Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover (Mk 16:16-18, KJV).
i) It's striking that King James-onlyists are so indebted to Roman Catholicism. To my knowledge, it's a historical accident that the Long Ending of Mark was incorporated into English translations of the Bible. The King James translators relied on Tyndale, who relied on Erasmus (i.e. the Greek edition of the NT produced by Erasmus). Because the only Greek MSS available to Erasmus contained the Long Ending, that made it into his edition, which impacted the KJV further downstream. Mother Church gave birth to King James-onlyists.
ii) In fairness, there are some fine Christians like David Alan Black who defend the authenticity of the Long Ending. Mind you, Black takes a number of eccentric positions.
But for King James-onlyists, this is a matter of principle. It commits them to conspiracy theories. Commits them to impugn the motives of Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, et al.
iii) To their credit, Pentecostals who imbibe strychnine and free handle rattlesnakes at least have the courage of their convictions. Admittedly, this illustrates the peril of zeal without knowledge, much like Muslim suicide bombers, who also have the courage of their misguided convictions.
Shouldn't all King James-onlyists emulate the practice of Appalachian Pentecostals? If they really believe the Long Ending of Mark is authentic, why don't they pick up venomous snakes and drink poison?
iv) Finally, that question isn't confined to King James-onlyists. What about the Church of Rome? Since Trent implicitly canonized the Long Ending of Mark, why doesn't the Mass include snake-handling and poison-drinking?
Sorry for off-topic comment, but I don't know any other means of contact:
ReplyDeleteScott Clark linked this post: http://chantrynotes.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/re-framing-reformed-baptist-doctrine/
You are well acquainted with Frame, if I remember correctly. Does this sound at all to you like a correct framing (ho ho) of his approach, especially the idea of the existential perspective being on the same level as the normative (i.e. as scripture!)? It smells distinctly of fish to me, I suspect misrepresentation, but I do not have the knowledge of Frame to be able to respond to it. Any thoughts?
I'm aware of it. I may post a response tomorrow or so.
DeleteGood timing: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/us/snake-salvation-pastor-bite/
ReplyDeleteSuppose, for the sake of argument, that you came to believe, like Black or Robinson (I think), that the longer ending is original (divinely inspired). Would you take the longer ending to be proscriptive?
ReplyDeleteMeant prescriptive, not proscriptive.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that even most KJV Only advocates have enough hermeneutical and theological understanding to know that picking up poisonous snakes when unnecessary or drinking poison intentionally is sinfully putting God to the test (contrary to Matt. 4:7; Deut. 6:16; Ps. 78:18, 41, 56; 95:9; 106:14; Acts 5:9; 1 Cor. 10:9; Heb. 3:9).
DeleteThe context of the passages seems to be that of evangelism and missions not in ordinary Christian worship.
John Gill wrote: "...not that they were hereby warranted to drink poison, to show what power they had; but should they accidentally drink it, or rather should they be forced to it by their enemies in order to destroy them, they should find no hurt by it..."
Similarly, there may be occasions when missionaries may accidentally be bitten by poisonous snakes and God may protect them if God still has a purpose for them on Earth like in the case of Paul in Acts 28:5. For example, one can imagine a missionary walking down a road in a foreign land who sees another non-Christian about to be bitten by a snake and in faith (hopefully by the leading of God) picks up the snake in order to throw it away to protect that non-Christian. If the missionary was accidentally bitten, God may keep the missionary from getting sick from the poison.
Adam Clarke wrote: "...in their hands - shall be enabled to give, when such a proof may be serviceable to the cause of truth, this evidence of their being continually under the power and protection of God, and that all nature is subject to him."
I'm not sure I would go as far as Clarke.
BTW, I agree with modern scholars that the longer ending of Mark is an interpolation and shouldn't be considered canonical. However, I believe that God sometimes honors the passage as some ignorant Christians have applied it in faith in the context of evangelism/missions. Similar to how God sometimes honors the faith of Christians who unknowingly rely on a mistranslation of a Biblical passage.
For example, for centuries English speaking Christians have stood on the promise of Prov. 3:6 when it was mistranslated by various English translations. A more accurate translation would say something like, "...He shall make your paths straight [or smooth]" rather than "he shall direct thy paths." (KJV), "he shall direct thy wayes." (Geneva), "he shall order thy goynges." (Bishops), "he will direct thy paths" (ASV) etc.
More modern translations are more accurate: "...he will make straight your paths." (ESV), "he will make your paths straight" (NIV), "He will make your paths straight." (NASB).
Similar thing with the promise in Ps. 68:19 in the KJV. The phrase "...daily loadeth us with benefits" is probably better translated "daily bears our burdens" or "daily bears us up." Examples could be multiplied.
i) Since these are predictions rather than commands, they aren't strictly prescriptive. That said:
Deleteii) Drinking deadly poison is obscure. It's hard to reconstruct the background. What situation does that envision? Does this have reference to something done to Christians? If enemies of the faith poison them? On a related note, does this have reference to enemies of the faith using witchcraft in the form of toxic magic potions to strike Christians dead?
Or do Christians knowingly drink poison? Say, in response to a pagan dare?
We don't have enough to go on to know what it means.
iii) By contrast, picking up snakes is fairly clear. Although it doesn't specify venomous snakes, that's implied. To survive the bite of a nonvenomous snake would hardly be a miraculous sign.
Picking them up isn't the same thing as stepping on a snake. You can accidentally step on a snake because you don't see it. It may be hidden, camouflaged. This may happen at night–when you can't see.
But to pick one up suggests a deliberate action in which you see a snake you recognize as venomous, then pick it up with the intent of being bitten to demonstrate your miraculous immunity. It's not a passive event that happens to befall you. Rather, you make it happen.
That's also consistent with other deliberate actions in this text, like casting out demons and healing the sick through the imposition of hands.
Tongues might be a little different, depending on whether the author thinks that's under the speaker's control, or ecstatic speech which is the spontaneous utterance of the speaker in a trance state, induced by Spirit-possession. The text doesn't give us enough to go by.
iv) This is possibly an allusion to Paul's experience on Malta (Acts 28). That was accidental. And, in a roundabout sense, Paul picked up the viper by picking up a bundle of firewood containing the torpid viper. But the author of Mk 16:18 presumably has more in mind than that. To begin with, that's a very clumsy way to express picking up a snake. Does the author really mean picking up snakes indirectly by picking up bundles of firewood in which they are hidden?
Moreover, Paul's experience is a fluke. By contrast, to say these are signs which accompany believers suggests something that happens with some frequency. Paul's specific situation isn't easily replicable.
v) Likewise, the fact that these are designated as signs which accompany believers makes them a test of true believers. Even if every believer doesn't exhibit every sign, it's a general promise to believers. A sign of faith shades into a test of faith. For the presence or absence of the sign marks the presence or absence of faith.
So, given their faulty premise (i.e. the authenticity of the pericope), I think the Appalachian practice is a reasonable inference from the text.
ANNOYED PINOY
Delete"picking up poisonous snakes when unnecessary or drinking poison intentionally is sinfully putting God to the test."
It's not putting God to the test (not in a pejorative sense, at least) to act on a divine promise.
"but should they accidentally drink it, or rather should they be forced to it by their enemies in order to destroy them, they should find no hurt by it."
That's possible.
"Similarly, there may be occasions when missionaries may accidentally be bitten by poisonous snakes and God may protect them."
To be accidentally bitten by a snake is very different from picking one up. The former is unintentional, the latter intentional.
"one can imagine a missionary walking down a road in a foreign land who sees another non-Christian about to be bitten by a snake and in faith (hopefully by the leading of God) picks up the snake in order to throw it away to protect that non-Christian."
That's wild speculation instead of exegesis.
James Edwards, in the Pillar Commentary, suggests the statements about snakes and poison may be figurative. I don't think that's very plausible, but that's one way to dodge snake-handling while granting the authenticity of the text.
DeleteIt's not putting God to the test (not in a pejorative sense, at least) to act on a divine promise.
DeleteTrue. So, it comes down to proper interpretation of the passage.
To be accidentally bitten by a snake is very different from picking one up. The former is unintentional, the latter intentional.
Agreed. I meant to affirm that distinction when I quote Clarke and said, "I'm not sure I would go as far as Clarke."
That's wild speculation instead of exegesis.
It is speculation. But the passage is right next to the phrase "and IF they drink anything deadly/poisonous..." If the English is faithful to the Greek, then maybe both suggest unintentional poisoning either by ingestion OR being bitten by a snake. Though, I can see how the "IF" could still be interpreted as part of an indirect divine command through Christ's prediction.
James Edwards, in the Pillar Commentary, suggests the statements about snakes and poison may be figurative. I don't think that's very plausible, but that's one way to dodge snake-handling while granting the authenticity of the text.
I agree that it's not plausible. Even in light of Luke 10:19 and Ps. 91:13 etc.
There have been times and places in church history (e.g. the Middles Ages) when Christians had copies of Mark and didn't have the textual information to realize that that Markan pericope is in all likelihood inauthentic. So, it's true that one COULD construe snake handling as an indirect divine command as you argued above. Especially in light of the power encounter between Moses and Pharoah's magicians which involved snakes . The writer of the Markan pericope may have had that in mind. In which case it's literal not figurative pace James Edwards.
It's probably because I would like to think that most Christians are level headed that I prefer to believe people during those times would interpret the pericope as referring to unintentional poisoning. Just as I would hope Christians during the Middle Ages wouldn't use the pericope adulterae as a license to sin.
ANNOYED PINOY
Delete"True. So, it comes down to proper interpretation of the passage."
Actually, I think it comes down to ignoring the passage because it's spurious. I only discussed it for the sake of argument in response to a questioner.
You're right. My referring to "proper interpretation" implies it's authentic and that there are interpretations that mirror (to some degree) God's intended meaning. I agree it's spurious. I should have said how someone who believes it's authentic would interpret it using proper or legitimate hermeneutics. Some Christians during the medieval period would be in such a situation (not knowing the good reasons to reject the pericope).
DeleteHad the passage said, "WHEN [rather than "IF"] they drink anything deadly" it would count against the passages teaching unintentional poisoning. Since "IF" suggest it is unintentional, that makes it slightly more likely that being poisoned by snakes is also unintentional. Though, as you (Steve) implied, it would be a curious thing if the phrase "take up snakes" was meant to refer to something unintentional.
DeleteSteve wrote:
But to pick one up suggests a deliberate action in which you see a snake you recognize as venomous, then pick it up with the intent of being bitten to demonstrate your miraculous immunity. It's not a passive event that happens to befall you. Rather, you make it happen.
Thanks for the replies. If the fragment of Mark reportedly from the first century which Wallace mentioned happens to contain the longer ending (as far as I can tell, the fragment hasn’t been put on display yet), will you be handling venomous snakes?
ReplyDeleteSorry. Noticed that question is a bit ambiguous. Should read, If the fragment of Mark reportedly from the first century (which Wallace mentioned) happens to contain the longer ending ... I did not mean to suggest that Wallace indicated that it happens to contain the longer ending. Wallace simply mentioned that the fragment exists in a debate with Ehrman in 2012. As far as I can tell, further information regarding the fragment has not been revealed as of yet.
ReplyDeleteThat's a multilayered speculation:
Deletei) It presumes that paleography is sufficiently accurate to date the fragment to the 1C. To my knowledge, paleography isn't that fine-tuned. It's not an exact science. At best, there's something like a 50-year margin of error. For instance:
http://stanleyeporter.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/has-dan-wallace-made-a-big-mistake/
ii) It presumes that the fragment includes (some of? all of?) the long ending.
iii) Unless the fragment includes v18 as well as some of Mk 16:1-8, there'd be no reason to assume an allegedly 1C fragment of the long ending was at that point attached to the body of the gospel (Mk 1:1-16:8). All you'd have is a free-floating text of the long ending.
The existence of a late 1C fragment of the long ending is perfectly consistent with it being an apocryphal story which circulated on its own before a scribe added that to the canonical gospel.
iv) Depending on when Mark was written, even if you had a late 1C fragment of Mark which included 16:1-20, that doesn't mean you can infer that 9-20 were part of the original ending. That's why critical editions of the NT are based on more than one extant MSS. You need multiple attestation for the readings.
v) There are well-meaning Christians who do, in fact, practice Mk 16:18, and we see the results–results inconsistent with the promise. So that generates a point of tension between the optimistic promise and the pessimistic reality.