Is Mark 16:9-20 Authentic?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

What textual criticism is — and why the question arises

• The question posed (in the host's frame): some critics say the ending of Mark (the chapter as the episode styles it), including Jesus's reference to speaking in tongues, and casting out demons, is not authentic, and should not be included in scripture. The host's question: anyone who's read that chapter, in the version the question names, has seen the following note, after verse 8, that says: the earliest manuscripts, and some other ancient copies, do not have the closing verses (the question gives their span; the note's own wording is quoted in the question). If you look in John (the question gives the chapter), again in that version, there's a note that says: the earliest manuscripts, and many other ancient copies, do not have the disputed passage (the question gives its span). What's going on here? Can you explain why this note was included? And I guess the bigger question is: those two passages — is there reliable — should they be included, in our Bible? The answer: that's an important question. And what we're talking about, is what's known as textual criticism. So let me answer, by explaining what textual criticism is. And then we'll go back, to these two passages of scripture. And for a detailed discussion, I have a book, called God's infallible word — which is available at Pentecostal publishing.com (as he gives the address) — and it covers things such as: the inspiration of scripture. The Canon — you know, what books belong in the Bible. The text — which is what we're talking about now: how was the text transmitted, over the centuries, copied by hand? And are there errors? How do we know, what is the original text? And then translation: how do we know, what's a good translation? And so forth. And of course, I take the position: the Bible is God's word. It's completely true, in everything that it teaches us. But the question of textual criticism is this. We — for the Old Testament, we have books, that were written thousands of years ago. Even for the New Testament, the books are written approximately 2,000 years ago. And they were copied by hand, because we didn't have modern printing, or duplication. And so when you copy a huge manuscript by hand, there's likely going to be some small errors. So how do you know if — and to compound the problem: the oldest manuscripts that we have — so say, for the Old Testament — are about a thousand years old. So that means they're a couple thousand years later, than the original. So there could be 2,000 years of transmission, where we don't really know — we can't independently attest what happened. Then, for the New Testament, the situation is much, much better. But still, we would have manuscripts, say, from the 300s, 400s, and later. So you're still a couple hundred years, from the original. So how do you know, what errors crept in? So the study of textual criticism is: trying to find out, what is the original text. And for most cases, it's fairly straightforward.

Scriptures: Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11

The state of the evidence — scribes, scrolls, and five thousand manuscripts

• Now, I'll make some generalizations. But for the Old Testament: we have relatively few manuscripts. But the ones we have were copied, with extraordinary Care, by Jewish scribes. And when I say extraordinary: they would do things like counting every single letter, on this portion of the scroll, and noting it. So that when they made a copy, and they would count: if they accidentally missed, or added, a letter, the count would be off. And so they took almost fanatical care, to double check, triple check, do all kind of numerical studies, to make sure they had an accurate text. So our confidence in the Old Testament rests, to a great extent, on the extreme, extraordinary care, of the ancient Jewish scribes. But also: the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the 1940s, 50s, and so forth. We found Scrolls, from the Dead Sea, that were a thousand years older, than what we had. And so, in one moment, we could compare a thousand years of copying. What did it do? And what we found is: the manuscripts we have are highly reliable. That they were almost identical. And where there were changes: it's mostly spelling, or obvious errors, or obvious changes, that don't affect meaning. Now, with the New Testament: not all scribes were so careful. You can see many errors. However, we have over 5,000 manuscripts, of the Greek New Testament. Far more, than any other ancient book of the time. And we have fragments, from the 2 Century (as the letters stand). There's one fragment, from the Gospel of John, that's possibly only 20 years after the book was written. So, in contrast to every other ancient book: we have far more manuscripts of the Bible. And we have much earlier manuscripts of the Bible. So we can have a high degree of confidence. So yes, if you compare 5,000 manuscripts — and that includes portions, not total — yeah, you can see errors. But just, as a simplistic thing: let's say two manuscripts have a different word, in a certain place. How do you know, which is original? Well: if a 100 manuscripts have the word, and only one manuscript is different, it's pretty obvious: well, that one guy made a mistake, probably. Probably a hundred people didn't make a mistake. Probably one guy made a mistake. So textual critics have developed a series of rules, like this, to — how do you know, which reading is more accurate? So, for all practical purposes, we can get back to the original text, just by using these scientific methods, far more than any other book. So, for example: whatever you have read about Caesar — or whatever you've read about Roman history, or Greek history — those are based on a relatively few manuscripts, much later. So if we discount the Bible's textual criticisms, we would have to say: everything you've ever read about Roman history, Greek history, is far more likely to be bogus. Because we have far more evidence, for the text of the New Testament, than any other historical book, from that time, or before.

No doctrine at stake — and why Mark's ending belongs

• Now, having said all that: so, in principle, there could be, in the New Testament, some phrases, that maybe weren't original. And that really disturbs some people. But the modern translations usually will point that out. And they will point — if there's a phrase that was omitted, or they feel like doesn't belong there — they will put a footnote. So you still have that phrase. And some people, you know, get very indignant, about this discussion. But if you just step back, and take a look: no Doctrine is affected, by any of these questionable phrases. And in almost every case, if one of the modern translations omits a phrase, because they say it wasn't original: what you usually find — the same phrase, or very close to it — is in another place. So it's not as if the statement is never made. It's just a question of: did a scribe add it somewhere? Did a scribe duplicate it? So the error is not really one of, should this concept be there? The error is: should it be at this location, or that location? Or is it repeated? And so, really: not only are all the major doctrines of the Bible amply supported, by the Undisputed text — but even the phrases and comments are going to be supported, throughout the text. But you pointed out two of the biggest questions, where an entire passage is under dispute. And I would say, based on my study: I do believe that the ending of Mark should be recognized. And I do believe the story in John (the chapter as he gives it), which is the story of the woman caught in adultery, should be there. So, in both cases, I believe that a scholarly, yet conservative, approach to textual criticism would say: yes, these two should remain in the text. The issue for them is: they're not present in two or three of the oldest manuscripts. Although they are present, in the majority of manuscripts. So the thought is: well, the earlier ones should be respected more, than the later ones that are copies ('than the lighter ones that are their are copies', as the sentence stands). And that is an involved study — which I do give all the evidence, in my book, God's infallible word. But here's what I think is going on, in Mark: if you didn't have that long ending, it would end with: the women coming to the tomb. They find the tomb ('they find their tomb they find the angel', as the telling runs). They find the angel, saying: he's risen. He's not here. And the women were frightened. And that would be the end of the book. It seems highly unlikely, that the book would end, on a note of fear. And even though it mentions Christ's Resurrection, it doesn't give his appearance. So the climactic moment of the Gospel is gone. So, just based on internal evidence, I would say: surely, that can't be the end of Mark. So maybe, in some of the ancient texts ('in some of the an text', as the letters stand), maybe a portion — the last page was cut off, so to speak. The last part of the scroll got damaged. And so maybe, when somebody copied it, they had an incomplete copy. So I can see, where a few early copies could have ended up not having it. But I believe that God would have preserved the text. He would have kept his hand on it. So that if there really is an ending, it would not have been just completely lost, to scholarship ('it would have been just completely lost to to scholarship', as the sentence stands — the denial belongs to the clause before it).

Scriptures: John 8

The content objection — serpents, tongues, and protection

• And when you study the ending of Mark: it seems like the critics, that are quick to jump on it — it's because they really don't like the content. So yes, there is textual evidence. But they're quick to jump to that evidence, because it talks about miracles and signs. It talks about speaking in tongues, and Divine Healing. And then there's this little statement: they'll take up serpents. And — and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them (as he quotes the saying). And so, because the vast majority of critics have no experience, with the supernatural — speaking in tongues, Miracle, signs, wonders — it's embarrassing, to keep it in. And it's easy to say: you know what, we don't like it. Of course, my point there would be: once you get rid of an anti-supernatural bias ('an anti-s Supernatural bias', as the letters stand), it's much more reasonable. And even respected textual critics — probably the most respected conservative textual critic (named in the letters as 'Bruce Meer'; the delivery note carries the standard spelling) — said: well, even though we don't have complete evidence, that it was there, in the ending of Mark: we do find it, so many times, in so many ways. And by the time the councils — actually, there were councils, that decided which books belong in the Bible — and by the time those councils met, that ending was already there. So he feels like: even though maybe it's questionable, as to whether it was supposed to be at that location, we should still accept it. Even if it was — maybe, some say, Mark might have written his gospel, and ended it early. But then someone else wrote it — but also under inspiration — to finish it. So he feels like it should still be accepted. Even though the question of who wrote it, or what place it should be in, might be open to scholarly dispute. And I would simply say, as far as taking up serpents: it certainly is not talking about the practice, of some Appalachian churches, of picking up rattlesnakes ('picking up rattles Stakes', as heard), to prove you have faith. That'll make a lot of people feel a lot better (as he jokes). I think it's not talking about — you know, the Bible tells us clearly: we're not supposed to tempt God. So even when the devil tried to tempt Jesus — you know, Jump Off The Pinacle of the temple, and the angels will catch you — and he quoted scripture for that — and Jesus said: don't tempt the Lord your God. So yes, angels will protect you. But that doesn't mean you should run out in traffic, and see if the angels are going to protect us, from getting hit. So that is — so yes, as in Acts (the chapter as he gives it): Paul was picking up sticks, to make a fire. And a poisonous snake came out, and bit him. And everybody thought he would die. But he just shook it off, in the fire. And God protected him. That would be a perfect example. Not that you should deliberately handle snakes. But if you get accidentally bitten, or you get accidentally poisoned: just like you trust God for healing, you trust God for protection. I think that's an easy explanation, for that passage. And in addition: in Luke (the chapter as he gives it), Jesus said: I give you power, over serpents and scorpions, and all the power of the enemy. And clearly, in that context, he was talking about spiritually. So there could really be a spiritual application: that he's talking more about — in the same context of Mark, it says, you'll cast out demons — so he could be talking about: you will be able to overcome, you know, evil spirits, serpent Spirits (as he styles them). So either way — both physically, and spiritually — there's a perfectly good understanding, of the ending of Mark, that fits the rest of the New Testament. And, by the way: if you want a full-length book, scholarly book, that goes to great detail, to explain why the ending should be there — the original ending of Mark, by a scholar whose surname he spells out letter by letter (the letters give the name, then the spelling) — so I do believe we should accept the long ending of Mark, as part of scripture.

Scriptures: Acts 28; Luke 10

The John passage — the same evidence, a kinder reception

• The other passage, in John (as he styles it): it's really interesting. Because it's similar evidence. In fact, there's — I think — a little more textual evidence, for the ending of Mark, even than the passage in John. And what you find is: sometimes it's in John, sometimes it's in Luke, sometimes other places. So there is some doubt, as to where it really fit in. But there, the critics are much nicer. And they will say something like: well, even though we're not sure, if it was originally part of John — or maybe it was written separately — but we do think it's an authentic story, from Jesus. Probably written by some disciple. Probably inspired. And maybe they later stuck it in John ('maybe somebody else suck it in Luke', as the letters stand at the parallel point — stuck it in, in the telling's sense). Maybe that's why it wasn't — or in some of these ancient texts — because it was written on its own. But we should still accept it. And of course, because it's such a beautiful statement, of divine forgiveness, that you'd hate to take it out. But actually, the textual evidence is about the same. And so, my summary is: textual criticism is a legitimate study. We shouldn't just ignore it. It is important. But it's mostly for the experts. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference, for practical theology. But those two passages are significant. And I would argue: they should be retained, in the scripture.

Scripture index: Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; John 8; Acts 28; Luke 10.