How Did We Get The Bible? (part 8)

So what exactly is textual criticism? How do you do it? It does not mean that we are criticizing the text of Scripture; textual criticism of the Bible has nothing inherently to do with critiquing the Bible. Instead, textual criticism means thinking critically about manuscripts and variations in the biblical texts found in those manuscripts, in order to identify the original reading of the Bible.

6 questions regarding Textual Criticism:

Question #1: Who was Westcott and Hort? Why are they important?

Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort were 19th-century theologians and Bible scholars. Together, they produced The New Testament in the Original Greek, one of the earliest examples of modern textual criticism. Since its publication in 1881, Westcott and Hort’s work has proved to be impressively accurate, though far from perfect.
The goal of textual criticism is removing changes, errors, and additions to a text in order to determine the original words. The King James translators, for example, generated their work from a series of manuscripts, none of which exactly matches their final product. They chose between variant readings or spellings, deciding what was most likely original through various techniques. This process continues today, albeit with a much greater number of manuscripts available. The differences between the various texts are trivial, amounting to less than one half of one percent of the words in the New Testament.
Not all textual critics use the same methods or give the same weight to certain manuscript families. The specific methods used by Westcott and Hort are no longer held as ideal by Bible scholars. Modern research considers their approach overly reliant on two manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as well as the principle of “shorter is earlier.” For these reasons, though the effective differences are minimal, The New Testament in the Original Greek is not the basis for any modern translation of the Bible. Rather, the United Bible Societies and Nestle-Aland critical texts are typically sourced for English translations today.
Unfortunately, Westcott and Hort are still infamous names with respect to the Bible, despite their text not being the basis of any major modern translations. Most mentions of the pair today are from detractors of their work, particularly those supporting the King James Only Movement (KJVO). Such critics tend to focus entirely on Westcott’s and Hort’s non-orthodox spiritual beliefs. In truth, both men held to several ideas that modern conservative Christianity would consider heretical. Then again, the same can be said for church fathers such as Origen, Jerome, and Augustine. The bottom line is this: Bible scholars such as Erasmus, Wycliffe, and Tyndale had further the discipline of Textual Criticism, Westcott and Hort advanced the work of their predecessors and produced a scholarly resource for the study of the Bible.

Question #2: What are the most important Greek manuscripts?

Papyri. All of the very earliest extant manuscripts of the Greek NT are papyri. They date from the middle of the 2nd century through the 4th century, although one (P74) is as late as the 7th century. Although most are fragmentary, together they include a considerable portion of the NT. In spite of their early date, the reliability of the papyri is reduced by the fact that many of them were copied by nonprofessional scribes and show a consequent lack of attention to small details.

Two collections of NT papyri are especially significant. The Chester Beatty collection, acquired in 1930-1931, includes the following:

a) P45, containing approximately one-seventh of the text of the gospels and Acts, dating from the early 3rd century.
b) P46, which includes a large portion of the Pauline epistles (except the pastorals), plus Hebrews, dating from the early 3rd century.
c) P47, comprising roughly one-third of the text of Revelation, dating from the 3rd century.

Most of the leaves of the Beatty papyri are in the Chester Beatty collection in Dublin, although thirty of the eighty-six leaves of P46 are in the University of Michigan collection, and some fragments of one leaf of P45 are in Vienna. These three papyri were published by Sir Frederic Kenyon, in fascicules containing the printed text as well as photographs.

The second and perhaps even more significant collection of NT papyri is that of the Bodmer Library in Geneva, Switzerland. Little is known of the actual source of these manuscripts. The collection includes the following manuscripts of the Greek NT:

a) P66, containing a large part of the gospel of John, dated by some authorities as early as the middle of the 2nd century and thus the oldest extensive manuscript of any part of the NT.
b) P72, which includes the Epistle of Jude and the two Epistles of Peter together with numerous other writings, dating from the 3rd century.
c) P73, a small fragment of Matthew.
d) P74, noteworthy in that it is a papyrus manuscript although written in the 7th century, containing Acts and the Catholic Epistles in fragmentary form.
e) P75, which contains much of Luke and John, dating from near the end of the 2nd century or slightly later.
f) The oldest known fragment of the Greek NT, possibly even older than P66, is a small fragment in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, designated P52, containing a few lines from John 18. Dated in the first half of the 2nd century by its editor and by other paleographers.

Uncials. Extant uncial manuscripts (on parchment) number 250, varying from small fragments of a few verses to the complete NT. Dating from the 4th through the 10th centuries, and thus later than most of the papyri, their significance is greater than that of the papyri because they are so much more extensive in content. The following are some of the more significant or representative uncials:

a) א (Aleph, 01), Codex Sinaiticus, from the 4th century, containing both OT and NT complete, in the British Museum in London. Its discovery by Constantin Tischendorf in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai (hence its name) is a fascinating story. It is one of the most important manuscripts of the NT in existence. Its text is arranged in four columns to the page, in a neat hand with little adornment. The pages are about fifteen by thirteen inches. Brought from Mt. Sinai to Russia in 1859 by Tischendorf, who considered it so important that he was unwilling to have it assigned to an obscure place in the then-current alphabetical listing of manuscripts, he assigned to it instead the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
b) A (02), Codex Alexandrinus, a 5th-century manuscript, containing most of both Testaments (lacking, in the NT, almost all of Matthew, part of John, and most of 2 Corinthians), is displayed in the British Museum alongside Codex Sinaiticus. It was presented in 1627 to King Charles I of England by the Patriarch of Constantinople, who had obtained it in Alexandria. Its pages are approximately ten by thirteen inches. The text, two columns to the page, has somewhat more ornamentation than Codex Sinaiticus.
c) B (03), Codex Vaticanus, written about the middle of the 4th century, and located in the Vatican Library since the 15th century or longer, is perhaps the single most important extant manuscript of the NT. It originally contained both Testaments and part of the Apocrypha; the manuscript now lacks most of Genesis and part of the Psalms in the OT, and part of Hebrews and all of Titus, Timothy, Philemon, and Revelation in the NT. The pages are approximately eleven by eleven inches in size. The text, very neat and without adornment, is printed in three columns to the page.
d) C (04), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, is the most important palimpsest manuscript of the Greek NT. It is located in the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris. Written in the 5th century, it evidently originally contained both Testaments. In the 12th century its Biblical text was scraped off, most of the leaves were discarded, and the remaining ones were written over with some of the writings of St. Ephraem. Tischendorf read and published the Biblical text, but the use of chemicals in an attempt to restore the erased text have further defaced the manuscript. The extant portions of the manuscript include parts of almost all of the NT books.
e) D (05), Codex Bezae, is a 6th-century manuscript of the gospels and Acts, which has been in the Cambridge University library since it was presented to the university by Theodore Beza in 1581. The text is written in one column to the page, but in lines of greatly varying length. It is a bilingual manuscript, with Greek and Latin on facing pages. The gospels are in the order—Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark. This is in what is known as the “Western text”.
f) Dpaul(06), Codex Claromontanus, of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, is a 6th-century manuscript containing the Pauline epistles and Hebrews. By remarkable coincidence, both manuscripts designated “D” are bilingual, both have Greek and Latin on facing pages (Greek on the left), both have the text in “sense lines” of irregular length, and both are representatives of the peculiar “Western text.”
g) N (022), Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus, is written in silver letters on purple vellum, as are also Codex O (023), Σ (042), and Φ (043). All four of these manuscripts are from the 6th century. Most of Codex N is in Leningrad, but parts of it are in several other locations.
h) W (032), Codex Freerianus, or Washingtonensis, is a 4th or 5th century manuscript of the Freer Art Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Like Codex D, it contains the gospels in the Western order.
i) 14 (040), Codex Zacynthius, in the library of the British and Foreign Bible Society in London, is a palimpsest of the gospel of Luke from the 8th century.

Minuscules. Minuscule manuscripts outnumber uncials ten to one. Although a larger percentage of uncials than minuscules may have perished because of the greater antiquity of the uncials, the disparity in numbers of the surviving manuscripts doubtless points to the fact that the minuscule handwriting made the copying of manuscripts a much more rapid and less expensive process. The following minuscule manuscripts should be mentioned:

a) 1, a 12th-century manuscript containing the NT except Revelation, in Basel, Switzerland. It was one of the manuscripts used by Erasmus in the preparation of the first published edition of the Greek NT. “Family 1” is the term given to a group of minuscules—1, 118, 131, 209, and 1582— all dating from the 12th to the 14th centuries, whose text is very closely related and is significantly different from the type of text current in the minuscules in general.
b) 2, a 12th-century manuscript of the gospels located in Basel, which was also used by Erasmus.
c) 13, a 13th-century manuscript of the gospels now located in Paris. “Family 13” is a closely-related group of minuscules, including 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, and a few others. One unique feature of this group is that the story of the woman taken in adultery follows Luke 21:38instead of John 7:52. Family 13 is in turn textually related to Family 1.
d) 33, called “queen of the cursives [i.e., minuscules]” because of its excellent text, dates from the 9th or 10th century and contains the NT except Revelation. It is located in Paris.
e) 81, one of the few manuscripts containing the date of its composition (1044), contains Acts in an excellent text. It is located in London.
f) 565, a 9th-10th century manuscript of the gospels, located in Leningrad, written in gold letters on purple vellum, is one of the most beautiful of the manuscripts of the NT. Its text frequently differs from the common minuscule text and is related to the text of Families 1 and 13.
g) 700, dating from the 11th or 12th century, also differs frequently from the common text of the minuscules and has affinities to 565 and Families 1 and 13. It shares with one other (162) the reading, “May thy Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us,” instead of “Thy kingdom come,” in the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11:2.
h) 1424, owned by the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Maywood, Illinois, is a 9th-or-10th century manuscript that contains the entire NT, with an accompanying catena for all except Revelation. Together with Codex M and more than twenty-five other minuscules it comprises Family 1424.

Question #3: How many manuscripts of the New Testament are there?

Ancient versions

The following are the groups of significant ancient manuscripts of the NT:

Greek—5795 manuscripts (see above)
Syriac—300 manuscripts

Although Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic the language of Palestine at the time of Jesus, the extant Syriac manuscripts are all translated from Greek originals and thus farther removed from the original accounts than is the Greek text.

The Diatessaron. Although it is not even certain whether this work was composed in Greek or Syriac, it may be discussed along with Syriac manuscripts because of its influence on the Syrian church. Written in the middle of the 2nd century by a certain Tatian, the Diatessaron (“through the Four”) was a continuous gospel harmony that combined material from all four gospels. In 1933, a fragment in Greek, supposedly from the Diatessaron, was found in the Middle East. No other manuscripts of this work are known, the closest evidence being the NT quotations in St. Ephraem’s Syriac commentary on the Diatessaron. Harmonies in several other languages are assumed to show influence of the Diatessaron.
The Old Syriac. Apart from the Diatessaron, part or all of the NT had been translated into Syriac by the beginning of the 3rd century or slightly earlier. This early version survives in two manuscripts of the gospels: a 5th century manuscript edited by William Cureton in 1858 and known as the Curetonian Syriac (Syrc), and a 4th century palimpsest manuscript, discovered in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai in 1892 and known as the Sinaitic Syriac (Syrs). These two manuscripts differ from each other more than the normal scribal differences between manuscripts: the Sinaitic may represent an earlier form of which the Curetonian is a later revision.
The Peshitta. Near the end of the 4th century a new version of the NT in Syriac was made. This version did not include 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Since both branches of the Syrian church accept the Peshitta (Syrp), it must have been in use prior to their split in a.d.431. The Peshitta, which is still the Syriac version in common use (the missing books being supplied from the Philoxenian version), is known in more than 300 manuscripts, some of which date from the 5th and 6th centuries.
The Philoxenian. In 508, a Syriac NT was completed by a certain Polycarp for Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabug in Syria. What is possibly the only extant manuscript of the Philoxenian (Syrph), contains only the books that were not included in the Peshitta: 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.
The Harkleian. It is not clear whether Thomas of Harkel, who was Bishop of Mabug after Philoxenus, in 616 merely reissued the Philoxenian version and added some marginal notes from a few Greek manuscripts, or whether his work was a thorough revision entitled to be called a new version, to which he added marginal readings that he believed were significant but not warranting a place in the text itself. If the latter is true, then the Philoxenian version survives only in the manuscripts referred to above. It is the marginal readings of the Harkleian version (Syrh) that have been of particular significance in textual criticism, especially in Acts.
The Palestinian. Probably about the 5th century, another Syriac version was produced, which is not closely related to any of the other Syriac versions. Known as the Palestinian Syriac (Syrpal), it is unique in that, except for a few fragments of continuous text manuscripts, it has survived only in lectionary form, which is preserved in three manuscripts of the 11th and 12th centuries. It may have been translated originally from a Greek lectionary.

Latin—10,000 manuscripts

The Old Latin (itala). Although Greek was commonly known and spoken throughout most of the Roman empire during the first two or three centuries of the Christian era, the need for a Latin translation of the Scriptures soon arose. The manuscripts of the Old Latin differ so much among themselves that it appears that the Old Latin is not one version but numerous translations, which accords with the statement by Augustine that in the early days of the Christian era anyone who had a Greek manuscript and thought he knew both Greek and Latin attempted to make a Latin translation. Colloquialisms and unsophsiticated expressions in the Old Latin support the theory that it originated among the common people.

Of the fifty or so Old Latin manuscripts that are known, none contains the NT in its entirety, although together they include most of the NT. The manuscripts date from the 4th through the 13th centuries, which indicates that the Old Latin was in use to some extent long after it had officially been superseded by the Vulgate. Old Latin manuscripts are cited by single lower-case letters plus abbreviations such as aur, ff2, gig, and ph.

The Vulgate. With the passage of time, the great variations within the Old Latin became more evident and more unacceptable. In 382, Pope Damasus appointed Jerome, the outstanding Biblical scholar of that day, to undertake a revision of the Latin to bring it into conformity with the Greek. Within two years Jerome had completed his revision of the gospels, stating that he changed the Latin only where he felt it was actually necessary. The rest of the NT was eventually finished, although the revision was more cursory; some have questioned the extent to which the revision outside the gospels is the work of Jerome himself.

Jerome’s revision, known as the Vulgate, revised numerous times through the centuries, formed the basis of what is still the official version of the Roman Catholic Church. Some 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate are extant, twice as many as the number of Greek manuscripts, which suggests that the Vulgate Bible as the most frequently copied work of ancient literature.

Coptic—975 manuscripts

Early in the Christian era an alphabet was developed for the Egyptian language using Greek letters with some additional forms taken from the older demotic script that, with the hieratic, were derivatives of the hieroglyphic writing of more ancient times. From the Nile delta to the southern part of the country, some six dialects of the language existed. The most significant for NT study are from each end of this geographical area.

Sahidic. Part of the NT was translated into Sahidic, by the beginning of the 3rd century, and the complete NT was available within a century. Almost the entire NT is preserved in the extant manuscripts, the oldest of which is from the 4th or the 6th century.
Bohairic. The dialect of Alexandria and Lower Egypt, Bohairic, seems to have received the NT later than Sahidic; perhaps in the region of the literary capital of Egypt, it was sufficiently well-known that a translation was not needed until later. Some one hundred manuscripts of the NT in Bohairic are extant, but the oldest known of these, until recently, was written in the 12th cent., which caused some scholars to postulate a very late date for the origin of the version. The recent publication, however, of a 4th-century papyrus manuscript of John in Bohairic, from the Bodmer Library, makes it clear that the version originated in the 4th century or earlier.
Middle Egyptian dialects. Between the regions of the Sahidic and the Bohairic dialects, at least part of the NT was translated into other dialects of Coptic. In Fayumic and sub-Achmimic most of John is extant. Manuscripts in Achmimic include parts of the gospels and Catholic Epistles dating from the 4th or 5th century.

Gothic—6 manuscripts

The NT was translated into Gothic at the middle of the 4th century by Ulfilas, whom Metzger (Text of the NT, 82) and others credit with having reduced the language to writing as well. This version survives in about six manuscripts, all from the 5th and 6th centuries and all fragmentary. One, Codex Argenteus, in the University Library of Uppsala, Sweden, containing portions of the gospels, is written in silver ink on purple vellum (hence its name). All of the other manuscripts are palimpsests.

Armenian—2000 manuscripts

The NT was translated into Armenian in the first half of the 5th century. It was translated. directly from Greek by St. Mesrop, who also created the Armenian alphabet, with the help of St. Sahak; or, according to another tradition, it was translated by St. Sahak from Syriac. A revision appeared later, which became the dominant form of the version by the 8th century and is the basis of the Armenian text still in use. Not only is the Armenian version regarded as a very beautiful and accurate translation, but there are also more extant manuscripts—more than 1,500—of this version than of any other NT versions except the Vulgate. Almost all of the manuscripts however, are later than the 9th century and represent the revised form of the version.

Georgian—43 manuscripts

Christianity was introduced into Georgia, situated between the Black and Caspian Seas, in the 4th centuty. The origin of the Georgian version of the NT is uncertain, but it is attributed by some to the same St. Mesrop who is associated with the Armenian version, and its origin placed in the early 5th century. It was evidently either translated from or influenced by the Armenian version. The last of several revisions, which was made by about the 11th century, is the basis of the Georgian version still in use. Extant manuscripts are numerous, although three that date from the late 9th and 10th centuries are believed to retain more elements of the Old Georgian.

Ethiopic—600 manuscripts

Although quite a few of the Ethiopic versions are known, the fact that none of them are earlier than the 13th century has added to the difficulties of establishing a date for the origin of the version, with extreme views of the 2nd century and the 14th century having been suggested. Most likely it originated near the 6th century, although possibly earlier, translated either from Syriac or directly from Greek.

Slavonic—4000 manuscripts

The NT in Old Slavonic is credited to two brothers, St. Cyril and St. Methodius, who seem to have originated the two forms of the Slavonic alphabet, the Cyrillic and the Glagolitic. These brothers, who became missionaries to the Slavs, translated the NT in the second half of the 9th century. The version may originally have been in lectionary form, which is the form of the text in most of the extant manuscripts.

Question #4: How many variants are there in the New Testament?

There are four types of Textual Variants:

Group #1: Neither meaningful nor viable (they don’t change the meaning and have no chance of being original)

Group #2: Viable but not meaningful (they don’t change the meaning and have a chance of being original)

Group #3: Meaningful but Not viable (they do change the meaning, but have no chance of being original)

Group #4: Both Viable and meaningful (they do change the meaning and do have a chance of being original)

Group #1 and #2: Textual Variants That Are NOT Meaningful, Even If Viable.

These are Textual Variants which have no effect on anything. These comprise over 75% of all textual variants, which means over 75% of textual variants have no effect on anything whatsoever.

In fact, the most common type of Textual Variant is spelling differences, often a single letter. Remember, there was no dictionary in ancient times, and thus no defined right or wrong way to spell a word. The single most common textual variant is called a “moveable Nu“, with “Nu” being the Greek letter which sounds like our “N”.

In English, we have this rule too. (Sort of).

In English the indefinite article “a” gets an “n” added when the next word starts with a vowel. For example:

“This is a book.”

“This is an owl.”

Other examples include when one manuscript has “Jesus Christ”, and another has “Christ Jesus”, with only the order changed.

Another example spells John’s name two different ways in Greek: Ιω?ννης and Ιω?νης. Both are viable options.

Again, it simply doesn’t matter which is original because there’s no impact on meaning.

Group #3: Textual Variants That Are Meaningful, But Not Viable.

These are variants where it’s essentially impossible for them to have been original, even if they would change the meaning of the text. Typically, these variants are found only in a single manuscript, or in a small group of manuscripts from one small part of the world. Most often, they are simple scribal errors.

I have a rather humorous example:

1 Thessalonians 2:7

But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children.

There is a Textual Variant on the word “gentle”. Most manuscripts read “gentle”, some read “little children” and one manuscript reads “horses”. It’s easy to explain these variants when you see how these words are spelled in the Greek, so here are the first three words of the verse in each textual variant:

Alla Egenēthēmen ēpioi (gentle)

Alla Egenēthēmen nēpioi (little children)

Alla Egenēthēmen hippioi (horses)

Context tells us that nēpioi (little children) can’t be intended, and since the previous word begins with “n”, it’s easy to see how the mistake was made (doubling the “n”). Often, one scribe would read while several other scribes copied. If you heard it read, you’d realize it’s an easy mistake to make because they sound almost identical. (Because the previous word ends with an “n” sound)

Further, there’s no possible way that hippioi (horses) was intended. It was a simple scribal error, easily noticed and just as easily corrected. Both Textual Variants are meaningful, but it’s nearly impossible for them to be original (they aren’t viable).

Another example is related to Luke 6:22 which says (in all of the manuscripts):

“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man.”

However, we have a single eleventh century manuscript, Codex 2882, which says:

“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil.”

Notice this ancient document does not include the phrase “on account of the Son of Man.” This is a meaningful variant. In the first case, Jesus is offering a blessing on those who are hated and mistreated because of their allegiance to Christ. In the second case, Jesus is blessing anyone who is hated and mistreated for any reason. Since this aberrant reading only occurs in one late manuscript, it is not viable.

These types of Textual Variants make up 24% of all Textual Variants. Combined with the ones that aren’t meaningful, you have over 99% of all Textual Variants make no impact on meaning whatsoever.

Textual Variants That Are Meaningful And Viable

Meaningful and viable is the smallest and most significant group of variants. These have a good chance of being authentic and they change the meaning of the text. This group accounts for less than 1% of all textual variants. If you do the math, less than 4,000 variants of the 400,000 total variants are both viable and meaningful.

Let me give you an example from 1 John 1:4. New Testament scholars debate over whether this text should say,

“And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete”

“And we are writing these things so that your joy may be complete.”

In the original language, these two words differ by only one letter. The meaning of 1 John 1:4 is clearly altered depending on which rendering is used.

It is this small subset of variants that is a legitimate cause for concern. However, no major doctrines depend on any meaningful and viable variants. In fact, Bart Ehrman was once asked if these variants put the core tenets of Christian orthodoxy in jeopardy.

Ehrman responded, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

In the next question we will examine the most well-known of these types of variants which are 1) The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8; 2) The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) and 3) the last 12 verses in Mark’s Gospel.

Question #5: What variants are the most controversial in the New Testament?

John 7:53—8:11

The story of the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53—8:11) is arguably one of the most beloved Jesus stories in the New Testament which includes the familiar quotation, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” However, the story is missing from some ancient manuscripts of John, as noted already by early church fathers like Jerome and Augustine. For this and other reasons, a majority of modern scholars regard the passage as a later insertion, and some even want to remove it altogether from our Bibles.
To be sure, the story is often marked out in various ways in both scholarly editions and Bible translations, for example, by double brackets and an accompanying footnote explaining that it is missing in the earliest manuscripts, including Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus from the third and fourth centuries, and goes unmentioned by Greek church fathers until the twelfth century.
There is indeed a wide scholarly consensus that the story was not originally a part of the Gospel of John, but on the other hand, it may well go back to a very early tradition about Jesus and a woman accused of many sins, which gradually found its way into John.
The earliest reference to such a story is found in the Didascalia Apostolorum, a third-century book of instructions on living a Christian life, which survives in Syriac:
“But if you do not receive him who repents, because you are without mercy, you shall sin against the Lord God. For you do not obey our Savior and our God, to do even as He did with her who had sinned, whom the elders placed before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, and departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her: “Have the elders condemned you, my daughter?” She said to him: “Nay Lord.” And He said unto her: “Go, neither do I condemn you.” In this then let our Savior and King and God, be to you a standard, O bishops, and imitate Him.”
Eusebius (c. 260–c. 340) in his church history attributes a similar story to Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130) and the now lost Gospel of the Hebrews.
Furthermore, Didymus the Blind (c. 313–398) says he found the story “in certain gospels,” a reference which likely suggests he did not know the passage from John, but from a different gospel.
The earliest manuscript evidence for the passage in John is the Greek-Latin Codex Bezae (c. 400 AD) which contains the story in its traditional place both in Greek and Latin on facing pages. Interestingly, later annotators have marked out the story in the margins, probably because it was treated separately in the liturgy.
It is probably no coincidence that the story first turns up in a Greek-Latin manuscript, because it apparently became established much earlier in the Latin West even though it clearly originated in Greek. Indeed, the story was assigned a chapter in Latin manuscripts at an early stage, probably in the early third century. The Latin church father Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–397) knew it from the traditional place in John and cited it in different writings but in varying textual form. Perhaps this was because he translated the story himself from one or several Greek manuscripts.
There is much to suggest that the story had been assigned its own “chapter” (kephalaion) in Greek gospel manuscripts no later than the fifth century. Unlike our modern chapters, this particular system of “Old Greek chapters” marks out the highlights in each of the four gospels with a focus on Jesus’ miracles and teachings. Thus, the first kephalaion in John was placed at John 2:1 (the wedding in Cana). Most extant Byzantine manuscripts contain eighteen chapters in John, but some add a nineteenth chapter—the story of the adulteress—as chapter ten.
The story of the woman caught in adultery in Minuscule 1 (12th c.) is located at the end of the manuscript with a long, explanatory note about it.
Today, the large majority of surviving Greek manuscripts of John include the story. It is read in the Byzantine liturgy and thus accepted as inspired by the Greek Orthodox Church. It is part of the canonical Vulgate used by the Catholic Church, and it is present in virtually all Protestant Bible versions albeit often marked with brackets and footnotes.
On the other hand, it is clear that the story was interpolated into the Gospel of John at an early point in a climate of Gospel book production in which the story was regarded as “gospel.” Incidentally, from the concluding verse of the Fourth Gospel we learn that many stories about things that Jesus did were in circulation, some of which had not yet been written down (John 21:25), but genuine “gospel stories” all the same I presume.
So, should the beloved story of the Woman Caught in Adultery be read in our churches? Yes, but not as inspired scripture. The story has the earmarks of a genuine gospel story albeit not original to John.

1 John 5:7-8

"For there are three that testify: in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree."

The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.

The eight manuscripts are as follows:

61: Codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.

88: A variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.

221: A variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

429: A variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.

629: A fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.

636: A variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.

918: A sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.

2318: An eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis and codex Amiatinus).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius.
Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate.

Mark 16:9-20

Sometimes referred to as the "long ending of Mark," this portion of Mark's Gospel is not considered by most authorities to be in the original. Most English translations mark this section with brackets and note that our earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain it. It speaks of drinking poison and picking up snakes, but it also mentions the resurrection of Jesus. Considering that the resurrection of Jesus is affirmed elsewhere in Mark's Gospel and in the New Testament, this variant also does not impact any core doctrine.

If you’ve ever read through the Gospel of Mark, you may have come across an unusual note near the end of the book. For example, between 16:8 and 16:9, the ESV includes these words: “Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.” The NIV and CSB include similar notes at the same place.

Evidence For Mark 16:9–20

Evidence for including these verses is staggering. When we look at the manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel that survive today, more than 99 percent contain Mark 16:9-20. This includes not only 1,600-plus Greek manuscripts, but most manuscripts of early translations of Mark as well.
Moreover, by around AD 180, Irenaeus unambiguously quoted Mark 16:19 as Scripture in Against Heresies. Justin Martyr and Tatian likely knew the verses earlier in the second century as well. Undeniably, Mark 16:9-20 was considered by many Christians early on to be a part of Mark’s Gospel.

In light of all the evidence in support of Mark 16:9-20, why would anyone question its authenticity?

Evidence Against Mark 16:9–20

There are effectively just two Greek manuscripts that lack Mark 16:9-20. These are codices Sinaiticus (ℵ01) and Vaticanus (B03), two important manuscripts from the fourth century. It’s almost unimaginable that the copyists who made them were unaware of Mark 16:9-20, but at the end of the day, they left it out of their Bibles.
Once we look beyond the question of ℵ01 and B03 against the other 1,600-plus Greek manuscripts of Mark, the picture becomes more complicated.
At least 23 Greek manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20 also have anomalies like extra endings or notes that express doubts concerning the authenticity of these verses.
One important fourth-century Old Latin manuscript has a short addition after verse 8 and then ends without verses 9 to 20.
A valuable Old Syriac manuscript from the fourth century also ends Mark at 16:8.
A Sahidic Coptic manuscript (probably from the fifth century) ends Mark’s Gospel at 16:8 as well.
In 1937, E. C. Colwell identified 99 Armenian manuscripts of Mark (of 220 surveyed) ending at 16:8, and a further 33 containing 16:9–20 but with notes expressing doubt about the verses’ authenticity.

Furthermore, though more than 99 percent of manuscripts available to us now contain Mark 16:9-20, it may not always have been this way. A Christian named Marinus wrote to Eusebius (c. AD 265–339) to ask for help resolving a perceived contradiction between Matthew and Mark. Marinus asked why Matthew (28:1) says Jesus appeared “late on the Sabbath,” but Mark (16:9) says Jesus appeared “early on the first day of the week.” Eusebius responded that one possible solution to this problem was simply to reject Mark 16:9 as not part of Mark’s Gospel. “[T]he accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark [at 16:8] . . . in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies.”

Think about that. Eusebius told a Christian whose Bible contained Mark 16:9-20 that “nearly all the copies” of Mark, including “the accurate ones” lacked these verses, so they might not be inspired Scripture. Independent of Eusebius, fifth-century father Hesychius of Jerusalem affirmed that “the more accurate copies” of Mark ended at 16:8 as well.

In short, it’s hard to explain why Mark 16:9-20 would ever be removed. Yet we find it missing in early manuscripts in multiple languages and absent in the majority of Greek manuscripts according to Eusebius, whose remarks were repeated by Jerome. It’s much easier to explain why 16:9–20 would be added to the only Gospel that seems like it’s missing something, which is precisely what the compiler of one sixth-century commentary did. Without 16:9–20, there’s an empty tomb, but where is Jesus? It seems to me the women leaving the tomb weren’t the only ones afraid to be left hanging.

Question #6: Why do the KJV Only crowd hate other versions so much?

Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology.
The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.
Beyond the NKJV, other attempts (such as the KJ21 and MEV) have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.
Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).