Handling Snakes and Drinking Poison
Written Sep 25th, 2006 by Josh Rives | Email This
Check out this disclaimer first regarding disputed text in Scripture.
Alright class, open your Bibles and turn to Mark, Chapter 16. Take a look at Mark 16:8-9. In your Bible there is a footnote in between verses 8 and 9. Mine says “Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20″. How many times have you just read right over that and not even considered it? The end of Mark has become a disputed topic and probably the most disputed section of text in the New Testament. Some think that the gospel of Mark should end at verse 8, while others like it to end with verse 20. The question debated being, did Mark actually write these verses or were they added later? We will look at the two major sides of this debate. The first side argues that the verses were not written by Mark and were added later so they should be removed from the Bible. The second side argues that these verses were inspired by God and should remain in the New Testament. This is still an ongoing debate by people much smarter than I, so we’re just going to look at the sides and then you’re on your own.
The reason for the footnote at the end of Mark is that there are a few ancient manuscripts of the New Testament that end at verse 8. The kicker is that two of the oldest Greek manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are among those that end abruptly at verse 8. This is important because if verses 9-20 were added, then it had to be done fairly early. 
There is however a large space in the Vaticanus between Mark 16:8 and the beginning of Luke (see image), which could be where the author was debating whether or not to include the extra verses. Ending Mark at verse 8 has not been the traditional accepted view throughout history, but this could be due to the fact that some of the older manuscripts supporting it were not discovered until the 1800s.
The supporters of the inclusion of verses 9-20 point out that the majority of the manuscripts include these verses. None of these manuscripts are older than the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which exclude 9-20. Some early church fathers quoted from these extra verses, giving support to including them. There is a possible early reference to 9-20 in Justin’s writings in 160 AD, but the earliest sure reference to these extra verses is by Irenaeus in 177 AD. What is problematic is that even more of the early church fathers did not quote verses 9-20. There are multiple church fathers, such as Clement and Origen, who never make any references to these verses. Eusebius, who lived in the late 3rd and early 4th century, stated that he believed that the verses did not appear in any accurate manuscripts.
There are also some style problems with verses 9-20, such as the introduction of Mary Magdalene again. Mary Magdalene was introduced in Mark 16:1, but for some reason she is reintroduced in Mark 16:9. 
These verses also have been used to support some more extreme doctrines such as baptism as a requirement for salvation, drinking poison for God and snake handling. The latter two may seem a little more extreme.
It does seem odd that Mark would just abruptly end his gospel in verse 8, but many have considered the fact that Mark may have been incapable of finishing his writing due to extenuating circumstances, such as death. This has led to the theory that perhaps someone close to Mark finished up where he was unable to finish. This would explain the style change and could explain the verses’ absence in some manuscripts. However it has to be considered whether or not this new writer qualifies for writing scripture. Usually the qualifications include either first-hand exposure to Christ’s teachings or direct teaching from someone who did have first-hand exposure. Mark meets these qualifications by his friendship with Peter, like Luke and his friendship with Paul. You have to wonder if the person who finished Mark’s gospel was cool enough to write the inerrant Word of God.
References:
Greetings Josh and friends,
On the subject of “Handling Snakes and Drinking Poison,” or, more precisely, on the subject of whether or not Mark 16:9-20 belongs in the Bible:
Besides the two options you mentioned — (A) Did Mark actually write these verses or (B) were they added later — I invite you to consider a third option: that Mark 16:9-20 was written by Mark before he wrote the Gospel of Mark, and that Mark was prevented from finishing the book, stopping unintentionally at the end of 16:8. The Christians who survived him in Rome perceived that he had intended to include a closing section about Christ’s post-resurrection appearances, and so they proceeded to publish the Gospel of Mark only after attaching to it a summary of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances which Mark had written for the Roman Christians. A later copyist, however, saw the closing section — what we know as 16:9-20 — as a separate composition, and removed it from its place in the text of the Gospel of Mark, prefering to use John 21 to wrap up the narrative-thread left after Mark 16:8.
If you would like to explore this subject in detail, I invite you to read my online multi-part presentation “The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20″ which begins at http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html . I also have a long research essay on the subject which I would be happy to send.
By the way, your picture of the last page of Mark in Vaticanus has been over-cropped. The small space at the bottom of the second column is no big deal; it’s the third column — entirely blank — that is the interesting feature.
Also, your statement that “What is problematic is that even more of the early church fathers did not quote verses 9-20″ sets a uniquely high hurdle for the disputed passage to surmount. Plus, it’s not exactly true. Lots of early church writers quoted from Mark 16:9-20, as you will see, I hope, in the course of my online presentation.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
How very convenient that if one questions something in the true word of god, inspired by the holy spirit, that it can be dismissed as, “Oh, well, that wasn’t supposed to be included. This person never intended that passage to be in the true book of the lord.” Let’s see, just how many other passages that were written by man but inspired by the holy spirit weren’t supposed to be in the bible? If this book was written within let’s say, 70 years of Jesus’s death and has been studied and rewritten and rewritten and studied some more, why after 2000 years is this passage still in the bible but now all of a sudden isn’t supposed to be there? Again, very convenient!
I guess this comes down to your idea of accuracy in the Scripture. Do you consider the writings inspired in the original text or do you think that every person throughout history who copied the Scriptures was also inspired? I think the latter is taking a big leap, but if you are willing to allow others, who had no connection to the original writings, add to Scripture, then I suppose our doctrines deviate at that point.
As for the “all of the sudden” decision that it should be excluded, here is a quote from the above article:
Is it not logical that the longer you dig the closer you get to the originals? It’s not when you find the manuscript, it’s the date of the manuscript found. We do know that manuscripts were copied, so the earlier the manuscript the more accurate the text. The more time digging and discovering legitimate texts of holy scripture give us a more accurate Bible. Also, extra-biblical discoveries that give insight into the culture will help us gain a better understanding of the literary styles and idioms of the day, which help clarify our translation from the original languages into modern English. It’s ironic that some who argue in favor of text that translate from manuscripts further from the original, think they’re defending the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when in reality these manuscripts have errors of additions by uninspired transcribes. Their defense is for fallible men and not inspired writers. A great confidence we have in the infallible word or God is that with thousands of copies there is no disagreement of any significance.
Very well said Brian!
The real problem with these verses, is the idea that this taking up of serpents and drinking deadly things is a command of some sort, or a test of faith. I believe Jesus said, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”, when Satan suggested that Jesus leap from the pinnacle of the temple to prove His identity as the Messiah. No, what this is, is a promise of protection for the child of God in certain cases, when in the employ of his duties to the Lord. As for the poison, I’m not sure of any reference for it being fulfilled, but if you remember, Paul took up a serpent, on Miletus, which bit him, and the natives, expecting him to swell up and die, were amazed that he just shook off the beast and felt no harm. This was Paul’s identifying proof of his apostleship, if you will. There is no need to believe that it will happen to everyone-it was fulfilled in Paul. But, for all we know, it has happened many times since then, as has the poison, for the Lord is able to protect to the uttermost. So, really, the problem only arises when we believe these things are commands, rather than promises-it’s foolish to tempt God by “proving” your faith and playing with deadly things.
As for verse 16, the meat of the matter is in the second half. See, it is the faith that brings us to Christ, and baptism follows it. But notice that it is those who believe not that are damned. Baptism is an initial act of obedience, like the Ethiopian eunuch, but not an aspect of salvation.