News spread several days ago that the "reality TV star" of a show about snake-handlers had died after being bitten by a snake during a religious meeting. We looked up a few news videos about the fellow; he had been bitten several times in the past, and even lost a portion of a finger due to a snake bite. He never sought treatment for the finger as it rotted on his hand, nor when it had finally broke off. His wife insisted on keeping the finger chunk, and it was displayed proudly on camera to the reporter.
It reminded me of a quote from a preacher who was very influential to me early in my adulthood. He would say, "You can take the Word of God and preach yourself." Meaning: using the Bible, a preacher can exalt himself and not God. Such is epidemic these days, as selfish ambition and pride are at the root of many hearts. It is not limited to snake handlers. For my own purposes, I have labelled such things rather broadly by the term "self-empowerment." Self-empowerment is an antonym of martyr cross racing, and I plan to blog a series of thoughts on it in the not too distant future.
But today, I want to point out that it is a fact, though not overly expressed in churches, that the oldest Greek manuscripts of Mark do not contain 16:9-20. And further, the ending contained in verses 9-20 is not the only competing ending to Mark; there are other different and somewhat shorter endings that are known to exist. None of them have a strong case for being original. In fact, it may be that 16:8 really is the final verse of Mark as originally written. The Gospel of Mark has a theme known as "The Messianic Secret," mainly because Jesus is so often shushing people about his identity throughout the Gospel of Mark. Ending his gospel with an empty tomb may have been Mark's stylistic intent; we just do not know for sure. Possibly, as later scribes copied the gospel of Mark, and being confused that their source did not feature a post-resurrection appearance, a few scribes may have uniquely and individually scribbled in different conclusions to round out Mark to make it similar to the other three gospels.
Given that situation, why would a scribe include a line about taking up snakes and drinking poison? I am suggesting two stories that would yield those scribal interpolations.
First, there is the account in Acts of Paul being bitten by a poisonous snake while assembling firewood, but being unharmed. Notably, Acts does not mention that what had happened to Paul was a fulfillment of Jesus' words; therefore, it is possible that the story about Paul became the source of a later scribal interpolation to conclude Mark, namely, 16:9-20.
Secondly, among the Apostolic Fathers is a fellow named Papias, who lived roughly from 70-150 A.D. He apparently wrote a five volume work on the sayings of Jesus that has since been lost to us, except for parts quoted by later ancient Christians. One such writer who quoted Papias was Eusebius, the church historian from the era of Constantine. Eusebius wrote:
"That Philip the apostle resided in Hierapolis with his daughters has already been stated, but now it must be pointed out that Papias, their [the daughters'] contemporary, recalls that he heard an amazing story from Philip's daughters. For he reports that in his day a man rose from the dead, and again another amazing story involving Justus, who was surnamed Barsabbas, who drank a deadly poison and yet by the grace of God suffered nothing unpleasant."Notably again, there is no mention from Papias that this occasion fulfilled any words of Christ. Thus it is possible that this story in Papias' books was an inspiration for a later scribal interpolation known today as Mark 16:9-20.
What is further striking is that both the occasion of Paul being bitten, and the occasion of Justus swallowing poison, are accidental occasions. It was not Justus' intent to drink poison, but miraculously by the grace of God he wasn't harmed. It was a one time thing, just like Paul being bitten while assembling fire wood. If intentionally handling snakes and drinking poisons was normative and routine worship in the apostolic churches, Papias would not write about an "amazing story" handed down by word of mouth about how surviving poison graciously happened to one guy one time.
Therefore, since these two stories are closely related to Mark 16:18, and both of these stories are about accidental, one-time occurrences, then the actions of intentionally and routinely handling snakes and drinking poisons in religious meetings -- and refusing medical care upon being bitten or overdosing -- is not even fairly defended by Mark 16:18. It is much more akin to jumping from the pinnacle of the temple: putting the Lord your God to the test. The devil suggests that doing so will help your ministry grow and bring glory to God. Jesus counters that it is a sin.
Acts, Papias, and Mark together "X" out that interpretation, whether 16:9-20 is a scribal interpolation or not. What we have instead, then, with snake-handling, is a drive for self-empowerment: taking the word of God and exalting yourself.
Don't get smug; "biblical" self-empowerment is expressed by you and me too. Martyr cross racing is about putting it to death.
Very interesting! Although I am aware of the doubt concerning this part of Mark I had never read about these other two instances. I have a good friend who once struggled with this part of Mark - believing it was proof that all who are saved should have said gifts - because he hadn't experienced them. Do you think this text also reveals a fundamental error with a certain strand of biblicism? (I do by the way!) DR
ReplyDeleteI would think that perpetuating self-empowerment, or being abused by those who do, explains a lot. A group who thinks that they experience those gifts is often not careful to avoid exalting and validating themselves to themselves, and thus others like your friend can get beat down by the group's self-confidence when it parades itself as mature spirituality.
ReplyDelete