The Books of the New Testament
In March 2003, a new work of fiction appeared on the market; by April 6, it was number one on the New York Times bestseller list — the book, Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.18 It didn’t drop off the list until November 2005!19 This immensely popular book (more than eighty million copies have been sold) contains numerous historical fallacies, and, of special interest to us, blatant falsehoods concerning the Holy Scriptures and the Lord Himself. The book is not worth reading, let alone refuting; nevertheless, it has distorted the minds of millions ignorant of the truth.
A myth propagated by The Da Vinci Code is that the church rejected numerous alternative gospels and epistles in favor of those that held to the narrow dogma it was pressing. Furthermore, it is claimed, that the canon of the New Testament was not agreed upon until hundreds of years after Christ. In 2004, a follow-up to The Da Vinci Code was published called, Secrets of the Code. In this book, so-called experts explored the various ideas suggested by Brown’s fiction. The editor presents the following as fact: Eventually, four Gospels and twenty-three other texts were canonized (declared to be the Holy Scriptures) into a Bible. This did not occur, however, until the sixth century.20 Given the present questioning among some, I suppose the argument could be made that canonization has yet to occur! Unbelief will always question the Scriptures, and sadly, Christendom has its share of unbelievers. The statement, however, is complete nonsense. The majority of the twenty seven New Testament books, with which we are familiar, were accepted as Scripture at a very early date.
Eusebius of Caesarea (circa 260 – 340 A.D) addressed the subject of the New Testament Canon in his Ecclesiastical History: Since we are dealing with this subject, it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.21
In 367 A.D., Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, wrote in his thirty-ninth festal letter: There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these 22.
With Athanasius we have, therefore, the exact books that make up the Bible as we know it. Athanasius was most certainly not establishing a list, as is often claimed, he was defending it. If one reads the full letter, he makes mention of fabricated books and those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science.23 Athanasius was simply giving the canonical books of the Bible, as they had been received by the faithful, to counter these forgeries.
Before continuing with our subject, it is necessary to address a common misconception. One gets the impression from some that an authority decided upon the canon of the New Testament — Constantine or perhaps the First council of Nicaea. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the true nature of Christianity and the church — though one is hardly surprised by it. The books of the New Testament were received as Scripture by those who read them. They were recognized as such by faith through the power of the Spirit of God. If a council had decided upon the canon of the New Testament, by what authority could they claim to have done so? Certainly not by any authority invested in them by God. The Holy Spirit is the power of the Christian life and indwells every true believer. The Apostle John in his first epistle writes: “Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things” (1 John 2:20), and, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). The things of God resonate with the Spirit of God; things contrary to the truth of God produce a dissonance.
Athanasius’ letter came almost 300 years after the last of the New Testament books were written. Do we have anything prior to this which will give us to see what books had been received by the early church as canonical? For this we have to turn to the writings of the church fathers, so-called. There we will find the books they quoted as Scripture.
Clement of Rome, in his letter to the Corinthian church (circa 96 A.D.), quotes the Lord saying: especially remember the word of the Lord Jesus, Be merciful, so that you may obtain mercy.24 This is an application of “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy” (Matt. 5:7). In his second letter (circa 100 A.D.), he writes: Again another scripture saith, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners (cf. Matt. 9:13). Later in the same letter he quotes: Yea, He Himself saith, Whoso confesseth Me, Him will I confess before the Father (cf. Matt. 10:32). Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (circa 110 A.D.), strongly defends the authority of the Gospels, without spelling out what they are. Nevertheless, one cannot argue in defense of something unless there is a general understanding as to what that something is — in this case, the Gospels. Clearly the Gospels were recognized and quoted as Scripture by these men. To this we could add the testimony of Irenaeus from the second century: It is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.25 He then proceeds to give a brief introduction to the four Gospels — John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark.
So as not to be accused of hiding anything, we should note that the church fathers were not the most reliable of witnesses. They also quoted non-canonical books. This, however, needs to be considered in terms of the overall evidence and the bigger picture. It is truly remarkable, nevertheless, how quickly the Scriptures were distorted and the doctrine of Paul misunderstood. Shortly we will encounter an individual called Marcion (circa 85– 160 A.D.). Marcion appeared to recognize this ignorance concerning Paul, but in his efforts to understand him, he took up Paul’s doctrine in an intellectual way, and in so doing, he completely missed the mark.
As to the Pauline epistles, F. F. Bruce writes: From the early second century onward Paul’s letters circulated not singly, but as a collection.26 The testimony of the Scriptures suggests that this was true at an even earlier date, in Peter’s day: “Our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles” (2 Pet. 3:15-16). The earliest surviving copy of Paul’s epistles is codex P46, written around 200 A.D., from the Chester Beatty collection. This codex does not include Paul’s three pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) but it does include Hebrews — an epistle whose authorship is often questioned.27 Incidentally, among the Chester Beatty manuscripts there are also fragments from: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts.
The Muratorian Fragment contains one of the oldest known lists of New Testament books. It was written in Latin and most likely dates from the late second century.28 It includes twenty two of the twenty seven New Testament books; only Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 3 John are omitted. A book we do not recognize as canonical is included — The Wisdom of Solomon (supposedly written by Solomon’s friends in his honor). Another, the Apocalypse of Peter, is also mentioned but with the disclaimer, which some of our people will not have to be read in church.
Much more could be written on this subject but we will not pursue it further. Quite simply, the books which make up the canon of the New Testament appear to have been received with very little controversy. Still, it may be disconcerting that some of the lists omit certain books. Keep in mind, that as the books of the New Testament were written, their distribution took time — it was a painstaking labor of love to copy out a manuscript. It follows then that the later epistles are the ones not found in the earlier lists. However, far from the claims of the skeptics, it is a falsehood to suggest that there were many competing gospels and epistles. As we shall see, other writings did exist, but as to competing with the Scriptures for acceptance, they were in a different league altogether.
Apocryphal Books
Just as we found with the Old Testament, various apocryphal writings appeared in the days of the early church. Few were mentioned side-by-side with the canonical books and few survive intact to this day. Were it not for the publication of one of these writings in recent years — announced, I might add, with great fanfare — we should barely pause to consider this subject.
That which characterized the legitimate writings of the New Testament was their authority, doctrine, and acceptance. Apocryphal books must pretend to at least one of these and the first is the easiest to fake — write something in the name of an apostle! Pseudepigraphical books abounded. It began in the days of the Apostles. The believers at Thessalonica were shaken as to the day of the Lord by a letter forged in the name of Paul: “That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thess. 2:2). We also know of a Third Corinthians and letters to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians, all forged in the name of Paul; also, a gospel supposedly written by Peter; and there are many others.29
Some of the apocryphal writings make no false claim to authorship, and are genuine enough in themselves, but their canonicity must be rejected because of their lack of authority and orthodoxy. The Shepherd of Hermas is one that appears to have gained a certain popularity. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment; nevertheless, the author makes it quite clear in that document that it lacked authority. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. The form of the work is allegorical, and, in that, it falls down doctrinally. William Kelly wrote: Again, it is surprising that anyone who has the least regard for orthodoxy or even decency should cite from The Shepherd of Hermas. ... Far be it from my wish to expose the mere trash of a weak and fanciful mind in its visions, commands, and similitudes. But it is a far graver case, when Hermas talks of God’s holy angel filling a man with the blessed Spirit! Of men’s having all their offences blotted out because they suffered death for the name of the Son of God! And, worse still if possible, of the Holy Spirit being created first of all!30
Gnostic Gospels
Among the apocryphal books of the New Testament, the Gnostic gospels have generated much recent interest. Unbelief always delights in that which is contrary to the truth. Sadder still, Gnostic thought has seen a revival within the present day New Age movement.
The word Gnostic derives from the Greek word Gnosis meaning knowledge; it implies a pretention to some superior, esoteric knowledge. That there should be a superior knowledge, independent of faith, makes it very appealing to the natural man. Characterizing Gnosticism in a few sentences is difficult; it is a confusing, intellectual system that draws from various religious traditions. One teaching consistent with most forms of Gnosticism is the evil nature of the material or lower world — it is claimed to be a corrupt imitation of that which it represents and is, therefore, intrinsically evil. Jesus Christ cannot be the Creator nor could He have come in flesh for that would identify Him with a material world (cf. 1 John 4:3). Salvation for the individual is to rise above the material and gain gnosis, that is to say, knowledge, especially secret knowledge. Salvation lies within the individual and no Saviour is needed.
Gnosticism did not spring out of Christianity, but rather, Gnostic thought began infiltrating Christianity late in the first century. Gnosticism grew to become a formidable opponent of Christianity.31 The Apostle John found it necessary to address early Gnostic teachings when he wrote his Epistles. For this reason, it is easy to see why his first Epistle begins: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life” (1 John 1:1). The Apostle rejects the notion of any new knowledge and instead takes the reader back to Christ manifest in this world, and that in a human body which could be seen and touched — this was the Word of life. Praise be to God! What an extraordinary thought! It far exceeds the vain imaginations of foolish man. Later in the same epistle, John speaks very strongly against false spirits who would reject Christ come in flesh: “Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3). Gnosticism didn’t end with the Apostle John. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, wrote a well-known treatise entitled, Against Heresies (circa 180 A.D.), in which he sought to address the heretical inroads of Gnosticism within Christianity.
In 1945, near the village of Nag Hammadi in Egypt, twelve leatherbound codices were found in a sealed jar. These contained fifty two Gnostic writings, including, probably the most well-known, the so-called Gospel of Thomas. This is not a gospel in the Biblical sense, but rather a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. It begins: These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down.32 Immediately one notices the claim to secret knowledge. In the thirteenth saying, we find the author, contrary to anything we find in the true Gospels, implying that Thomas was the recipient of secret knowledge: And He took him, withdrew, and spoke to him three words. Now when Thomas came back to his companions, they asked him: What did Jesus say to you? Thomas said to them: If I tell you one of the words which He said to me, you will take up stones and throw them at me; and a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up. Consistent with Gnostic thought, saying one hundred and fourteen teaches that only men may enter the kingdom of heaven — the female form being inherently evil: Simon Peter says to them: “Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!” Jesus says: “See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven.”
In early 2006, a translation of another Gnostic gospel, the so-called Gospel of Judas, was published by none other than the National Geographic Society. The very fact that it was published by an institution whose goal is the spread of geographic, archeological, and scientific knowledge, added a degree of importance to this endeavor. No doubt, for one whose field of expertise is ancient texts, this document is of interest. However, its publication was announced very publically in the media. Do we even need to ask the question why? In this work there is once again a claim to secret knowledge. This time the possessor of gnosis is none other than Judas Iscariot! The text begins: The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover.33 I won’t trouble the reader with any further quotations from this blasphemous work. Needless to say, Judas Iscariot is not the betrayer in this false account!
We earlier discussed pseudepigraphical texts (those written in the name of another) and once again we find this to be characteristic of the Gnostic writings. Few, if any, accept that these second to fourth century texts to have been written by their supposed authors. As a counterpoint to this, three of the four true Gospels are anonymous; only Luke identifies himself. The identities of the other writers are only known to us through external sources. This anonymity is often raised questioningly — how can we trust a Gospel where the author did not identify himself? Another accusation commonly made against the canonical Gospels is their late date of writing.
As to the second point, so long as the Apostles were living, and before the spread of Christianity, there was no need for a written gospel. Furthermore, the twelve Apostles, as with Paul, had the daily expectation of Christ’s return always before them: “We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:15). And as to the question of anonymity, it is evident that having a stated author meant very little, as the many phony claims to authorship have shown. However, more significantly, whereas the writings of men may carry weight because of the name attached to it, the inspired writings of Scripture require no such human stamp. In fact, the authors of the Gospels go out of their way to keep their identities hidden. The Gospels are about the Lord Jesus Christ and He is always foremost. The Apostle John refers to himself namelessly as the one “whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23, etc.). That is to say, without Christ who was he? He defines himself by the Saviour’s love toward him.
We might ask: Why have so few copies of Gnostic works survived to this day? In contrast, as we shall shortly see, tens of thousands of manuscripts and fragments exist for the canonical books of the New Testament. The claim of unbelief is that the apocryphal books were suppressed and destroyed by those seeking to promote a strictly orthodox line of teaching. While this is undoubtedly true in part — after all these writings were heretical — is it really the answer? The Bible itself has also been severely persecuted. Christianity has gone through numerous bouts of persecution and the Scriptures have been burned and destroyed. Ten periods of persecution during the first three centuries, as suggested by John’s address to Smyrna, have been identified: “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Rev. 2:10). During the reign of the Emperor Diocletian (303 – 311 A.D.) there was a wholesale effort to annihilate the sacred writings of the Christians. Need we wonder, however, that the canonical books survived and the apocryphal books did not? What would one surrender to the authorities or throw on the fire? Certainly not something that he or she was willing to die for. In all this, there is the implied assumption that the apocryphal books met with the approval of the Christians but were suppressed. The most obvious explanation, however, for the lack of manuscripts preserved to this day is that they lacked approval in the days of their writing. For a true Christian, they held no appeal. And for the unbeliever, like every other fad of man, they soon faded into oblivion — waiting, of course, to be revived as a new attack against the true Scriptures.
I wish to conclude this discussion on the Gnostic gospels by touching on the writings of Marcion (circa 85 – 160 A.D.). Marcion is of interest in that he was a heretic. Though not Gnostic, his teachings bore similar marks to Gnosticism. If there were reason to bring extra-biblical books into the canon of the New Testament, or, for that matter, to exclude certain books, Marcion was certainly motivated to do so. To be clear, Marcion did heavily edit the Scriptures and he did remove those books which conflicted with his beliefs. Marcion (as with the Gnostics) claimed that Jesus merely appeared to be human and so he purged all things touching on Christ’s humanity. He also rejected the God of the Old Testament as being incompatible with the revelation of the Father in the New; consequently, anything that connected the New Testament with the Old was also eliminated. Nevertheless, the books that formed the basis of his bible were none other than the writings of the Greek New Testament. Marcion’s scriptures included the Gospel of Luke, though with all things inconsistent with his heretical teachings purged. He also included ten Epistles of Paul (the pastoral epistles to Timothy and Titus were omitted). These were also edited to reflect Marcion’s teachings. Of great interest, however, no apocryphal writings were included in his canon. Either they didn’t exist — which proves they were later fabrications — or they simply lacked credibility. In reality, there is every reason to believe, as we have already seen, that both statements are true.34
The Integrity and Preservation of the Greek Text
Unlike the Old Testament, when it comes to manuscripts of the New, we have a superabundance of material. No other book of antiquity is represented by such a vast collection of ancient manuscripts. F. F. Bruce notes that several manuscripts of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars (composed in the first century B.C.) survive to this day, of which ten are good. Of these, the oldest copy is some 900 years removed from the original, and for all that, no one questions the text we possess! Bruce goes on to say: Of the 14 books of the Histories of Tacitus (circa 100 A.D.) only four and a half survive; of the 16 books of his Annals, 10 survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two manuscripts: one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh.35 Many more examples could be given; the number of surviving manuscripts for most ancient books number less than one hundred. Other than the Bible, Homer’s The Iliad, is the best documented book of antiquity. Written around 800 B.C., the oldest surviving manuscript is dated to 400 B.C., that is to say, some four hundred years after the original. In all we have six hundred and forty three manuscripts of The Iliad.
When it comes to the New Testament, however, we have around five thousand seven hundred Greek manuscripts. To this we can add ten thousand manuscripts in Latin, and more than one million quotations from the church fathers — not to mention the documents in Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. Even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts for the New Testament, it could be reconstructed in its entirety (with the exception of just a few verses) using quotations taken from the church fathers.36 (Though no one would dispute the difficulty of such a task.) As to the age of these New Testament manuscripts, we have individual books that date from within one hundred years of the original; we also have collections that comprise most of the New Testament dating from one hundred and fifty years or so of writing. The oldest, complete New Testaments date to the fourth century A.D. and are, therefore, a little more than two hundred and fifty years removed from the original manuscripts. Finally, to this we can add Papyrus P52, a fragment from John’s Gospel, dating to the early part of the second century. It could have been copied out less than fifty years after John wrote the original!
Even with this preponderance of evidence, the skeptics will still find ways to question the integrity of the New Testament text. An obvious point of attack is the variation that exists between the manuscripts, but does this represent a serious difficulty? It is true that there are many differences, and figures in the hundreds of thousands are often thrown out. Such numbers seem overwhelming, which undoubtedly is the intended effect. However, even the simple matter of counting variations is unintuitive to most. If manuscript A contains one word different from manuscripts B, C, and D (which all happen to agree) are there three differences or just one? It will be counted as three. To the layman then, the actual number of variations is quite meaningless. If we want to understand a thing or two about the variations between manuscripts we actually need to look at them.
Spelling differences are by far the greatest contributor to textual variation. Citing another: The name for John is spelled in Greek two different ways, either Ioannes or Ioanes. The same person is in view either way; the only difference is whether the name has two n’s or one. One of the most common textual variants involves what is called a movable nu. The Greek letter nu (n) can occur at the end of certain words when they precede a word that starts with a vowel. This is similar to the two forms of the indefinite article in English: a or an. But whether the nu appears in these words or not, there is absolutely no difference in meaning.37 There are also the simple spelling errors or mistaken words — the scribes, though they copied manuscripts with great care, were prone to error just as we are. This is a far cry from the claims of deliberate textual tampering. Codex W in one instance uses the word and in place of Lord. Given that these are similar in Greek, kai versus kurios, one can understand the slip made by the copyist. In context, the word and makes no sense whatsoever; the nature of the error is quite plain.
Another form of copyist error resulted in the skipping of material. When two lines, in close proximity to each other, began or ended with the same words, the eye of the scribe could jump from the first instance to the second. When that happened, the material between the lines was inadvertently dropped. This constant source of error is call homoeoteleuton.
We also find variations that represent differences in the text, but they have no effect on the meaning. For example, the use of the definite article the in connection with proper names. In Greek the is often used before names. As far as the English translation goes, however, it alters nothing if one Greek manuscript should say the Mary and another simply Mary.38 Keep in mind, the use of the definite article is not insignificant in the general case; we are speaking strictly of its use (or non-use) with proper names. Its presence, for example, in connection with the title Lord, is significant. Lord without an article often stands in place of the proper name Jehovah.
Variations in word order is another common contributor to the differences between manuscripts. In English, the role of a word is determined by its position in a sentence. For example, whether a noun is the subject (doer) or the object (receiver) of an action, determines whether it comes before or after the verb (action word). In Greek, however, as with languages such as German and Italian, a noun changes form depending on its usage — this is known as its case. This means that word order ceases to carry the critical significance that it does in English. Rather, the noun form carries with it its function in the sentence. Word order in Greek may, therefore, be used by the writer to express other aspects of speech, such as emphasis. Nevertheless, that being said, in many instances where the Greek word order differs from manuscript to manuscript, the meaning of the sentence remains exactly the same.39
Sometimes, a variation will exist in a manuscript, but the preponderance of evidence will be against it. For example, 1 Thessalonians 2:9 uses the expression, “the gospel of God,” but one late medieval manuscript has, “the gospel of Christ.” There is no sensible reason to believe that this later reading is the correct one.40
Over time, efforts to harmonize the Scriptures have resulted in the merging of texts. There is every reason to believe that the same prayer is spoken of in Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4; nevertheless, its presentation in Matthew differs from Luke’s. As a result, harmonization has crept into the text. Luke’s version is shorter than Matthew’s, and, as given in J. N. Darby’s translation, it is even shorter than the King James. It should read: “Father, Thy name be hallowed; Thy kingdom come; give us our needed bread for each day; and remit us our sins, for we also remit to every one indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation” (Luke 11:2-4 JND). Darby recognized (as did W. Kelly, and as do many conservative Bible scholars) that Our ... who art in the heavens, which does indeed appear in many manuscripts, is a harmonization from Matthew. The Bodmer papyrus, codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Regius, plus various other witnesses, all point to the shorter text given by Darby, Kelly, and others.
Finally, there are those very few instances where viable alternative readings exist between manuscripts. These are very definitely in the minority. Less than one percent of all differences fall into this category and that is still a liberal estimate. As to how a particular reading is decided upon in such instances requires spiritual discernment and not simply critical analysis — the great mistake, it seems to me, of modern textual criticism. An older manuscript, though it should command more weight, isn’t automatically better than a later one. If a particular reading wasn’t followed by later manuscripts, there may have been perfectly sound reasons for this — it may have been recognized as tampering, and so it was rightly rejected.
Two of the more notable, and by far the most extensive differences, are to be found in Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. In both instances, these portions are completely omitted by certain manuscripts or inserted elsewhere.
As to the portion in Mark 16, I will quote from the Introductory Notice to J. N. Darby’s translation of the New Testament. The two oldest manuscripts, codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, omit the end of Mark 16, against all other authority whatsoever, as Burgon has shown with great pains; but in Vaticanus, the fact that the scribe has here left a column blank — the only one in the whole New Testament — is strong presumptive evidence that if he did not find the passage in the manuscript he was copying from, he was aware of an omission. In his marginal notes, Darby adds, It is quoted by Irenaeus and also by Hippolytus of the second or third century. It should be noted that most manuscripts do include the longer ending. Without this ending, the Gospel of Mark has an abrupt finish that is strange indeed: “And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid” (Mark 16:8).
William Kelly, in his Exposition of the Gospel of John, offers these remarks concerning the second omission, John 7:53-8:11: We are now arrived at a section of our Gospel, the external condition of which is to the reflecting mind a solemn evidence of human unbelief, here as daring as usually it appears to hesitate. No evangelist has suffered as much in this way, not even Mark, whose close disappears from two of the most ancient manuscripts. But as we saw that the angel’s visit to trouble the waters of Bethesda was unwelcome to not a few copyists of John 5, so here again incredulity indisposed some to reproduce the story of the adulteress. This is plain from some copies which leave a blank — a fact wholly inexplicable, if the scribe had not been aware of a paragraph which he knew to exist, but for reasons of his own thought fit to omit. Kelly goes on to remark: others, again, transposed it to another place, or to the end of the Gospel, and even to another evangelist, though alien in tone from all but John, and suiting no place in John but here, where the mass of authority gives it. Remarking as to the internal evidence, he says: some have alleged against the passage its entire diversity from the style of the Gospel elsewhere; and this, not merely in words and idioms which John never uses, but in its whole cast and character, which is said to savour more of the Synoptic Gospels. All this, however, fails to meet the positive weight of truth in the passage; and its fitness at this very point of the Gospel is utterly unaccountable in a forgery or a tradition. The Lord is displaying the true light in His Person, as contrasted with others who boasted in the law. We have seen their conscienceless discussion in the preceding chapter.
If these two portions were omitted from our Bibles they would be omissions indeed, but no doctrines would be at stake. In fact, the point has been made by many that no doctrines are brought into question because of a disputed text — not the deity of Christ, not His death, not His resurrection. No! Nothing stands in jeopardy because of textual variations. Naturally, unbelief claims otherwise. I will give one example to show, yet again, the deceptive hand of those who would try and shake the faith of some. A whole group of manuscripts, known as the Western text, omit the words “into heaven” in the question: “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?” (Acts 1:11). Based on this observation, the argument is made that the Western text calls into question the ascension of Christ. For one reading this, without referring to the context, such a statement could be upsetting to say the least. To suggest that the ascension of Christ is an invention of Christians, and that the Biblical text has been modified to support this teaching, is a serious attack on one of the most important doctrines of Christianity. Nevertheless, we have nothing to fear. The support for this doctrine is not limited to this one expression. One can turn to the Epistle to the Ephesians (among other places) to read: “Which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places” (Eph. 1:20). Nevertheless, to expose the full extent of the deception, we only need to read the remainder of Acts 1:11. This is what we find: “ ... this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). These very same manuscripts support the entire text for the remainder of this verse. That is to say, even using this defective rendering, by simply reading the entire verse it is quite plain that the Lord Jesus ascended up into heaven! There is no ambiguity whatsoever.41
The general approach of these critics is to choose a portion in which textual differences may be used to suggest an alternative interpretation. With this in hand, they call into question a particular doctrine. Never mind that the doctrine is more than adequately and unambiguously supported by other portions of Scripture — a fact which they conveniently forget to mention!