Biblical Textual Variations: Understanding Manuscript History and Authenticity
A Comprehensive Analysis of Disputed Passages and Their Historical Context
Preface: This article is written to refute claims that the Bible’s inconsistency between manuscripts proves that is not divinely written and therefore puts the credibility of it’s accuracy in question. These claims were made in an article on Medium. "9 Forgeries That Defined Christianity" by Tanner.
Introduction
The reliability and authenticity of biblical texts have long been subjects of scholarly debate. Recently, claims have emerged suggesting that several key passages in the Bible were later additions, deliberately inserted to shape Christian doctrine or enhance dramatic effect. These assertions challenge the traditional understanding of Scripture's transmission and preservation, suggesting that human hands have significantly altered the original messages.
This paper examines and refutes a series of claims regarding alleged forgeries
and additions to biblical texts, including the longer ending of Mark, the story of the woman caught in adultery, the Trinitarian formula in 1 John, and Jesus' prayer of forgiveness on the cross. Through careful analysis of manuscript evidence, early church testimony, and theological consistency, we can demonstrate that these passages align with the broader biblical narrative and show evidence of authentic preservation rather than later manipulation.
While acknowledging the existence of textual variations in biblical manuscripts, this analysis reveals that such variations do not alter core Christian doctrines or indicate systematic manipulation of Scripture. Instead, the evidence points to a remarkably reliable transmission process that has preserved the original message of the Bible across centuries.
Claim #1:
"The Gospel of Mark originally ended with the women finding the empty tomb and fleeing in fear, with no appearances from a resurrected Jesus. But some scribes apparently thought this ending wasn’t enough. So, they added verses 9–20, where Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene, the disciples, and even talks about handling snakes. Scholars agree these verses weren’t part of the original text; they’re absent from the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. This addition changed the entire conclusion of the gospel, creating a powerful resurrection story that wasn’t there before."
(Quoted from "9 Forgeries That Defined Christianity" by Tanner on Medium)
1. Manuscript Evidence Is Not Conclusive
The claim that Mark 16:9-20 was a later addition is based primarily on its absence from two early complete manuscripts—Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (both from the 4th century). However, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts—including many from the early centuries of Christianity—contain these verses. In fact, over 99% of existing Greek manuscripts of Mark include the longer ending. To dismiss these verses based solely on two manuscripts would require applying the same standard to other passages in the Bible, leading to a broad undermining of textual confidence.
Additionally, even in the manuscripts where the longer ending is missing, a blank space is often left at the end of Mark, indicating that scribes were aware of an alternative ending but did not have access to it.
2. Early Church Fathers Cited the Longer Ending
Several early Christian writers referenced or quoted Mark 16:9-20 long before the 4th-century manuscripts that omit it were written:
Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) explicitly quotes Mark 16:19, proving that this passage existed well before the manuscripts that lack it.
Tatian (c. 160 AD) included the longer ending in his Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels.
Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) alludes to Mark 16:20.
Hippolytus (early 3rd century) referenced the passage as well.
If these verses were a later addition, how could they be referenced nearly two centuries before the earliest complete manuscripts that omit them were written?
3. Internal Evidence in Mark Supports the Resurrection Appearances
Mark repeatedly records Jesus predicting His resurrection:
If the Gospel originally ended at Mark 16:8, it would leave these predictions unfulfilled, creating an abrupt and unnatural conclusion. Ending with the women fleeing in fear without resolution contradicts Mark’s own narrative pattern.
Additionally, while some argue that Mark 16:9-20 uses slightly different vocabulary, such variations in language are not uncommon in biblical writings. The argument that different word usage proves an addition is speculative at best.
4. Theological Implications of Dismissing Mark 16:9-20
If one claims that Mark’s Gospel originally ended at Mark 16:8 and that the resurrection appearances were a later invention, this implies that early Christians did not originally believe in resurrection appearances—a claim that contradicts the other Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, where Paul records Jesus appearing to many people, including over 500 witnesses.
Moreover, every Gospel records resurrection appearances, and Mark is the only one skeptics challenge. If Mark truly lacked any resurrection appearances, why did early Christians universally believe in them?
5. The Longer Ending Is Doctrinally Consistent
Mark 16:9-20 does not introduce new doctrine but aligns with themes found in Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts. The signs mentioned in Mark 16:17-18—casting out demons, speaking in new tongues, and miraculous protection—are confirmed in Acts and early Christian history.
The reference to handling snakes is likely metaphorical, pointing to God’s protection (as seen in Acts 28:3-6 when Paul is unharmed after being bitten by a viper). The passage does not command believers to test God by handling snakes but demonstrates divine protection when necessary.
Conclusion
The claim that Mark 16:9-20 was "added" to create a resurrection story ignores both the overwhelming manuscript support for the passage and the testimony of early church leaders. The fact that a few manuscripts lack these verses does not mean they were not originally part of the Gospel. Given that the resurrection was central to Christian faith from the very beginning (1 Corinthians 15), it is highly unlikely that Mark intended to leave his Gospel without a resurrection account. Thus, the longer ending of Mark should not be dismissed as an inauthentic addition but recognized as part of the Gospel tradition preserved by the church.
Claim #2:
"The tale of Jesus forgiving an adulterous woman, famously saying, 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,' is inspiring. But the problem? This passage doesn’t exist in the earliest copies of the Gospel of John. Scholars agree it was likely added centuries later. Without this story, there’s no record of Jesus making this famous statement. The scribe who added it probably thought it made Jesus sound merciful and wise, and it worked — today, it’s one of the most beloved stories about him."
(Quoted from "9 Forgeries That Defined Christianity" by Tanner on Medium)
1. Manuscript Evidence Does Not Necessarily Indicate an Addition
It is true that the story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53–8:11) is missing from some of the earliest complete manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (4th century). However, the passage appears in many later manuscripts and was widely known in the early church.
Additionally, some manuscripts that omit the passage leave a blank space or place a mark in the text, suggesting that scribes knew of its existence but were uncertain of its placement. If it were simply a later addition, we wouldn’t expect to see evidence of scribal hesitation.
2. Early Church Testimony Supports Authenticity
Church fathers referenced or acknowledged the passage long before the manuscripts that omit it were written:
Papias (early 2nd century) is believed to have mentioned a similar story.
Didymus the Blind (4th century) explicitly refers to the account as part of John’s Gospel.
Ambrose (4th century), a respected church leader, defended its authenticity.
Augustine (late 4th to early 5th century) argued that some scribes intentionally removed the passage because they believed it encouraged immorality. If this is true, its absence from some early manuscripts could be due to censorship rather than a lack of originality.
Furthermore, many Latin and Syriac manuscripts contain the passage, and it appears in various locations in different manuscripts, indicating that early Christians knew of the story but may have debated where it belonged.
3. The Passage Aligns with Jesus’ Character and Teaching
Even if one were to question its exact placement in John’s Gospel, the story is entirely consistent with Jesus’ ministry. His mercy toward sinners, His wisdom in answering traps set by the Pharisees, and His call for repentance all align with other Gospel accounts.
For example:
Jesus consistently confronted religious hypocrisy (Matthew 23, Luke 11:37-54).
He frequently extended mercy while calling sinners to repentance (Luke 7:36-50, John 4:1-26, Luke 19:1-10).
The Pharisees often attempted to trap Jesus with legal dilemmas (Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17).
If this passage were fabricated, it would be unusual for it to so perfectly match the way Jesus interacts with both sinners and religious leaders in other parts of the Gospels.
4. If It Were a Later Invention, It Would Be Theologically Problematic
The claim that a scribe “made up” this story to portray Jesus as merciful and wise overlooks the fact that early Christians were meticulous in preserving Jesus’ words. Adding a fictional story would be counter to their devotion to Scripture.
Moreover, if this passage were a later addition meant to make Jesus appear more merciful, we might expect a different tone—one that completely omits the final words of Jesus: "Go and sin no more." Instead of merely excusing the woman's actions, Jesus upholds righteousness while extending grace, just as He does in other parts of Scripture.
5. The Passage’s Exclusion Does Not Mean It Wasn’t Originally Known
Arguments against John 7:53–8:11 often assume that if a passage is missing from early manuscripts, it was not originally part of Scripture. But manuscript transmission is complex. Variations existed, and scribes sometimes omitted passages due to doctrinal concerns or copying traditions.
Other passages of Scripture with early manuscript variations (e.g., the ending of Mark, 1 John 5:7-8) are still widely accepted as authentic despite textual disputes.
Conclusion
The absence of John 7:53–8:11 in some early manuscripts does not conclusively prove it was later added. Early church testimony, its thematic consistency with Jesus' teachings, and the possibility of scribal omission suggest that this passage was known and accepted in the early church. While some scholars debate its exact placement, dismissing it as inauthentic ignores both historical evidence and the character of Jesus as seen throughout the Gospels.
Claim #3:
"In 1 John 5:7–8, we find a line that directly states the idea of the Holy Trinity: 'For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.' This line, called the Comma Johanneum, appears only in a handful of late manuscripts. Early manuscripts don’t include it, and scholars agree it was added later to support the doctrine of the Trinity, which had been a hot topic among early Christians. This addition likely slipped in during the Middle Ages, when church leaders wanted to settle debates over the nature of God."
(Quoted from "9 Forgeries That Defined Christianity" by Tanner on Medium)
1. Manuscript Evidence and the Comma Johanneum
It is true that the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)—"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."—is absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts. It appears in some late medieval Greek manuscripts but is more prominent in Latin manuscripts from an earlier period.
However, the claim that it was "added later to support the doctrine of the Trinity" is an oversimplification. The doctrine of the Trinity was already well established before this passage appeared in Greek manuscripts. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Council of Constantinople (381 AD) affirmed Trinitarian doctrine using Scripture without relying on 1 John 5:7. Thus, the doctrine did not depend on this verse.
2. Early Church Testimony Suggests It Was Known
Although missing from early Greek manuscripts, the concept found in the Comma Johanneum appears in early Latin writings:
Cyprian (c. 250 AD) paraphrases a similar statement: “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one,’ and again it is written, ‘And these three are one.’” (On the Unity of the Church 6).
Priscillian (4th century) explicitly quotes the verse.
Cassiodorus (6th century) refers to the passage as an important biblical witness.
These early references suggest that a form of this passage existed in some texts before the Middle Ages.
3. Theological and Doctrinal Consistency
Even if 1 John 5:7-8 were absent, the doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent on this verse. The Bible already establishes the Trinity through multiple passages:
Matthew 28:19 – “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
John 1:1, 14 – Identifies Jesus (the Word) as God.
John 10:30 – “I and the Father are one.”
2 Corinthians 13:14 – A Trinitarian blessing: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
Thus, the Comma Johanneum, whether originally in John’s letter or not, does not create the Trinity—it only explicitly states what Scripture already teaches.
4. Scribal Transmission and the Latin Tradition
A likely explanation for its absence in early Greek manuscripts is that the Comma Johanneum may have existed in the Old Latin tradition and later entered Greek copies through Latin influence. This process is not unusual in textual history, where marginal notes sometimes became incorporated into later copies.
Moreover, scribes in the early centuries may have omitted it accidentally, as early manuscripts often lacked punctuation and spacing, making it possible for similar phrases to be skipped in copying.
5. The Doctrine of the Trinity Precedes the Comma Johanneum
The claim that this verse was added to “settle debates” ignores the historical reality that the doctrine of the Trinity was defended long before the Comma Johanneum became widely used. The early church fathers, including Tertullian, Athanasius, and Augustine, defended Trinitarian theology based on other biblical texts.
If the Comma Johanneum had been created to influence doctrinal disputes, we would expect earlier Trinitarian defenders to have relied heavily on it—but they did not.
Conclusion
While the Comma Johanneum is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts, evidence from Latin sources suggests that the phrase was known in some Christian traditions before the Middle Ages. However, the doctrine of the Trinity does not rest on this single verse. The Bible as a whole affirms the Triune nature of God, making the claim that this passage was “added to support the Trinity” historically and theologically inaccurate. The doctrine stands firm with or without this textual variant.
Claim #4:
"When Jesus is being crucified in Luke, he says, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.' It’s a compassionate, moving moment. But it may not have been part of the original gospel. Many of the oldest copies don’t include this line. Scholars suggest it was added later by a scribe who wanted to make Jesus look forgiving even toward his executioners. While the sentiment is noble, its absence from early manuscripts suggests it wasn’t there from the start."
(Quoted from "9 Forgeries That Defined Christianity" by Tanner on Medium)
1. Manuscript Evidence and Variations
It is true that some early manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel do not include Jesus' words in Luke 23:34: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." However, this does not automatically mean the phrase was a later addition. It is present in many ancient manuscripts, including Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) and other early textual witnesses.
Textual variants are common in ancient manuscripts, but omission does not necessarily indicate inauthenticity. In fact, some scholars argue that scribes may have removed this verse due to theological concerns—especially in light of growing tension between early Christians and Jewish authorities. Since Jesus' statement implies forgiveness for those involved in His execution, some scribes might have excluded it to avoid controversy.
2. Early Church Testimony Supports Its Authenticity
Several early church fathers referenced this verse long before the manuscripts that omit it were written:
Irenaeus (2nd century) paraphrases the sentiment in his writings.
Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century) alludes to Jesus’ prayer of forgiveness.
Origen (3rd century) acknowledges the passage.
Eusebius (4th century) quotes it explicitly.
If this phrase were a later addition, how could early church fathers be referencing it well before some of the manuscripts that omit it?
3. Theological and Narrative Consistency
The claim that a scribe added this verse to make Jesus appear more forgiving overlooks the fact that this statement is entirely consistent with Jesus' character throughout the Gospels:
Matthew 5:44 – “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
Luke 6:27-28 – “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.”
Luke 6:35 – “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”
Luke 15:11-32 – The parable of the prodigal son highlights divine forgiveness.
Luke 19:10 – “The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
Jesus repeatedly forgives sinners throughout His ministry, even while suffering on the cross. To suggest that this statement was added later to "make Jesus look forgiving" ignores how forgiveness is already central to His teaching.
4. If This Was Added, Why Not in Other Gospels?
If scribes were altering the text to enhance Jesus' mercy, why do we not see similar additions in Matthew, Mark, or John? If this were a fabricated saying, we might expect it to appear more widely. Instead, it remains distinct to Luke, which aligns with Luke’s emphasis on Jesus' compassion (e.g., the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and His interactions with sinners).
5. The Danger of Assuming Later Additions
The assumption that any passage missing from some early manuscripts is inauthentic is problematic. Manuscript transmission involved many variables, including theological pressures, accidental omissions, and regional textual traditions. The fact that some early manuscripts lack this verse does not mean it was not originally part of Luke’s Gospel.
Conclusion
The phrase “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” is found in many ancient manuscripts and is referenced by early church fathers, making it highly unlikely that it was a later addition. Furthermore, it perfectly aligns with Jesus' teaching and actions throughout the Gospels. The suggestion that it was added to "make Jesus look forgiving" ignores the fact that His mercy and forgiveness were already defining aspects of His ministry. Thus, this verse should be regarded as authentic and consistent with the original Gospel message.
Claim #5:
"The longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20) isn’t the only suspect part in this chapter. Specifically, verses 17–18 list the “signs” that true believers will show, like handling snakes and drinking poison without being harmed. These additions pushed a dramatic, even dangerous, view of faith. Early manuscripts don’t have these verses, and scholars see them as a scribe’s later attempt to jazz up the gospel’s finale. Some Christian groups have taken this passage to heart in extreme ways, with snake-handling practices and “faith tests” that have, unsurprisingly, led to injuries and even deaths.”
(Quoted from "9 Forgeries That Defined Christianity" by Tanner on Medium)
1. Manuscript Evidence for Mark 16:9-20
It is true that some early manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (4th century), do not contain Mark 16:9-20. However, the vast majority of existing Greek manuscripts do include these verses. Additionally, the longer ending of Mark was widely known in the early church:
Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) explicitly quotes Mark 16:19, demonstrating that these verses existed long before the manuscripts that omit them.
Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. 160 AD), a Gospel harmony, includes the longer ending.
Hippolytus (early 3rd century) references it in his writings.
The Vulgate (Latin translation by Jerome, late 4th century) includes the longer ending.
If these verses were a “later addition” meant to sensationalize Mark’s ending, how were they being referenced nearly two centuries before the manuscripts that lack them?
2. The Meaning of Signs in Mark 16:17-18
Critics claim that Mark 16:17-18 promotes a “dramatic and dangerous” view of faith, particularly regarding handling snakes and drinking poison. However, interpreting these signs as commands rather than descriptions is a misreading of the text.
The passage does not say believers must handle snakes or drink poison as tests of faith. Instead, it describes supernatural protection in extraordinary circumstances.
In Acts 28:3-6, Paul is bitten by a viper but suffers no harm—fulfilling exactly what Jesus described, without Paul seeking out the encounter.
The early church did not engage in “faith tests” based on this passage. Instead, miraculous protections were seen as signs of God’s power in unique situations, not as religious rituals.
To argue that these verses promote reckless faith practices is to misunderstand the broader biblical context. Jesus Himself rebuked testing God (Matthew 4:7).
3. The Snake-Handling Argument is a Strawman
Critics often cite modern fringe religious groups that engage in snake-handling as proof that Mark 16:17-18 is dangerous. However:
The misuse of Scripture does not invalidate Scripture. Some groups misinterpret passages, but that does not mean the passage is false or should be dismissed.
Historically, mainstream Christianity never adopted snake-handling or poison-drinking as a test of faith. These practices emerged only in the early 20th century in small, isolated communities.
Similar reasoning would require rejecting other passages that have been misused (e.g., the Crusades misused biblical texts, but that does not mean the Bible promotes violence).
4. Theological and Narrative Consistency
The longer ending of Mark aligns with Matthew 28:19-20, Luke 24:44-49, and Acts 1:8, where Jesus commissions His disciples and speaks of signs confirming the Gospel’s spread. The events in Mark 16:17-18 are not outliers; they reflect what happens throughout the New Testament:
Casting out demons – seen in Acts 16:16-18 (Paul and the slave girl).
Speaking in new tongues – seen in Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, and Acts 19:6.
Protection from harm – seen in Acts 28:3-6 (Paul and the viper).
Healing the sick – seen in Acts 3:6-8, Acts 5:15-16, and Acts 28:8-9.
Every “sign” listed in Mark 16:17-18 has a corresponding fulfillment in the Book of Acts. This demonstrates that the passage is not an exaggerated addition but a summary of what the disciples experienced.
Conclusion
The claim that Mark 16:17-18 was a later, dangerous addition is unfounded. The longer ending of Mark has early church support, its teachings align with the broader New Testament, and its alleged misuse by fringe groups does not invalidate its authenticity. The passage describes supernatural protection and the spread of the Gospel—not reckless faith tests. Therefore, it remains a legitimate and meaningful part of Scripture.
Claim #6:
"John is famous for depicting Jesus as more divine than any of the other gospels. The “I am” statements, especially “Before Abraham was, I am,” directly hint that Jesus is equating himself with God. But here’s the catch — these statements have all the signs of being editorial additions. They don’t show up in any of the earlier gospels and seem like attempts by later writers to reinforce Jesus’s divinity. This paints a different picture of Jesus than the other gospels, leading scholars to wonder how much was original and how much was added to support emerging church doctrines.”
(Quoted from "9 Forgeries That Defined Christianity" by Tanner on Medium)
1. The Absence of the "I Am" Statements in Earlier Gospels Doesn’t Invalidate Them
The claim that because Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not contain the same "I Am" statements, they must have been later additions to John’s Gospel is based on a flawed assumption. Each Gospel writer had a unique emphasis and audience:
Matthew presents Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.
Mark portrays Jesus as the suffering servant and focuses on action.
Luke highlights Jesus’ compassion and universal salvation.
John explicitly focuses on Jesus’ divinity and eternal nature.
The fact that John includes statements not found in the Synoptic Gospels does not mean they were invented later. Different Gospels highlight different aspects of Jesus’ life, and John’s theological emphasis aligns with his stated purpose: “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).
2. The “I Am” Statements Are Consistent with the Old Testament and Jesus’ Identity
The phrase “I am” (Greek: ἐγώ εἰμι, ego eimi) directly connects to Exodus 3:14, where God identifies Himself to Moses as “I AM WHO I AM.” This is not a random stylistic choice—it is a declaration of divine identity.
Jesus’ use of ego eimi is not limited to John's Gospel:
Mark 6:50 – When Jesus walks on water, He says “Take heart; it is I (ego eimi). Do not be afraid.”
Matthew 14:27 – The same phrase is used.
Luke 22:70 – When asked if He is the Son of God, Jesus responds, “You say that I am,” closely paralleling John’s Gospel.
The idea that Jesus did not claim divinity outside of John is false—His divine identity is present in all four Gospels.
3. Theological Development vs. Doctrinal Fabrication
Critics claim that John's Gospel evolved Jesus into a more divine figure to support later church doctrines. However, evidence suggests the early church already recognized Jesus as divine before John’s Gospel was written:
Paul’s Letters (written before John’s Gospel) clearly affirm Jesus' divinity:
Colossians 1:15-20 – “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation... in Him all things were created.”
Philippians 2:5-11 – “Being in very nature God, He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.”
1 Corinthians 8:6 – Paul applies Old Testament language about Yahweh directly to Jesus.
John was not inventing a new theology—he was recording what the early church already believed.
4. Early Church Fathers Testify to John’s Gospel as Authentic
Early church writers never questioned the authenticity of John’s Gospel or the "I Am" statements:
Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John himself, quoted John’s Gospel extensively, affirming its divine message.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD), a first-century Christian leader, wrote about Jesus' divinity in terms that closely align with John’s Gospel.
Tertullian (c. 200 AD) defended Jesus' divinity using John’s Gospel.
If the “I Am” statements were later additions, why did early Christians—many of whom were discipled by the apostles or their direct students—accept them without question?
5. John’s Gospel is Not a Contradiction, but a Theological Deepening
John’s Gospel is not in conflict with the Synoptic Gospels—it expands on Jesus’ teachings, offering a more theological reflection on His identity. While the Synoptic Gospels focus on Jesus’ actions, John highlights His self-revelation.
Even in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is described as:
The Son of Man with authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7)—a divine prerogative.
Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8)—claiming dominion over God's law.
The Son of God whom Peter confesses as the Christ (Matthew 16:16-17).
John’s Gospel does not create a divine Jesus—it simply emphasizes what is already present throughout the New Testament.
Conclusion
The claim that Jesus’ "I Am" statements in John were later additions meant to bolster church doctrine ignores manuscript evidence, historical testimony, and the theological consistency across the Gospels. Jesus' divinity is affirmed throughout the New Testament, not just in John. The early church did not add these statements—they faithfully preserved Jesus’ self-revelation as God in the flesh.
Claim #7:
"Many know the Lord’s Prayer, ending with, 'For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.' But this final line wasn’t in the original manuscripts. The oldest versions end at 'deliver us from evil.' Scholars believe the doxology was added later, possibly to make the prayer sound more complete or to add a poetic flourish. Though it’s a beautiful ending, it’s also a reminder that not everything in the Bible is as ancient as people think.”
(Quoted from "9 Forgeries That Defined Christianity" by Tanner on Medium)
1. Manuscript Evidence and Variants
It is true that some of the earliest Greek manuscripts (such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, 4th century) do not include the doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer. However, it appears in later Greek manuscripts, particularly in the Byzantine tradition, and was widely used in early Christian liturgy.
The Didache (c. 50–100 AD), an early Christian teaching manual, includes the doxology in its version of the Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8:2). This shows that the phrase was in use very early—possibly even during the time of the apostles.
The King James Version (1611) includes the doxology because it was based on later Byzantine manuscripts, which were widely used in church tradition.
The absence of the doxology in some early manuscripts does not mean it was a “later invention” but rather that different manuscript traditions preserved slightly different versions of the prayer.
2. Biblical Precedent for the Doxology
Even if the doxology was not in the original text of Matthew, its theological content is entirely biblical and consistent with Jewish and Christian worship traditions:
1 Chronicles 29:11 – "Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O LORD, and you are exalted as head above all."
Psalm 145:11-13 – “They shall speak of the glory of your kingdom and tell of your power, to make known to the children of man your mighty deeds.”
The wording of the doxology closely resembles these Old Testament passages, showing that it aligns with biblical themes of God’s sovereignty and glory.
3. The Doxology’s Role in Early Christian Worship
Many scholars believe that the doxology became widely used liturgically in Christian prayer and worship. Early Christian churches often recited prayers together, and it was common to end them with a doxology to praise God.
Since Matthew’s Gospel was written to a Jewish audience, it makes sense that early Jewish Christians naturally concluded the prayer with a doxology, following the pattern of Old Testament prayers and synagogue traditions.
4. Matthew vs. Luke: Different Versions of the Lord’s Prayer
Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:2-4) is shorter than Matthew’s, even without the doxology. This shows that even within the Bible, different oral traditions of the prayer existed. If Matthew’s version had a longer tradition than Luke’s, it would not be surprising if a doxology developed naturally in worship.
5. The Doxology Doesn’t Change the Meaning of the Prayer
Even if we acknowledge that the doxology may not have been in the earliest Greek manuscripts, this does not change the meaning of the Lord’s Prayer or affect any core doctrine. The doxology is a praise declaration, not a theological addition.
To claim that its inclusion means “not everything in the Bible is as ancient as people think” is misleading because:
The prayer itself remains unchanged in meaning.
The doxology is based on biblical phrases from the Old Testament.
It was widely accepted in early church practice, showing it was not a medieval invention.
Conclusion
The doxology of the Lord’s Prayer may not have been in the original manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel, but it was not a later fabrication. It appears in early Christian writings, follows biblical patterns, and aligns with the way prayers were concluded in Jewish and Christian traditions. Its presence in worship does not undermine the authenticity of Scripture—it affirms the church’s longstanding reverence for God’s kingdom, power, and glory.
Claim #8:
"Paul’s letter to the Romans is considered one of the most influential texts in the New Testament. But it turns out the letter may not have ended the way we think. The final doxology, “Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel… to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen,” found in Romans 16:25–27, doesn’t appear in the earliest manuscripts. Scholars argue that it may have been a later addition by a scribe who wanted to add a grand ending to the letter. This passage has sparked debate about Paul’s original message and whether it was tampered with to give his writing a more formal conclusion.”
(Quoted from "9 Forgeries That Defined Christianity" by Tanner on Medium)
1. Manuscript Evidence: Variations, Not Omission
The final doxology does appear in many early manuscripts but is found in different locations—sometimes at the end of chapter 14, sometimes at the end of chapter 15, and sometimes at the end of chapter 16. This has led some scholars to question whether it was originally part of Paul’s letter.
However, Romans 16:25-27** is present in the majority of manuscripts**, including some of the earliest and most reliable Greek, Latin, and Syriac texts. Unlike disputed passages such as the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), there are no manuscripts that completely omit this passage—it’s just positioned differently.
The variation suggests that scribes may have moved the doxology within the letter rather than added it later. It does not indicate fabrication.
2. Early Church Testimony and Acceptance
Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), a key early church father, quotes from the passage, demonstrating that it was recognized in the 2nd century.
Origen (3rd century) and Chrysostom (4th century) both reference it in their commentaries on Romans.
Jerome (late 4th century) includes it in the Latin Vulgate, further affirming its long-standing presence in Christian tradition.
If this passage were a later scribal addition, how could it be cited by early church fathers within a century or two of Paul’s writing?
3. Theological and Literary Consistency
The claim that a scribe “wanted to add a grand ending” overlooks the fact that Paul frequently uses doxologies to conclude sections of his letters:
Romans 11:33-36 – Paul bursts into praise: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!”
Galatians 1:5 – “To whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.”
Ephesians 3:20-21 – “Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine… to Him be glory in the church.”
The wording of Romans 16:25-27 follows Paul’s style perfectly, making it unlikely that a later scribe wrote it. Additionally, the doxology aligns with Paul’s themes throughout Romans, particularly in Romans 1:1-5, where he introduces the “mystery of the gospel” revealed in Christ.
If Paul frequently used doxologies in his letters, why would we assume this one is a later addition instead of part of his original writing?
4. Why the Variations in Placement?
The most logical explanation for why Romans 16:25-27 appears in different places is early manuscript transmission history, not invention. Some scholars suggest:
The letter to the Romans may have circulated in different versions.
Early scribes may have rearranged the doxology to emphasize different themes, not to create something new.
Some versions of Romans may have ended at chapter 14 or 15 in some early churches, with the doxology placed accordingly.
Thus, the movement of the passage within manuscripts does not prove it was a later addition—it only shows that scribes handled it differently over time.
5. The Passage Does Not Change Paul’s Message
Even if someone argues that the doxology’s placement is uncertain, it does not alter the theology of Romans. Whether it comes at the end of chapter 14, 15, or 16, the message remains the same:
God is able to strengthen believers.
The gospel was a mystery now revealed.
All glory belongs to God through Jesus Christ.
The claim that this passage “sparks debate about Paul’s original message” is misleading—there is no debate about the message itself, only about where it was placed in the letter.
Conclusion
The doxology in Romans 16:25-27 is not a later fabrication but a passage with strong manuscript support, early church recognition, and theological consistency with Paul’s writings. The variations in placement reflect scribal transmission, not an attempt to artificially enhance the letter. The fact that Paul frequently used doxologies in his letters further supports its authenticity.
Thus, Romans 16:25-27 remains a legitimate and fitting conclusion to one of the most powerful books in the New Testament.
Claim #9:
"And this One of the more controversial passages in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, states that women should remain silent in churches and “not permitted to speak.” Many scholars believe this line was not part of Paul’s original letter but was added later by someone aiming to enforce a traditional view of gender roles. This claim is backed by inconsistencies in the writing style and the fact that in other letters, Paul acknowledges women as leaders in the early Christian communities. This addition has impacted women’s roles in Christian churches for centuries, despite evidence suggesting it was not part of Paul’s original teachings.”
(Quoted from "9 Forgeries That Defined Christianity" by Tanner on Medium)
1. Manuscript Evidence: The Verses Are in Nearly All Ancient Copies
One of the strongest refutations of the claim that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was a later addition is that it is found in all known Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians, except for a few that place the verses slightly later in the passage.
The passage appears in Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), and nearly all Byzantine manuscripts.
Unlike truly disputed passages (such as the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8), there is no manuscript tradition that completely omits these verses—they are always present.
Some manuscripts place these verses after verse 40, leading some scholars to argue that scribes moved them around. However, this is not the same as proving they were added later—only that there was some scribal uncertainty about their placement.
2. Writing Style and Context Align with Paul’s Other Teachings
Some claim that these verses do not match Paul’s writing style, but this is subjective and often overstated. In fact, Paul frequently addresses order in worship, including proper speech in church:
1 Corinthians 11:5 acknowledges that women do pray and prophesy in church, but with proper decorum.
1 Corinthians 14:26-40 is about maintaining order in worship—Paul also tells tongue-speakers and prophets to be silent under certain conditions (v. 28, 30).
The Greek wording in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is consistent with Paul’s language elsewhere.
Rather than singling out women for total silence, Paul’s main concern is orderly worship—a theme running through the entire chapter.
3. Paul’s Positive References to Women in Ministry Do Not Contradict This Passage
Critics argue that since Paul recognized female leaders, he could not have written 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. However, this misunderstands both Paul’s position and the purpose of the passage:
Romans 16:1-2 – Paul commends Phoebe, a deacon in the church.
Romans 16:3 – Paul acknowledges Priscilla, a teacher alongside her husband Aquila.
Philippians 4:2-3 – Paul refers to Euodia and Syntyche as fellow workers in the gospel.
Paul does not contradict himself. Instead, the context of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 suggests he is addressing specific disruptions in church services, not making a blanket ban on women speaking.
This aligns with 1 Timothy 2:11-12, where Paul instructs women to learn quietly and submissively—not in absolute silence, but in a way that respects order in worship.
4. Cultural Context: Addressing Disruptions, Not Silencing Women
Corinthian church gatherings were often chaotic, with disorderly speaking in tongues, prophesying out of turn, and disruptions (1 Corinthians 14:26-33). Given this, it is likely that:
Some women were disrupting the service by asking questions or speaking out of turn.
Paul’s instruction for them to "remain silent" was situational—just as he tells tongue-speakers and prophets to be silent in certain conditions.
The instruction for them to “ask their husbands at home” suggests that some women were interrupting by asking theological questions during the service.
This is about order in worship, not banning women from speaking entirely.
5. Church History and Reception of the Passage
Early church fathers like Clement of Rome (1st century), Tertullian (2nd century), and Augustine (4th century) recognized 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as part of Paul’s teaching.
No early manuscript omits the verses, meaning the church universally accepted them.
If this passage were a later addition, we would expect to see at least some manuscripts that omit it, as we do with other disputed texts (e.g., Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11). But there are none.
Conclusion
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was not a later addition—it appears in all known manuscripts, aligns with Paul’s broader teachings, and addresses orderly worship, not the suppression of women. While Paul affirms women’s roles in ministry elsewhere, this passage deals with maintaining order in church gatherings, not a universal command for silence.
Thus, the claim that this passage was added later to enforce gender roles is not supported by manuscript evidence, historical testimony, or Paul’s actual teachings.
Claim #11:
"The idea that the Bible contains added parts, changes, and forgeries can be unsettling. It suggests that the Bible, far from being the untouchable 'Word of God,' is more like a document that evolved over time, influenced by people’s agendas, arguments, and creativity. Texts were shaped to suit the needs and beliefs of the people who preserved them. This fact challenges the belief that the Bible is a perfectly preserved guide from God. Instead, we’re looking at a book that has gone through centuries of edits and 'improvements.'”
(Quoted from "9 Forgeries That Defined Christianity" by Tanner on Medium)
1. The Bible Is the Most Well-Preserved Ancient Document in History
Unlike many ancient texts that were lost or heavily redacted over time, the Bible’s transmission has been remarkably accurate due to the sheer number of manuscripts and careful preservation by scribes.
Over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts exist today, along with 10,000 Latin manuscripts and thousands more in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and other languages.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (dating from 200 BC to 70 AD) show that Old Testament texts remained virtually unchanged for over 1,000 years compared to later copies.
When scholars compare manuscripts, the New Testament’s accuracy is over 99%, with variations being minor (e.g., spelling differences, word order, or omitted phrases that don’t affect doctrine).
This is not the pattern of a document that 'evolved' through human creativity and manipulation—it is the pattern of a text that was carefully preserved.
2. The Bible Was Not 'Shaped' to Fit Agendas
The claim that the Bible was changed to fit people’s beliefs or needs overlooks the fact that the Bible contains teachings that went against cultural and religious expectations:
The Israelites repeatedly failed and rebelled—if they were editing Scripture to look better, why include their own sins, failures, and punishments?
The Gospels depict Jesus’ crucifixion—a humiliating death by Roman standards. If early Christians were inventing a religion to gain followers, why portray their Messiah dying the worst possible death?
Women were the first witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection—in a society where women’s testimony was not highly regarded. If the Gospels were fabrications, this detail would likely have been omitted.
Rather than shaping Scripture to fit human preferences, the Bible includes hard truths that challenge human pride, culture, and expectations.
3. Textual Variations Do Not Equal Corruption
Some claim that because certain verses have textual variations, this means the Bible has been tampered with. However:
Textual variations are well-documented and acknowledged in modern translations—nothing is hidden.
No variation affects core doctrines—whether regarding the nature of God, salvation, Jesus’ divinity, or resurrection.
The message remains unchanged even if some passages (e.g., Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11) are debated in terms of placement.
If the Bible were truly “evolving” due to human manipulation, we would expect major doctrinal shifts over time—yet Christianity’s foundational beliefs remain consistent from the earliest church writings to today.
4. Early Church Fathers Confirm the Reliability of Scripture
The writings of early Christians confirm that the Bible we have today is the same one they used in the first few centuries:
Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) quotes nearly every book of the New Testament, affirming the message of Jesus, the resurrection, and salvation.
Clement of Rome (c. 95 AD) quotes Paul’s letters, showing that they were already regarded as Scripture.
Tertullian (c. 200 AD) defends the consistency of the Gospels, affirming their divine authority.
If the Bible had undergone centuries of edits, why do these early sources match what we have today?
5. The Bible’s Divine Inspiration Is Not Dependent on a Single Manuscript
The idea that 'if the Bible has variations, it can't be from God' assumes that divine inspiration means every manuscript must be identical. But that’s not how God has worked in history.
The Bible was written over 1,500 years by 40+ authors, yet it has a consistent theme: God’s plan of redemption through Jesus Christ.
God has preserved His message through thousands of manuscripts across different languages and regions, rather than through a single, untouchable document.
The existence of minor textual differences does not negate divine inspiration—instead, it shows that God’s truth has remained intact despite human errors in copying.
If God could protect His Word over millennia, then the presence of variations does not mean His message has been lost—rather, it shows that His truth has endured.
Conclusion
The claim that the Bible “evolved” over time into a man-made document ignores the overwhelming manuscript evidence, historical consistency, and theological unity of Scripture. While there are textual variations, they do not change the core message of the Bible. Instead of being a book shaped by human agendas, the Bible has proven to be a faithfully preserved revelation from God—one that has remained steadfast for thousands of years.
Summary
Based on the extensive analysis presented, here is a summary conclusion of the key findings regarding alleged biblical additions and alterations:
The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the Bible has been preserved with remarkable accuracy over thousands of years. While some textual variations exist, they are minor and well-documented, affecting neither core doctrines nor the essential message of Scripture. The unified message across 1,500 years, written by over 40 authors across three continents, presents a consistent narrative of God's redemptive plan.
Rather than being a document "reshaped" by human agendas, the Bible stands as a divinely inspired text that has maintained its integrity despite the challenges of manuscript transmission. The fact that it contains teachings that often oppose human pride and self-interest, while calling for radical self-sacrifice and holiness, further supports its divine origin rather than human manipulation. The Bible's remarkable preservation, confirmed by thousands of manuscripts and early church writings, demonstrates it remains a faithful witness to its original message.