Accuracy of modern bibles is extremely high....especially considering the age of the texts....kinda ridiculous how accurate it is vx its age and how much people argue over the texts....
Especially since no change has ever created a significant theological schism..
The ONLY possibility of that happening is the "Born from Above" vx "Born Again" marketing strategy from half a century ago. Where Calvinism is dying it does not really figure into this passage anyway. Its just a matter of "winds of doctrine" like the prayer of Jabez was in the '80's or '90's....can't remember it came and went that fast.
I mean how many people can force "again/anew" meaning into anothen without destroying the Greek language completely...because in every other ancient text it means "above" or "upper" and not how it is often currently translated.
Getting away from tradition is going to be a difficult process.
However,
The question remains about John 8. Are we going to place it back into Mark where it belongs or just delete it altogether?
John 8 and the Syriac question are two very different issues.
The evidence for the overall accuracy of the New Testament text is indeed remarkably strong.
We possess thousands of Greek manuscripts, along with ancient translations in Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and citations from the church fathers. Most textual variants are minor and do not affect any core Christian doctrine. On that point, I largely agree.
However, the claim that
anōthen can only mean "from above" is overstated.
In John's Gospel the word carries a deliberate double meaning.
Nicodemus understands Jesus as speaking of being born a second time, which is why he asks how a man can enter his mother's womb again.
Jesus then clarifies that the new birth is from the Spirit.
John's style is full of such misunderstandings where a hearer takes Jesus one way while Jesus means something deeper.
So the debate is not destroying Greek.
It is a question of which nuance John intended to emphasize in that passage.
As for John 7:53-8:11, the woman caught in adultery, that is a separate textual issue.
The passage is absent from many of the earliest Greek manuscripts and appears in different locations in some manuscript traditions. Some manuscripts place it after Luke 21:38, while others keep it in John.
Because of that evidence, most textual critics conclude it was not originally part of John's Gospel.
But that does not automatically mean it belonged in Mark.
If someone wishes to move it into Mark, the burden of proof is on them to show manuscript evidence placing it there.
Otherwise the choices are either to retain it with a note explaining the manuscript evidence or to regard it as an early authentic Christian tradition that was later inserted into John's Gospel.
So I think my methodological point stands: appeals to Greek alone do not settle the issue, but neither do appeals to Syriac alone.
The question is always, "What does the total manuscript evidence show?"
A reading is not original simply because it is Greek, Syriac, or Latin. It must be supported by the evidence.
