Re: prayer and healing

Yes -- we (I) tend to get a little excited about that footnote at the
end of the NIV giving this 'warning' about the spurious origins of that
passage. And as a friend of mine says -- "there's nothing in that
passage of importance that can't be backed up with other scriptures
except the snake handling and poison drinking". So we should hardly
build snake handling doctrines on one such passage. Point sound and
well-taken. It's just that we have to be cognizant (even sympathetic)
with the finger-waving warnings from our traditional "don't mess with
scripture" past. So maybe I can consign the end of Mark to a "lesser"
level of consideration than other scriptures without undue loss. But
where does this stop. I bet scholars (especially the "enlightened"
ones) can point a whole lot more passages for which they have evidence
that they too weren't in some ancient manuscript and therefore added by
a later redactor. And perhaps my NIV doesn't even give me the benefit
of a footnote warning. By the time everyone has worn out their scissors
we end up with a few shreds like a Jeffersonian or a Jesus seminar
Bible. It seems to me that this "slippery slope" danger is more real
for the literalists than for those who don't feel compelled down that
road as a matter of principle.

--merv

gordon brown wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Mervin Bitikofer wrote:
>
>
>
>> Or at the end of Mark (I've been
>>reading Mark lately) -- the signs that WILL accompany those who
>>believe: they will handle snakes and drink deadly poison without
>>harm. How many sermons have you heard preached on that passage? I
>>view all scripture as authoritative from God, but I can sure understand
>>the eye-rolling delight agnostics get from passages like this and from
>>us in our "bend-over-backward" antics to explain why certain passages
>>"don't apply." Probably, I'll get a half dozen well polished reasons
>>from some of you about why snake-handling, etc. can be dismissed as a
>>cultural difference or some other thing. And I can guarantee you that
>>all such explanations (some of which may be entirely correct IMO) will
>>still elicit only condescending smiles from hostile challengers who will
>>only see the "convenience" of our dismissal.
>>
>>
>
>Mark 16:9-20 (the longer ending of Mark) is not contained in the oldest
>known manuscripts, and it is highly doubtful that Mark included it in his
>gospel.
>
>Gordon Brown
>Department of Mathematics
>University of Colorado
>Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 1 17:16:23 2006