Posted on 06/01/2012 1:01:23 PM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Thank you for that post!
That was an interesting assessment, and I concur 100% that our scriptures are at the “mercy” of the intreptation of the script. Each person, throughout history, does the best he can with the language - and we all know that langauge does change through time. Thus, what was once an obvious implication can be easily understood to be a commandment.
But, I thought the analysis of “Serpent” and “Satan” a very curious analogy - good food for thought.
Now, that's just the Thetans talking ... ;-)
you are welcome. I was blessed with a dad who read Greek/Hebrew and “dabbled” (his words) in Aramaic. I was curious about many things and he was always happy to help me understand and learn the true meaning of the scripture best it can be understood.
He told me once that trying to translate the scripture was difficult not only because of language barrier, but cultural barriers. Imagine today we tell someone about to go on the stage and perform to “go break a leg”. That means do well. In 1000 years imagine someone reading that and trying to translate? Holy cow, huh?
Generally speaking, the person who has the closest proximity to the original message, has a clearer impression of what the original message was. Language changes over time (try reading the original Shakespeare, for example), thus a person writing within 50 years of the death of Christ, may have a clearer understanding of what Mark was trying to say, than someone who reads copies of copies of copies of multiple translations over 1,400 years later.
I'm simply suggesting that the author of this article may have a valid point. The boasts found in the later parts of this Chapter of Mark are pretty profound, aren't they? If they were present in the original manuscript, wouldn't they have been worthy of some discussion?
Numbers 21:8-9 ESV / 11
And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
Acts 28:3-5 ESV /
When Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and put them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand. When the native people saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer. Though he has escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live.” He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm.
Mark 16:18 ESV /
They will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
Luke 10:19 ESV
Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.
Exodus 7:8-13 ESV
Then the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “When Pharaoh says to you, ‘Prove yourselves by working a miracle,’ then you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and cast it down before Pharaoh, that it may become a serpent.’” So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron cast down his staff before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers, and they, the magicians of Egypt, also did the same by their secret arts. For each man cast down his staff, and they became serpents. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. ...
Personally, I think it was metaphorical, but hey, I could be wrong. Ouch!
First off, the only good rattlesnake is a dead rattlesnake, and having had many encounters with them, I have always tried to abide by that rule. Second, I’ve always thought the passage in Mark was inspired by Paul’s experience, and other than that I’ve ignored it as having no relevance in my Christian walk. Truthfully, Paul’s experience is enlightening enough without having some silly religious practice spring up from it. He treated his snake bite incident as though it wasn’t worth a second thought. We should content ourselves with his sentiment.
Well, no, this isn't right. Ophis is clearly speaking about "serpents" in the usual sense of the word. That is the literal, denotative meaning of this word. It can have connotative and figurative senses in which it is referring to a person or being that is being denigrated as a "snake" (e.g. satan is called this in Rev. 12:9,14,15; 20:2) and Jesus used it figuratively to denote enemies of the Gospel (Matt. 10:16; 23:33). However, the intended meaning is always that of a serpent, a snake, and was so since Homer began using the term in Greek in the 8th century BC.
Mark 16:9-20 is part of the Bible, and is indisputably so to anyone who approaches the text reasonably (which, incidentally, does not always describe textual critics of the Metzgerian mold).
Mark 16:18 is NOT, however, teaching that Christians would handle snakes. Let's look at the context. The handling of snakes (and the drinking of poison) is listed right along with the casting out of devils and the speaking in tongues. As I Corinthians makes clear, tongues and other sign gifts were given to the early churches specifically for the purpose of serving as a sign to unbelieving Jews and as a means of revealing truth to the very early churches who did not have access at that time to all of the New Testament. They were not for use as a "magic trick" in the churches. Further, once the NT was fully revealed and began to be propagated, tongues and other sign gifts would cease. If the Jews wanted to believe, then they could access the completed revelation of Scripture; and if Christians wanted to know how to live and believe, they had access to the completed revelation of Scripture.
Handling serpents and drinking poison were not active things Christians did, but were things done to them (i.e. somebody trying to poison you, also, see Paul's experience with the snake that bit him in Malta, and the effect it had on the Maltans who saw it, thus serving as a "sign," so to speak, Acts 28:3-6). As such, when the reason for the other sign gifts passed away, so did these.
If God sends you to do something and a poisonpus snake gets involved with you in the process, you will be protected in that you are under His authority. He enables what he commands.
Paul found a poisonous snake on his arm while he was placing firewood he had gathered into the fire, after they were shipwrecked on an island. It did not harm him.
“If you are so bored that you need to play with death, find something else to do.”
People were more sympathetic when Steve Irwin died because of similar causes.
I believe I’ve read another account of this incident that claimed the deceased had the snake wrapped around his arm for the duration of the service.
I am correct. Ophis is from the Hebrew word OPHTHALMOE which means “through sharpness of vision”.
The definition of Ophis as used at the time in Greek is:
a snake (figuratively, as a type of sly and cunning), an artful, malicious person, espc. Satan-serpent.
That’s straight from my Greek Dictionary out of my dad’s library. Sorry. you need to dig back further.
I emphatically agree but I believe that God does not require visible miracles to work his will.
One day some teachers of religious law and Pharisees came to Jesus and said, “Teacher, we want you to show us a miraculous sign to prove your authority.”
But Jesus replied, “Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign; but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.
--Matthew 12:38-40, NLT
You clearly have no clue.
That’s just a friendly word of advice.
You clearly don’t recognize sarcasm.
The thought was considered, but when it comes to Jesus, I don’t play sarcasm.
2nd only to never fighting a land war in Asia, is the prohibition to posting in the Religion forum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.