Pericope Adulterae and Mark's Ending

Textual Variation and Why Manuscript Differences Matter

Well, tonight we are back in the second part of a lesson that we began last week. My intention was to go all the way last week and teach this entire lesson, but we got caught up on the first part and didn't make it through to the second and third.

What we are dealing with is textual variation. Textual variation deals with the fact that within the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, we have thousands of handwritten copies that span all the way from the 2nd century to about the 16th century.

And those handwritten manuscripts provide the basis for our English translation of the Bible. And none of those manuscripts are without variation. We have discussed this at length over the last several weeks, so I don't want to spend all of tonight discussing it.

But what we have noted, remember, is that there are hundreds of thousands of variants because we have over 5 ,000 handwritten manuscripts. And because we have those handwritten manuscripts, every time there is a variant, every time there is something introduced, whether it be a word order change or a misspelling or any of those things, that introduces a new variant.

So how many of you remember the number of variants? 400 ,000 variants approximately. How many words in the Greek New Testament? About 138 ,000 words. So that would mean there are about three variants for every one word.

And what did we say? That's just not the case because most of the variants, 99 of the variants, are meaningless. They are simply misspellings, word order changes, things like that. But there is a 1 that we have to deal with, and in that 1%, there are some that are viable and there are some that are not viable.

What does that mean? Viable means that they are potentially the original reading, and not viable means they're really not potentially the original reading. They don't have the pedigree. They don't have the historical foundation to really be considered possible as the original reading.

Had an interesting conversation in Sunday school this last week because one of the students, Ms. Rosanna, came in and she goes, what about Acts 8 .37? And Acts 8 .37 is a lot like John 5 .4. If you go to Acts 8 .37 or John 5 .4 in a ESV Bible, it's not there.

The number isn't even there. It's because that particular verse is considered to be one of the variants that's not viable. And you say, well, why would they leave the number in? Well, the numbering system has been around a lot longer than these variants have been understood and known, so that numbering system isn't going to change.

If you were to change the numbering system based on the variants, then you would have Bibles that just didn't make any sense if you had two or three people reading and trying to have a conversation. John 3 .16 wouldn't be John 3 .16 anymore.

It might be John 14 or John 3 .18 because a variant would make that change. So the numbers simply just skip over that. If you go to John 5 .4 in the ESV, it just goes from John 5 .3 to John 5 .5. If you go to Acts 8, it goes from Acts 8 .36 to Acts 8 .38.

There's no 37. There's a little note at the bottom that tells you what the variant says, but the variant is not listed because it's considered to be non-viable. Well, today what we are looking at and what we started last week are three of the most significant, at least in my opinion, somebody else may come up and have a different opinion, but I get to be the teacher now, so I can decide what I think.

And I think that the three that are most significant are what is known as the Kama Johannium, which is 1 John 5 .7, the Perikope Adoltre, which is John 7 .53 through 8 .11, and the longer ending of Mark, which is Mark 16 .9 -20.

Those three are the most significant in my mind. They're not the only variants, obviously, because we already talked about John 5 .4 and Acts 8 .37, but these particular variants, and I'll give you my reasoning, 1 John 5 .7 I think is particularly important because it deals with the doctrine of the Trinity and those who believe that it should be included argue that the people who excluded it did so because they were trying to abandon the doctrine of the Trinity.

That is not true. There's no historical evidence for that in any way, shape, or form, but those who argue for its inclusion believe it was taken out so as to take out the doctrine of the Trinity. Remember one of the things I said last week, I said if 1 John 5 .7 had been there at the Council of Nicaea, I believe that the Council of Nicaea would have used it as their argument for the doctrine of the Trinity, but the fact that they never cite it and never mention it in 325 indicates to me that it's because it wasn't there.

I believe it was introduced in the Latin tradition, made its way back into the Greek in the 16th century in the fourth edition of Erasmus' Textus Receptus. In fact, I'll give you a little history just to add on to last week.

Do you guys know a little German guy named Martin Luther? You've maybe heard of him, right? We've talked about him a few times here, right? He's one of my heroes. Martin Luther translated his German New Testament in the 1500s.

He translated his German New Testament based on the second edition of the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus had multiple editions. He based his German translation on the second edition of the Textus Receptus.

That is why the German Bible, which is still used today, Luther's translation, doesn't have the Communion, because it wasn't in Erasmus' first edition and it wasn't in his second edition. It was not introduced until later editions because of political pressure, because it was in the Latin.

But it was not in any of the Greek manuscripts and I don't believe it has any support. So I believe 1 John 5 -7 is non-viable. But it's very important because it deals with a serious doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity.

And what did I say last week? If I was given my choice, I would like it to be included. But it's not up to me. I don't get to make it true just because... You know, you can wish for something to be true and you're wishing for it to be true.

Don't make it true. And that's why I think a lot of people think faith is. Faith isn't wishing something to be true. We have to believe what is true. I tell people all the time, and I've probably shown you this before, but I say if you imagine a train and you've got an engine and you've got a cart and you've got a caboose, right?

That's a poorly drawn train. But you've got your engine, you've got your car, and you've got your caboose. And I say now there's three aspects to Christianity. There's facts, there's faith, and there's emotion.

I say if you had to put one that was driving everything else, what would it be? And a lot of people say, well, I'd put faith there. Because faith pulls everything else. Not true. And some people put emotions there, and that's really bad.

Don't ever let emotions drive the train. But I say what goes first is facts. Because if you have faith in something that isn't true, that's no good. The fact is, Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, he lived a sinless life, he died a substitutionary death, he rose three days later and he ascended to heaven, and he will return one day as the King of kings and Lord of lords to bring justice in the world, and to receive his people unto himself, and to bring wrath upon the ungodly.

Well, that's the facts. And if it weren't true, all the belief in the world wouldn't make it true. Right? So we have to say the facts come first. Right? So when it comes to our understanding of Scripture, and our understanding of the transmission of Scripture, and the tenacity of Scripture, we have to deal with the facts.

And the fact is, there are certain passages in the text which are considered to be spurious. Meaning, they have a questionable origin. And the three, like I said, that we're going to deal with, is first the text, or the first, the Communion, we already dealt with that one.

The Pericope Adulterae in John 7:53–8:11

Tonight we're going to look at the Pericope Adultery. One of my favorite stories. Turn to John chapter 7. In John chapter 7, I want you to go down to verse 53, which you will notice in the ESV is actually connected to chapter 8.

Because it does begin, essentially, the narrative of chapter 8. So John 7 and 53 to 8, 11. And I'm just going to read it as it reads in the ESV. But first of all, before we even read it in the ESV, let me ask you this.

Does anybody notice anything about how it is in the ESV? Anybody notice anything different? It's bracketed. Who said that? Noah said it's bracketed. Is yours that way too? And notice it is double bracketed.

It's not only bracketed, they put two brackets at the beginning and two brackets at the end. If you are reading an English translation that makes the point of bracketing the text, that is because those people who have translated it are putting a big question mark.

That's what those brackets are. Brackets are a question mark. But let's read it together. It says, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her. And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones.

And Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you.

Go, and from now on sin no more. Now, first of all, that is a wonderful, wonderful text. I hate that it's even, as I said with the Kama Yohaniam, I hate that we even have to discuss the reliability of it because it is so wonderful.

In fact, just to cover, if I were preaching it, just a few of the things to note. One, the hypocrisy of the men who brought the woman to Jesus, because you notice they didn't also bring the man. Where's the guy?

So there's hypocrisy here. There is also the reality that this is the only thing that we know Jesus wrote. Because Jesus didn't write any in the New Testament. So according to, if this is a legitimate text that we can look at as a genuine narrative from the life of Christ, the only thing he ever wrote that we know of is what he wrote with his finger in the ground.

And people have questioned for many years, what is it Jesus wrote? I kind of think he wrote the names of their girlfriends. No, I don't know if he did. But that would have been a good one. Actually, I think Ray Comfort made a better argument.

He said he thinks he wrote the Ten Commandments. And then said, he who is without sin casts the first stone. Either way, whatever Jesus wrote is not recorded. But again, this is a grand narrative, right?

So even to discuss questioning its authenticity, it does sort of make us shudder a bit. Because it is such a grand narrative. However, we have to deal with it. So I want to read to you from my notes on this particular passage.

It says, this entire section, 753 -811, traditionally known as the Pericope Adultery, is not contained in the earliest and best manuscripts and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John.

Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that this section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel of John. Bruce Metzger summarizes it this way.

He says, the evidence for the non-Johannine, meaning the non-John, origin of the Pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. Well, what is the evidence? External evidence is as follows. For the omission of this particular text, we have it missing from several codices, several texts, and several of the manuscripts that we have simply are missing.

It's just not there. And it appears that neither that ANC, that is, Oliphancy, these are manuscripts, was neither contained because they can do it by way of measurement, showing that there was not enough space for the missing pages that would have included that particular text.

Even if the pages aren't there, they can measure it and know if it would have been there and show that it actually wasn't a part of it. Later manuscripts have it with an asterisk even in the handwritten manuscripts.

As if to say, this part is in question even among those who are copying it. And then there are those who place it in different places. There are those who place it after John 7 .36, after John 21 .25, after John 8 .12, and one even places it in the Gospel of Luke.

So this particular section is sort of a floating narrative that had to find a place to call home, as it were. And so that all lends to the idea that it is likely not a part of the original. In evaluating this manuscript evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels, A is considered to be, rather, I'm sorry, excuse me, I don't want to say this.

There are certain portions that are of Byzantine text type, and because they're of Byzantine text type, it can't just argue that this is only an Alexandrian issue. You understand what I mean by that? We've been talking about the Alexandrian text and the Byzantine text, and that there are two textual families.

And there are some of the Byzantine manuscripts that also have this issue. So it isn't that somebody could say, well, this is just an Alexandrian problem. You understand? This is a problem which this particular text has problems on both sides.

So it's not as if somebody could say this is just those dastardly Egyptian texts, which is the argument, remember we said that some people argue that it came out of Egypt and everything that came out of Egypt is bad.

And so that particular argument sort of fails at that point. There are some other evidences. The fact that if you start at 752 and go to 812 and just take the entire narrative out, it would read naturally.

It would read with it missing as if it didn't need to be there. So there's that part of it as well. The fact that, as it was already mentioned, this is not similar to the rest of John's writing. And we have to consider that.

So these are just some things to consider. There are arguments for its inclusion. And I'll just read the arguments for its inclusion.

Can I say something? Yes. I was reading this last week, and I thought to myself, if they all went away, why did Jesus say again as Jesus spoke to them saying, and then the Pharisees answered him? I thought, why have the Pharisees just left?

Because, you know, they were all embarrassed. Yeah.

Like I said, it does. If you take it out, it fits as if it didn't. But again, a few of the notes from the people who are arguing for its inclusion. Number one, 753 fits in the context. If the last day of the great feast refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in booths for the week while visiting Jerusalem.

So that kind of answers your question there, the argument of, well, where did they go? Well, this is not saying they left completely, but they stopped the Feast of Booths. So that's how some people have argued what that meant and how that contextually worked.

I'm not saying I agree. I'm just saying this is one of the countering that particular question. Number two, there may be an allusion to Isaiah 9, 1 to 2 behind this text. John 8, 12 is the point where Jesus describes himself as the light of the world.

But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at early dawn. This is the dawning of the light of the world mentioned in Isaiah 9, 2. That, again, that's conjectural. It's not a good argument, but that is one of the arguments that's used.

So there are just a few things that people would use to argue. I think the greatest evidence against its inclusion is the fact that it is a floating text. Do you understand what I mean by that? It's found in different places in different manuscripts, which would indicate it's likely not part of the original of John.

Yes, sir?

He says the earliest John 7, which is 53.

Remember, we don't just have the early manuscripts, which are few. Remember, the further we go back, the fewer manuscripts we have. So when we talk about early manuscripts, we are talking of only a handful of those 5 ,000 or so.

We only have a handful that go back really, really early. So there is an argument, well, we only have a handful of manuscripts that go back that far. Yes, but we also have other things. We have commentaries that are written.

We have devotion books and lectionaries that were used by the early church. They don't cite it either. That's what it's referring to. So it's other sources as well that are, you know, wherein it is absent.

Yes, sir? I don't have that in my notes. Let me look real quick to see if I, yeah, I don't have the first instances of it. I'm sorry. Yeah, I didn't put that in here. One particular author, R .E. Brown, says it's closer stylistically to Luke than to John.

And one of them actually puts it in Luke 21 -38. So that's another argument against its inclusion. I'll read my final note. But this by nature is subjective as evidenced by the fact that strong statements can be given against such as well.

In terms of eternal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as authentic tradition about Jesus.

And it could well be that it is an ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced.

So consider this, the quote I just gave you. This point needs to be made. Even if it's not part of the original text, it could still be a true story. I know that's a big question mark though, right? And that's the point.

If we don't believe that it's part of the original manuscript, then we can't claim as scripture. However, I do like to think it's true. And you say, well, are you talking out of both sides of your mouth?

No, it can be true and not be part of the original writing of John. In fact, in John's own Gospel, he says there are so many things about Jesus that he did and said that had all of them been written down, all the libraries of the world wouldn't be able to contain all the information.

So there's a lot about Jesus that he did and said that we just don't know. So I tend to like to think it's true. But if I were preaching through the Gospel of John, which I'm sure at some point, if the Lord so tarries or lets me live, I'll get there one day.

We're in 1 Corinthians now and it looks like we've got a long road to hoe. But I mean, you know, if we get to the Gospel of John, I'm preaching through it. When I got to 753 through 811, I would stop.

I would explain textual variation. I would say I believe this text is a variant. I would then say I would like to think it is a true account, but I cannot preach it. My conscience, I cannot preach it as scripture.

That's my conscience. Yes, sir. Yes, yes, that's true. And as I said earlier, there's a lot in the narrative that can be gleaned. I think that the way that it describes Jesus and his forgiveness, I think the wisdom described there and his, you know, not automatically falling prey to their attempt to entrap him.

Because, you know, the whole story is based on entrapment. They want Jesus to either say stoner, and in which case they get to say, you're this guy preaching forgiveness and now you say stone this woman.

Or they want him to say forgiver and then they can say, look at you, you're easy on sin. This woman was caught in adultery. So it's sort of a catch 22. It's a lose-lose situation. If Jesus says stoner, then people are going to question his fidelity to all this grace talk.

And then if he says don't stoner, they can question his fidelity to the letter of the law. So there is it's a no win unless you're Jesus and you're smarter than everyone and you give them an answer. They can't refute, which is sure stoner.

The first one of you who is without sin, that's such a wonderful. And that's why I like to think it's true. But I don't think it's part of John's original writing. And so I can I can toe that line. And and I that's where I would be on that.

The Longer Ending of Mark and Its Doctrinal Problems

Now, the last one that we're going to look at is known as the longer ending of Mark. In regard to the longer ending of Mark, if you'll turn in your Bibles to Mark, chapter 16, you will notice again a set of double brackets beginning at verse nine.

But what I'd like to do before we get to the reading of the of the question text is I would like for us to read the passages before it. So go up back up to verse four. This is right after the stone has been found to be rolled back.

In fact, that's what verse four says. This is looking up. They saw that the stone had been rolled back. It was very large and entering the tomb. They saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed.

And he said to them, do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen. He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee.

There you will see him just as he told you. And they went out and fled from the tomb for trembling and astonishment had seized them. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. Stopping right there.

That, according to all that we're going to discuss in a minute, that is likely the end of Mark. And a lot of people say, now, wait a minute. That ends too quickly. You don't see Jesus alive. Well, just for the sake of clarity, that is true.

But it does say he is risen. So some people say by taking off the longer ending of Mark, you're removing the resurrection from Mark. That's not true. The empty tomb, the rolled back stone, the visitation of the angel, the women finding him not in the tomb, and the announcement he is risen is still in the Gospel of Mark without question.

The question comes in what came after that, and that's what we're going to read now. I do want to make one point, though, because I don't know if we've ever mentioned this before, if you've never heard me say it.

The Gospel of Mark is likely written from the accounts of Simon Peter. Because we know Matthew was an apostle. Mark was an associate of the apostles. John Mark, his mother, was the house where they had the Last Supper.

John Mark was very close to the apostles. And so John Mark is likely writing from the account of Peter. Then, of course, we have Luke, who is writing associate of Paul. And then, of course, the Gospel of John written by the apostle John.

So the reason why I point that out is because right here, when he says in verse 7, he says, But go tell his disciples and Peter he is going before you to Galilee. That's an interesting addition that none of the other gospel writers make.

And this is not the point of the lesson tonight, but I always like to point this out. I think at this point, Peter separates himself from the apostles because at this point in the narrative, he has rejected Christ.

He has denied him three times. And remember, it's in the end of the Gospel of John where Jesus restores him. How does Jesus restore Peter? Do you love me? Yes, you know that I love you. Do you love me?

Yes, you know that I love you. Do you love me? Three times. Why did Jesus ask him three times? Because he denied him three times. And there was a restoration that had happened. Well, this is in the midst of that.

And it could be the reason why it says, Go get my disciples and Peter. That Peter is not associating himself at that moment with the disciples because of his betrayal. Just an interesting... Yeah, I'm saying he's the one that this is...

This is his account. So the fact that it's here and not in the other manuscripts or not in the other gospels is just interesting to me that he would point out the fact that he wasn't identified with the apostles here.

That's just a note. That's just a little secondary thing I like to point out when I'm in this part of Mark. Now, here's where the text becomes questionable. Verse 9, it says, Now when he arose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, whom he had cast out seven demons.

She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things, he appeared in another form to two of them as they were walking into the country.

And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward, he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had saw him after he had risen.

And he said to them, Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe.

In my name they will cast out demons, they will speak in new tongues, they will pick up serpents with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them. They will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.

So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worketh with them, and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

First of all, just right away, we have to say that is the oddest collection of after-resurrection narrative, if you consider it in comparison to Matthew, Luke, and John. Because what it seems to be is part of John, the story of Mary Magdalene finding him, part of Luke, the two men on the road to Emmaus, and then part of the narrative where Thomas is unwilling to believe him, because he's condemning them for their hardness of heart, right?

But he doesn't even mention the fact that it was Thomas, but all of them that he condemns. And then it goes on to mention drinking poison and handling snakes. And by the way, that whole snake handling thing that happens up in Kentucky and all them places, West Virginia, this is the passage.

This is it. And it's a spurious passage, meaning it is probably not part of the original, making it even worse that they're tempting the Lord by grabbing them vipers. So just pointing that fact out. And by the way, if you ever heard that Sovereign Grace Family Church became a snake handling church, you will know that I have either died, or I have run, because I ain't here no more.

That ain't happening. No, no, no. This won't even be a snake welcoming church. We had a few years ago, we used to do live palms on Palm Sunday. We'd cut the palm trees down, or the palm branches off of the palmetto bushes, and we'd have the kids come in with live palms, and a snake got in right in here.

And then, no. Now we do cardboard palms, but they ain't playing that game no more. So, you know. So, how do we deal with this? Well, as you can see at the bottom of the ESV, it does make mention. It says, Some manuscripts end with 16 .8, others include 9 to 20, immediately after verse 8.

A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14. One Latin manuscript, after verse 8, the following. Other manuscripts include the same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9 to 20.

So again, there's a floating text that is in and out of some manuscripts. This whole section is out of the earliest manuscripts, and comes in later. I believe Mark 16, 9 through 20, was an attempt by a later scribe to solve what he considered to be the problem of Mark.

And what's the problem of Mark? We don't see a living Jesus after the resurrection. And to a scribe who is coming along, you see a living Jesus in Matthew. You see a living Jesus in Luke. You see a living Jesus in John.

There must be something missing. And because there must be something missing, we're going to take a little bit from here, and a little bit from there, and we're going to put... I'll give you this. If you want a really good message on this particular text, look up John MacArthur's last sermon in Mark.

John MacArthur, all of his sermons are available for free, ungraced to you. John MacArthur preached every verse of the New Testament over a period of about 40 years. It took him the whole 40 years, preached every verse of the New Testament.

The last sermon he did was the last verses of Mark, and he did a sermon on textual criticism, why he doesn't agree that it should even be in there, why he believes that it should end with verse 8, and it ends with expectation.

It ends with an open, empty tomb, and a risen Jesus. And it leaves you expecting what is to come. And he gives a great explanation as to why he doesn't agree with the 9 through 20 being in there, and I would encourage you to go listen to that, and hopefully he'll affirm some of the things that I've said and encourage your heart with that.

It's a wonderful message, and at the end, everybody applauds, because it was the end of 40 years of preaching. And it's kind of interesting, the fact that that was his last message to complete his preaching of the whole New Testament.

So, that is my recommendation to you. Let me just make a few points about this. Or did I see a hand? Did somebody have a question? Okay, I don't want to run too far ahead. Here's a few things to consider about this particular passage.

One, it's got a lot of evidence that argues for not including it externally, meaning that the manuscript evidence doesn't support it, the historical evidence doesn't support it, the fact that it's different in a lot of manuscripts and the fact that some manuscripts don't even include it, the fact that we have an argumentable reason as to why it would be included.

All these things are reasons why we can say, you know, it's not part of Mark's original. But there are some other things to consider from this that I think are even, I don't want to say more important, but even more, even more worthy of discussion.

And that is this, there are several things in this section alone that a lot of false teaching groups use to make doctrine out of. And that, to me, says something right there. For instance, look with me real quickly at verse 16.

It says, There is a group, there's a bunch of groups actually that connect baptism and salvation. One is the Restoration Movement, the Historic Churches of Christ would argue that you not only have to be a believer, but you have to be a believer who has been baptized in water by immersion in the name of Jesus alone.

And if you haven't been baptized in water by immersion in the name of Jesus alone, you are not saved because your sins have not been remitted. They have not been forgiven. And one of the arguments, one of the verses that they will use, it's actually three, they have the big three.

It's Acts 2 .38, 1 Peter 3 .21, and Mark 16 and verse 16. So those three passages are what I call the big three baptism passages that anybody who's dealing with baptism has to deal with. And I don't agree with the doctrine of baptism and regeneration.

I think it robs salvation of being by grace alone, but that's a conversation for another day. But the point of the matter is, though, this particular passage is one of the passages that they use to argue it.

It says, So that's a particular passage which would agree with the argument that baptism is part of the salvation experience, a necessary part. Now, my Baptist brethren have found a loophole, and I can call them my Baptist brethren because I spent seven years at a Baptist school, and I've heard every argument, and they say, well, it doesn't, this is what it says, it's whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will not be saved.

And they'll say, well, see, it doesn't say whoever's not baptized will not be saved. And so they kind of skirt the issue by adding that little extra in there, or whoever does not believe will be condemned.