A Question for Inerrantists
I’m just asking this as an honest question (inspired by this paper) what do inerrantists do with Mark 16:9-20 or John 8:1-11? Both are included in every Bible and one or both is usually footnoted with a caution that the earliest manuscripts don’t include these verses. Are they non-inerrant now because they might not have been in the original versions? Which set of manuscripts are we treating as inerrant? Without Mark 16:9-20 the ending of Mark’s gospel is rather abrupt and John 8:1-11 is one where Jesus is reported to write the bit about the one without sin casting the first stone – one of his more famous comments. In other words, these aren’t some arcane bits of OT law regarding tent maintenance or something. What do you do if you are an inerrantist but the content of the original is in doubt?
I for one don’t think either of those passages were in the originals, and thus have no commitment as to whether they are inerrant. It’s true that the John 8 story is a famous one, but that’s how it goes I guess.
Most inerrantists would say that only the text of the autographs is necessarily inerrant; most would say there is no guarantee that incorrect copies will not be made, or that we will be able to tell easily in every case which are incorrect. A few, for lack of a better term, crazy people, like KJV-only types, will say we have perfect copies/translations. But I think that’s ridiculous.
That was quick! Avoiding a paper?
Yes.
And it was a straightforward question, so it doesn’t take time to give a straightforward answer 
That’s interesting. I’m a non-inerrantist, and I think that while not in the first manuscript / edition of Mark, 16.9-20 is Markan.
I myself don’t think it’s Markan like Andrew
….
But, I do recall a friend once commenting that 16:9-20 could be entirely reconstructed from quotations found in the earliest church fathers.
But hey, I’m not going to die on this hill.
Have either you, Keith, or Andrew or Dan read extensively on the matter concerning Mark 16.9-20? You guys wouldn’t know of any good books on the topic? My evidence in support of it being Markan is tenuous at best. I kinda looking for more discussion on the matter. I wondering if you guys could direct me, if you read about it.
I personally haven’t, I just know that all my bibles (save for my grandfather’s KJV) have that caveat included about it not being in the earliest manuscripts.
Dan and friends,
I can’t speak for all inerrantists, but regarding Mark 16:9-20, I investigated the manuscript evidence for myself and formed an opinion about the passage’s authenticity, intending to answer the question, “When the Gospel of Mark was initially distributed for church-use, did it contain these 12 verses, or not?” And based on the answer to that question (Yes), I accepted the passage as authoritative Scripture. Some inerrantists may reach a different conclusion, and as a result they will consider the passage to be uninspired and unauthoritative.
It should be understood, btw, that the earliest manuscripts — such as the two fourth-century manuscripts which are referred to in some footnotes at Mark 16:9 — are not always the earliest *evidence.* Two Greek manuscripts from the 300’s do not have Mark 16:9-20, but several earlier patristic writers cite the passage or allude to its contents — including Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Irenaeus, all in the 100’s. Plus, the two Greek copies that do not have these 12 verses have quirky features after Mk. 16:8 which appear to indicate that the copyists were aware of the existence of Mark 16:9-20.
For more about this particular textual issue, I welcome you to the multi-part presentation about Mark 16:9-20 which begins at
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html .
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
John:
I haven’t done a ton of reading on it either; I hold that position from reading Wright’s Christian Origins volumes and from Terence Donaldson who taught that at Wycliffe (and they don’t completely agree: Wright thinks there was another ending lost which would have been something like the current one, Donaldson thinks Mark intentionally ended it at verse 8). I also haven’t seen a particularly good reason to think the current ending was in the original manuscripts from external evidence, so I have no reason to think it would have been. But obviously people like James here disagree, and I really am not invested that much in the debate, so he might be right.