Re: prayer and healing

The so-called "longer ending" of Mark (16:9-20) is not attested in patristic
literature until about 140 AD, and a "dubious tradition" of around the 10th
century names a presbyter Aristion (ca. 100) as its author. In his New
Century Commentary Hugh Anderson opines that it was an independent report
latterly attached by someone who thought that Mark's ending was incomplete.
"The passage reads like a manual of instruction, designed to answer
questions about the Easter event, and consists mainly of Easter traditions
drawn from the later Gospels and Acts." There is a reference in Luke 10:19
to disciples treading on serpents, but no snake handling.

While the passage is a later addition, it is part of the canon (though when
I teach Mark I ask my college students to stop at 16:8 and consider the
impact of that ending, which appears to be the original one). You've raised
the question of what to do about passages that are not part of original
texts but redactions, additions, and scribal interpolations. And there are
many. To what extent their status raises theological questions depends upon
which ones. But, I hardly think that the NT is in danger of being
"sissored" to death, even by "enlightened" scholars. With a rare exception
or two the textual critics of the NT whose work I am familiar with are
observant Christians dedicated to reconstructing the history of the texts
they study. Their work should be taken seriously, especially by biblical
inerrantists who want to know how close scholars can come to the original
autographs.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Mervin Bitikofer" <mrb22667@kansas.net>; "gordon brown"
<gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: prayer and healing

> Actually the snake part can be backed up with Acts 28:3-6. & that may
> help to get rid of the most problematic aspect of the longer Marcan
> ending. Paul didn't intend to pick up the snake on Malta to impress the
> natives & wasn't deliberately putting God to the test. Those who
> deliberately pick up snakes as part of their self-devided worship are
> putting God to the test - exactly the thing that Satan tries to get Jesus
> to do in jumping from the pinnacle of the Temple, & which Jesus refuses to
> do.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mervin Bitikofer" <mrb22667@kansas.net>
> To: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 5:09 PM
> Subject: 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 18:41:09 2006