The 2014 Pericope Adulterae Symposium: Part 1: John David Punch: Ecclesiastical Suppression of the PA

On April 25-26, I had the pleasure of attending the conference on John 7:53-8:11 (the Pericope Adulterae) that was held at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina.  Five scholars answered the following questions and explained their answers: 

            (1)  Is this passage original to John’s Gospel, or is it a later interpolation?

            (2)  Should it be proclaimed or proscribed?

This conference was very timely, because earlier in 2014, calls for the removal of John 7:53-8:11 from the text of the Gospel of John were made online by Dr. Jim Hamilton (of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Kentucky), Dr. Owen Strachan (of Boyce College in Louisville, Kentucky), and Dr. Denny Burk (also of Boyce College).  Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary (where Hamilton studied), has been expressing the same sentiment since 2008.  Andreas J. Köstenberger (of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary), in his 2004 commentary (in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series), likewise declared that these 12 verses “should not be regarded as part of the Christian canon.”

●●●●●●●●●●

John David Punch went first – which is always a tough position, since the first presenter can’t easily react to the others, but they can respond to him.  His view is that that pericope adulterae is genuine and that it was ecclesiastically suppressed by some pious church-authorities who felt that the story was likely to cause simple-minded readers to view adultery as a minor and easily overlooked offense. 

Punch offered several pieces of internal evidence to support the Johannine character of the PA, or, at least, to answer charges that it is non-Johannine.  Rather than interrupting the surrounding text in chapters seven and eight, the PA is consistent with its context.  The imagery of Jesus writing with His finger, as a prelude to the dispensing of divine mercy, is just the sort of contrast with Moses (who gave the Law written by the finger of God; cf. Exodus 31:38) that one might expect from John.  Jesus’ instruction to “Sin no more” is very similar to His words in John 5:14.  

Punch also pointed out that (as Alan Johnson as observed) the charge that the vocabulary used in the PA is non-Johannine is greatly reduced when one considers, first, that John 2:13-17 has roughly congruent proportions of once-used words and Lukan words, and, second, that the PA has several Johannine features, and, third, that 8:12 does not (contrary to the claims of some commentators) smoothly interlock with 7:52:  the scene at the end of 7:52 is a gathering of the chief priests and Pharisees and their officers, without Jesus present, whereas Jesus is present with them (and the rest of the crowd) in 8:12.  Punch also briefly reviewed the external Greek evidence, noting that the evidence for the omission of the PA is early but is mainly limited, textually, to the Alexandrian text and, geographically, to the vicinity of Egypt.       

            

Turning to patristic evidence, Punch pointed out that the non-use of the PA by some patristic writers may be an effect of their (or their predecessors’) reluctance to preach about the passage in church-services.  Ambrose and Augustine, both of whom accepted the passage, convey that some individuals regarded the story of the adulteress as a risky passage to entrust to those who might be looking for an excuse for sin.  The loss of the PA in the early Alexandrian transmission-line was probably initiated by a bold editor who was similarly motivated.

●●●●●●●●●●

Some thoughts:

I felt that Punch’s case would have been more forceful if he had selectively utilized some of Burgon’s (and Ehrman’s) points about orthodox corruptions (see Burgon’s “Causes of Corruption,” pages 211-231), so as to show that some orthodox individuals boldly removed theologically difficult words, phrases, and verses from their exemplars so as to protectively prevent misunderstandings or misapplications; while the removal of the PA would be (if Punch is correct) the largest such orthodox excision, it would thus be special only in terms of its size.  Another point that might favor his theory is that in the early churches, if forgiveness was granted to a Christian who, after baptism, committed adultery, it was only after a long period of penance.  If, sometime in the 100’s, opponents of such a strict standard appealed to the PA as a basis for leniency, a ruthless bishop might react by removing the passage. 

In the Q-&-A time, I asked Dr. Punch why those who found the PA offensive to pious sensibilities would be offended by the opening verses 7:53-8:2, and remove those three verses along with the rest.  He acknowledged that this is not easy to explain.

The Pericope Adulterae: A Tour of the External Evidence

John 7:53-8:11 -- the story about the adulteress -- is in the process of being rejected as Scripture by many evangelical seminary professors.  They want it out of the text.  They say it must go.

For those who keep up with the currents of New Testament textual criticism, this is not news.  The RSV, when it first came out, did not have these verses in the text of John.  The NEB moved the entire passage to the end of the Gospel of John, presenting them as a separate text.  That was 1946 and 1961 -- and the theological hue of the translators of the RSV and NEB was not distinctly evangelical.  But the influence of the scholars responsible for those translations has trickled down.  Now it is 2014, and evangelical seminary professors such as Daniel Wallace and James Hamilton are calling for the removal of John 7:53-8:11 from the text of the Gospel of John. 

It's a complicated textual subject.  But to a lot of folks, it seems so simple:  Bruce Metzger said that the evidence against these 12 verses is overwhelming, and Metzger -- and the commentators whose research on the subject consisted mainly of reading Metzger -- must be right, since he was an expert, right?  And if you want to retain the passage in the text, you must be stuck in a "tradition of timidity," and nobody wants to be stuck in a tradition of timidity, right?

Of course not!  We want to boldly follow the evidence.  But somehow, when it comes to describing the evidence in an even-handed and balanced way, the scholars calling for the removal of John 7:53-8:11 from the text of the Gospel of John seem . . . timid.  They convey that the KJV has these verses because of half a dozen Greek manuscripts.  They do not tell their readers that the pericope adulterae is in over 1,300 Greek manuscripts.  They tell their readers that the passage is found in some manuscripts after Luke 21:38, as if it floated there from some unknown source -- as if "some" is the most precise estimate the commentators can muster, and as if they have no inkling why the passage would be in that location.  They say that no Greek commentator until the 1100s comments on these verses -- but they don't say exactly how many complete Greek commentaries on John were made in the period before that, and they say nothing about Latin commentators.

Look through Dan Wallace's online article "My Favorite Passage That's Not In The Bible," (you might notice that the 2008 form of the article is not identical to the identically titled article that appeared in 2007) and find where he tells his readers what Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome were saying about the Pericope Adulterae in the 300s and early 400s.  What's that you say?  There's nothing about any of their statements?  Hmm.  He recommended that you consult the text-critical note about this passage in the NET, so let's try there.  What's that you say?  They are not mentioned there either?  Hmm.  Maybe look, instead, for some mention of the Didascalia, or Pacian, or Ambrosiaster.  Can't find them?  Hmm. 

Try James Hamilton's recent blog-post about the Pericope Adulterae from March 30, 2014, in which he calls on preachers not to preach from this passage.  Did you find the references to Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine yet?  No?  Instead you found a repetition of Metzger's claim, and the ESV's vaguely worded footnote, and strained arguments based on cherry-picked internal evidence, didn't you.  Hmm.  Were these writers aware of the testimony of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine?  Of course they were.  They wouldn't be so negligent and irresponsible as to advocate the removal of 12 verses without carefully looking into the evidence.  Then why didn't they mention it? 

Perhaps, when looking for a "tradition of timidity," you will find it among writers who have been timid about presenting the evidence about the Pericope Adulterae in an even-handed way.   As an antidote for that timidity I offer a small book:  The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence.      

http://www.amazon.com/The-Pericope-Adulterae-John-External-ebook/dp/B00JL6JDHA

I don't aspire to answer every question about John 7:53-8:11 by means of this book.  It does not explore the internal evidence (which Alan Johnson has done, in some detail), and the analysis offered in it is brief.  But at least it might help level the playing field, so to speak, which for some time has been tilted by commentators who, when it comes to describing numerous pieces of evidence about John 7:53-8:11, seem to have been very timid indeed.

The $14,000,000 Manuscript

What sort of manuscript is worth $14,000,000? Apparently, a manuscript like the St. Cuthbert Gospel -- a Latin copy of the Gospel of John, made in the very late 600s (the tendency is to suspect that the MS was made to accompany St. Cuthbert's remains when his remains were transferred to Lindisfarne in 698).

What makes the St. Cuthbert Gospel (also known as the Stonyhurst Gospel, because it was previously housed at Stonyhurst College) valuable to book-value-assessors is... not its text; priceless though the message of the Gospel of John is. It is cherished as being arguably the oldest European-made book in very good condition.

A detailed profile of the St. Cuthbert Gospel's appearance, contents, and history, along with access to digital images of every page, can be found at
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=add_ms_89000 . The British Library purchased it from its previous owners in 2011 for nine million pounds.

Additional information about the St. Cuthbert Gospel can be found in an essay by Dr. Claire Breay at http://www.bl.uk/whatson/st_cuthbert_gospel.pdf . Dr. Breay is featured in the video about the St. Cuthbert Gospel at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jGJPEXoEX8 .

Luke 17:9: Is the Shorter Reading Correct? I think not.

At the end of Luke 17:9, a textual variant presents a four-way contest between

(1) the Alexandrian Text, which ends with τα διαταχθέντα; (read by B L f¹ 28 157 and supported by it^e and the Palestinian Syriac)

(2) the Western Text, which ends with τα διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ; οὐ δοκῶ (read by D f¹³, and a small group of minuscules, and supported by the Peshitta, the Gothic version)

(3) the Byzantine Text, which ends with τα διαταχθέντα; οὐ δοκῶ

(4) Codex X and 214, 765, and 1612, which read τα διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ; (supported by Cyprian (in Treatise 12, Book 3, chapter 51), it^a (= Codex Vercellensis, produced c. 370), the Sinaitic Syriac, the Curetonian Syriac, the Sahidic version and the Bohairic version)

An anomalous reading appears in 214 and 2522; they have εκεινω in place of τα διαταχθέντα.

Additional details are in Willker’s Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, TVU 275 (page 414).

The Armenian and one layer of the Old Georgian support παντα τα διαταχθέντα (agreeing in part with Θ 69 124 1346 and a secondary corrector of À).

The Old Latin e (Codex Palatinus, produced c. 400) seems to agree with B.  

Except for Codex Vercellensis and Codex Palatinus, all the rest of the Old Latin evidence, as far as I can tell, agrees with the Byzantine Text in the inclusion of οὐ δοκῶ.  The Vulgate does, too, reading “Non puto” arranged as the beginning of v. 10.

Nine assorted manuscripts (17, 501, 554, 594, 740, 1208, 1416, and 2127) agree with B.

The George Grey Gospels (1263) is among the small group of (mainly) Byzantine MSS that agree with the Textus Receptus and with D, reading  τα διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ; οὐ δοκῶ.

Codex Sinaiticus isn’t much help, because the copyist accidentally skipped from the διαταχθέντα in verse 9 to the διαταχθέντα in verse 10.  The corrector – who drew his arrows without quite connecting the shaft to the arrowhead – corrected the copyist’s mistake by adding οὐτως και in the text (recycling the υ of υμεις) and placing υμεις οταν ποισηται τα διαταχθέντα υμιν at the foot of the page.  (The correction, except for the itacistic quirk, agrees with B.)  Another corrector “corrected” the correction by adding, above the line (centered over τα), παντα.

Earlier in the verse, the copyist of À omitted το δουλω, which is added in the right margin in small letters (the τ is formed using the last stroke of the preceding ν).

The apparatus in UBS2 listed À and 1010 as if they agreed exactly with B.  In UBS4, À’s parableptic mistake is noted, and 1010 is listed as a witness for διαταχθέντα οὐ δοκῶ.  The apparatus in UBS2 had a separate entry for διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ;.  Also in UBS2, Antiochus (a monk at the St. Saba monastery near Jerusalem in the early 600’s) was listed as a witness for διαταχθέντα οὐ δοκῶ.  In UBS4 Antiochus’ name does not appear as a witness.  In UBS2, the Ethiopic version is listed as a witness for διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ;.  In the apparatus-entry for this variant-unit in UBS4, the Ethiopic version does not appear.  The apparatus in Nestle-Aland 27 lists 2542 as a witness for διαταχθέντα.

Metzger, in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (p. 166), asserted, “There is no adequate reason which could account for the omission of αὐτῷ or οὐ δοκῶ, if either had been present originally.”  Let’s test that claim.  If οὐ δοκῶ was initially present between τα διαταχθέντα and οὕτως (the first word in v. 10), then a simple parableptic error elicited by homoeoteleuton accounts for the loss; when the copyist’s line of sight drifted from the οὐ in οὐ δοκῶ to the οὕ in οὕτως.  If αὐτῷ; οὐ δοκῶ was initially present between τα διαταχθέντα and οὕτως, there is no simple mechanism to account for the loss of all three words at once.  However, οὐ δοκῶ could be lost via a simple parableptic error, as a copyist’s line of sight drifted from the -ῷ οὐ in αὐτῷ; οὐ δοκῶ to the -ῶ οὕ- in δοκῶ οὕτως.  This would leave αὐτῷ by itself.  This reading has an unusual array of witnesses in its favor, including Cyprian (in Treatise 12, Book 3, chapter 51). 

Here is the English translation of the entire brief chapter from Cyprian, from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, page 547, in which Cyprian quotes Luke 17:7-10 –

“51 - That no one should be uplifted in his labour: 

In Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus: ‘Extol not thyself in doing thy work.’  Also in the Gospel according to Luke:  ‘Which of you, having a servant ploughing, or a shepherd, says to him when he cometh from the field, Pass forward and recline?  But he says to him, Make ready somewhat that I may sup, and gird thyself, and minister to me, until I eat and drink; and afterwards thou shall eat and drink?  Does he thank that servant because he has done what was commanded him?  So also ye, when ye shall have done that which is commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we had to do.’”

As mentioned previously, the reading supported by Cyprian (in which αὐτῷ is supported but not οὐ δοκῶ) is also found, according to the UBS4 apparatus, in it^a, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Curetonian Syriac, the Sahidic version and the Bohairic version.  Thus the oldest Latin evidence – Cyprian and Codex Vercellensis – and the oldest Syriac evidence – the Sinaitic Syriac – agree. 

Codex a – Vercellensis – reads as follows, line by line (from Irici’s 1748 transcription):

“… Num- / quid aget gra- / tias servo / quoniam fe- / cit quae prae- / cepta sunt / ei    sic?  Et / vos cum fece- / ritis quae / praecepta / sunt dicitis / servi inuti- / les sumus / facere feci- / mus.”

The sixth line implies αὐτῷ but not οὐ δοκῶ.  The Latin may be rendered something like this:

“Because the servant has done things that are commanded to him, shall he [i.e., the master] act on his behalf this way? And as for you, when you have done the things which are commanded you, you also are to say, ‘We are unprofitable servants, we have done.’”

Codex e – Palatinus – reads as follows (from Belsheim’s 1896 transcription, page 77):

⁹numquid habet gratiam seruo illi quia fecit quae imperata sunt  ¹⁰sic itaque et uos cum feceritis quae uobis fuerint imperata dicite serui superuacui sumus quod debuimus facere fecimus.
This clearly does not support οὐ δοκῶ.  But it does not absolutely rule out αὐτῷ from e’s base-text. 

So:  to defend the Alexandrian reading as the original text, one has to figure that a copyist added  “οὐ δοκῶ” to answer the rhetorical question of verse 9, and this reading was eventually adopted in the Byzantine text-stream, and meanwhile, in a transmission-stream, or transmission-streams, that affected the text of Cyprian and of the Sinaitic Syriac, another copyist added “αὐτῷ” on the grounds, alleged by Metzger, that τα διαταχθέντα “seemed to cry out for such a complement.”  In addition, at some point prior to the production of Codex D, the two expanded forms of the text met at one table and were both adopted, resulting in the conflated reading, τα διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ; οὐ δοκῶ.   

If, however, τα διαταχθέντα; οὐ δοκῶ is original, then the Alexandrian reading is explained as the result of a parableptic accident, and the reading with αὐτῷ, but not οὐ δοκῶ, is explained as the combination of a Western expansion followed by a parableptic omission.

If τα διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ; οὐ δοκῶ is original, then the reading τα διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ is explained as the result of a parableptic accident in which οὐ δοκῶ was lost.  But there is no obvious mechanism to account for the loss of αὐτῷ in the Alexandrian Text.

Some thoughts:

● Part of Metzger’s claim is not true.  There is an adequate mechanism which could account for the omission of οὐ δοκῶ, namely, simply parableptic error from ΟΥ to ΟΥ-.  Metzger’s theory that οὐ δοκῶ first existed as a “marginal comment that found its way into the Western Text” has no real-life basis.  No copy in any language, as far as I know, has these words in the margin.  

     

● If τα διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ; οὐ δοκῶ is not original, then it is a conflation of two earlier variants, one reading (with Cyprian) αὐτῷ and one reading (with Byz) οὐ δοκῶ.

● The words οὐ δοκῶ do not seem like something that a copyist would casually put into the mouth of Jesus Christ.    

● Inasmuch τα διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ may proceed from τα διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ; οὐ δοκῶ if οὐ δοκῶ is omitted via parablepsis, the apparatus in UBS4 needs to be modified.   The variant διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ; should be given its own listing (as it was in UBS2) instead of being listed as if it exclusively supports διαταχθέντα.  If one assumes that αὐτῷ was deliberately added, then the witnesses that support διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ indirectly support διαταχθέντα, but if one assumes that οὐ δοκῶ was accidentally omitted, then the witnesses that support διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ indirectly support διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ; οὐ δοκῶ.

● If the witnesses for τα διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ are combined with the witnesses for τα διαταχθέντα; οὐ δοκῶ, and with the witnesses for διαταχθέντα αὐτῷ; οὐ δοκῶ, the array of support is very impressive:  A D W Ψ 579 700 892 1010 1071 Byz,  f¹³, almost all Old Latin copies including Codex Vercellensis, Cyprian, Vulgate, Peshitta, Sinaitic Syriac, Curetonian Syriac, the Sahidic version, the Bohairic version, and Augustine.   

● Unless MSS 17, 501, 554, 594, 740, 1208, 1416, and 2127 are supposed to echo a text more ancient that Codices A and D, parableptic losses must have occurred somewhere in their ancestry.

● The Greek support for τα διαταχθέντα is narrow. 

Texts with οὐ δοκῶ or αὐτῷ; οὐ δοκῶ had very wide support in multiple locales.  It looks like the original text read διαταχθέντα; οὐ δοκῶ.  In the Alexandrian text-stream, οὐ δοκῶ was lost via parablepsis (from οὐ to οὕτως in v. 10).  Meanwhile, early in the Western text-stream, αὐτῷ was added, following which οὐ δοκῶ was lost, via a different parableptic error in which a copyist’s line of sight drifted from -ωου to -ωου.

Bible Secrets Revealed: Five Video-Reviews, Episode by Episode

In December 2013, the History Channel released a series called Bible Secrets Revealed.  It was produced by Prometheus Entertainment, under the oversight of Kevin Burns, who has also produced the series Ancient Aliens.  Robert Cargill was a major contributor.  Other contributors included Reza Aslan, Bart Ehrman, Kathleen McGowan, Candida Moss, Chris Keith, Mark Goodacre, Dale Martin, and Jennifer Wright Knust.  Gary Burge was in it, too.  Only the first five episodes have been released in the USA so far, as far as I know.  I’ve prepared video-reviews of episodes 1-5.  Here are links to the video-reviews:

In my response to "Lost in Translation"
I point out some misleading manipulations
of the graphics.

1 - Lost in Translation

2 - The Promised Land 

3 - Forbidden Scriptures

4 - The Real Jesus
5 - Mysterious Prophecies

Acts 27:37 - 276 Souls, or About 76?

Let's briefly leave the Gospels to explore an interesting variant in Acts 27:37.  Did the ship on which Paul and his friends were traveling in Acts 27:37 contain 276 souls, or only about 76?

The Byzantine Text says that a total of 276 souls were aboard the ship: 

HMEQA DE AI PASAI YUCAI EN TW PLOIW DIAKOSIAI EBDOMHKONTA EX.

Codex A says HMEQA DE PASAI YUCAI EN TW PLOIW DIAKOSIAI EBDOMHKONTA PENTE.  (Thus, 275 souls.  The amount is spelled out, not abbreviated.)

According to the apparatus in UBS4, Lectionary 1156 says that the number of souls was 216. 

Vaticanus and the Sahidic version say that a total of “about 76” souls were on board, finishing the verse with WS EBDOMHKONTA EX.

The NET’s editors saw fit to mention this variant, with the note, “One early ms (B) and an early version (sa) read “about seventy-six.”  For discussion of how this variant probably arose, see F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 465.”

When I take in hand – onscreen – F. F. Bruce’s commentary on Acts, on pages 525-526 (the difference is surely only due to different formatting in different editions) I find: 

“The reading of B could be a miscopying of the larger number; PLOIWWSOF [with the OF overlined] for PLOIWSOF [with the OF overlined – although this is an error; the sigma in PLOIWSOF should have been overlined too].  There is no improbability in the larger number (which included the soldiers under the centurion’s command); the ship on which Josephus was bound for Rome in A.D. 63 had about 600 on board (Vita 15).”

Déjà vu.  I’ve read something like that before, in John Burgon’s 1883 book The Revision Revised, on pages 51-53.  Burgon is more verbose than Bruce, but the solution is exactly the same:  “Some II-century copyist connected the last letter of PLOIW with the next ensuing numeral, which stands for 200 (viz. S)); and made an independent word of it, viz. WS – i.e., ‘about.’  But when S (i.e. 200) has been taken away from SOF (i.e. 276), 76 is perforce all that remains.”  And notice the footnote on p. 52 of the same page:  “The number is not excessive.  There were about 600 persons aboard the ship in which Josephus traverses the same waters.  (Life, c. III).” 

I find five interesting features here:

First, it’s interesting to observe how Bruce happened to reach the same conclusion as Burgon, and even use the same example from Josephus, apparently without reading Burgon (whose name, if my electronic search, courtesy of Amazon, is correct, appears nowhere in Bruce’s commentary).  That’s just incredible!  (Naturally, the NET’s note on Acts 27:37 refers readers to Bruce, not to Burgon.) 

Second, it’s interesting to see the close alignment of the base-text of the Sahidic version of Acts to the text of Acts in B.  The replacement of PLOIW_SOF_ with PLOIWWS_OF_ is not the sort of thing that would happen often; this variant is an important genetic marker.

Third, it’s interesting, inasmuch as the UBS4’s apparatus gives this a “B” rating, that someone on the committee must have favored B’s reading, apparently against all other Greek MSS, despite the ease with which B’s reading is accounted for.

Fourth, it’s interesting to see that Lectionary 1156 (Waltz’s data says that it’s from the 1300’s) was even noticed and cited, considering how often readings with continuous-MS-support are completely ignored in the UBS4 apparatus.          

 

Fifth, it’s interesting that UBS4 stretched the evidence beyond its breaking point in an attempt to buttress the testimony of B.  Carroll D. Osburn stated the following in The Text of the Apostolos in Epiphanius of Salamis (2004) in a footnote in Appendix II (page 269) – “Epiphanius is listed in UBS4 as reading “WS EBDOMHKONTA EX Epiphanius ½ (Epiphanius ½ om EX).”  This is misleading.  In one quotation, Epiphanius reads WS EBDOMHKONYA, but in the other WS OGDOHKONTA.  So, Epiphanius reads “70” or “80” souls, but in neither reference does he read WS EBDOMHKONTA EX, as UBS4 indicates.” (Osburn’s work does not build confidence in the UBS4-compilers’ database of citations as far as Epiphanius’ testimony to the text of Acts is concerned.  Osburn lists four corrections to UBS4’s citations of Epiphanius in Acts, one useful addition, and only three correct citations.)

Mark 16:9-20 - Top Ten Trainwrecks

In some previous posts, I’ve addressed the shortcomings regarding Mark 16:9-20 found in Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, and in the NET Bible’s notes, and in the ESV Study Bible.  Here are ten more examples of false claims about Mark 16:9-20 that are being spread online and/or in print.    

(A)  Commentaries written by Clement of Alexandria before 101, by Origen before 200, and by Eusebius in the 200s, confirm that Mark’s text stopped at 16:8. – Stephen M. Miller.  (No commentaries on the Gospel of Mark by these writers are known to exist.  Clement of Alexandria was not even born in 101.  Origen worked in the 200s, not in the 100s.) 

(B)  Mark 16:9-20 was produced by scribes in the Middle Ages. – Bart Ehrman.  (This is simply impossible, because the passage was utilized by dozens of individuals before the fall of the Roman Empire.  Irenaeus, for example, quoted Mark 16:19 around the year 184 - over a century before the production-date of the earliest existing Greek manuscript of Mark 16.) 

(C)  Verses 9-20 are not in any of the great early manuscripts. – William Barclay.  (Barclay, whose commentary-series was very popular, must've thought that there are only two great early Greek manuscripts!)

(D)  No early church fathers indicate awareness of these verses for the first few centuries of Christianity.  They don’t quote from them or comment on them. – H. Walker Evans.  (That's true, if you ignore Justin, Tatian, Epistula Apostolorum, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, De Rebaptismate, Hierocles, Marinus, Eusebius, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Apostolic Constitutions, Pelagius, De Trinitate, Augustine, Macarius Magnes, Marcus Eremita, etc., etc.)

(E)  Mark 16:9-20 is lacking in many of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. - Norman Geisler.  (This is just a display of ignorance, plain and simple.  Only two old Greek manuscripts end Mark's text at the end of 16:8.)

(F)  Mark 16:9-20 is omitted “in very many Greek manuscripts of the Gospel.” – Wilfrid Harrington.  (Harrington was speaking out of ignorance -- by which I mean that I assume that he was not deliberately lying.  He simply was not aware of the fact that all undamaged Greek manuscripts of Mark 16 except two contain at least part of Mark 16:9-20.  The effect on his readers, unfortunately, is the same either way.)

(G)  Mark 16:9-20 was lacking in “all Greek manuscripts known to Eusebius and Jerome.” – W. R. Telford.  (Obviously Telford either never consulted the writings of Eusebius and Jerome, or else he forgot what he had found.)

(H)  Mark 16:9-20 is absent from Codex Alexandrinus. – Ron Rhodes.  (Probably he meant to refer, instead, to Codex Sinaiticus.  But regardless of how this falsehood originated, it continues to be spread.)

(I)  Mark 16:9-20 is omitted by important Ethiopic codices. – Eugene Nida, Matt Slick and many others.  Nida did not know any better, since he wrote before 1980, when Bruce Metzger published a detailed refutation of this claim -- which, alas, is still being spread in Metzger's own handbook, The Text of the New Testament!  Matt Slick, though, has been informed that every continuous-script Ethiopic manuscript of Mark known to exist contains at least part of Mark 16:9-20.

(J)  “Until you get to about eight- or nine-hundred A.D., you can’t find a manuscript that contains these verses.” – Bob McCartney.  (This ridiculous statement was made in a sermon at the First Baptist Church of Wichita Falls, Texas, in 2011.  Bob McCartney has two graduate degrees; it is hard to say if he spread this falsehood in spite of his training or because of it.)  

All ten of those statements are false, and all ten of those statements can easily be proven to be false.  Furthermore,  some of the authors responsible for those statements know that the statements are false, but allow them to continue to be spread anyway.  Stephen Miller, Bart Ehrman, and Matt Slick, I mean you.  (I suspect that I could include Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes on the list of those who deliberately spread false information about Mark 16:9-20, too, if they answered the mail I sent to them.)  Matt Slick (supervisor of the pro-Calvinism apologetics-site CARM) has been fully informed that this claim is incorrect, but for years he has continued to spread this false claim at his website.  Let the CARM-visitor beware.

Commentaries must be weighed, not counted.  (Just read Ben Witherington's commentary's one-sided notes on Mark 16:9-20, and compare it to Bruce Metzger's one-sided statements in Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, and tell me how many commentaries you are really reading.)  Following the decades in which distortions and falsehoods about Mark 16:9-20 have been promoted in commentaries, in seminary classrooms, and in pulpits (such as the pulpits of John MacArthur and Alistair Begg), some recent commentators have decided not to comment about Mark 16:9-20 at all.  Perhaps that is better than spreading falsehoods about the passage, as the persons listed above have done -- but let no one doubt that the silence of some members of the current generation of commentators is the child of the lies that were spread by many commentators in previous generations.