What About Those Double Brackets

We've all done it before, come to a passage in our Bibles that is notated, footnoted or set apart in some other fashion, and

just kept right on reading. In the past, I've convinced myself, when I actually noticed them, "I will go back and look...sometime. It's probably not that important, anyway. I want the word of God, not somebody's footnote!" Sometimes we ignore those notations altogether, passing over them as if they don't exist. "Huh? Where did that come from?" 

This is the case with John 7:53-8:11, which is enclosed with a set of double brackets in the ESV. The NASB has these verses enclosed in single brackets. The NIV has a simple notation, "The earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.". The King James, unfortunately, has nothing at all. Therein lies the reason for this posting. 

Returning to the ESV, the translation our church uses, if we read the notation that comes with the brackets, we see this, "Some manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11; others add the passage here or after 7:36 or after 21:25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations in the text." There seems to be a lot of confusion over this story, commonly known as the story of "The Adulterous Woman".

What do we do about those double brackets?

The key phrase in understanding how we approach them is what we see in the NIV, "The earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11 in them."

Let me explain. 

First, we all have to understand that God did not inspire His word in English, neither the Old Testament (OT) nor the New Testament (NT). The original manuscripts were written in one of three languages; Hebrew (OT), Greek (NT), Aramaic (Some parts of the OT). Since Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew, we can generally say the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. 

Those testaments are the inspired words of God, the OT written in the language of His chosen people and the NT in the world language of the 1st century. The problem we face is that we have none of the original manuscripts. The materials used and the techniques in storing and preserving them have not withstood the test of time. Most manuscripts have simply disintegrated, some have been lost in catastrophes, some purposefully destroyed by those who are the enemies of God and His people. Given the natural human tendency to venerate artifacts, this may be a blessing in disguise.

Still, God has faithfully preserved His word. 

The Hebrews had an exacting process in copying their

texts. Archaeological and extra-Biblical discoveries have borne this out, time after time. Due, in large part, to a dedicated group of scribe/scholar/priests called the Masoretes, we can, with great confidence, say the OT we have is an accurate portrayal of what the original writings of Moses, Joshua, the scribes and the prophets were inspired to document. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some dating back to the late 2nd century and 1st century BC in Qumran were sensational. Even more so was the fact that they verified that our modern OT books were accurately and faithfully reproduced. 

Our NT manuscripts present a little more of a challenge and it has to do with how they were handed down and translated. 

The NT church was in its infancy and growing/spreading fast. They had a body of Scripture, the OT, as a firm foundation but it soon became quite clear that, after 400 years of silence, God was speaking again, this time, not through prophets, but through Apostles. 

With Christ's ascension came the promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit, seen in Acts 2. Prior to that, Jesus made a promise to His disciples in John 14:25-26 that the Spirit would help them remember His teachings. With these two events, Scripture was being written again, this

time by Apostles chosen by Christ who were first hand witnesses to His life and ministry and were inspired by the Holy Spirit to give us a written record of the spread of the gospel. All the books of the NT were either written directly by the Apostles, or by those who were under their direct teaching or, as F.F. Bruce says in his excellent "The Canon of Scripture", "by those in the direct circle of influence of the Apostles", meaning those who lived with and traveled with the Apostles. In other words, the Apostles were personally in the presence of Christ and inspired, by God, to record His life, death, resurrection and the formation of the church in the 60 or so years following His ascension.

History shows that the OT took over 1500 years to complete. In comparison, the writing of the NT went with lightning speed, most likely starting with James in about 50 AD, and ending with John's writings sometime around 90 AD, a total of about 40 years or so.  

As the Apostles wrote their gospels and their letters, these writings began to circulate among the churches. It soon became clear that many of them were divinely inspired, imbued with authority and power by the promise of Jesus to those charged with recording the events of His life and ministry. Those Spirit empowered writings would have a tremendous impact on the formation of the church and the lives of its members. The originals were widely circulated and were read regularly in the new churches and respected as having authority equal to that of the OT, even claiming to have the same authority themselves (1 Cor 14:33, 2 Pet 3:15-16 and 1 Tim 5:18 b which quotes Luke 10:7)     

But, given the medium (usually papyrus scrolls and sheets), it was obvious that they would not last forever and copies were made and distributed. As the church grew, this became a bit of a cottage industry with those early copies being rendered hundreds of times. 

By the end of the 1st century, with the original Apostles having passed on and the leadership of the church growing, more students of these Scriptures arose, all of them approaching the writing of the Apostles as authoritative. There arose a body of teaching that adhered, over time, to a clearly specified group of letters and writings as being divinely inspired. 

By the end of the second century, there were a number of lists of authoritative writings compiled by church leaders (the

Early Church Fathers), who were students/disciples of the original Apostles. These lists and their authority as Scripture were later affirmed by the writings of  another group of pre-325 AD church leaders known as the Ante-Nicene Fathers. This eventually led to the ratification of those lists into the canon, first listed in its entirety, just as it is today, by Athanasius in 367 and affirmed by two world church councils; The Synod of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397. 

It's important to understand that these councils did not convene to decide which books went into the canon. They gave official recognition to the writings that were already being used by the church and viewed as authoritative by the church, since the first century. The popular idea that they voted or that certain books were left out is a myth. There are no "lost books" nor are there any truly "hidden books". The councils literally said, "These are the books the church has recognized as Scripture since the end of the Apostolic era. There are no more."

The criteria, all along, for determining authority in the writings was four-fold; Apostolicity (written by or recognized as authoritative by an Apostle), antiquity (written in the time of the Apostles), catholicity (recognized and used by the majority of the early church and the Early Church Fathers as authoritative) and inspiration (the evidence of harmony and consistency with the rest of Scripture).

Taking all this into account, we can see that the canon of Scripture was, for all purposes, closed once the Apostles passed away. Anything written after John died, was automatically ineligible for the canon. The Council in Carthage did nothing to establish the authority of the books of the Bible, they only recognized it.  The canon was determined by the authority of the books. The canon did not establish the authority of the books. 

In the years between the end of the Apostolic period and the convening of the Council at Carthage, the books of the NT were copied over and over again, sometimes with scribes and copiers making notes in the margins. Copies were passed around, recopied and written over again, sometimes making correction for developments in the language, sometimes incorporating notes from previous copies in an effort to clarify.

Over time, variations began to appear, nothing of a serious nature, but variations in notes, punctuation and minor details,
never anything that would impact doctrine or theology but minor variations nonetheless. 

So, there were a lot of Greek manuscripts floating around. Over more time, some of the notes made their way into the body of the copies. Some may be concerned with this, but God had His hand firmly on His word. Foreseeing that imperfect men would copy His word, He actively  and providentially preserved it undiluted and pure, but we'll get to that below. 

This is where things get interesting.

In 400 AD, Jerome, a biblical and language scholar of extraordinary capabilities was charged by Pope Damasus, to write a new translation of the Bible into Latin. Jerome was an gifted scholar, but the manuscripts he had available to him were largely from the Byzantine era and were fairly recent, given the times. Jerome's translation became the Vulgate, the Latin Bible.  

Fast forward to 1516, when Erasmus, another noted scholar, undertook the task of developing a new and improved Greek

translation. Erasmus assembled as much of the original texts used for the Vulgate, combining them with a small group of other Byzantine era manuscripts along with 6 manuscripts from the 12th century, and produced an all new Greek translation of the NT, thought, at the time, to be the most accurate. Unknown to those involved, they were using manuscripts that were not as accurate as earlier manuscripts would have been. Remember our note from the NIV? Erasmus' manuscripts became known as the Textus Receptus, the Received Texts. 

Now, follow the developments. Erasmus' work became the basis for Luther's translation of the Bible into German in 1534. 

In 1611, Luther's work was used, along with that of Erasmus, to write an English language translation. You may have heard of it. It was called the King James Version of the Bible (KJV). 

The KJV had John 7:53-8:11 in it, as well as the revised ending of Mark. This was the direct result of Erasmus using far later manuscripts than earlier ones. 

In the years after 1611, much progress was made in the

study of the ancient languages, particularly Greek. Along with

those developments, major archaeological discoveries were made. Older manuscripts and fragments, some dating back

to the late third and early fourth and fifth centuries, were discovered in St.Catherine's 
monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (Codex Sinaiticus), Alexandria (Codex Alexandrinus) and the Vatican (Codex Vaticanus, origin unknown), all of them predating not only the Textus Receptus but much of the basis for the Vulgate as well. These earlier, better texts have become the basis for most of our modern translations like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ASV, RASV and other well respected versions. 

None of the older (earlier), more reliable texts have our passage in John.

As near as can be determined, it was added sometime in the 5th century, perhaps later. Depending on the manuscript viewed, it appears in different places in John or, in a few cases, even in Luke. 

Furthermore, none of the Early Church Fathers mention this passage. Many of them were quite prolific commentators, writing enough commentaries between them that it is possible to assemble an entire NT from their writings. None of them, not one, ever quote from this passage, comment on it or acknowledge its existence. 

The conclusion is obvious; John 7:53-8:11 simply does not belong in our Bibles. It's the same case with the same proofs for the verses that follow Mark 16:8. 

What do we do with this?

We realize that we are dealing with translations. We also accept that some early translations were not as accurate as our later ones, the later ones being based on older, better, more accurate manuscripts and a more complete knowledge of the languages used in writing them. 

We thank God for His promise that His word, "...will not pass away." (Mt 24:35). He promises to preserve it and preserve it He did, at the foot of a dusty mountain like Sinai, in a dry and arid region like Alexandria and in the bowels of a vast and ancient storehouse beneath the Vatican. 

We thank God that He has given us people that have devoted their lives to the accurate transmission of the Scriptures, even when it goes against the grain of accepted tradition. God has preserved the purity of His word through their scholarship, commitment and service to the body of Christ. 

Finally, we treat the words inside those brackets just as we

would the chapter headings and numbers, pericopes, verse references, table of contents, page numbers, cover pages, maps, charts, even the order of the books...as something that was added by man, not inspired and certainly not in the earliest and best manuscripts.

Lastly, we hold tight to what the Bible says about itself. If we look at the first five books, the Books of the Law, as the beginning of the Bible, we see this in Deuteronomy 4:2,  "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." We see it again at the end of the Bible, in Rev 22:18, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book," Now, there's a set of brackets added by God, one at the beginning and the other at then end.

We can discuss both passages in Dt. and Rev. and whether or not they pertain to their particular books or the entire Bible. Opinions vary. Still, I believe it's a good standard to view all Scripture by. Man cannot add to or subtract from it. The canon was completed, not by man, but by God, long before those words inside the brackets were ever thought of.