Hebrews 13:17

Πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν καὶ ὑπείκετε, αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες, ἵνα μετὰ χαρᾶς τοῦτο ποιῶσιν καὶ μὴ στενάζοντες· ἀλυσιτελὲς γὰρ ὑμῖν τοῦτο (Hebrews 13:17).

Of course πείθω can mean "to persuade" but it does not necessarily have that denotation.

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority" (NIV).

"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account" (NASB).

"Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give
account." (NKJV)

These translations harmonize with commentaries that I consulted on this subject:

"The second mention of leaders in this chapter (v. 17) refers to the current leadership, whom the addresses are enjoined to obey" (Gordon, R. P. Hebrews. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000, 172).

"Leaders are to be obeyed as those intent on presenting 'souls' (i.e., people destined for eternal life; see 6:19) intact at the final judgment. Ready obedience will make the leaders' task joyful; grudging compliance will make them sigh or grumble (v. 17c)" (Pfitzner, V. C. Hebrews. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997, 202).

Furthermore I find it interesting what the magisterial work by Ellingworth has to say about this text:

"πείθω, 'obey' (Jas. 3:3 of horses; 4 Macc. 10:13; 15:10; 18:1; 2 Clem. 17:5; Ep. Diog. 5:10; Ign. Rom. 7:2 bis; Bauer 3b; R. Bultmann in TDNT 6.3f; BD [Sec.] 187.6). Πείθεσθε suggests continuous action"(Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Page 723).

Concerning ὑπείκετε, he writes:

"4 Macc. 6:35, of reasoning, not yielding to pleasure; here of due deference to the leaders by the led" (Ibid).

My Courses This Semester

Just to let you know what has my academic attention this semester:

1) World religions-I'm teaching 3 sections of this course
2) Logic
3) Ethics: A Historical Survey
4) First Year (University) Experience

A total of six classes which will keep me busy. So I'll likely be replying to messages here on weekends.

Martin Hengel v. Louis H. Feldman

Some here might enjoy reading Louis H. Feldman's article in JBL 96/3(1977): 371-382 entitled "Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect."

Martin Hengel was the author of Judentum und Hellenismus, Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berucksichtigung Palastinas bis zur Mitte des 2 Jh.s v. Chr. translated as Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974).

Hengel has essayed an influential historical account of how ancient Judaism (more specifically, Judaism from 330 B.C.E. onward) was cross-fertilized notionally by means of the "inroads of Hellenism." He consequently argues that scholars should not make a sharp differentiation between Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism. Secondly, Hengel maintains that the Greek influence on Judaism was much more pervasive (and significantly earlier) than has been previously thought. The upshot of his suggestions is that "the background of the NT in Palestine was a Judaism that had been hellenized for the preceding 360 years." Feldman, however, attempts to refute 22 points put forward by Hengel; his retorts are worthy of consideration. Some may even conclude that he has successfully confuted the arguments posited by Hengel.

In any event, Feldman maintains:

"There is actually very little in Hengel that has not been said before. It is, however, the sheer accumulation and evaluation of evidence that is impressive" (Feldman, page 371).

See http://books.google.com/books/about/Judaism_and_Hellenism.html?id=mJTXAAAAMAAJ

Also: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2584&context=etd

The She-Bears of 2 Kings 2:24 (Pulpit Commentary)

"And he went up from there to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, you bald head; go up, you bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them" (2 Kings 2:24).

Elisha could not tell what would be the effect of his curse. It could have no effect at all excepting through the will and by the action of God. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood; or, the forest; i.e. the forest, which, as all knew, lay within a short distance of Bethel, and was the haunt of wild beasts (see 1 Kings 3:24). And tare forty and two children of them. It is not said how far the lads were injured, whether fatally or not. But the punishment, whatever its severity, came from God, not from the prophet, and we may be sure was just. For "shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" A severe example may have been needed under the circumstances of the time, when a new generation was growing up in contempt of God and of religion; and the sin of the lads was not a small one, but indicated that determined bent of the will against good, and preference of evil, which is often developed early, and generally goes on from bad to worse (Pulpit Commentary).

The comments below are from the late J. Hampton Keathley III:

"'Young lads.' The KJV has 'little children' which really misses the meaning here. These were not children, but young men. The word 'lads' is the Hebrew naar and was used of servants, of soldiers and of Isaac when he was 28 years old. This was a crowd of young men, perhaps students of the false prophets, who were here as antagonists to Elisha's prophetic ministry and authority. If not students, they were sent by the false prophets or idolatrous priests of Bethel to stop Elisha from entering the city. In Elisha Satan had an enemy and he was acting to protect his territory. Remember, however, Elisha was going to Bethel not to curse, but to bless."

"So Elisha, as a prophet, saw their hardened and rebellious condition, unresponsive to correction. In the name of the Lord (i.e. by His authority) Elisha simply turned them over to the Lord and to their own devises, which had the effect of removing them from even the common protection of God. He probably said something like, 'may God deal with you according to what you deserve,' or 'may you be cursed for your sins of rebellion.' This would demonstrate to the city and to people all around a vital truth: without the Lord there is no protection and that blasphemy of God's servants and His Word in order to hinder God's message is serious business. Note that Elisha did not call out the bears, God did. Two female bears (not three bears--papa bear, mamma bear, and baby bear) came out and tore up forty-two young men."

See https://bible.org/seriespage/4-elisha-and-two-bears-2-kings-223-25

The Gnostic Reading of John's Gospel (Bultmann)

Rudolf Bultmann's notion of the Gnostic Redeemer-myth has certainly not gone unchallenged. In fact, some scholars have outright taken it to task. See, for instance, the comments of O. Betz in "The Concept of the So-Called 'Divine Man' in Mark's Christology" (Studies in NT and Early Christian Literature, pp. 229-240. Edited by D. Aune)

Martin Hengel also has written extensively about the origins of Christology in his famed work The Son of God, The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976); unfortunately, Hengel's depiction of the relationship between Judaism and Hellenism is also governed by certain presuppositions that seem to adversely affect Hengel's interpretation of the actual Sitz im Leben for first century Palestine. Cf. L. H. Feldman, "Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect." JBL 96 (1977): 371-382. At any rate, I think Bultmann too hastily draws parallels between John's Gospel and Gnosticism where they likely do not exist.

Revelation 13:8 (NET Bible)

"and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed."

"The prepositional phrase 'since the foundation of the world' is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, 'the Lamb who was killed' (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase 'since the foundation of the world' modifies the verb 'written' (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase 'written in the book of life since the foundation of the world' occurs with no ambiguity" (NET Footnote).

καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (WH of 1881)



Picture used with kind permission from http://bibleencyclopedia.com/nasb/NASB_Revelation_13-8.jpg

DIABOLOS and Qualitativeness (John 6:70)

"It is doubtful in what sense this word [DIABOLOS] should be taken, Whether we should render it DIABOLIKOS (= TOU DIABOLOU hUPOURGOS), or EPIBOULOS, (both given in Euthym.,) it will be an hAPAX LEGOMENON in the N.T. Of the two however the latter is the harsher, and less analogous to N.T. diction. Certainly in the dark act here prophesied, Judas was under the immediate instigation of and yielded himself up to Satan; and I would understand this expression as having reference to that league with and entertainment of the Evil One in his thoughts and purposes, which his ultimate possession by Satan implies. This meaning can perhaps hardly be rendered by any single word in another language. The E.V. 'a devil,' is certainly too strong; 'devilish,' would be better, but not unobjectionable. Compare hO hUIOS THS APWLEIAS, [John] ch. XVII.6" (Alford's Greek Testament, 1:697).

"Have not I chosen you twelve, and yet one of you is the devil? (Tyndale's NT)

"DIABOLOS (#1333) slanderer, devil (DJC, 171-72). Satan has made Judas his ally, a subordinate devil (Barrett). Monadic noun not requiring art. (GGBB, 249)" (The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 198).

Wallace believes that DIABOLOS is a monadic noun in John 6:70 since there's only one devil. He prefers the rendering, "one of you is the devil" (GGBB, 265).

"EX hUMWN hEIS DIABOLOS ESTIN. Even of you one is a devil. Lucke, referring to Esth. VII.4 and VIII.1, where Haman is called hO DIABOLOS, as being 'the slanderer,' or 'the enemy,' suggests that a similar meaning may be appropriate here. But Jesus calls Peter 'Satan' and may much more call Judas 'a devil.' Besides in the present connection 'traitor' is quite as startling a word as 'devil'" (Expositor's Greek Testament, 1:761).

"He [Judas] is a devil because through him finally the devil will seek Jesus' life (cf. 13:2, 27)" (J. Ramsey Michaels, John, p. 122).

Paul Dixon wrote in January 1997 (BGreek): "I did find 6:70b to be qualitative, as did F.F. Bruce and Hendriksen (see commentaries). It does seem the Lord was not identifying Judas with the personal devil any more than he was with Peter in Mk 8:33 (Bruce). Rather, 'His devilish character appears especially from this fact that others ever so many of them, had deserted the Lord when they felt that they could not agree with him and when they rebelled against the spiritual character of his teaching, this one individual remained with him'" (Hendriksen).

John 1:1, Harner, Dixon and Qualitativeness

Here's something I wrote almost 15 years ago. I'm open to correction on what I stated then:

When I was first introduced (formally) to the history and grammar of the English language, I was taught the outmoded symbol-referent model. I have since abandoned it in favor of the signifier, signified, and referent paradigm. Now I make that observation in order to stress that I am not saying the qualities of the "terms" (θεὸς or διάβολος) are emphasized by the preverbal anarthrous PNs; to the contrary, it seems that the qualities of the referent (or grammatical subject) are stressed in John 6:70 and 8:44. So the respective terms or signifers ("slanderer" and "liar") apparently stress qualities of the subjects (Judas and Satan respectively) discussed by John. In John 1:1c, therefore, it might be the case that θεὸς primarily serves to delineate the qualities of the Λόγος (the referent or grammatical subject) as opposed to depicting his identity. This is not the same as claiming that the quality of θεὸς is emphasized over against "the qualities and all" of the term in this fateful passage. As the KIT appendix says: "It [θεὸς] merely expresses a certain quality about the Word [Λόγος] . . ."

But how does one prove that a construction is qualitative (with very little if any emphasis on indefiniteness) rather than definite or qualitative-indefinite or indefinite-qualitative? Work from usage, grammar [syntax], and context. Hence, I may not agree with Harner or Dixon's statistics for qualitativeness in John (Harner said that about 80% and Dixon wrote that 94% of preverbal anarthrous PNs in the Fourth Gospel are qualitative, I believe). I may question some of their examples and the inferences they draw from the data, but 6:70 and 8:44 evidently stand as legitimate examples of places where the qualitity of the subjects are stressed (as does 1:1c). But are these examples of pure qualitativeness? Maybe we don't have to go that far.

Now as far as fronting for emphasis is concerned, Wallace gives John 5:10 as an example of a preverbal anarthrous qualitative PN. Frankly, this verse is highly debatable. Nevertheless, it's possible that the reason why there's a fronted PN could be for the purpose of emphasizing the qualities of a literary or grammatical subject. If the Jews were arguing about the "kind" of day on which the man was healed, then John's use of Σάββατόν in 5:10 could be primarily qualitative in nature. Granted, this conclusion cannot be reached by the syntactical construction alone; however, I am simply pointing out that anarthousness might be used to focus on the quality of the subject delineated by the signifier in question. But we must determine such qualitativeness or lack thereof from the context. Even in English, we may front nouns to emphasize qualties.

Kinds of Theism

Here are some terms that might be helpful to know. I have taken these thirteen words and their respective definitions from The Divine Attributes (written by Joshua Hoffman and Gary S. Rosenkrantz). See pp. 9-13:


1. Hecastotheistic-Pertaining to the belief that every sort of object has supernatural powers.


2. Ditheism-Refers to a belief in two gods. For instance, Hippolytus of Rome was called a "ditheist" by "Pope" Callistus.


3. Myriotheism-The belief in a countless number of gods.


4. Zootheism-Also known as theriotheism. Refers to the belief in animal gods.


5. Anthropotheism-The belief that the gods originated as men or that they are men with respect to their essence (nature).


6. Herotheism-The worship of deified humans.


7. Autotheism-The worship (deification) of oneself.


8. Monotheism-The belief in one God.


9. Henotheism-Worshiping one god without rejecting the belief that other gods exist.


10. Kathenotheism-The worship of one god at a time as supreme. It allows for a succession of "supreme gods."


11. Psychotheism-The belief in a wholly spiritual God or gods.


12. Physitheism-The belief in a God or gods that is/are physical in nature.


13. Hylotheism-Identifies God with matter.

Hebrews 4:3 (What Some Commentators Say)

Text: Εἰσερχόμεθα γὰρ εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν οἱ πιστεύσαντες, καθὼς εἴρηκεν Ὡς ὤμοσα ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ μου Εἰ εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου, καίτοι τῶν ἔργων ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου γενηθέντων (Nestle GNT 1904).

"ἈΠῸ ΚΑΤΑΒΟΛῆς ΚΌΣΜΟΥ] from the foundation of the world, i.e. since the world began. Comp. Hebrews 9:26; Matthew 13:35; Matthew 25:34; Luke 11:50; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8" (Meyer's NT Commentary).

"Although the works were finished (καίτοι τῶν ἔργων γενηθέντων)

This is an awkward and indirect way of saying, 'these unbelievers did not enter into God's rest, although he had provided that rest into which they might have entered.' The providing of the rest is implied in the completion of God's works. The writer assumes the readers' acquaintance with the narrative of the creation in Genesis" (Vincent's Word Studies).

"From the foundation of the world (apo katabolh kosmou). Katabolh, late word from kataballw, usually laying the foundation of a house in the literal sense. In the N.T. usually with apo ( Matthew 25:44 ) or pro ( John 17:24 ) about the foundation of the world" (Robertson's Word Pictures).

Revisiting Greek Articles (Generic Use)

Wallace (GGBB, page 227) refers to the generic article as the "categorical article" which "distinguishes one class from another."

The key to identifying a generic article is by inserting the phrase "as a class" after the nominal word that the Greek article is modifying. So, ὁ ἄνθρωπος with a generic article would mean "humankind" (human beings as a class). This use of the article would set humanity apart from both animals and angels, which form distinct classes too. See Matthew 4:4.

One example that Wallace provides of the generic or categorical article is 1 Timothy 3:2, which reads (in part): "the overseer must be above reproach" (δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι):

"Grammatically speaking, the article could either be monadic (indicating that for each church there is one overseer,) or it could be generic (indicating that overseers as a class are in view). When other considerations are brought to bear, however, it is unlikely that only one overseer is in view: (1) The monadic view cannot easily handle 1 Tim 5:17 ('let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor') or Titus 1:5 ('appoint elders in every town'); and (2) the context of 1 Tim 2:8-3:16 involves an interchange of singular and plural generic nouns, suggesting strongly that the singular is used as a generic noun" (page 229).

Syntax of NT Greek (Brook and Winbery) also states:

"This use of the article is often referred to as the generic use. This use of the (definite) article may be translated as though the article were indefinite. Sometimes it may be best to translate a singular noun as though it were plural" (page 75).

Then examples such as Luke 10:7 are given along with 1 Timothy 3:2. Brooks and Winbery suggests "A bishop must be irreproachable" for the latter verse. See also Mt 18:17 and how the articles are employed there.

Harrington Discusses the Term "Ecclesia" in Matthew 18:17

One Catholic commentator contends that EKKLHSIA (ecclesia)in Mt 18:17 has reference to the local Christian community (A.T. Robertson explains this passage in a similar fashion):

"The local congregation is meant, whether in formal assembly for meeting or through its board of elders" (Daniel J. Harrington (S.J.), The Gospel of Matthew [Sacra Pagina Series], Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1991, page 269).

He supplements this observation about EKKLHSIA with these words:

"Against this common Near Eastern tendency toward social hierarchy Matthew forbids the use of titles and the exercise of highly authoritative roles (23:8-12) . . . The resistance to hierarchically structured roles and emphasis on equality is typical of sects in the first generation. All the members have begun a new life together and are to participate fully and equally in the emerging community" (Harrington, op. cit., page 323).

"Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master,[even] the Christ" (Matthew 23:10 ASV).

While I do not agree with Harrington's assessment of Matthew's Gospel and his historical-critical presuppositions, his exegesis of Mt 23:8-12 seems correct and his view of the reference for ecclesia (Mt 18:17) is plausible.

On the other hand, Meyer's NT Commentary insists:

Τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ] is not to be understood of the Jewish synagogue (Beza, Calvin, Fritzsche), which is never called by this name, and any reference to which would be contrary to the meaning of Jesus; but it is to be taken as referring to the community of believers on Jesus (comp. note on Matthew 16:18), which is, as yet, regarded as one body with the apostles included (Matthew 18:18). There is here no allusion to individual congregations in different localities, since these could come into existence only at a later period; neither, for this reason, can there be any allusion to presbyters and bishops (Chrysostom), or to those whom they may have invested, as their representatives, with spiritual jurisdiction (Catholic writers, comp. besides, Döllinger).

The Man of Lawlessness Within the Context of Apostasy

Regarding the connection between APOSTASIA and ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS, TDNT makes these comments:

"In 2 Th. 2:3 APOSTASIA is used in the absol. sense as an event of the last days alongside or prior to (?) the appearance of the ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS. Here a Jewish tradition is adopted which speaks of complete apostasy from God and His Torah shortly before the appearance of the Messiah. This is applied to the apostasy of Christians from their faith to error and righteousness (v. 11f.) in the last days (Mt. 24:11f.)" (TDNT 1:513).

In the footnote (page 513), TDNT states that APOSTASIA is undoubtedly used of "Christians" in 2 Thessalonians because the word implies a prior turning to God. I might add that the word especially applies to apostate followers of Christ in this context, who are likely nominal disciples of the Lord.

This academic work reckons that the "apostasy" and the ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS "are to be differentiated, but only in such a way that the apostasy makes possible the power of the man of sin, and this in turn increases the apostasy" (1:513-514).

Origen's Remarks on the Son

And the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "At the end of the days He spoke to us in His Son, whom He made the heir of all things, through whom' also He made the ages," showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the "through whom" belonging, when the ages were being made, to the Only-begotten. Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father? Now if, as we have seen, all things were made through Him, we have to enquire if the Holy Spirit also was made through Him. It appears to me that those who hold the Holy Spirit to be created, and who also admit that "all things were made through Him," must necessarily assume that the Holy Spirit was made through the Logos, the Logos accordingly being older than He. And he who shrinks from allowing the Holy Spirit to have been made through Christ must, if he admits the truth of the statements of this Gospel, assume the Spirit to be uncreated. There is a third resource besides these two (that of allowing the Spirit to have been made by the Word, and that of regarding it as uncreated), namely, to assert that the Holy Spirit has no essence of His own beyond the Father and the Son. But on further thought one may perhaps see reason to consider that the Son is second beside the Father, He being the same as the Father, while manifestly a distinction is drawn between the Spirit and the Son in the passage, "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, he shall not have forgiveness, either in this world or in the world to come." We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father. We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ.

Origen, Commentary on John 2

Initial Links on "The Fear of God" (Jewish Sources)

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6045-fear-of-god

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_06302.html

http://www.mhcny.org/pdf/mitzvatasei4.pdf

Romans 8:16 and the Spirit's Witness

Jewett argues that the rendering "bear witness to" for Rom 8:16 "is inadmissible because this verb [συμμαρτυρέω] is in fact typically used to depict co-witnessing of some sort" (Romans, p. 500).

The text reads: αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν ὅτι ἐσμὲν τέκνα θεοῦ (UBS5).

Daniel B. Wallace argues somewhat extensively that συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι is a dative of indirect object ("bear witness to") rather than a dative of association ("bear witness with"). He appeals (INTER ALIA) to BDAG in support for his argument. On the other hand, Robert Jewett (Commentary on Romans in the Hermeneia series) robustly contends that the construction in Romans 8:16 should be understood as indicating some type of co-witnessing in view of the prefix σύν and based on examples that we find in Plato's Hipp. maj. 282b1 (συμμαρτυρῆσαι δέ σοι), Plutarch (Adul. amic. 64c13) and Josephus (Ant. 19.154). Moulton-Milligan also suggests that there are texts from the papyri that favor the understanding "bear witness with."

Rogers and Rogers (The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, page 330): "συμμαρτυρεῖ pres. ind. act. συμμαρτυρέω (#5210) to bear witness w. someone, to confirm, to testify in support of someone. Used in the papyri where the signature of each attesting witness is accompanied by the words, 'I bear witness w. and I seal w.'" (MM).

Comma Johanneum and Erasmus (Cambridge History)

"In the case of the New Testament Erasmus shocked contemporaries by omitting the famous proof text for the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 where the genuine text reads: 'There are three that witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.' The spurious addition amplifies thus, 'There are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus, and there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit'. Erasmus could not find this form in any Greek manuscript, and therefore omitted it. Such was the outcry that he rashly promised to insert the reference to the heavenly witnesses could it be found in any Greek manuscript. One was discovered at Dublin, late and worthless. Erasmus, having sworn to deliver the head of John the Baptist, made the insertion in his second edition in 1519. Happily Luther in his translation did not follow him at this point. But others did, including the King James Version. As late as 1897 the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, with the endorsement of Pope Leo XIII, declared the passage to be authentic. Forty years later this decision was reversed." (Cambridge History of the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Volume 3:10-11.)

Picture Attribution: Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Werkstatt_von_Lucas_Cranach_d.%C3%84._-_Portr%C3%A4t_des_Erasmus_von_Rotterdam.jpg