Roman Emperor Nero: Does He Deserve His Bad Boy Reputation?

[Kreuzritter]

I quote from Robert M. Grant's A Historical Introduction to the New Testament:

There are a few important passages in the New Testament in which it can be proved conclusively that textual alteration has taken place.

Looking at these "conclusive proofs", all they conclusively prove is that Biblical critics who believe them have no concept of what a proof is and what a sound argument entails.

(1) The ending of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20) is no part of what its author originally wrote: (a) Justin alluded to it and Irenaeus quoted from it; it is included in some important uncial manuscripts, mostly 'Western'. (b) On the other hand, it is absent from the writings of Clement, Origen and Eusebius, and is omitted in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, as well as in the older Latin and Syriac versions; the Freer manuscript contains a different ending entirely. (c) Therefore, though it was undoubtedly added at an early date, it is not authentic.

(2) The story about a woman 'taken in adultery' and forgiven by Jesus does not belong to the Gospel of John. (a) It occurs in the Byzantine text of the gospel, usually as John 7:53-8:1 but sometimes after John 7:36 or 21:24 (in a small group of manuscripts it is found after Luke 21:38). (b) No manuscript before the end of the fourth century contains it; no Church Father, in the same period, refers to it. (c) Therefore it is not authentic.

These "arguments" may be subjectively convincing, and the conclusions may even be true, but they are not proofs. And the hidden premises they would need to invoke for validity are false.