A question on Mark 16:17-18

[MrDude]

This verse says

17"These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;


18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Now, I haven't done any of these, and I know many others who haven't, but do have true faith. Does this mean I don't truly believe? That I'm missing something?

 

[Van]

Writings from biblical times are useful and provide insight into the thinking of those alive at the time. But writings that have been added to scripture by a scholar or copist are not inspired and should carry no weight than commentary.

Many modern translations such as the NASB and NIV and ESV carry a foot note indicating some of the most reliable and earliest manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20. Therefore it is wise to avoid basing beliefs on this passage if the same truth is not taught elsewhere in scripture.

Here is a footnote copied for the ESV.

1. Mark 16:9-20 - Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14; one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20

 

[BigNorsk]

9tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (Í B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (Í B). The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Y 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Q Ë13 33 2427 Ï lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”

 

[MrDude]

So what about the whole "divine inspiration" of the Bible? How do we know what's real and what's not?

 

[BigNorsk]

So what about the whole "divine inspiration" of the Bible? How do we know what's real and what's not?

I wonder if you read the footnotes or not. How do we know what's real? We must sincerely study the Bible and the evidence that we have to best determine what is true. We carefully weigh the evidence and we know that God agrees with himself so scripture must agree with scripture.

What we don't do is pick a certain translation or a certain person and say there is the perfect truth. God's perfect truth was there in the originals, and in the vast majority of the Bible, there is no disagreement about what the originals would have said, we need to be careful in areas that the witnesses do not agree, or that evidence would say there was an addition or subtraction. Most often, it isn't a question of meaning. For instance a scribe might have written Jesus Christ, where Jesus was all that was there in the original. He makes a mistake caused by misplaced reverence for Jesus. Or it might be the form of a word, the ending might disagree, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is lost. If you read my typing, you will certainly run into mistakes, but that doesn't mean you can't tell what was meant. You might be so good at it that you don't even notice some of the mistakes, just read what was meant.

Another thing is to look at the passage in question.


9[[ 16:9 Early on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had driven out seven demons. 16:10 She went out and told those who were with him, while they were mourning and weeping. 16:11 And when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe. 16:12 After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country. 16:13 They went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. 16:14 Then he appeared to the eleven themselves, while they were eating, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him resurrected. 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 16:17 These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages;10 16:18 they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them;11 they will place their hands on the sick and they will be well.” 16:19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 16:20 They went out and proclaimed everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.]]

Doesn't it seem different to you? Even in translation it is a real change in tone and emphasis. People use this passage all the time to teach that water baptism is required for salvation. Does that really agree with other passage?

Take tongues, this is the only place it actually talks about new languages. If you look at Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14, it doesn't fit that the gift of tongues is a new language, actually, what fits those passages best is that the gift of tongues concerns the person speaking authoritatively in the language they are most familiar. (See Here and Here for an explanation.)

Do you know any believer that could drink botulism toxin and not be harmed?

I think one of the most significant things is how the passage refers to Jesus as if he were the Holy Spirit. Jesus left so he could send the helper.

Look at the groups that really pattern themselves after this passage, see any problems there? Now it could be that they take it out of balance or it could be that it doesn't belong.

One thing you see with important doctrines in the Bible is that God gives them to us again and again. If you see some group take one verse and pattern their whole system after it, Warning! Danger!

Don't make the mistake of thinking the Bible is worthless because a couple of passages are questionable, throwing it away won't give you more truth, only less. The answer is to faithfully study and apply its teachings in our lives. Sometimes you will run into something that doesn't seem to fit, at least not the way you understand it initially. With time, more and more of those get resolved. There is really almost no disagreement at all when it comes to matters of significant doctrine between the witnesses.

Don't miss the forest for the trees.
Marv

 

[Stinker]

Could it be that the Catholic Church had something to do with how Mk.16:9-18 turned out? If so, maybe that is why Mk.16:16 was so psychologically effective in making people think they must be baptized into the Catholic Church where all those other miraculous signs were happening Mk.16:17-18 .

 

[Van]

MrDude, it is sad that some folks, in trying to be helpful, in trying to make something more clear to the folks living at the time of the copy, altered and added stuff. But since more than one person was making copies, the additions pop out when you carefully study all the existing fragments and manuscripts. This is the science of textual criticism. What it tells us, with very few exceptions, the text we have is very close to the original copies. So rather than causing you to be concerning that the Bible in your hand is not inspired, it should reinforce your trust that what you have reflects very very closely the inspired writings of the original authors.

This science did not develop until after the KJV was published, so after careful study, the critical text varies a little from the text upon which the KJV was based. So that is why modern translations, based on a more carefully studied view of the fragments and manuscripts, point out with brackets or footnotes a few verses that appear to be additions. But do not misread this information, what it says is that the text such as the OT text found in 1947 (dead sea stuff) matched the earliest copies (prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls) from around AD 1000 almost exactly. Since the Dead Sea documents have been reliably dated to around 100 BC to 100 AD, that means the copying process worked in the main very well for 1000 years.

In the NT, Textual Criticism has unearthed some problems - parts of the accepted books that look like additions or alterations. Rather than tossing them out, as I have said, just do not base doctrine on the passages unless the same doctrine is taught elsewhere in scripture.

Here are six problems that I am aware of:

(1) Mark 16:9-20 appears to be an addition, the actual ending may have been lost, and various efforts to construct an ending exist in its place.

(2) John 7:53-8:11, the story of women "taken in adultery." One of my favorate stories. But no text before the 4th century has it. Sad but true.

(3) Luke 22:19b-20. While this looks like an addition, because some copies simply say "this is my body" not to worry. The addition, if it is an addition and that is not a given, matches what Paul said, so it is right whether Luke wrote it or not.

(4) Romans 16:24 appears to be an addition.

(5) Ephesians 1:1 the words "at Ephesus" appears to be an addition.

(6) 1 John 5:7 as the verse appears in the KJV appears to be an addition.

Now there are no doubt more slight differences between the critical text and the received text or majority text, but they do not alter the apparent meaning of the text in question. The Bible we have is accurate and reliable and completely trustworthy. The fact that believing scholars have discovered some minor blemishes, and are in the careful process of evaluating them should give you comfort that the Holy Spirit working through believers has made sure our Word of God is sufficent for His divine purpose. Amen.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

If this was added later, and there is apparently evidence for that, why could it not be something done in the excitement of the day with acknowledgment to actual things the Apostles did.


We know some of the Apostles did those very things, obviously so did the writer. He is adding a flourish to the end of book where Jesus is sending the Apostles out to the world. The writer is reminding the reader of the obvious signs that accompanied these men as they went out to spread The Way. It is little more than saying, “and see they did just what they were told to do and look at wondrous signs they did which proves Who it was that sent them out!”

Am not sure how that addition must necessarily be seen as a bad thing. The confusion caused here only occurs when someone attempts to read every piece of text in the Bible literally. Obviously the writer did not believe all Christians did these things, just the men known as Apostles and perhaps those in the audience as well when Jesus said “Go out”.

 

[Van]

I guess I should not have tried to quantify the problem passages because I missed quite a few. Here is a further list, in addition to the passages I identified in an earlier post, that have been bracketed, and therefore may be additions. And I am sure this is not a complete list, especally if we considered modifications within a text such as a word or phrase missing or added or altered.

In my NASB, I am aware of the following bracketed verses (in addition to those mentioned earlier:

Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14
Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:23
Luke 17:36; 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 28:29

And to repeat, because they are bracketed does not mean there are necessarily thought to be additions, only that they are possibly additions so we should exercise care when relying on them without support elsewhere in scripture. For example, whether or not Acts 8:37 is an addition does not matter because it is expressing a truth, we must believe in our heart, that can be found in several other passages.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Still say that unless you insist on seeing every passage as strictly literal, there is no problem here.

Clearly the writer of the last text in Mark knew that not all Christians ran around drinking poison and getting bitten by poisonous snakes. Also clear that he knew some Apostles had done these things and more. The only reasonable explanation of that text is one that merely acknowledges what the writer was attempting to express; that wondrous signs were evident in the acts of the Apostles and that miracles were and still are occurring among all Christians, even today.

There are people who take these verses so absolutely literal that they perform these very acts as part of their regular Sunday worship. These acts are used by them as a test of their faith, interestingly primarily for males, though female victims have been reported. Can see this any Sunday within an hour of my home. People have died. They even had to create laws prohibiting minors from participating in such religious practices involving snakes and drinking of poison. Many of you have probably seen this on Discovery Channel. To me this is one logical result of a literal view and Sola Scriptura. If man is the only authority, then given our incredible and powerful imaginations, these types of things are the natural outcome of such thinking.

 

[Van]

It does not matter whether you take the passage literally or not if it is an addition. To base any understanding on it whether liberal or not, without the support of other passages is unwise. Sure we can say that the believers in view in the passage were the Apostles, and that the signs and wonders given to authenticate the Apostles message ended with the lives of the Apostles. But is that what the author was trying to say? Nope. In verse 16, all believers, those who believe the gospel message are in view. So to flip it and say only the Apostles are in view in verse 17 is too cute. In Luke 10:19 we see Jesus telling the 70 disciples He has given them the power mentioned in Mark but it is not given to believers in general. Therefore the words in Mark 16 are off the mark to be punny.

In summary, because Mark 16:9-20 appears to be a latter addition, nothing it says beyond what other scriptures say should be relied upon.

 

[Apollos 2]

First, a rant about post #5:

“Take tongues, this is the only place it actually talks about new languages. If you look at Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14, it doesn't fit that the gift of tongues is a new language, actually, what fits those passages best is that the gift of tongues concerns the person speaking authoritatively in the language they are most familiar. (See here and here for an explanation.)” – BigNorsk

I read the first article by Zerhusen. While the research and length of his article is impressive, I was not impressed that he left out any reference to Acts 2:8 specifically –

"And how hear we, every man in our own language wherein we were born?”,

and therefore lost the immediate context! The “languages” in question (by Zerhusen anyway) are the ones these gathered there were BORN with!

For Galilaeans (poor fishermen) to speak much more than a poor rendition of (probably) Aramaic, it is no wonder those gathered marvelled at them ! (Acts 2:7) What the Apostles were speaking caused the crowd to be amazed and to marvel. Zerhusen’s explanation will not suffice to explain this!

Verse 11 – ”…we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God.”

What the Apostles were speaking that day were new languages – “tongues” they had had no opportunity in life to learn (nevertheless could afford to learn) and “tongues” that other people recognized and understood. These languages were being spoken by Galileaens, people that these gathered from many nations would therefore never expect such oratory to originate from! I believe Zerhusen went a very long way around the context of Acts 2 to promote his “social-science” approach to exegesis. (He appears to be quite proud of himself as well).

I know what happened in Acts 2 because I can READ what happened in Acts 2. When someone tells me I can not understand what God is saying in His word without my becoming an expert in some field of philosophy or science, I bristle! The context is there and we can understand it when we read it – just as God intended! No one needs his “new look” at Acts 2.
<<<*>>>

In reference to Mark 16:18 – not all Christians received spiritual gifts in NT times (example Simon in Acts 8:15-16) and some did not receive but perhaps -1- gift (example 1 Cor. 12:8).

Therefore IF spiritual gifts still continued today (which I do NOT believe they do – 1 Cor 13:10) it is certainly not an indication of whether one is truly faithful, ei. a Christian!

The only purpose that spiritual gifts ever served was to reveal and confirm God’s word!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

In summary, because Mark 16:9-20 appears to be a latter addition, nothing it says beyond what other scriptures say should be relied upon.

So who do we rely on to tell which parts of The Word of God we can rely on and which parts we cannot?

 

[Van]

DrBubbaLove, If you use a modern translation, the NIV, NASB, ESV, H/C the questionable passages and verses are identified with footnotes or brackets. If you prefer to use the KJV, then the questionable verses are not identified, but you have the list I provided or you could do your own study of the critical text and the contraversy with folks committed to the TR.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

DrBubbaLove, If you use a modern translation, the NIV, NASB, ESV, H/C the questionable passages and verses are identified with footnotes or brackets. If you prefer to use the KJV, then the questionable verses are not identified, but you have the list I provided or you could do your own study of the critical text and the contraversy with folks committed to the TR.

Ok, I was just asking. My Bible has such notes and they are available on line too.
We can rely on men to tell us then. I like that. Goes with what I see Phillip doing in ACTS 8. Leads to another question in my mind though.

And if the particular editors making those comments do not agree, what then?

 

[Van]

Drbubbalove, the Bible gives us general guidence on making decisions. We are to reflect and not jump with an impulse. We are to study the word and prayerfully ask for insight from the Holy Spirit. And we are to seek the counsel of godly men. I have concluded that the critical text is the best version available, that it most closely reflects what the original authors actually wrote. So my study bible is the NASB, but I also refer to the ESV, the NKJV, and the NIV before I draw conclusions about my understanding of a verse or passage that others understand in different ways.

As far as the bracketed verses or passages, I do not think any significant information exists in those passages that is not presented elsewhere, so I am comfortable with the idea of not basing doctrine on the questionable passages unless supported elsewhere.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Ok, I can understand and even respect your position. It is both thoughtful and logical.

My only point in asking was that in holding to that position you will reach points where two versions or perhaps two commentaries disagree and sometimes even contradict. Even my own current NAB has commentary written by a committee that contained non-Catholic members, so not everything in it represents the Church's view, but rather often the opinion of "most theologians". It is at that point when there is disagreement or even contradiction that one must make a choice. Do you follow this man or that man. That is what I was trying to get at anyway. Where do you turn then?

In my case it would always be to the Church, but that does not mean I have not thought about things myself or read or studied it. It just means in my case I do not have to rely on only my own understanding or what this theologian or that writer says. If there is ever any doubt about something or disagreement I can always fall back and rely on Church Doctrine to help me understand or discern scriptural truths.

 

[jmacvols]

Now, I haven't done any of these, and I know many others who haven't, but do have true faith. Does this mean I don't truly believe? That I'm missing something?

In Reference to Mk 16:17-18, I believe part of the answer can be found in the use of pronouns. In v14 Jesus speaks to the eleven, He uses the plural pronouns 'them', 'their' and 'they'; all pronouns refer to the apostles. Next Jesus tells them to take the gospel into all the world, v15. In v16 Jesus uses the personal pronoun 'he', the 'he' refers to the future person the apostles will teach. In v17 Jesus returns to the plural pronouns 'them' and 'they' that believe, remember Jesus had just upbraided the apostles for 'their' unbelief in v14. So 'them' (of the apostles) that believe will have signs to follow them. Verse 20 says they (apostles) went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them (apostles) and confirming the word with signs following.

In 2 Cor 12:12 Paul says "truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you." See also Heb 2:1-4 "was CONFIRMED unto us by them (apostles) that heard him." Remember in Mk 16:20 it said the Lord working with them (apostles) and CONFIRMING the word with signs following. Another tho't to consider, not all believers possessed all the signs of Mk 16:17-18, some possessed none of these signs, see 1 Cor 12:30. There were those they could do signs, but they did not get this ability in the same way as the apostles. The apostles could lay hands on an individual and pass a gift to this person, Acts 8:18. Apostles hands were laid upon Philip, Acts 6:5-6. Again in Acts 8, Philip preached to the Samaritans, they believed and were baptized yet the Samaritans had no signs. Philip, not being an apostle could not pass a sign to them. It took apostles to come from Jerusalem to lay hands on the Samaritans to give them signs, Acts 8:14-18. So when all the apostles died, no one was left to pass on these signs, the signs ceased.

 

[jmacvols]

Addendum to my last post: the validity of Mark 16:9-20.

For example, the NIV wishes to question the validity of these verses. The only people in my experience that questions the validity of these verses are those that do not believe water baptism is a necessity for salvation.

"Dr Phillip Schaff, President of the 1901 ASV Bible committee said "...the conclusion (Mk 16:9-20) is historically authentic and true...the section is found in most unical and all cursive manuscripts, in most of the ancient versions, in all Greek and Syrian lectionaries as far as examined; and Iranaeus, who is a much older witness than any of our existing manuscripts, quotes verse 19 as part of the gospel of Mark. A strong intrinsic argument for the genuineness is also derived from the extreme improbability, shall we say impossibilty, that the evangelist would have closed his gospel with "for they were afraid". (Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version, pp 189-190.) Only the MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not have the account and they are fourth century MSS. On the other hand, the Peshetto, Curetorian, Coptic, Sahidic and Tatian's Diatessaron Versions, which are all second century versions do contain the account. I do not appeal to these versions as, necessarily, accurate translations; rather I appeal to them as evidence for the existence of and acceptance of Mk 16:9-20, as being genuine. Furthermore, the MSS Washington, Alexandrian, Ephraim and Bezae do contain the account" Jim R. Everett

Now the flip side of questioning the validity of Mk 16:9-20.

"If the Vatanicus is suppose to be the most reliable MS and ...(one) rejects Mk 16:16 because it is not contained therein, then he must also reject I & II Timothy, Titus and Revelation because they are absent from that MS. And what shall we say for the Sinaiticus MS? Not only does it omit Mk 16:9-20, it also omits Jn 21:25, Heb 9:15 to the end of the book, Mk 1:1, Jn 9:38, Lk 6:1, 22:43-44, 23:34, Jn 19:33-34, Eph 6:1 and more..." Jim R. Everett

Why did not the NIV authors footnote and question the validity of all the missing books and verses contained in what the NIV calls "the oldest and most reliable" MSS? In my opinion, this is dishonesty. I debated this topic a few months back with an individual who believes in a literal 1,000 year earthly reign of Christ. This person did not like the fact I questioned the validity of Rev 20:4, a starting point for those that further the idea of premillennialism. Rev 20:4 is not contained in one of "the oldest and most reliable" MSS, as the NIV calls them, yet the NIV does not question its validity.

The Greek scholar, Dean Burgon, writing of the Sinaitic and Vaticanus (which the NIV calls "oldest and most reliable) along with the codez Bezae, wrote that these three manuscripts "are three of the most scandalous, corrupt copies extant; exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; have become...the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God." Dean Burgon, The Revison Revised, p 16.

The last few verses of Mk 16 are found in all the known manuscripts of the NT except the two the NIV calls the oldest and most reliable; and neither are the oldest or most reliable.

 

[Angel of God]

This verse says



Now, I haven't done any of these, and I know many others who haven't, but do have true faith. Does this mean I don't truly believe? That I'm missing something?

I am sure this verse(Mark 16, 17..18) is correct, it's a divine inspiration!.....
Probably we have to understand why the Faith of this Gospel is inferior to
that of Matthew and who believes in this Gospel then he has to show it!
Maybe the Glory is particular........