There are quite a few documented
here
The ones I found interesting in this article were the discussion regarding 1 John 5:7 and I especially found it interesting "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20" - seems this was added much later.
Another interesting fact about the Gospel of John from the article
Quote:
John's Gospel also seems to have TWO conclusions. The whole of chapter 21 of St John's Gospel is probably an "addition." Quietly read the last two verses of chapter 20, verses 30-31. Doesn't it look like a conclusion, an ending on a farewell note? So is it any surprise when scholars tell us that chapter 21, i.e., the rest of the "gospel," wasn't written by St John?
Did Jesus single Peter out to feed his lambs/sheep? Well, not really. It is printed at John 21:25-27, but that is part of the "additional" non-John ending. So it is virtually worthless as scripture. But it has helped those who wanted a strong central authority in their synthesised religion, and went down the road of "Peter" and his supposed successors. (To WWW 24 Feb 04)
Was the forged ending to John's gospel done, 1. To centralise power, and 2. to harmonise the dates of the ascension? Chapter 21 to the end contains a post-crucifixion story of Jesus giving Peter and about six others a huge catch of fish at the Sea of Tiberias (Sea of Galilee), and the "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep" episode with Peter.
|
Why don't we start with these. Is this what you were hoping for?