The problem with snake-handling: it's not in the Bible

Renew America ^ | 1June2012 | Bryan Fischer

[ReformationFan]

Two days ago, the Washington Post published a lengthy story on snake-handling pastor Mack Wolford, who died Sunday night from, well, a snakebite he got in church.

Wolford cited Mark 16:17-18 as the source for his practice of handling rattlesnakes, water moccasins, copperheads and other venomous snakes. And Mark 16:18 does seem clear: "they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them."

There's only one problem: Mark 16:18 is not in the Bible.

The last 12 verses of Mark's gospel were added sometime after the original gospel began to circulate, likely to provide a supplement since Mark's account stops so abruptly in Mark 16:8. The reason for the abrupt end of Mark's original account is likely that the final leaf was somehow lost before it began to be copied.

According to eminent New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger, Mark 16:9-20 is missing from the two earliest and most authoritative manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, and from ancient Syriac, Armenian and Georgian manuscripts.

Early church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of these verses, and Jerome and early church historian Eusebius write that the passage was missing from almost all the Greek copies of Mark's gospel they had seen.

Many manuscripts that do contain this section have scribal notations to the effect that older Greek copies lacked it, and in other manuscripts there are scribal markings indicating, according to Metzger, that it is a "spurious addition."

[Gil4]

most reformation fans do not like textual critics

Most see textual (or lower) criticism as a valid, necessary science. Higher criticism is the one that most find problematic.

[PieterCasparzen]

Matthew Henry’s notes on verses 17 and 18...

3. What power they should be endowed with, for the confirmation of the doctrine they were to preach (Mark 16:17); These signs shall follow them that believe. Not that all who believe, shall be able to produce these signs, but some, even as many as were employed in propagating the faith, and bringing others to it; for signs are intended for them that believe not; see 1 Cor. 14:22. It added much to the glory and evidence of the gospel, that the preachers not only wrought miracles themselves, but conferred upon others a power to work miracles, which power followed some of them that believed, wherever they went to preach. They shall do wonders in Christ’s name, the same name into which they were baptized, in the virtue of power derived from him, and fetched in by prayer. Some particular signs are mentioned; (1.) They shall cast out devils; this power was more common among Christians than any other, and lasted longer, as appears by the testimonies of Justin Martyr, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian Minutius Felix, and others, cited by Grotius on this place. (2.) They shall speak with new tongues, which they had never learned, or been acquainted with; and this was both a miracle (a miracle upon the mind), for the confirming of the truth of the gospel, and a means of spreading the gospel among those nations that had not heard it. It saved the preachers a vast labour in learning the languages; and, no doubt, they who by miracle were made masters of languages, were complete masters of them and of all their native elegancies, which were proper both to instruct and affect, which would very much recommend them and their preaching. (3.) They shall take up serpents. This was fulfilled in Paul, who was not hurt by the viper that fastened on his hand, which was acknowledged a great miracle by the barbarous people, Acts 28:5, 6. They shall be kept unhurt by that generation of vipers among whom they live, and by the malice of the old serpent. (4.) If they be compelled by their persecutors to drink any deadly poisonous thing, it shall not hurt them: of which very thing some instances are found in ecclesiastical history. (5.) They shall not only be preserved from hurt themselves, but they shall be enabled to do good to others; They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover, as multitudes had done by their master’s healing touch. Many of the elders of the church had this power, as appears by Jas. 5:14; where, as an instituted sign of this miraculous healing, they are said to anoint the sick with oil in the name of the Lord. With what assurance of success might they go about executing their commission, when they had such credentials as these to produce!

[circlecity]

"According to eminent New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger, Mark 16:9-20 is missing from the two earliest and most authoritative manuscripts of the Greek New Testament"

It's not that simple. We have copies of documents written by the early Church fathers which pre-date these earliest manuscripts and they quote Mark 16:9-20. Whether this passage was part of the original manuscript is unclear at this point in time. It's really impossible to tell with the evidence we have.

[Jack Hydrazine]

I’m sure there is an ancient Chinese proverb some FReeper can quote about snake handling.

[Lakeshark]

Mr. Shark, do you take the Snake to have and to hold...

After a wild wedding um, er....party night (just what DID we do?), now this.......

:-)

[DariusBane]

You clearly hate Jesus.

[DuncanWaring]

Confucius say “Man who play with rattlesnake get bit and die”.

[WKB]

Baptist ping

[wideawake]

The problem we have is that we have a First Hand observer

In Mark, yes. In Clement, no.

I’m a big fan of the Dead Sea Scrolls - because they have slipped through time (written between 150 BC to 70 AD) largely untouched by the corruptions of man.

This is an unrealistic idealization.

First, the Dead Sea Scrolls may be old to us, but the DSS texts of the Hebrew scriptures were copies of texts that were already a thousand years old when the DSS scribes copied them.

The DSS contains multiple copies of some texts, and they do not match.

Moreover, the DSS were produced by a zealous, and frankly strange, little community - they copied and recopied texts that they believed supported their favorite interpretations and views and did not have copies of much of the Bible, probably because most of the Bible did not reinforce their favorite interpretations.

The DSS are a prime example of "the corruptions of man" - in the sense that the DSS are highly edited and biased collections of texts.

The closest thing we can get to the origional message, is the origional manuscript

The autographs are gone forever. So we are left with a choice of which community has most believably preserved the message, and in a choice between the mainstream of Christianity and Judaism versus a tiny, extinct sect of conspiracists, the correct decision seems clear.

perhaps a manuscript that hasn’t been touched for nearly 2,000 years

That's a facile assumption. Inaccurate texts that people do not trust get left alone and forgotten - and then sometimes get found many years later.

Texts that people trust get used and used and used until they wear out - and then they are copied, to make a new book that the users of the old book will trust.

The age of a manuscript is important, but not prescriptive.

[OneWingedShark]

The word is confirmed now so miracles have ceased (I Corinthians 13).

I don't believe that. Not that the Word was not confirmed, but that miracles have ceased.
To assert that they have is to assert that God's character has changed: God has been, and always be miraculous in nature. (Miracles being defined as God's direct interaction with the universe, esp in a physical way.)
There are many passages where God is directly portrayed as a lover and Israel/the-Church as his beloved; now factor in the distinctly male urge to impress his girl and rereading some of those passages and it seems obvious to me that God's saying "now watch this!"

In short, God still works in the Earth and in the lives of men, directly and indirectly.

[Rashputin]

You decide some things shouldn't be in the Bible, the snake handlers decide they should be in the Bible and should be taken to mean they're correct in handling snakes and drinking poison.

Every individual is their own final authority according to Luther and every Protestant since Luther believes the same thing. In reality, people who interpret the Scriptures for themselves without regard for what The Church has taught for over two thousand years are worshiping their own, Most High and Holy Self. Whatever the Self wants, Self will find a way to justify or rationalize from Scripture. Whether than means means dropping entire books out of the Old Testament or even calling Jesus Christ Himself a liar doesn't matter to the Self just like what God commanded didn't matter to Eve.

Like all the Banana Creme Brained folks who have their pet conspiracy theory and interpret Scripture in a way that supports their theory, the snake handling folks will tell you their being in the minority is a sign that they're right. Handling snakes, believing that a great Evacuation will spare Christians what Christ Himself said Christians must bear, or slaughtering infants in the womb and calling it contraception, all amount to imitating Eve rather than imitating Christ. Unlike Eve, though, these days folks don't worry about doing their own thing since they're assured that their sins have all been forgiven in advance. That means they don't even have to care what's in the Bible once they've said the magic words.

[DJlaysitup]

Confucius say “Man who play with rattlesnake get bit and die”.

I actually grew up where there was a church on the outskirts of town that would feature snake handling every now and then and found out some about it.

It became popular during the times of the travelling "tent revivals" as a hook to get people to the show. It still exists today in a very few places.

Usually the snake handling preacher is actually well schooled on the "handling" part and is knowledgeable on how to hold a snake and not get bit. Also, it was common practice for the handler to keep the snake "on ice" in a cooler until time for the show to slow it down considerably. They weren't just "trusting to providence", they were actually pretty good at what they did.

I noticed in the recent article about the guy who died - he actually sat the snake down and was bit on the leg. He may have thought that it was still "chilled" but that was a mistake.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Actually, Mark 16:9-20 is in the Bible, but doesn't contextually say what the snake-handlers think it does.

[Revolting cat!]

I used to handle a snake but she divorced me.

[DJlaysitup]

P.S. - one of the standard tricks would be to take a lively snake out and demonstrate it (carefully holding it behind the head)...then replace it in the box and do some praying to “drive out the evil spirits” from the snake - then bring out an “iced snake” that was all docile and say as how he had tamed the snake of it’s evil ways.

[Tea Party Terrorist]

You never see the Apostles (the leaders of the first church) telling people to handle snakes or drink deadly poisons. They were with Jesus for 3.5 years, they understood him.

[Nifster]

So what????

[sevinufnine]

OK. I retrieved my Greek word study Bible and looked up the verse regarding handling serpents. The word handling only IMPLIES lifting up figuratively speaking, but literally speaking to do so mentally, spritually, or in the mind.

Here’s the amazing part. The word serpent in the Greek used in the same verse only IMPLIES a snake figuratively speaking. The literal meaning is “an artificial person, especially Satan (i.e. serpent).

Furthermore the PREVIOUS verse deals directly with casting out of demons. Since the translators had to basically guess at breaking the scriptures down into verses, I’ll put my money on taking up serpents as being related to exorcising demons and dealing with them directly.

Hmmmm...puts a whole, new light on that verse, huh?

(my dad had a PhD in Theology...so I’m also stealing his thoughts on the matter/verse.)

[Hodar]

The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they include the earliest known surviving copies of Biblical and extra-biblical documents and preserve evidence of great diversity in late Second Temple Judaism. They are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, mostly on parchment, but with some written on papyrus.[1] These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE,[2] although carbon dating indicates this range extends to the third century BCE (see Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls). Bronze coins found on the site form a series beginning with Hyrcanus 1 (135-104 BCE) and continue without a gap until the first Jewish revolt.[3] The scrolls are traditionally identified with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, though some recent interpretations have challenged this association and argue that the scrolls were penned by priests in Jerusalem, Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups.[4][5]

One of the greatest "re-enforcers" of accuracy of the Old Testament, is the number of copies, independantly kept by various groups, through the centuries has worked to keep them in alignment. If we have 'x' groups that say one thing, and a single manuscript that differs substancially - we can extrapolate that the numerous copies of independant collections must be the accurate copy.

However, in the New Testament we are not so fortunate. The Bible, as we have it now, is a collection of books that were separate - with some books discarded and others accepted. The Council of Nicea essentially "cherry-picked" what books were included and which were rejected. Every council makes concessions to appease various political factions - it's the nature of man.

Perhaps the DSS are copies made by a fanatical group - but if nothing else, they give a view point that deserves some attention and comparison against the various versions of the Bible in vogue today. I believe there are over 42 different "versions" of the Bible around, each differing in some way or another from their contemporaries.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Moreover, the DSS were produced by a zealous, and frankly strange, little community - they copied and recopied texts that they believed supported their favorite interpretations and views and did not have copies of much of the Bible, probably because most of the Bible did not reinforce their favorite interpretations.

Actually, we don't really know this to be the case.

I tend to think Sukenik's original assessment - that the scroll caves were by and large genizat, resting places for old, corrupted, or incorrectly transcribed manuscripts (and the latter two are two different things, btw) - is probably the correct one. But such an interpretation isn't as sexy as ones which allow scholars to spend the next fifty years publishing papers back and forth about what the supposed millennial apocalyptic community that lived at Qumran supposedly thought, said, and did.