Snake Handlers?
Then He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes; if they should drink anything deadly, it will never harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will get well." - Mark 16:15-18 HCSB
[1] First, allow me to make a statement that will not be well received by many. The authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 as canonical scripture is a matter of some debate. Though 99% of the later Greek manuscripts contain them, neither of the two earliest Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus nor the Vaticanus, contain the last twelve verses. Around the time Constantine asked Eusebius, a church historian who lived around AD 300, for copies of Scriptures to give to the churches of Constantinople, Eusebius opined that “accurate” copies of the gospel ended at verse 8 and did not include them in his canon.[2] Apparently, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Jerome all agreed.
[1] First, allow me to make a statement that will not be well received by many. The authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 as canonical scripture is a matter of some debate. Though 99% of the later Greek manuscripts contain them, neither of the two earliest Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus nor the Vaticanus, contain the last twelve verses. Around the time Constantine asked Eusebius, a church historian who lived around AD 300, for copies of Scriptures to give to the churches of Constantinople, Eusebius opined that “accurate” copies of the gospel ended at verse 8 and did not include them in his canon.[2] Apparently, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Jerome all agreed.
Second, it is important to note that the early church did not systematically use these verses as impetus for righteous behavior. Mr. George Hensley, after reading this passage in 1910, began handling snakes in church, a practice that since spread throughout the Appalachians. However, when we carefully examine each of the “signs” of a believer and compare them to the rest of the Scriptures, we note a glaring disparity.
Driving out demons was the single most common practice in the early church and is supported elsewhere.[3] Speaking in new languages was practiced at Pentecost but was later specifically listed as being the “least” of the gifts[4] and was strictly regulated.[5] However, though Paul had one famous incident with a snake bite, he neither handled the snake on purpose nor made a big deal out of miraculous escape.[6] Also, other than Papias (c.125-150) who mentioned that one Justus Barsabbas once drank poison without suffering any ill effects, I know of neither Scriptural nor patristic writings that encourage autopoisoning as a liturgical habit! On the other hand, prayers for miraculous healing were common, supported widely throughout the Word and even commanded![7]
If the early church had considered this passage to be authoritative, you would expect to see regular mention of handling snakes and drinking poison. No evidence for this behavior exists. Therefore, we may assume that the earliest members of the church, those who actually knew the apostles first hand, did not consider this passage authoritative and draw our own conclusions.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/12/snake.bite.family/ from a CNN article on snakebite orphans
[2] “Quaest ad Marinum”
[3] Ephesians 6:11-13
[4] 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28, 31; 13:1, 13; 14:1-5
[5] 1 Corinthians 14
[6] Acts 28:3-6
[7] James 5:16
posted by Pastor Pauley @ 1:03 AM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
Some of your claims need significant modification.
PP: "Neither of the two earliest Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus nor the Vaticanus, contain the last twelve verses."
Papyrus-45 is from about 225, 100 years earlier than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. That makes Papyrus-45 our oldest copy of Mark. The thing is, it's been so badly damaged that the pages containing Mark 16 have not survived. So we don't really know if the oldest extant copy of Mark had 16:9-20 or not.
Regarding Vaticanus, there's a prolonged blank space after 16:8 which indicates that the copyist was aware of more text after that, but was not sure what to do. And in Sinaiticus, all the text from Mark 14:54 t0 Luke 1:56 is written on a replacement-sheet, not the four-page sheet used by the copyist who made the surrounding pages. And on this replacement-sheet, the decorative design after Mark 16:8 is uniquely emphatic. This implies that the copyist knew of material after 16:8 in at least one copy of Mark he had seen.
Also, our earliest manuscripts are not always our earliest evidence. Over a century before Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Eusebius of Caesarea, Irenaeus of Lyons quoted Mark 16:19 as part of the Gospel of Mark, and Tatian (c. 172) included Mark 16:9-20 in his Gospel-Harmony, the Diatessaron. Hippolytus used it in the early 200's, and the author of "De Rebaptismate" used it c. 258.
PP: "Apparently, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Jerome all agreed."
Not so. Clement of Rome did not write enough for anyone to discern what sort of form his copy of the Gospel of Mark took. You could just as easily say that Clement of Rome apparently agreed with the statement that the Gospel of Mark consisted of only the parts that he used. As for Clement of Alexandria and Origen, they say nothing about how the Gospel of Mark ends. As for Jerome, here's what happened to get him enlisted as a witness against Mark 16:9-20: by 405, Jerome was tired of theological contests, and so, as he explained in a letter to Augustine (Letter #75), he conserved time and energy when he received letters asking for his opinions by dictating replies to his secretary, frequently pulling out of his memory the contents of writings he had read, and his own thoughts, too, without much concern to credit his sources.
In another letter, #120 (To Hedibia), Jerome informed Hedibia that he was replying via dictation. And, lo, in the course of answering a question about how to harmonize the Gospels' accounts about the resurrection, Jerome loosely summarizes the contents of Eusebius' earlier composition "Ad Marinum." This can be demonstrated by noticing that Jerome provided to Hedibia essentially the same three answers to the same three questions that Eusebius provided to Marinus, and in the same order.
To perceive Jerome's own assessment of Mark 16:9-20, just look at the Vulgate, where Jerome included 16:9-20 in the text of Mark, and look at his work "Against the Pelagians," where he used Mark 16:14 to locate an interpolation, fully expecting his readers to find Mark 16:14 in their copies, and offering no word of caution whatsoever that the material from v. 9 to v. 20 might be absent. Jerome's casual recollection of Eusebius' statement that Mark 16:9-20 was absent "from almost all of the Greek codices" does not mean that Jerome thought that Mark 16:9-20 was absent from the best copies or from the oldest copies.
PP: "Mr. George Hensley, after reading this passage in 1910, began handling snakes in church" . . .
If a passage is to be rejected merely because someone has misinterpreted and misapplied it, the New Testament would be pretty thin.
PP: "If the early church had considered this passage to be authoritative, you would expect to see regular mention of handling snakes and drinking poison. No evidence for this behavior exists."
The part about handling snakes is non-literal, just like Luke 10:19's statement about stomping on snakes and scorpions is non-literal. We do not reject Luke 10:19 on the grounds that there is no evidence that early Christians literally stomped on scorpions. Similarly, the statement that those who believe will be protected from harm if they happen to consume poison is no more problematic than the statement in Luke 10:19 that "nothing will ever harm you."
In addition, if you look through writings such as the "Life of St. Martin," and the spurious "Acts of John," you will observe instances in which believers, by whatever chain of events, consumed poison and were preserved safe.
For more information about the end of the Gospel of Mark, I welcome you to read the multi-part presentation which begins at
www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html .
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Dear Brother,
P45 is so small and in such bad shape that although it is older, I did not consider it a "complete" text. Matthew is so bad that the nature of its characters can't even be determined. Mark seems to be Caesarian while Luke and John are an odd mixture of Alexandrian and Western types. As you implied
yourself, "older is not necessarily better." Regardless, even in this copy it cannot be determined whether Mark 16:9-20 should be in or out. It adds
nothing to the debate.
In regards to the Vaticanus, I don't consider a long blank space a particularly good argument for the existence of the passage. That's like Kruschev saying that God didn't exist because his cosmonauts didn't see Him
while they were in orbit. One cannot argue positively from a lack of evidence!
And as to the Sinaiticus, it is impossible to get into the copyist's mind and determine what they did or did not see on some other hypothetical day. My rule of thumb has been to follow Paul's advice - "nothing beyond what is
written." (1 Corinthians 4:6) Not only is that sound Scriptural advice, but it is a fundamental tenet of logic. One cannot assume what one does not see in front of him. My statement was simply that these two old copies did not have Mark 16:9-20 in them. I still stand by that statement.
Again, all I said was that Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Jerome (all very influential in their own right) did not seem to include it in their canon as it is not commented on or listed in their works.
However, I understand your line of reasoning concerning Jerome and might (upon further investigation) agree with you that he may not be the best witness against Mark 16:9-20.
I think that we must be careful about saying that a passage is not literal when there is no contextual evidence to support that view. Some passages (i.e. where Jesus describes Himself as a door) are obviously to be taken
non-literally but this passage does not seem (to my puny mind) to be of the same character, particularly in light of Paul's experience with the snake and being stoned and getting up to return to the very city that had just stoned him! (a passage taken literally)
Regarding Mr. George Hensley - my argument is that there is nothing that the passage adds theologically that cannot be found elsewhere but it does carry the potential of false application. My reasoning is that omission of this
aggravating passage causes us to lose nothing and potentially gain
something.
Each statement is not in and of itself a full argument. It is a mounting body of circumstantial evidence. It is not meant to be conclusive and it is not an academic work. It's a blog and after carefully considering your
arguments, I respectfully retain my position (for now) with the caveat of Jerome.
I have enjoyed the conversation however and appreciate your investment of time and thought into my life. May God use you so thoroughly and completely that on the day of your death there is not one good work left undone in your
life.
Ch'azak u baruch
Be strong and be blessed
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home