Originally Posted by John_C
How should we treat passages, such as John 8 1:11 (really starting with last verse in 7) and last section of Mark 16, as both passages are omitted in many of the earlier copies found? The Mark passage can be easily dismissed because of its subject matter, but the John passage is more difficult. Some wants to link it as being canonical as verses 6, 8 go with Jeremiah 17:13.
1. Age-Old debate between those who opt for the TR (Textus Receptus/Received Text) and those who opt for the WH (Westcott-Hort text). There are good arguments on both sides.

2. There is no problem with the entirety of John 8's narrative of the women caught in adultery. It can be easily shown that it is in harmony with the context both near and far and with all of Scripture. I haven't been able to be convinced that it should be discarded or even ignored.

3. The Markan passage is a bit more difficult, but only concerning one part of v. 18: "they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them". All the other signs mentioned are found to have actually happened, particularly to the Apostles during the infancy of the NT church. Some reliable NT scholars tend to recommend that the two exceptions be ignored.

Originally Posted by John_C
Now, if they should be dismissed what is the best theory of why they were added by later Christians?
See #1. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]