Significant Textual Variants in the New Testament: The Ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae

Introduction

Among the hundreds of thousands of textual variants in the New Testament manuscript tradition, two passages stand out for their theological significance, their length, and the intensity of scholarly debate they have generated: the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20) and the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11, the story of the woman caught in adultery). Both passages are beloved by Christians, both appear in most printed Bibles, and both are almost certainly not part of the original text of their respective Gospels. When Bruce Metzger published his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament in 1971, he devoted more space to these two variants than to any others, recognizing their unique importance for both scholarship and the church.

These passages provide ideal case studies for understanding textual criticism. They illustrate how scribes could add material to the biblical text, how the manuscript tradition preserves evidence of these additions, and how modern scholars evaluate the evidence to determine the earliest attainable text. The longer ending of Mark is absent from Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א), both dating to the fourth century, yet appears in the majority of later manuscripts. The Pericope Adulterae is absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts of John, including Papyrus 66 (ca. 200 CE) and Papyrus 75 (ca. 175-225 CE), and appears in different locations across the manuscript tradition—sometimes after John 7:52, sometimes after John 21:25, and occasionally after Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.

The textual evidence forces us to confront uncomfortable questions. If these passages were not written by Mark and John, should they remain in our Bibles? If they preserve authentic traditions about Jesus, does their textual status matter? How should pastors preach from texts that are textually secondary but theologically significant? These questions have no easy answers, but they demand honest engagement from scholars and church leaders alike.

The longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) contains twelve verses that include resurrection appearances to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9-11), two disciples on a road (Mark 16:12-13), and the eleven apostles (Mark 16:14-18), followed by Jesus' ascension (Mark 16:19-20). The vocabulary and style differ markedly from Mark 1:1–16:8. For example, the longer ending uses ekporeuomai for "go out" (Mark 16:20) rather than Mark's preferred exerchomai, and it refers to Jesus as "the Lord" (ho kyrios) in Mark 16:19-20, a usage rare in Mark but common in Luke-Acts. N. Clayton Croy argues in The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel (2003) that the original ending was not lost but deliberately concluded at Mark 16:8, with the women's fear and silence creating narrative tension that invites readers to become witnesses themselves.

The Pericope Adulterae presents a different set of challenges. Chris Keith's monograph The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus (2009) demonstrates that the passage's vocabulary and style are more Lukan than Johannine. The story uses grammateus ("scribe") in John 8:3, a term that appears 63 times in the Synoptic Gospels but nowhere else in John. The phrase "early in the morning" (orthrou) in John 8:2 is characteristic of Luke (Luke 24:1; Acts 5:21) but foreign to John's vocabulary. Keith argues that the passage preserves an authentic tradition about Jesus that circulated independently before being inserted into the Fourth Gospel, probably in the fourth or fifth century.

The manuscript evidence reveals the complexity of textual transmission. Codex Bezae (D), a fifth-century bilingual manuscript, includes both passages but with significant variations. In the longer ending of Mark, Codex Bezae adds after Mark 16:14 a passage in which the disciples excuse their unbelief and Jesus responds with a statement about Satan's power. In the Pericope Adulterae, Codex Bezae includes unique details, such as the accusers leaving "one by one" (John 8:9) and Jesus writing on the ground "the sins of each of them" (John 8:6, 8). These variations suggest that scribes continued to modify these passages even after they were added to the Gospels.

Jennifer Wright Knust's To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story (2005) traces the Pericope Adulterae through patristic citations and manuscript evidence. She notes that Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-130 CE) knew a story about a woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which Eusebius reports in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.17. This suggests that the tradition behind the Pericope Adulterae circulated orally in the early second century before being written down and eventually inserted into John's Gospel. The story's "floating" character—appearing in different locations in different manuscripts—is strong evidence that it was not originally part of any Gospel but was added by scribes who recognized its value and sought to preserve it within the canonical tradition.

The textual criticism of these passages involves careful evaluation of external and internal evidence. External evidence includes the date, geographical distribution, and genealogical relationships of manuscripts. Internal evidence includes considerations of style, vocabulary, theology, and the likelihood that a reading could have given rise to the others. In both cases, the external evidence strongly favors the shorter text (without the longer ending of Mark or the Pericope Adulterae), while the internal evidence explains why scribes would have added these passages. The principle of lectio difficilior ("the more difficult reading is to be preferred") supports the shorter text in both cases: it is easier to explain why scribes would add these passages than why they would remove them.

Biblical Foundation

The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20)

The Gospel of Mark in its earliest and best manuscripts ends abruptly at Mark 16:8: "And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." This ending—with the women fleeing in fear and silence—struck ancient readers as incomplete, and several alternative endings were composed to provide a more satisfying conclusion. Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B), both fourth-century manuscripts, end at Mark 16:8. Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260-340 CE) reports in his Questions to Marinus that "the accurate copies" of Mark end at Mark 16:8, and Jerome (ca. 347-420 CE) notes in his Letter to Hedibia that "almost all the Greek codices" lack Mark 16:9-20.

The "longer ending" (Mark 16:9–20) includes resurrection appearances, the Great Commission, and the ascension. It is attested in the majority of later manuscripts but is absent from the earliest witnesses. The vocabulary and style differ markedly from Mark 1:1–16:8. For example, Mark 16:9 begins with anastas de ("Now when he rose"), a construction that appears nowhere else in Mark. The longer ending uses phaneroō ("appear") for resurrection appearances (Mark 16:12, 14), while Mark 1:1–16:8 never uses this verb. The longer ending refers to Jesus as "the Lord Jesus" (Mark 16:19), a title that appears nowhere else in Mark but is common in Luke-Acts (Luke 24:3; Acts 1:21; 4:33; 8:16).

James A. Kelhoffer's Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (2000) argues that the longer ending was composed in the early second century to provide apostolic authentication for Christian missionaries. The signs mentioned in Mark 16:17-18—casting out demons, speaking in tongues, handling serpents, drinking poison, and healing the sick—correspond to practices attested in early Christian communities. Kelhoffer notes that Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130-202 CE) quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies 3.10.6, providing the earliest clear attestation of the longer ending. This suggests that the longer ending was composed sometime between 100 and 150 CE and gradually gained acceptance in the manuscript tradition.

A "shorter ending" also exists in some manuscripts, including Codex Bobbiensis (k), a fourth-century Old Latin manuscript. This shorter ending reads: "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." This ending appears in some manuscripts after Mark 16:8 and in others after Mark 16:20, suggesting that it was composed as an alternative to the longer ending or as a bridge between Mark 16:8 and Mark 16:9-20.

The abrupt ending at Mark 16:8 has generated extensive scholarly debate. Some scholars argue that the original ending was lost, perhaps when the last page of an early manuscript was damaged. Others, including N. Clayton Croy, argue that Mark intentionally ended at Mark 16:8, with the women's fear and silence creating narrative tension that invites readers to become witnesses themselves. Croy notes that Mark's Gospel begins with a voice from heaven declaring Jesus to be God's Son (Mark 1:11) and ends with a young man in white declaring that Jesus has risen (Mark 16:6). The women's silence in Mark 16:8 is not the final word; the reader knows that the message was eventually proclaimed, since the Gospel itself testifies to the resurrection.

The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11)

The story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery—"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7)—is one of the most beloved passages in the Gospels. Yet the manuscript evidence strongly suggests that it was not originally part of the Fourth Gospel. The passage is absent from Papyrus 66 (ca. 200 CE), Papyrus 75 (ca. 175-225 CE), Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Vaticanus (B), and Codex Alexandrinus (A). It is also absent from early versions, including the Syriac Peshitta and the Coptic Sahidic. The earliest Greek manuscript to include the passage is Codex Bezae (D), a fifth-century bilingual manuscript known for its unique readings.

The passage's style and vocabulary are more Lukan than Johannine. Chris Keith's detailed analysis in The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus (2009) demonstrates that the passage uses vocabulary characteristic of Luke-Acts but foreign to John. The term grammateus ("scribe") appears in John 8:3 but nowhere else in John, while it appears 63 times in the Synoptic Gospels. The phrase "early in the morning" (orthrou) in John 8:2 is characteristic of Luke (Luke 24:1; Acts 5:21) but does not appear elsewhere in John. The phrase "went to his own house" (John 7:53) uses poreuthē, a verb that appears 51 times in Luke-Acts but only once elsewhere in John (John 14:2-3).

The passage's "floating" character—appearing in different locations in different manuscripts—is strong evidence that it was not part of the original text of any Gospel. Most manuscripts that include the passage place it after John 7:52, but some place it after John 7:36, after John 21:25, or after Luke 21:38. A few manuscripts place it after Luke 24:53. This variation suggests that scribes recognized the passage as an independent tradition and sought to find an appropriate location for it within the canonical Gospels.

Jennifer Wright Knust's To Cast the First Stone (2005) traces the passage through patristic citations. Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-130 CE) knew a story about a woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which Eusebius reports in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.17. Didymus the Blind (ca. 313-398 CE) quotes the passage in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes, providing the earliest clear patristic citation. Ambrose of Milan (ca. 340-397 CE) and Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) both knew the passage and defended its authenticity. Augustine suggests in On Adulterous Marriages 2.7 that some scribes removed the passage because they feared it would encourage laxity regarding adultery.

Despite its uncertain textual provenance, many scholars believe the passage preserves an authentic tradition about Jesus. The story's portrayal of Jesus' compassion toward sinners and his challenge to self-righteous accusers is consistent with his character as portrayed elsewhere in the Gospels (Luke 7:36-50; Luke 15:1-2; Luke 19:1-10). Bart Ehrman notes in Misquoting Jesus (2005) that the passage may have circulated orally for decades or even centuries before being written down and inserted into John's Gospel. The tradition's survival and eventual inclusion in the canonical text testifies to the church's recognition of its value, even if it was not originally part of John's Gospel.

The Manuscript Evidence and Textual Criticism

The textual evidence for these passages illustrates the principles of New Testament textual criticism. External evidence includes the date, geographical distribution, and genealogical relationships of manuscripts. Internal evidence includes considerations of style, vocabulary, theology, and the likelihood that a reading could have given rise to the others. In both cases, the external evidence strongly favors the shorter text (without the longer ending of Mark or the Pericope Adulterae), while the internal evidence explains why scribes would have added these passages.

Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1971, 4th ed. 1994) provides detailed analysis of both passages. Metzger notes that the longer ending of Mark is absent from the earliest and best manuscripts, is unknown to Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and differs in vocabulary and style from Mark 1:1–16:8. He concludes that the longer ending was composed in the early second century to provide a more satisfying conclusion to Mark's Gospel. Regarding the Pericope Adulterae, Metzger notes that the passage is absent from the earliest manuscripts, appears in different locations in different manuscripts, and uses vocabulary foreign to John. He concludes that the passage was not originally part of John's Gospel but may preserve an authentic tradition about Jesus.

The principle of lectio difficilior ("the more difficult reading is to be preferred") supports the shorter text in both cases. It is easier to explain why scribes would add these passages than why they would remove them. The abrupt ending of Mark at Mark 16:8 is the more difficult reading—it is harder to explain why a scribe would have removed the longer ending than why a scribe would have added it. Similarly, it is harder to explain why scribes would have removed the Pericope Adulterae from John's Gospel than why they would have added it. The principle of lectio brevior ("the shorter reading is to be preferred") also applies when the longer reading can be explained as a scribal addition.

Larry Hurtado's The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (2006) emphasizes the importance of early manuscripts for textual criticism. Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75, both dating to around 200 CE, provide crucial evidence for the text of John's Gospel. Both manuscripts lack the Pericope Adulterae, confirming that the passage was not part of the earliest form of John's Gospel. Hurtado notes that the earliest manuscripts, though fragmentary, provide a window into the text of the New Testament in the second and third centuries, before the major uncial manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries.

Theological Analysis

Principles of Textual Criticism Applied

Both passages illustrate key principles of textual criticism. The principle of lectio brevior ("the shorter reading is to be preferred") applies when the longer reading can be explained as a scribal addition—as in both cases. The principle of evaluating manuscripts by weight rather than number explains why the testimony of two fourth-century manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) outweighs hundreds of later manuscripts: earlier manuscripts are generally more reliable because they are closer to the original. Kurt and Barbara Aland's The Text of the New Testament (1987) emphasizes that textual criticism must evaluate manuscripts qualitatively, not merely count them quantitatively.

The principle of lectio difficilior ("the more difficult reading is to be preferred") is particularly relevant to Mark's ending. The abrupt ending at Mark 16:8 is the more difficult reading—it is harder to explain why a scribe would have removed the longer ending than why a scribe would have added it. The longer ending solves a problem (the abrupt ending) rather than creating one. Similarly, the Pericope Adulterae's absence from the earliest manuscripts is the more difficult reading—it is easier to explain why scribes would add a beloved story about Jesus than why they would remove it.

The principle of geographical distribution also applies. The longer ending of Mark is absent from the earliest Alexandrian manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) but present in later Byzantine manuscripts. This suggests that the longer ending originated outside Alexandria, perhaps in Syria or Asia Minor, and gradually spread throughout the manuscript tradition. The Pericope Adulterae shows a similar pattern: it is absent from Alexandrian manuscripts but present in Western manuscripts, particularly Codex Bezae. This geographical distribution suggests that the passage originated in the West and gradually gained acceptance in other regions.

The Comma Johanneum and Other Significant Variants

The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) provides another instructive example of textual criticism. The Textus Receptus, the Greek text underlying the King James Version, includes an explicit Trinitarian formula: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one" (1 John 5:7-8 KJV). However, this reading is absent from all Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century and is recognized by virtually all textual critics as a later interpolation.

The Comma Johanneum probably originated as a Latin marginal gloss in the fourth or fifth century and was gradually incorporated into the Latin text. Erasmus omitted it from the first two editions of his Greek New Testament (1516, 1519) but included it in the third edition (1522) after being criticized for its absence. Daniel Wallace notes in "The Comma Johanneum" (2009) that the passage appears in only eight late Greek manuscripts, all of which show evidence of translation from Latin. The passage's absence from early Greek manuscripts, early versions, and patristic citations demonstrates that it was not part of the original text of 1 John.

The Western text of Acts presents a different kind of textual problem. Codex Bezae (D) preserves a version of Acts that is approximately ten percent longer than the Alexandrian text and includes numerous additions, omissions, and alterations. For example, Acts 19:9 in Codex Bezae adds that Paul taught "from the fifth hour to the tenth" (from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.), a detail absent from other manuscripts. The debate between scholars who regard the Western text as an early expansion of the original and those who argue that it preserves readings that were shortened in the Alexandrian tradition remains one of the most contested questions in New Testament textual criticism.

Theological and Pastoral Implications

The recognition that these passages are textually secondary does not mean they are theologically worthless. The Pericope Adulterae, even if not originally part of John's Gospel, may preserve an authentic tradition about Jesus that is consistent with his character as portrayed elsewhere in the Gospels. Jesus' compassion toward sinners and his challenge to self-righteous accusers are attested throughout the Gospel tradition (Matthew 9:10-13; Luke 7:36-50; Luke 15:1-2; Luke 19:1-10). The longer ending of Mark, while not written by Mark, reflects early Christian beliefs about the resurrection and the church's mission that are attested in other New Testament writings (Matthew 28:16-20; Luke 24:36-53; Acts 1:1-11).

The question for the church is how to handle these passages in preaching, teaching, and liturgy. Most modern translations include them with notes indicating their textual status. The English Standard Version (ESV) includes both passages but sets them apart with spacing and notes: "Some manuscripts do not include 16:9-20" (Mark 16:9) and "The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11" (John 7:53). The New International Version (NIV) uses similar formatting. This transparent approach respects both the manuscript evidence and the passages' long history of use in the church.

Daniel Wallace argues in "The Gospel According to Bart" (2006) that the existence of textual variants does not undermine confidence in the essential reliability of the New Testament text. The vast majority of variants are insignificant (differences in spelling, word order, or synonyms), and no cardinal doctrine depends on a disputed reading. The deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, and other central Christian beliefs are attested in passages whose textual status is not in doubt. Wallace notes that the New Testament is the best-attested ancient text, with over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and thousands of manuscripts in other ancient languages.

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy must be formulated with reference to the original autographs rather than any extant manuscript. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) affirms that "inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture" (Article X). This does not mean that the doctrine of inerrancy is irrelevant to textual criticism; rather, it means that textual criticism is the means by which we seek to recover the original text. The existence of textual variants is not a threat to biblical authority but a reminder that the transmission of the biblical text was a human process that requires careful scholarly attention.

The Impact on Bible Translation

The impact of textual criticism on Bible translation is evident in the differences between translations based on the Textus Receptus (such as the King James Version) and those based on modern critical editions (such as the NRSV, ESV, and NIV). The omission or bracketing of passages such as Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and Acts 8:37 in modern translations has generated controversy among readers unfamiliar with the principles of textual criticism. Some readers perceive these omissions as evidence that modern translations are removing parts of the Bible, when in fact they are attempting to represent the earliest attainable text more accurately.

The King James Version includes Acts 8:37, which records the Ethiopian eunuch's confession of faith: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." This verse is absent from the earliest manuscripts and is recognized by textual critics as a later addition, probably based on early baptismal liturgy. Modern translations either omit the verse or include it in a footnote. Similarly, the King James Version includes 1 John 5:7-8 (the Comma Johanneum), which modern translations omit or relegate to a footnote. These differences reflect the translators' commitment to representing the earliest attainable text rather than the received text of the late medieval period.

The digitization of New Testament manuscripts through projects such as the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) and the International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP) has democratized access to manuscript evidence. High-resolution digital images of manuscripts that were previously accessible only through personal visits to libraries and museums are now available online. This has transformed the practice of textual criticism by enabling scholars worldwide to examine the physical evidence for themselves rather than relying solely on published transcriptions and collations. The availability of digital images has also facilitated collaborative research and enabled new forms of analysis, such as multispectral imaging to recover faded or erased text.

Conclusion

The longer ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae are the two most significant textual variants in the New Testament, and their study illuminates both the methods of textual criticism and the pastoral challenges of communicating textual scholarship to the church. These passages remind us that the transmission of the biblical text was a human process—carried out by scribes who sometimes added, omitted, or modified the text—while the overall reliability of the manuscript tradition testifies to the care with which the church preserved its sacred writings. The existence of over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, along with thousands of manuscripts in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other ancient languages, provides an embarrassment of riches for textual critics seeking to recover the original text.

The textual evidence demonstrates that both passages were added to their respective Gospels after the original composition. The longer ending of Mark is absent from Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and differs in vocabulary and style from Mark 1:1–16:8. The Pericope Adulterae is absent from Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 and appears in different locations in different manuscripts. Yet the recognition that these passages are textually secondary does not render them theologically worthless. The Pericope Adulterae may preserve an authentic tradition about Jesus that circulated orally before being written down. The longer ending of Mark reflects early Christian beliefs about the resurrection and the church's mission that are attested in other New Testament writings.

The challenge for the church is to handle these passages with both honesty and pastoral sensitivity. Modern translations that include these passages with notes indicating their textual status represent a responsible approach that respects both the manuscript evidence and the passages' long history of use in the church. Pastors and teachers who understand the principles of textual criticism can help congregations appreciate the reliability of the New Testament text while acknowledging the complexities of textual transmission. The existence of textual variants is not a threat to biblical authority but a reminder that God has chosen to work through human agents—including scribes and copyists—in preserving his Word. The study of textual variants raises important theological questions about the nature of Scripture and the relationship between the original autographs and the transmitted text, questions that require ongoing dialogue between textual critics, biblical theologians, and pastoral practitioners.

Implications for Ministry and Credentialing

Understanding significant textual variants equips pastors to address congregational questions about Bible reliability with honesty and confidence. When church members discover that Mark 16:9-20 or John 7:53-8:11 are marked as textually uncertain in their study Bibles, they may feel confused or even betrayed. Pastors who understand textual criticism can explain that these markings reflect scholarly honesty, not liberal bias. The existence of textual variants does not undermine biblical authority but demonstrates the care with which scholars seek to recover the original text.

Preachers should handle these passages with transparency. When preaching from Mark 16:9-20 or John 7:53-8:11, acknowledge their textual status while affirming their theological and devotional value. Explain that the Pericope Adulterae, even if not originally part of John's Gospel, may preserve an authentic tradition about Jesus that is consistent with his character. Emphasize that no cardinal Christian doctrine depends on disputed passages—the deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, and other central beliefs are attested in passages whose textual status is not in doubt.

Bible study leaders should teach congregations the basics of textual criticism. Explain the difference between the Textus Receptus (underlying the King James Version) and modern critical editions (underlying the ESV, NIV, and NRSV). Show how manuscript evidence is evaluated by date, geographical distribution, and internal consistency. Help members understand that modern translations are not removing parts of the Bible but attempting to represent the earliest attainable text more accurately. This education builds confidence in Scripture rather than undermining it.

The Abide University credentialing program validates expertise in New Testament textual criticism and biblical studies for ministry professionals.

For ministry professionals seeking to formalize their expertise, the Abide University Retroactive Assessment Program offers a pathway to academic credentialing that recognizes prior learning and pastoral experience.