The Ending of Mark and Snake Handling

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    AGAIN, THIS IS NOT TO BECOME A KJVO DEBATE OR THE MODERATORS WILL SHUT IT DOWN WITH MY BLESSINGS! This is to discuss how we believe and respond today, based on the translated material available to us. (That is why it fits under translations.)

    I will open up a thread to allow those to discuss the actual causal effects of the ending of Mark. I am referring to the ending of Mark that was picked by the KJV translators--not various other endings found in manuscripts.

    There seem to be about four viewpoints, others may be added:

    1. The end of Mark is not found in the originals, so no effect on today's doctrine.

    2. The end of Mark was found in the originals, but we just kind of ignore it and push it under the counter. After all, who wants to test God and drink poison?

    3. The end of Mark was found in the originals, and if we are truly Christians then we can apply it today and handle snakes and drink poison without injury.

    4. The end of Mark was found in the originals, and it was strictly referring to first century disciples who could do miracles to show that Jesus was indeed God on earth and people who try to use it today are responding to a promise never given to them...only to the early disciples.

    You may discuss your points of view, but do NOT get this into a KJVO debate or I will personally ASK them to shut it down. I'm sticking my neck out here to discuss something legitimately and if someone cuts it off....well, I'll leave that up to the board administrators.
     
  2. PastorGreg

    PastorGreg
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2000
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    #4. All of the things in verses 17,18 fit the picture of the sign gifts given to convince the unbelieving Jews of the authenticity of the gospel preached by the apostles.
     
  3. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree!
     
  4. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by PastorGreg:
    #4. All of the things in verses 17,18 fit the picture of the sign gifts given to convince the unbelieving Jews of the authenticity of the gospel preached by the apostles.
    --------------------------------------------------

    I also agree!


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  5. Deborah B.

    Deborah B.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree also!


    In Christ,
    Deborah
     
  6. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I believe the point of these verses are to prove the protective nature of God. I have always taught my people that the safest place on earth for the child of God is the center of His will.

    The prophecy of verse 18 was literally fulfilled in Acts 28:5 when Paul was bitten by the viper and suffered no harm.

    If we accidentally drink any deadly or poisonous substance, our God has promised that it will not harm us. He gave the same promise to Israel in Isaiah 43:2 "When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee." (KJV)

    I do not believe that this was a supernatural power given to the Apostles to "prove" that they were from God. They never manifested the "Hey, watch this" attitude simply to try and sway the crowd into believing their message.

    When Paul was bitten by the viper, the people were not convinced that he was from God, they all believed that Paul was a god.
     
  7. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree! Amen!
     
  8. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    ---------------------------------------------------

    I believe the point of these verses are to prove the protective nature of God. I have always taught my people that the safest place on earth for the child of God is the center of His will.

    The prophecy of verse 18 was literally fulfilled in Acts 28:5 when Paul was bitten by the viper and suffered no harm.

    If we accidentally drink any deadly or poisonous substance, our God has promised that it will not harm us. He gave the same promise to Israel in Isaiah 43:2 "When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee." (KJV)

    I do not believe that this was a supernatural power given to the Apostles to "prove" that they were from God. They never manifested the "Hey, watch this" attitude simply to try and sway the crowd into believing their message.

    When Paul was bitten by the viper, the people were not convinced that he was from God, they all believed that Paul was a god.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    You have a good point Pastor Bob, and I do agree with you, but I also do believe it was also a sign to the jews, not for them to believe, but as a judgement toward them that they did not. Just as the speaking in tongues was a sign to them that believed not.


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  9. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    STYLE OF THE LONG ENDING OF MARK
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can agree with part of you post, but have you not read the book of Acts? They were not arrogant about their powers, but God definitely gave them powers and the REASON He gave them powers was obviously to lend credence to "The Way".
     
  11. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The question of authorship of verses 9 through 20 of the last chapter of Mark cannot be decided on the basis of textual evidence, since they are omitted by some good manuscripts and included by other good ones. Rather it must be determined, if possible, on the basis of style: if these last twelve verses are in Mark's style, then the view that they were written by Mark is preferable; if they are in a different style, then the view that they were written by someone else is preferable.

    Textual critics usually object to Mark's authorship of these verses on the basis of supposed differences of style between them and the rest of the Gospel of Mark. However, an in depth study of the stylistic features in question reveals that almost all of them can be found elsewhere in Mark. For convenience of discussion, these features may be categorized under four headings: juncture, vocabulary, phraseology, and miscellaneous.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    STYLE OF THE LONG ENDING OF MARK

    --------------------------------------------------


    There is also this:


    Taken from this link:

    http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html

    --------------------------------------------------
    The Internal Evidences

    In addition to flawed Westcott-Hortian presuppositions, Critical Texters also direct their attention to many supposed inconsistencies between the style of Mark 16:9-20 and the rest of Mark's Gospel. It is argued from these theorised stylistic differences that the "original" ending of Mark was lost, and was replaced sometime in the mid-2nd century with the present "long" ending. This argument is buttressed by pointing to the concurrent "shorter ending" which, as was noted above, is found in a small number of later Greek manuscripts, but which is completely lacking in any patristic references and in other ancient versions except for a single Old Latin exemplar (which itself suffers from the same "oldest is [not] best" problem as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have). The shorter ending is not itself proposed as a serious authentic contender as the "real" ending of Mark, but is used to demonstrate that there were scribes who prepared their own endings for this Gospel, and thus it is supposed that this lends merit to the Critical arguments against the longer ending as being itself a scribal addition.

    Of course, this does beg the question somewhat. The reasoning is circular in that for the Critical argument to be believable, one must already accept that the longer ending was indeed a scribal addition of the mid-2nd century. Only by presupposing this can the claim that the fact of a scribal addition of the 6th century adds any weight to the scribal addition claim for the longer ending have any standing. If one does not accept that the longer ending was added in the mid-2nd century as a pious fraud, then there is no reason to assume that a 6th century addition necessarily supports the existence of a theorised 2nd century analogue.

    And what of this claim that the longer ending was added to replace the "lost original" ending of Mark? We should note that the claim that this occurred in the mid-2nd century is little more than a blind guess on the part of the Westcott-Hort crowd, and one which is designed to try to explain away the appearance of patristic quotations of these verses from the period preceding the testimony of the supposed "oldest and best" Alexandrian exemplars. The Critical Text supporters invest much in the authority of these exemplars, primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both from the mid-to-late 4th century. To have patristic writers from two hundred years previous citing and referring to these verses upsets the apple cart, so to speak. It causes the Critics conniption fits because it undercuts the textual authority of the exemplars. Thus, the reaction on the part of Westcott-Hortians is to simply invent the claim that this ending must have been added in the mid-2nd century, around the time when these verses first begin to be quoted extensively. In other words, they are trying to force the data to fit their theories, instead of questioning whether the underlying bases for their theories might be incorrect.

    And of course, the evidence we have available renders the "pious addition" charge little more than wishful thinking. We've seen that it is likely that a patristic from even earlier than this period, from the turn of the 1st/2nd centuries, alluded to Mark 16:18 because of the peculiar reference to the poison-drinking experience of Justin Barsabbas which was recorded. Further, Mark 16:9-20 enjoys the support of catholicity, being found in numerous ancient versions, and being widely distributed across the whole of the ancient Christian world and in the vast bulk of the Greek manuscriptual evidence. As well, patristics from all across the Empire support the long ending. Where the "pious addition" argument fails is that it lacks an explanation for how a scribal insertion managed to become so widespread across the whole ancient world and find enough support to be copied along with the rest of Mark on so numerous of occasions as to enjoy the predominance it has today. Why is the opposing evidence supporting the section's exclusion only found in and around Egypt and in a tiny number of versions (and then only partial) based upon the Alexandrian line?

    In recourse against the logical paucity of their position, Critical Texters such as Metzger have supposed a number of internal stylistic evidences which purport to show that the longer ending is different from the rest of Mark, and could not have been produced by the same writer. A succinct summary of the arguments along this line are provided by Metzger,


    "The long ending, though present in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. For example, the presence of seventeen non-Marcan words or words used in a non-Marcan sense; the lack of a smooth juncture between verses 8 and 9 (the subject in vs. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in vs. 9); and the way in which Mary is identified in verse 9 even though she has been mentioned previously (vs. 1) -- all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark which ended abruptly with verse 8 and who wished to provide a more appropriate conclusion."26
    Probably the most rigourous of these to deal with would be the first, Metzger's claim concerning the non-Markan words in the long ending. However, upon investigation, this argument is not nearly as convincing as some would prefer it to be. Holland presents a very solid refutation of Metzger's argument on this point27. He notes that, while it is true that Mark 16:9-20 contains a number of word forms which are not found elsewhere in Mark (all of the "unique" words are forms of words found elsewhere), this is not exactly a singular phenomenon in the New Testament. Out of the 183 words in the Greek text of the longer ending, 53 do not appear elsewhere in the Gospel of Mark, and 21 do not appear elsewhere in the entirety of the New Testament. While this seems to be strong evidence in favour of Metzger's argument, this large number of unique words in such a relatively short body of text, it is not so. Holland points out that Luke 1:1-12, a passage of similar length, there are 20 words or word forms which are unique to that portion of text alone in the New Testament. Further, the Gospel of Mark outside of the longer ending contains no less than 102 words or word forms which are unique to this book alone. Likewise, the other three Gospels all contain numerous unique words or word forms (Matthew with 137, Luke with 312, and John with 114). Hence, unique variance in any portion of Mark (or elsewhere in the New Testament, for that matter) is certainly not sufficient evidence upon which to base a claim such as the Critical texters make concerning Mark 16:9-20. Bruce Terry also provides a similar, though much more in-depth, analysis of Markan vocabulary and style which similarly arrives at the conclusion that the typical Critical objections to Mark 16:9-20 on this point are quite overstated28.

    Concerning Metzger's other arguments against the long ending's authenticity, they are quite minor and easily dispensed with. He argues that the disjuncture between verses 8 and 9 point to a later addition tacked onto an abrupt (or lost) ending at v. 8. Yet, there are several examples of similar disjunctions throughout the Gospel accounts, in which the subject, location, etc. change drastically within the narratives. In the narratives of Matthew and Mark, we see that Peter is shown to be following the group that had arrested Jesus (Matthew 26:58, Mark 14:54), after which unrelated material is presented, and then the narratives return to Peter's denial of Christ (Matthew 26:60-75, Mark 14:66-72). This is a break in the flow of the story concerning Peter, in which his narrative account is interrupted by non-related material. Another example would be found in Mark 5:22-43, where we find the healing of the woman with the issue of blood contained within the narrative of Christ's raising of Jairus' daughter from the dead. There is a strong break in the flow of the story at this point, with not even an attempt to integrate the nested story into the greater point of the resurrection of the girl. Both of these represent disjunctures as "egregious" as that which occurs between Mark 16:8 and 9, yet neither are used to question the authenticity of these other passages.

    The repetitive identification of Mary Magdalene in verse 9 is also pointed to by Metzger. However, as Holland points out29, the fact that there was another Mary (the mother of James) identified along with Mary Magdalene in verse 1 would seem to require a specific reidentification of Mary Magdalene in verse 9 to distinguish her as the particular Mary to whom the risen Saviour appeared. Of course, the fact that she is identified further as the one from whom seven demons were cast is not unique to this passage, finding repetition in Luke 8:2. As such, these Critical objections to Mark 16:9-20 do not seem to have any real validity.
    --------------------------------------------------


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  12. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    michelle:
    In the article you quoted, "Why Mark 16:9-20 Belongs in the Bible: A Case Study in Westcott-Hortian Silliness," the author clearly supports one viewpoint. However he failed to quote Metzger's conclusion accurately. You however quoted a secondary source on the internet trusting his conclusion. Work should be done using primary sources and not secondary opinions. Metzger writes in A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament "At the same time out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committeee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicatethat they are the work of an author other than the evangelist."
     
  13. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    What I find interesting is the KJVO's that have been posting are not in accordance with the other KJVO's in the U.S. who happen to trust the longer ending of Mark. To them the KJVO's posting on this topic are liberal compromisers.
     
  14. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    GB, FYI, Michelle accused us of falsely accusing her of being a KJVO (If you don't believe me read the entire "AV1611 and Roman Cath." thread.

    . . . just wanted you to be careful and not label her something she is not. :eek:
     
  15. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    What is she, if she won't read another Bible and believes all others are wrong?
     
  16. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    michelle:
    In the article you quoted, "Why Mark 16:9-20 Belongs in the Bible: A Case Study in Westcott-Hortian Silliness," the author clearly supports one viewpoint
    --------------------------------------------------


    So do your sources, and you yourself. You see, I do not need to know this information to know the truth in this issue. Others, for some reason do however, and that is why I provided what I did.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tee hee [​IMG]

    Ain't we havin' fun [​IMG]
     
  18. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    No, I just endeavored to quote Metzger correctly. I would do the same about you even if I did not agree with you. That is what truth is about. We should never be afraid of truth even if it proves us wrong.

    So you quote a second hand source that quotes things out of context and call that truth?
     
  19. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    So you quote a second hand source that quotes things out of context and call that truth?

    --------------------------------------------------

    The link I posted did not quote things out of context, nor did they give that impression as you yourself so wonderfully confirmed by showing us with this statement and truth to which that link actually said, to which you said was not true:


    --------------------------------------------------
    but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicatethat they are the work of an author other than the evangelist."
    --------------------------------------------------


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  20. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Any second hand source should never be trusted. One should always take a look at the primary source.
     

Share This Page

Loading...