamble to the Constitution and saying it was always meant to be there. I am sure there would be a few that would argue the validity of that but as in the case here...the majority would know it is a much later addition not contained in the original text.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> So you have 4th Century (400 years) documents that finally contain the passage. That would be at least 300 years(longer than the USA is a country so far) after the original texts were written....that the passage finally shows up in a copy of the original.



That is an assumption on your part.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Not enough to get a straight honest answer



And you won't get one. 

Some believe all should be adhered to. Some believe only the NT should be adhered to. Some believe only parts of the NT should be adhered to.
Secretly, they probably all believe ALL should be adhered to. I mean, it is the word of God and all. 

I saw an avatar from a GON forum member that stated "the bible is not trail mix that you only pick out the parts you like.", or something to that affect.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Not enough to get a straight honest answer.





660griz said:


> And you won't get one.



You guys just don't like our answers.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 9, 2014)

660griz said:


> I saw an avatar from a GON forum member that stated "the bible is not trail mix that you only pick out the parts you like.", or something to that affect.



That might not mean what you think it means.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> That is an assumption on your part.



That is a fact based on the earliest manuscripts we have on hand. Right now, if there are any that say different, they are not in anyone's hands that wants to share that info.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> That might not mean what you think it means.



Oh, I am sure it means different things to different folks.(Meaning could also change between locations of individuals. Public, private, like minded, mix minded, etc.) 
That much I have learned.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> You guys just don't like our answers.



I think answer(s) is the problem.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> That is a fact based on the earliest manuscripts we have on hand.



Fact:  the passage is not included in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

Fact:  the passage is included in the Vulgate

Assumption:  the passage is not part of the original gospel


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Fact:  the passage is not included in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
> 
> Fact:  the passage is included in the Vulgate
> 
> Assumption:  the passage is not part of the original gospel



Well you tell me, Is the passage contained in the Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75?......both of which are 3rd Century?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

Let me help you out...

The manuscript contains John 1:1-6:11, 6:35b-14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20, 22-23; 20:25-21:9, 12, 17. It is one of the oldest New Testament manuscripts known to exist, with its writing dated to around 200 CE.[1]

In common with both the other surviving early papyri of John's Gospel; P45 (apparently), P75, and most New Testament uncials, Papyrus 66 does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53-8:11);[2] demonstrating the absence of this passage in all the surviving early witnesses of the Gospel of John. The manuscript also contains, consistently, the use of Nomina Sacra.

Studies done by Karyn Berner[3] and Philip Comfort,[4] contended that \mathfrak{P}66 had the work of three individuals on it: The original, professional scribe, a thoroughgoing corrector and a minor corrector. But more recently James Royse argues that, with the possible exception of John 13:19, the corrections are all by the hand of the original copyist.[5]

The staurogram appears in at least ten places in the papyrus (corresponding to chapter 19 of the Gospel).[6]


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Well you tell me, Is the passage contained in the Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75?......both of which are 3rd Century?



That is a fact, and your assumption is still an assumption.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

Papyrus 75
The Bodmer Papyri were found in 1952 at Pabau near Dishna, Egypt, the ancient headquarters of the Pachomian order of monks; the discovery site is not far from Nag Hammadi, where the secreted Nag Hammadi library had been found some years earlier. The manuscripts were covertly assembled by a Cypriote, Phokio Tano of Cairo, then smuggled to Switzerland,[1] where they were bought by Martin Bodmer (1899–1971). The series Papyrus Bodmer began to be published in 1954, giving transcriptions of the texts with note and introduction in French and a French translation. The Bodmer Papyri, now conserved in the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, in Cologny, outside Geneva,[2] are not a gnostic cache, like the Nag Hammadi Library: they bear some pagan as well as Christian texts, parts of some thirty-five books in all, in Coptic[3] and in Greek. With fragments of correspondence, the number of individual texts represented reaches to fifty.[4] Most of the works are in codex form, a few in scrolls. Three are written on parchment.

Books V and VI of Homer's Iliad (P1), and three comedies of Menander (Dyskolos (P4), Samia and Aspis) appear among the Bodmer Papyri, as well as gospel texts: Papyrus 66 (P66), is a text of the Gospel of John,[5] dating around 200CE, in the manuscript tradition called the Alexandrian text-type. Aside from the papyrus fragment in the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, it is the oldest testimony for John; it omits the passage concerning the moving of the waters (John 5:3b-4) and the pericope of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). P72 is the earliest known copy of the Epistle of Jude, and 1 and 2 Peter. Papyrus 75 (P75) is a partial codex containing most of Luke and John. Comparison of the two versions of John in the Bodmer Papyri with the third-century Chester Beatty Papyri convinced Floyd V. Filson that "...there was no uniform text of the Gospels in Egypt in the third century."[6]


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> That is a fact, and your assumption is still an assumption.



I am in good company with the religious then....we are all assumers.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> A giant peeve of mine with John is that believers will use John 7:53-8:11 as their inspiration and basis of proof that Jesus is more compassionate and forgiving than the OT God and we should not follow the OT verses that COMMAND stoning, but they are basing their beliefs on verses that were not in the earliest copies of the original texts/writings.
> Most of them that use those verses have no clue that they were later additions. They find excuses like" well you can take those verses out and it does not change the message"....UHHHH YEAH it does!!!


Just got around to this. I remember Erhman saying that the writing style matches that of the Lukan writer, but is clearly not the Johanian writer. I had forgotten about this one but have looked into it before.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Just got around to this. I remember Erhman saying that the writing style matches that of the Lukan writer, but is clearly not the Johanian writer. I had forgotten about this one but have looked into it before.



Yes.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> And is there a reason why they would be incorrect?



See below.  I printed this out over Christmas but read it for the first time last night.  Although it does not address the woman caught in adultery, it does address certain manuscripts deemed "more reliable" by many modern scholars.  The entire article is worth the read, but p66 is discussed on page 31 and p75 is discussed on page 34.

http://www.biblicalblueprints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/HasGodIndeedSaid.pdf


Here is another good article along the same lines:

http://learntheology.com/the-greek-text-of-the-king-james-version.html


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> See below.  I printed this out over Christmas but read it for the first time last night.  Although it does not address the woman caught in adultery, it does address certain manuscripts deemed "more reliable" by many modern scholars.  The entire article is worth the read, but p66 is discussed on page 31 and p75 is discussed on page 34.
> 
> http://www.biblicalblueprints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/HasGodIndeedSaid.pdf
> 
> ...



CPF I have read through these over the years (Mother in Law would send me all kinds of rebuttals during our discussions)

In the first one the Author(s) are telling us and presumably speaking for the Holy Spirit and what the Holy Spirit would do.....Not to mention "God's Problem"


> Now consider the problem from God's point of view. To whom should He entrust the primary responsibility for the faithful transmission of the New Testament Text? If the Holy Spirit is going to take an active part in the process, where should He
> concentrate His efforts? Presumably fluent speakers of Greek would have the inside track, and areas where Greek would continue in active use would be preferred. For a faithful transmission to occur the copyists had to be proficient in Greek



"Now consider the problem from God's point of view"???
If God has a problem and can't figure it out a better way then he is not going to get any worship from me. Not much of a god IMO.


JB always a consistent reply when unbelievers say what they THINK God should do.....It fits here too for the two authors.

The second link says nothing about the "Adultress omission" but talks about Bathesda/Bathesdia...?
And clicking around the links provided elsewhere on that site will tell you more about what the entire site is all about.



> It is hoped, therefore, that the general Christian reader will exercise the utmost reserve in accepting corrections to his Authorized Version which are not supported by a large majority of manuscripts. He should go on using his King James Version with confidence. New Testament textual criticism, at least, has advanced no objectively verifiable reason why he should not.



Classic


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> In the first one the Author(s) are telling us and presumably speaking for the Holy Spirit and what the Holy Spirit would do.....Not to mention "God's Problem"
> 
> "Now consider the problem from God's point of view"???
> If God has a problem and can't figure it out a better way then he is not going to get any worship from me. Not much of a god IMO.



Over thirty pages of material and this is what you focus on?  Note to self:  next time, do not even bother.




bullethead said:


> The second link says nothing about the "Adultress omission" ...



Yes, as I noted previously.  Both articles discuss the texts as a whole and the differences between the Majority Text and the Egyptian texts.




bullethead said:


> And clicking around the links provided elsewhere on that site will tell you more about what the entire site is all about.



Regardless, the link I provided is written by an expert in Greek texts.  Granted, he is a mere mortal and is not on the same level as The Lord God Almighty, Bart Ehrman.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2014)

I gave but one example of these authors doing this stuff throughout 30+ pages. If you want me to go paragraph by paragraph and pick it all out I will be happy to do so. 



Let me give you some material from Lord Ehrman....he has a way of using exactly what is written to make his points.

. In chapter two, Jesus performs his “first sign” (2:11) in Cana of Galilee, changing the water into wine. In chapter four, he does his “second sign” (4:54) after returning to Galilee from Judea, healing the Capernaum official’s son. In itself, this is no problem. The problem emerges when you read what happens between the first and second signs; for John 2:23 indicates that while Jesus was in Jerusalem many people believed in him “because they saw the signs that he was doing.” How can this be? How can he do the first sign, and then other signs, and then the second sign? This is what I am calling a literary seam.

b. In John 2:23, Jesus is in Jerusalem, the capital of Judea. While there, he engages in a discussion with Nicodemus that lasts until 3:21. But then the text says, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea” (3:22). The land of Judea? They are already in the land of Judea, in fact, they are in its capital. Here is another literary seam. (Note: some modern translations have gotten around this problem by mistranslating v. 22 to say that they went into the “countryside” of Judea. But this, in fact, is not the meaning of the Greek word, “land” that is used here; “countryside” is a different Greek word)

c. In John 5:1, Jesus goes to Jerusalem, where he spends the entire chapter healing and teaching. The author’s comment after his discourse, however, is somewhat puzzling: “After this, Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee” (6:1). How could he go to the other side of the Sea if he is not already on one of its sides? In fact, he is nowhere near the Sea of Galilee — he is in Jerusalem of Judea.

d. Here’s my favorite. At Jesus’ last meal with his disciples (this is recorded in John 13-17 – virtually all of these five chapters are Jesus talking, at the meal), Peter asks, “Lord, where are you going?” (13:36). A few verses later, Thomas says to Jesus, “Lord, we do not know where you are going” (14:5). Oddly enough, several minutes later, Jesus states: “But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me, `Where are you going?’” (16:5)!

e. At the end of chapter 14, after delivering a speech of nearly a chapter and a half, Jesus says to his disciples, “Rise, let us be on our way” (14:31). The reader might expect them to get up and go. But instead, Jesus launches into another discourse: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower…” (15:1). This discourse is not just a few words spoken on the way out the door. The speech goes on for all of chapter 15, all of chapter 16, and leads into the prayer that takes all of chapter 17. Jesus and the disciples do not leave until 18:1. Why would Jesus say, “Rise, let us go,” but then not leave for three chapters?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I gave but one example of these authors doing this stuff throughout 30+ pages.



... and somehow missed the discussion of the Greek text.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> ... and somehow missed the discussion of the Greek text.



I did not miss the Greek text parts, I do not feel it is the most compelling argument...it sounds more like an excuse but not the best excuse. I didn't want to get into a 2 page discussion about it because reading it there was not enough to make an impact on me. The Author is making the argument as to why the KJV should be used with confidence despite the fact that it is not supported by the large majority of manuscripts.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I do not feel it is the most compelling argument...it sounds more like an excuse but not the best excuse.



Now you know how I feel about Ehrman.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Now you know how I feel about Ehrman.



What is Ehrman doing other than using the biblical text as it is written and then pointing out the inconsistencies? I don't see him making excuses. If you want to point anything out of his for your example that was posted above please go ahead.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2014)

I bet the Prosecutor(in the links example) that can prove a crime was committed without having a body would have a field day with this....http://learntheology.com/inerrancy-and-the-original-texts-by-matt-slick.html


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> What is Ehrman doing other than using the biblical text as it is written and then pointing out the inconsistencies?  I don't see him making excuses.



As I've said before, Ehrman is just the "flavor of the month" amongst the skeptics.  He's not saying anything new.  He's just saying it _now_.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> As I've said before, Ehrman is just the "flavor of the month" amongst the skeptics.  He's not saying anything new.  He's just saying it _now_.



 Doesn't sound like anything he is saying has been discredited now or then. Granted those errors have been around a long time so it is not surprising that many people point them out.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 11, 2014)

I don't agree with all that Erhman says, yet I have never seen him fabricate an argument. I have also noticed that he stays clear of those debates about verses that have an escape hatch. Only those nailed shut does he address. Such as the adding of the 3 part formula of Matt 28 :19, 20. He to my knowledge has never addressed this.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I gave but one example of these authors doing this stuff throughout 30+ pages. If you want me to go paragraph by paragraph and pick it all out I will be happy to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have noticed "a" and "d" but I would have never noticed the others in a million years. Glad that Erhman pointed them out


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 14, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I gave but one example of these authors doing this stuff throughout 30+ pages. If you want me to go paragraph by paragraph and pick it all out I will be happy to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So... in view of this information... do we conclude that yes, we have at least 2 accounts blended together???? Or is there another explanation??? And how did "the woman at the well" wind up in John's gospel? And the double ending??? So I am asking myself if I consider John's gospel as inspired. He sure writes as if he is "inspired". By going into such great detail with the words of Christ, his teaching and prayers, everyone knowing that he can not recall all this accurately on his own, he writes as if we are to assume him inspired. But do I with the evidence on the table. No, I don't. But I consider that someone shortly after John found writings that he believed to be Johns, and that someone out of zeal for the gospel, blended these two accounts together in an effort to preserve John's experience and knowledge.


----------

