For mainstream evangelicals, the canonical status of the long ending of Mark is a matter to be settled by textual criticism, and the long ending is generally regarded as a scribal interpolation. There are a few reputable holdouts like Maurice Robinson.
But according to another perspective, the canonical status of the long ending is a matter to be settled by ecclesiastical reception. It's my understanding that Trent implicitly commits Roman Catholics to the canonicity of the long ending. Mind you, I don't think modern Catholic Bible scholars take that seriously. But that's the official position. (You also have a few evangelicals like Peter Gurry who accept the ecclesiastical criterion.)
At a practical level, this generates a dilemma. Although Catholic apologists pay lip-service to the long ending of Mark, I don't see them putting that to the test. While snake-handling churches tragically illustrate the dangers of ignorance, at least they have the commitment to act on their stated principles. By contrast, Catholic apologists defend the long ending of Mark without paying the price.
I'm not sure there position is that it has to be written by Mark to be Scripture. It would be something like how the ending of Deuteronomy not being written by Moses but still Scripture. I think that's there position. So the assumption would be the final form is Scripture even if there were a few authors.
ReplyDeleteProblem is, we're talking about some anonymous scribe who added it years later on his own initiative without the author's permission or authorization. No reason to suppose the scribe was inspired–any more than other scribal interpolations. In the case of Deut 34, I doubt that's a scribal interpolation–although it's certainly posthumous.
DeleteAlso, I assume the Tridentine Fathers thought it was original. The notion of redaction, a final form of the text, reflects a higher critical view that was alien to Counter-Reformation piety.
DeleteI agree that the Tridentine bishops canonized the long ending of Mark as Scripture, as well as the entire text of the Vulgate that they knew.
ReplyDeleteBut this passage may have a different interpretation than absolute immunity to snakes.
In addition, the snakebite test would be a way to tempt God.
The origin of the long ending of Mark is not clear enough. It may be an addition of the first century by someone from within the Christian community and therefore the information still be credible. Or we can have two authentic versions or editions of the gospel of Mark.
It may be canonical for its antiquity and no obvious heterodoxy (like the letter to the Hebrews).
Given the doubts that exist, it makes sense to consider a "canon within the canon", with this text at a lower level of authority and without substantiating doctrines exclusively in it. But it can serves as a complement or corroboration of doctrines.
Don't use my blog to promote James Snapp. From what I can tell, he's a kind of KJV-onlyist kook and hack.
DeleteI saved your original comment. If you wish to post a similar comment without the plug for Snapp, I might accept that.
Nah. My comments weren't "profound" enough to really deserve preservation, even in my own opinion. If you want to post an edited version of it as coming from me that's fine too. :-)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTblog is not a billboard to promote James Snapp.
DeleteThat's fine. I think the critical text is closer to the autographs. I'm not a majority text advocate, though I like some of their readings and my favorite translation is the NKJV. It wasn't my intention to promote Snapp, only to point out that there are folks who defend the longer ending of Mark. Usually people who also favor (in some way) the majority text or (gasp) the Textus Receptus. Like Maurice Robinson (whom you menitoned), Arthur L. Farstad et al.
Delete