Tackling Tradition - Part 13 - Inspiration & Inerrancy

Critics of the long ending of Mark & the Pericope Adulterae not infrequently believe these two pericopes are not canonical.   Why?  Because they are not in the oldest manuscript evidence in our hands today.  In the minds of these critics the long ending of Mark seems to show signs that one or more later authors attempted to shore up the text of Mark so that it was more congruent with the other 3 Gospels, &, in the case of the Pericope Adulterae, the placement of the text seems awkward within the greater narrative.

Different critics might, & sometimes do, have different reasons for rejecting the canonicity of these two pericopes.   For example, some might hold the mistaken belief that if the long ending of Mark is included then this somehow serves as an admission on the part of the advocates of it’s inclusion in publication and/or its canonization serves Mark’s shorter ending is proof that not all of the Gospels’ authors believed in the Resurrection.  Others might claim that the long ending is at odds with Greater Mark, which, in their minds, would (if the text was canonized) result in an errant, fallible text.  

I disagree.  The long ending of Mark is not all at odds with Greater Mark, & both it & the Pericope Adulterae ought to be universally recognized as canonical, & the inclusion of the long ending of Mark does not result in an errant, fallible Markan text. 

Inerrancy & infallibility are properties breathed into the text by God & not by man.   When we speak of inspiration, we are actually speaking about a process that can isn’t necessarily the same for every document.   

This process can involve the writing of an original autograph that is completely inspired from beginning to end.  It’s also possible for both inspired & non-inspired scribal errors to accrete further down the line. 

2.  Continued inspiration can entail an original composition that is fully inspired & then, for reasons sufficient for Himself, the LORD breathes out one or more scribal amendments that fall into the category of updating the next for a different generation than the original receiving generation.   For example, place names have changed, so the scribe(s) amend the text.

These amendments may or may not be inspired &, if God later informs us that they are not, they are factually accurate as long as the change correctly corresponds to the original referent.   For example, Wingate College in 1991 is now, in 2025, Wingate University.    

“But what if the scribe changes the name of the town from Wingate to Geneva?  That’s an error, right?”

Not necessarily — from the scribe’s perspective, it probably is.  From God’s perspective, it might not be insofar as in God’s mind, He might have reasons for deploying an apparent error because, within the history of the document, in the late 20th Century, a particular set of faculty, staff, & students set foot on campus, & in His providence the LORD prophesied over those people, the college/university, & the town via this particular “error,” because, in His mind, Geneva has a prophetic significance that Wingate didn’t or doesn’t fully convey.  

3.  God is fully capable of either partially or fully inspiring an urtext that later editors deliberately put together so that both the urtext & text are fully inspired & therefore without error in all they affirm when correctly understood & are also infallible as the rule of faith for individuals, churches, & societies.

4. Alternatively, the text or urtext might be partially inspired & require editing further down the line. 

 

When you think about it, some Inerrantists’ arguments against Continuous Inspiration seem driven by Cessationism.   In their minds, the text is static now, because the era of enscripturation ended in the Apostolic Era or the Subapostolic Era.   From a Continuationist perspective, God is free to do as He pleases & has providentially superintended both the development of the text & its preservation.    

From a Covenantalist perspective on Continuationism, God’s superintending of the text goes through cycles.  After all, it isn’t as if the whole of the Old Testament dropped from the pens of its authors in just 70 literal qua literal years.   The text had to be put together over time & most likely depends on a number of urtext sources. 

On that view, there’s no reason to think that the long ending of Mark isn’t inspired.  Either it was part of the Markan tradition on Earth all along or it was added to the text later on or over time.  It isn’t as if we have an exhaustive text tradition that dates all the way back to the Apostolic Era.   Just because we might not find it in the hands of a an “Ur-Alexandrian” or “Ur-Byzantine” community or set of communities in 70AD, given the nature of inspiration, both it & its later addition might well be inspired.

In our next edition of Covenant Theology In Outline Form, we will take a look at these two texts & how they are best interpreted.   Until then, may God bless us all, each & every one & “Go & sin no more.”