Mark 16:9-20 | “Should Christians Play with Snakes and Drink Poison?, or Is the New Testament Reliable?”

Are Copies of Scripture Inspired?

The late Dr. Roger Nicole, a prominent Baptist theologian in the twentieth century, dedicated himself to defending the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.  He once offered the following thought experiment to help Christians think about the reliability of the Scriptures.  He asked, “If the building that houses the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Washington D. C. were to burn down and the standard yardstick, the official measurement of a yard, were to be destroyed, would our understanding of the yard as a measurement of distance be lost?”

He answered, “No, it wouldn’t be lost because we would be able to use the innumerable copies of the official yardstick that we have to reconstruct the official yard to within a tiny fraction of an inch of accuracy.” 

What’s his point?  His point is that, throughout the centuries the church has confessed that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, infallible, and therefore authoritative.  But this confession has always come with the qualification that it’s only the autographs, or the original manuscripts, that were inspired and inerrant.  As R. C. Sproul says, “The Protestant church has never argued for the inspiration of copies.”

This brings up a massively important question.  If we don’t have the originals, and all we have are copies, and not all those copies agree, how can we trust that what the Bible says is indeed God’s word?  Can we trust the Bible?  Is the Bible a reliable guide for our faith and practice?

What Is Textual Criticism?

My answer is a resounding “Yes!”  The reason why we can trust what we find in the Bible is because of something called textual criticism. 

What is textual criticism?  Textual criticism is the science of analyzing ancient manuscripts and piecing them together in order to discover what was originally written.  Until 1516, when Erasmus published the Greek New Testament and printed it using a printing machine, the New Testament was passed down through handwritten copies.  As I said, none of the original copies exist, so the only access we have to the New Testament is through the copies that were made.  These copies were made by monks and scribes who, across many centuries, carefully and precisely sought to copy the texts word for word. 

But, understandably, there were mistakes made.  This is why we have some variations between copies.  This is why your Bible may have a footnote every once in a while that gives an alternate reading of a word, phrase, or sentence.  Unlike the writers of Scripture, the copyists didn’t write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  So why should we trust what they’ve written? 

Was the Bible Like a Game of Telephone?

Many skeptics argue that this is reason enough to not trust the Bible.  They say things like, “You can’t trust the Bible because it’s like the game Telephone.  One person whispers a sentence to someone else, who passes it to another, and by the time it gets to us, it’s a completely different sentence.  So no one really knows what was said originally.”

What do we say to this?  This is where the science of textual criticism comes in.  We may not have the original biblical documents, but what we do have is simply staggering.  The number of manuscripts, or portions of manuscripts, of the Greek New Testament is numbered around 5,800.  These are all hand-written copies of the whole or part of the New Testament.  They’re preserved in libraries around the world and are now being catalogued electronically through The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, founded by Dr. Daniel Wallace right here in Dallas at Dallas Theological Seminary.  Wallace’s vision is to use cutting-edge technology to preserve these manuscripts electronically.  The Center already has hundreds of thousands of images of New Testament manuscripts on their website that you can view for free (www.csntm.org). 

The sheer volume of manuscript evidence makes the textual criticism of the New Testament a sure-fire way of establishing its authenticity.  No other ancient document comes close to having this much evidence.  Wallace says, “We have more than 1,000 times the manuscript data for the New Testament than we do for the average Greco-Roman scholar.”  For example, the great Roman senator and historian Tacitus wrote a history of Rome called Histories and Annals.  Only two manuscripts exist for these works, one from the ninth and one from the eleventh century.  No ancient book comes close to the wealth of New Testament manuscript preservation.

Why is this important?  This is important because it allows textual critics to better reconstruct what was originally written with great accuracy.  This process of comparing copies is called textual criticism.  By looking at all the copies, textual critics can start to identify variations and construct the original.  Having lots of copies allows textual critics to better do this.  For example, if we only had two copies of the Gospel of Mark and one had the longer ending and one didn’t, how would we choose which was correct?  But if we had hundreds of manuscripts of Mark, which we do, even though there are variations, we can tell by the number and dating and geographical diversity of the manuscripts where Mark ends. 

Wallace provides a great illustration of this.  Imagine having a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle.  You don’t have any missing pieces.  You actually have many more pieces than you need to complete the puzzle.  As a result, as you put the puzzle together, it becomes obvious which pieces are the extra ones that don’t fit.  In the same way, because we have so many copies of the New Testament, we have all we need to complete the puzzle and see what the originals said.  Theologian Wayne Grudem summarizes, “For over 99% of the words of the Bible, we know what the original manuscript said.”

Why Does this Help and Not Hinder Our Trust in the Bible?

Why does the science of textual criticism help, rather than hinder, our trust in the reliability of the Bible?  Two reasons.  First, as I’ve said, the overwhelming number of manuscripts gives us a remarkable degree of certainty on what was original.  But second, the variations that are in the copies don’t change or call into question any biblical doctrine or teaching. 

For example, if Mark 16:9-20 wasn’t originally in Mark, no truth taught in the Gospels is threatened or changed.  Bruce Metzger, the leading textual critic of the last century, says it this way, “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affects no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.”

Because only a miniscule fraction of the New Testament text is in question, and because the parts that do raise questions don’t affect any major doctrine of Scripture, we should be incredibly thankful.  The science of textual criticism ends up helping, not hindering, our faith.  Another scholar says it this way, “It is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable Word of God.”

So as we move to the disputed ending of Mark’s Gospel, which most scholars think is not original to Mark, don’t think, “Oh no, I can’t trust the Bible anymore!”  Or, “If this part wasn’t in there, then how do we know about all the other parts?”  Instead, use this as an opportunity to thank and praise God that for 2,000 years he has sovereignly guided the transmission of his Word from generation to generation, such that the very few uncertainties that we have don’t change any doctrine of our faith.  This is amazing, and should lead us to worship God.

The Disputed Ending to Mark’s Gospel

With our discussion of textual criticism as a backdrop, let’s move now to Mark 16:9-20, often called the long ending of Mark.

The vast majority of New Testament scholars of every stripe don’t think that this text was part of Mark’s Gospel when Mark originally wrote it, but was rather added sometime in the early second century.  For example,

Craig Blomberg, Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary and author of numerous books including The Historical Reliability of the New Testament, says plainly, “The longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) is almost certainly not what Mark wrote” (Jesus and the Gospels, 74-5). 

Peter Williams, Principal of the Tyndale House in Cambridge and member of the ESV Translation Oversight Committee, says, “Most scholars now believe that these passages are later additions to the Gospels” (Can We Trust the Gospels?, 113). 

Daniel Wallace, quoted earlier, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and Executive Director of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, says, “There is a general scholarly consensus that these last twelve verses are not original…I think that the Gospel was intentionally concluded at v. 8” (Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, 405, n. 25). 

Ten years ago, in an address to the Evangelical Theological Society, Wallace challenged his colleagues on why this passage is still showing up in English Translations of the Bible.  He said, “A glance at virtually any English Bible today reveals that the longer ending of Mark…(is) found in (its) usual place.  Thus, not only do the KJV and the NKJV have these passages (as would be expected), but so do the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, TNIV, NASB, ESV, TEV, NAB, NJB, and NET.  Yet the scholars who produced these translations, by and large, do not subscribe to the authenticity of (this text)…Why then (is it) still in these Bibles?” (“Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century,” JETS, March 2009, 99).  Wallace wants to know why scholars keep this passage in our Bibles if hardly any of them think that it should be in our Bibles!

James Edwards, a conservative Presbyterian New Testament scholar, says, “It is virtually certain that 16:9-20 is a later addition and not in the original ending of the Gospel of Mark” (The Gospel According to Mark, 497). 

N. T. Wright, a less-than-conservative British Anglican New Testament scholar, says that it is “highly likely that the longer ending is not original” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 618).

James Dunn, another less-than-conservative British New Testament scholar, says, “No one doubts that…the ending of Mark (16:9-20) was later added by scribes” (Jesus Remembered, 146).

Reasons Why Longer Ending Is Not Original

Let me summarize the reasons these scholars give for thinking that the longer ending of Mark is not original.

First, this passage is not in the earliest and most important manuscripts, known as codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus.  These are the oldest complete copies of the Gospels, dating to 350 AD, but not discovered until the nineteenth century.  Thus, they were not available to the translators of the King James Version.

Second, other early translations and versions of Mark, such as the Old Latin, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts do not have the longer ending.

Third, several of the earliest church fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen, show no awareness of the longer ending of Mark.

Fourth, other church fathers, such as Jerome and Eusebius, both say that 16:9-20 was not in the majority of Greek manuscripts available to them.

Fifth, there’s an awkward connection between verses 8 and 9.  It almost feels like Mark begins his resurrection account all over again, this time with only one woman – Mary Magdalene, present.

Sixth, 16:9-20 doesn’t sound like the rest of Mark’s Gospel.  There are eighteen words here that don’t appear anywhere else in Mark.

Seventh, there’s teaching in 16:9-20 that’s potentially heretical and fatal (v. 18).

These are the reasons why the vast majority of scholars think that this passage is not original to Mark and is therefore not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Parallels between Mark’s Longer Ending and the Rest of the New Testament

Some preachers are content to just preach this text as is without talking about its genuineness.  The reason is because it sounds like stuff we find elsewhere in the New Testament.  Almost every part of these twelve verses is supported by other verses in the New Testament. 

For example, verse 9 is paralleled by Luke 8:2, which says that Jesus casted seven demons out of Mary Magdalene.  Verse 10 is paralleled by John 20:18, which says that Mary Magdalene went and told the other disciples that she’d seen Jesus.  Verse 11 is paralleled by Luke 24:11, which says that the disciples didn’t believe the women when they came and told them that they’d seen Jesus.  Verses 12-13 are paralleled by Luke 24:13-31, which tells us about Jesus meeting the two men on the road to Emmaus.  Verse 14 is paralleled by Luke 24:36-43 and John 20:19 and 26, which say that Jesus appeared to the disciples.  Verse 15 is paralleled by the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20 and Luke 24:46-47.  Verse 16 is paralleled by John 3:18, which says, “Whoever believes in (the Son) is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already.” 

Verses 17-18 is where the parallels become less clear.  Verse 17 could be a parallel to Matthew 10:1, which tells us that Jesus gave the apostles authority to cast out demons when he sent them out, and by Acts 2:4, which says the first Christians began to speak in tongues when the Holy Spirit came upon them.  But neither of these passages say that these signs “will accompany” all who believe.

Verse 18 is even harder to find a parallel for.  Nowhere in the New Testament does someone pick up a snake as an expression of their faith in Jesus.  There is the time when Paul throws a bundle of sticks on a fire on the island of Malta and a viper “came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand” (Acts 28:3).  Paul shakes the snake off into the fire and isn’t hurt, so that the people start saying that he’s a god (v. 6)!  This isn’t the same as intentionally picking up a snake in order to demonstrate your faith in Jesus.  This was Jesus demonstrating his presence and power with Paul.

Professor Blomberg writes, “Christians should be relieved that what has come to be called Mark 16:18 was not something Jesus actually said or Mark originally wrote because snake-handling cults have always had fatalities.”  ABC News ran a story in 2016 on a Pentecostal pastor who died from a rattlesnake bite he suffered during a snake-handling service.  A better understanding of textual criticism could’ve saved that man’s life.

Verse 18 also mentions that drinking “any deadly poison…will not hurt them.”  There is absolutely no evidence of this practice in the New Testament, making this one of the main reasons scholars reject this passage as unauthentic.  It also says, however, that believers will lay their hands on the sick and they’ll be healed, and there are examples of that in the New Testament (eg. Acts 9:17-18 and 28:8).

Verse 19 is paralleled by Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:2 and 9.  And verse 20 is paralleled by the entire book of Acts, as it’s a general summary of what happens in Acts.

Much of 16:9-20 is found somewhere else in the New Testament.  But that alone doesn’t make it original or inspired.  A passage has to have manuscript evidence, not parallel passages, for it to be considered authentic and reliable. 

What Am I Supposed to Do?

These verses show us that there was great consensus in the early church about what happened after Jesus died: he rose from the dead, appeared to his followers, and commanded them to go into all the world to make disciples.  But what are we supposed to do with this passage?  Is there anything for us to learn from this passage, anything here for me to preach on?  I think there is.

The main point of this longer ending is that Jesus appeared to his followers after he died and commanded them to take the gospel to the nations.  As I’ve said, these main points are found elsewhere in Scripture, so their truthfulness doesn’t have to come from this passage but can be based on the authority of the other inspired Scriptures.

Jesus Appeared to His Followers

The fact of the empty tomb, which we considered last week, isn’t enough to establish Jesus’ resurrection.  We saw last week the angel tell the women when they went to the tomb that Jesus was not there and that he had been raised (16:6b).  Why did he need to tell them this?  Because what’d happened there wasn’t self-evident.  The empty tomb didn’t immediately reveal Jesus’ resurrection.  It simply raised the question, “What happened to Jesus’ body?”  The empty tomb needed explanation.  So God sent a messenger to tell the women what had happened.

But even the angel’s announcement wasn’t enough because the women leave trembling in fear (v. 8).  Not until Jesus meets them in his resurrected body are their fears relieved.  Matthew tells us that, as the women were running away from the tomb, Jesus meets them and says, “Greetings!”  Their response was to “take hold of his feet and worship him” (28:9).  When they met the risen Jesus, their fear turned into worship.  A similar thing happened to Thomas, one of Jesus’ disciples (Jn. 20:24-28).  Thomas’ doubts turned into worship after he met the risen Jesus. 

What about you?  Have you met the risen Jesus?  Has God given you eyes to see his glory in the gospel and in his Word?  Do you have a growing relationship with the living Jesus?  He’s in heaven now so the only way we can see him is with our ears.  We see him by listening to him.  We see him by paying attention to what he said through his apostles.  Are you grabbing Jesus’ feet by reading his word?  Are you touching his side by faithfully listening to his Word preached each Lord’s Day?  God wants us to see Jesus, and he wants us to see him through his Word.  There’s no other way to see him.  This is why God preserved his word for centuries.  He wants us to see what Mary and Thomas saw.  He wants us to see and worship the Jesus who came back from death. 

Jesus Commissioned His Followers

This text also reminds us that the seeing of Jesus must result in the spreading of Jesus’ word.  Jesus’ followers worship and enjoy him, and out of that flows a desire to tell others about him, to take his word to all the nations of the world.  What about you?  Does your sight of Jesus give you energy and desire to spread the word of Jesus?  People are perishing.  They will not be saved unless they hear the gospel.  When the stay at home orders are lifted, are you ready to engage the people around you who’re seeking God for the first time?  Jesus’ resurrection gives him the authority to give us marching orders.  It also gives us the ambition to take his holy Word to every creature on earth.  Have you seen the risen Jesus?  Have you told anyone about it?