Do you believe that the Pericope de Adultera was included in the original manuscript of John?

I voted no but I don’t quite agree with any of your options. I believe it probably happened but I personally don’t believe it was in the original. Many things after all happened that did not make it into the divine record. My problem is that it appears in different places in different manuscripts. I don’t know how that would work with the structure of the gospels. I believe the gospels are arranged to convey different aspects of the Person of Christ so it is important to know what book it belongs to and where.

• Pericope de Adultera = authentic (I know there is mss evidence both ways on this)

• Mark - the last 12 verses = authentic (ditto comment above)

• Johannine Comma = NOT

Of the three, there is significantly more evidence for the last 12 chapters of Mark than there is for the other two, but even so, I regard it highly unlikely that the longer ending of Mark was breathed out by God as inspired Scripture. I certainly would not teach it as Scripture and think that the abrupt ending in verse 16:8 is consistent with a sub-theme of fear vs faith that runs throughout the book. It is interesting that Jerome knew of the longer ending of Mark in his day but viewed it as a minority reading (showing that majority text arguments can cut both ways).

In my view, the Pericope and Comma are certainly spurious but it is very difficult for people to regard them as such, especially when they provide such succinct support for the trinity (Comma) and such good preaching material against self-righteous judgmentalism (Pericope). What’s remarkable to me, though, is that despite the paucity of evidence for the Pericope, not only can pastors not refrain from preaching it, but they are even less restrained with it comes to speculating what Jesus wrote in the sand! But if you must know, I have it on good authority that what he actually wrote was something along the lines of: “The oldest and best manuscripts do not contain this passage.” :)

[Jim]

• Pericope de Adultera = authentic (I know there is mss evidence both ways on this)

• Mark - the last 12 verses = authentic (ditto comment above)

• Johannine Comma = NOT

I agree with Jim (my brother from another mother). It’s been a long time since I did my digging on this but I seem to recall that most of the manuscript evidence for omitting the Pericope de Adultera is from lectionaries. The omission of the last verses of Mark in Sinaiticus always looked like an erasure to me. And there’s no support for the Johannine comma.

John Burgon’s “Last Twelve Verses of Mark” free on Kindle

Paul Henebury has a lecture on the ending of Mark. If I remember correctly he relies heavily on Burgeon. Maybe he will weigh in.

[Ron Bean] It’s been a long time since I did my digging on this but I seem to recall that most of the manuscript evidence for omitting the Pericope de Adultera is from lectionaries.

I would say there is quite a bit more to it than that.

The manuscripts that omit the pericope include ancient extant Papyri (p39, p66, and p75, all from the early 100’s to 200’s AD), the early Uncials (sinaiticus, alexandrinus, vacticanus, and ephraemi , all from the 300’s to 400’s AD), and the early ancient translations (old latin, syriac, and coptic, all from the 300’s-400’s AD).

You can actually see some of this evidence for yourself. For example, http://bible-researcher.com/papyrus66.html is pretty cool.

The first appearance of the pericope in a Greek manuscript occurs in Bezae in the 400’s but not again until the 800’s (boreelianus). In addition, the ancient translations don’t pick up the pericope until the 600-800’s. When the pericope does show up, it is often found in various locations in Luke or John and often marked off with something to indicate its doubtfulness.

There is more that could be said, especially regarding internal evidence, but to me the external mss evidence is quite compelling.

[josh p]

Paul Henebury has a lecture on the ending of Mark. If I remember correctly he relies heavily on Burgeon. Maybe he will weigh in.

It’s too bad we have not yet found any applicable papyri for this passage because I think that would provide compelling evidence, one way or the other, for those who are still uncertain about the manuscript evidence.

The manuscript evidence is a bit mixed and that is what makes the question more controversial than the evidence for the pericope or the comma. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the longer ending (but may leave space for it) while Alexandrinus (which is not quite as old) includes it. The patristic and ancient version witnesses are mixed.

If there were only two choices, ending at 16:8 or the traditional longer ending, I might be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the longer ending. But there is extant evidence of multiple endings, both longer and shorter, and that is more typical of an unwarranted addition than of an original text. It is very easy to explain the early appearance of these variations if Mark actually ended abruptly at 16:8 (my view) or if the true original ending was lost (an option I see as extremely unlikely) – they were added due to a desire to correct a perceived deficiency in the ending. However, if the true original was the traditional longer ending, what explains all these various editions of the ending? And furthermore, why would anyone leave it out? As time goes by the manuscript texts get longer because scribes are very hesitant to leave anything out that might truly be scripture.

precisely the problem which lead to the spread of the KJVO movement. Though, I should say, the leadership should have known better. But, those out working in the field with only Bible Institute education were fertile ground for the extremists in the KJVO camp.

[Sean Fericks]

Thanks for your answers. My problem now is where this leads. If we accept that the Pericope is not authentic, then how am I to trust the remainder of Scripture? As I understand it, our earliest manuscript is P52 (dated at appx. 125 AD; plenty of time to add and subtract major events and teachings). It is a small fragment. The first complete NT manuscript is from the 4th century, and it includes books we do not use, and excludes books that we do use.

to tar you with the KJVO brush. I meant to say your comments were valid. Many haven’t recognized the potential land mines (which you pointed out) in their comments.

[Sean Fericks]

Rob,

For the record, I grew up in a KJVO church, but have not been a part of that movement since my early 20s.

[Sean Fericks] Thanks for your answers. My problem now is where this leads. If we accept that the Pericope is not authentic, then how am I to trust the remainder of Scripture? As I understand it, our earliest manuscript is P52 (dated at appx. 125 AD; pleanty of time to add and subtract major events and teachings). It is a small fragment. The first complete NT manuscript is from the 4th century, and it includes books we do not use, and excludes books that we do use.

Sean,

I think it leads to a better understanding of the true text of Scripture. You don’t want to say, “Thus saith the Lord” if the thing you are saying wasn’t breathed out by God as Scripture, do you? And why wouldn’t you trust passages that have been confirmed over and over again by multiples text types, from various geographical locations, and from the full variety of dates, versions, and church fathers? The process of textual criticism doesn’t just cast doubt, it also reinforces as more manuscripts are discovered. We are in an era of confirmation and fine tuning, not significant changes.

What if you held to a certain interpretation of a particular passage, but as time when on, with further study and education, considering other passages or theological implications, you come to a different interpretation? Does that mean you can’t trust any of your other interpretations? No. It just means that you are refining your understanding of God’s word. The problem of a faulty interpretation is a way bigger problem with much larger implications for faith and practice than whether the pericope or any of the other textual variants is authentic or not. Nevertheless, we want to be as accurate as we can in both, right?

Sean,

I believe I have some understanding into your thought process on this issue. My own journey went something like this:

1. Childhood up to college I was in a church that was very traditional KJV, but we weren’t KJVO in the sense people mean now, and I never recall hearing anything about textual criticism. Some translations were regarded as very liberal, but not all — however those latter saw almost no use.

2. College at BJU — was exposed to more translations than I had previously used; heard a little about the textual differences.

3. Married a spouse from Germany. Learned German and began to read the Bible in a language other than English.

4. Was at a church that went from being a CT church to strongly KJVO over several years. Because I was struggling with the type of issues you mention above, the KJVO position was initially attractive. Eventually, after much reading, study, prayer, and listening to many messages on this topic, I decided that although I agreed with the general doctrine of preservation, the extension of that doctrine to only the texts behind the KJV made no more sense to me given all the evidence than hearing about sections of scripture that might not be authentic. At first, it seemed very reassuring to hear that a text exists that is perfect and unchanged from the autographs, but when I looked at the evidence, that certainty was really only a house built on sand.

5. Now at church that uses ESV, but certainly does not denigrate the KJV at all, and I still use the KJV (on iPhone) as my pew Bible. I still have questions about the textual evidence, what method to use to give certain text families weight, which texts are more accurate, etc. However, although it can seem unnerving to deal with questions of authenticity and grapple with the implications of what it means to not have 100% certainty, I still feel that it’s being more honest than claiming 100% certainty for something which has just as many issues, if they are examined closely.

So what does this mean for our confidence in the scriptures? For me, it simply indicates that though I lack certainty that any particular copy of the scriptures I hold in my hand is 100% = the autographs (translation aside), because of the available evidence, I can agree with someone like Andy that what we are doing now is no more than tweaking, not wholesale revision. Might I miss something God wants me to do or not do because I don’t have the autographs? Maybe, but I’m content with how much I already fall short and how much work and study there is to do to attempt to obey what I have in front of me. Further, I believe both evidence and faith give me enough confidence in the words behind scripture so that even if what I have isn’t perfect, it’s clearly distinguishable from any false texts like the Koran.

Like anyone else, I’d love to have 100% certainty. I have to be content with the fact that God has not preserved his word in that way (for us here on earth).

Like most Christians, I’ve spent most of my life believing that the Bible was inspired and inerrant in the original languages and that there were translations that were good and not so good. My first introduction to the textual debate was in seminary. As we discussed the means whereby we could discover the original reading in cases where there were differences, I was taught that the older the manuscript, the more likely it was original. I remember rudely asking, “Who decided on that rule?” Thankfully, my professor chose to propose that the “older is better” rule had equal standing with a majority reading position.

I’ll admit I entertained the TR view for a while, but I’ve settled comfortably into a Majority Text position.

Sean,

Thanks for the follow up post. I think it helps clarify where you are coming from.

Regarding adding things during the first 100 years, it is certainly possible for this to have happened but there are several things to keep in mind:

Copies of the original documents were spread across a wide geographical area very quickly, as Christians moved around and as churches started. Just think about the places Paul went on his missionary journey and where the other apostles went off to around the world. The benefit of having textual evidence from church fathers, ancient versions, and copied manuscripts from wide and diverse geographical origins means that no one person or group could make changes without those changes being noticed. This is one of the reasons we know that the comma is not authentic.

During the formation of the NT canon, when new books were being written and disseminated throughout the early church, God gave the church special spiritual gifts to help them determine authentic writings from non-authentic writings (cf., what Paul says in 1 Cor 14:37, “if anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord”). Without going into this too deeply, I think these spiritual gifts were intended by God not only to help establish the canon but to prevent exactly what you are talking about from occurring during those early, formative years.

As far as the apostles’ memory is concerned, recall that they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who would guide them into all the truth (John 16:13) and bring all things to their remembrance (John 14:26). If your friends and family are suggesting the Bible is unreliable because of apostolic memory loss or hyperbole, then really, the reliability of the transmission of scripture is not their problem, it is that they don’t believe God’s revelation to them, period. You don’t have a higher or more persuasive authority than the Scriptures to appeal to, and until the Holy Spirit convinces and convicts them of its truth, you will get push back regardless of what you say.

James White’s The King James Only Controversy is a very helpful book about the text and transmission of the NT. You might find it helpful. It’s not a book attacking the KJV - it’s attacking the idea of KJVO-onlyism. In order to do that, it delves into the issue of the text and transmission of the NT. If you haven’t read it before, you’d probably find it helpful and useful. The brief answers Andy mentioned (above) are fleshed out quite a bit in that book.

There are a couple other books that have helped me clarify my thinking on textual criticism.

1. God’s Word Preserved - by Mike Sproul

2. From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man: A layman’s guide to how we got out Bible - ed. James Williams and Randolph Shaylor

3. God’s Word in Our Hands: the Bible preserved for us - ed. James Williams and Randolph Shaylor (follow-up/expansion of book 2)

Just a couple of thoughts to add to the conversation.

Mark has a particular style. When he reports something that Jesus said he typically also reports on the fulfillment of what He said. Thus, for Mark to report 16:7 and not have a fulfillment of those words would be uncharacteristic of him. Mark opens his work stating that he is offering the “good news” about Jesus (1:1). It would seem that an account that closes with siilence and fear may not fit with his stated intention (16:8). Thus, Mark 16:8 as the ending strikes me as incredibly “non-Mark-like.”

Without a doubt, there is debate about the manuscript evidence in support of the Longer Ending. However, despite the various endings that exist in extant manuscripts, the lectionaries that date from the earliest days of the church do include the Longer Ending as part of the regular readings for the church. Although the dates for the lectionary manuscripts is late, most recognize that these collected readings reflect very early church tradition (pre-dating the oldest textual witnesses to Mark ending with 16:8). Even if the ending is considered “non-Markan,” apparently the earlier church considered it canonical. Also, both Irenaeus and Justin Martyr appear to recognize the Longer Ending as part of Mark (and their writings also pre-date the oldest textual witnesses to the shortest ending of Mark).

Thus, the Longer Ending not only has been accepted as canonical (only being questioned in relatively recent days in the life of the church), but seems also to make sense of a Gospel that would be left incomplete if Mark 16:8 was “all he wrote.” I like N. T. Wright’s comment:

I tried for some years to believe that Mark was really a postmodernist who would deliberately leave his gospel with a dark and puzzling ending, but I have for some time now given up the attempt. Grammatically, the gospel could have ended with “for they were afraid” (ephobounto gar); structurally, it could not have ended without the story of the risen, vindicated Jesus. (Tom [N. T.] Wright, Mark for Everyone [London: SPCK, 2001] , 136.)