Risky Reading! You have been warned.
If you were to find a letter written to your great-great-grandfather by your great-great-grandmother, wouldn’t you cherish every single word? What an amazing discovery that would be. I know that I would look at every word with a sense of awe and mystery, trying to see those two people and develop some kind of connection as I read the pages.
And what if you learned that the last few original lines were missing (maybe torn, stained, or lost), so, your grandmother wrote in words that she made up, in order for the letter to have an ending that would make sense?
I have a letter a lot like that, but much older. It’s a letter that was written a long time ago by a man named Mark. In Mark’s letter, the last 9 verses were added much later. Why? Because, as all textual scholars will tell you, including “believing, Christian” scholars, the last 9 verses are missing in the oldest and best manuscripts. Without adding them, the letter would end with no one being told that Jesus had risen. More than likely, according to those same scholars, the ending that was added is not a completely fictional account. However, what is very interesting in this addition, are the words of Jesus in verses 17-18 of the last chapter in Mark.
“And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
Without the later addition, the Scriptures which are used as a foundation for the Pentecostal Church would not exist.
Today there are more than 5700 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament Scriptures including very small fragments, single books, and complete New Testament writings that are catalogued and used by scholars to translate the Bible. Some are cheap copies, and others are very expensive manuscripts written in gold. The oldest copies were written from the 4th to the 9th centuries, which are copies of copies of copies.............
All of these have what are called “textual variances” or differences among the texts. There are 200,000 to 400,000 variations among these texts. As Bart Ehrman says, “There are more variances in the manuscripts used by scholars to translate the Bible into the common language than there are words in the New Testament." These variances make it very difficult to translate the Bible in full, without a translator making educated decisions as to which parts of which manuscript he or she will write into the Bible from which Christians will read and teach.
The translators of the NIV have pointed out some of these variances, such as the last 9 verses in Mark. These and other more recent scholars have decided to make us aware that the oldest copies do not have some of the verses that have been added to our Bibles.
This information comes from the work of Bart Ehrman in his book, Misquoting Jesus.
Forever learning,
Johnny
28 comments:
I was told to read the Bible like a love letter. If someone gives you a love letter you would read it over and over trying to burn to your memory what it says.
That's very interesting.
I think it's important to point out that those last verses in Mark are not the basis of the Penticostal denomination, but rather the book of Acts.
I've heard that passage in Mark used by many preachers, Penticostal, Baptist, Salvation Army, etc. but the Penticostal church did not rise out of this text.
Interesting findings though. You're like a great big head of information.
Kristy - That's an awesome way to look at scripture. I love that.
Kathy,
You'll have to take up your opinion of which text is used by the Pentecostal Church as their root passage with Dr. Ehrman.
Although I agree with Dr. Ehrman, I don't know enough about the Pentecostal Church to give my own personal, sound opinion. I would have to agree with him concerning the speaking in tongues issue that the Pentecostal Church believes heavily in, which gets much of its support from the Mark 16:17-18 passage.
This is also where the Appalachian Mountain snake handlers (an eccentric and highly charismatic Christian group) get their support. Imagine if they found out that this passage was not actually taught by Jesus. Pretty scary.
Its a powerful book, Johnny. One has to agree with fact, but it begs the question...and since no one else in asking...
Corrections have been made through the years.
Therefore, orginal words have changed.
Therefore, sentences may have different meanings.
Therefore, passages have different truths.
God is misrepresented.
Modern Christian Church is founded upon incorrect interpretations of incorrect interpretation of etc...
Johnny, where does this leave you? How can you base your theology, your life, on Hebraic Idioms when they may not even be what was originally said or intended? Not to mention half the books in the Bible may not be written by commonly accepted authors. Its a slippery slope isn't it?
That's why I gravitate to Theistic Existentialism. Its easier to understand.
I'm not saying, I'm just saying...
Hey John,
I am so excited about the Hebraic perspective of the Bible, because even if the words are not exactly as they were written originally, knowing how a first century rabbi would have taught and spoken draws out the real meanings of the text.
For example, knowing that a meturganim was an interpreter of known languages, not a person who could decipher babble, gives me some insight as to what original words would have been or would not have been. A first century Jewish rabbi would never have told his disciples to drink poison and play with snakes...there's another clue.
Knowing that there was a one hundred year period, beginning about 150 A.D. when all of the Jews were banned from Jerusalem, leaving the building of the Church in the hands of Romans and Greeks gives me more insight into the texts that are probably in need of a little "de-mythologizing."
Some people will argue your point that the Bible has been changed over and over, claiming that God has preserved His Word, but the best textual scholars, even those who are deeply committed Christians, are the first to say, "We don't really know what the Bible originally said, because our earliest copies are four hundred years old, and are the product of multiple copies from many unskilled scribes."
My desire to know Jesus from his first century Jewish perspective helps me greatly in my pursuit of the truth and the Truth.
Thanks for the comment John.
Grace and peace,
Johnny
Johnny,
That was a great answer!!!!
You really are growing. I love your blog.
I agree with you about the Appalachian Snake Handlers...they base their deadly faith practices on this part of scripture which, as you said, would probably shake them up a bit if they knew it was added to Mark much later. This is perhaps why so many fatalities have occured in these mountain churches.
I think the term "Penticostal Church" is vague...some, like any denomination, are imbalanced extremeists...some are not.
Some Penticostal churches emphasize the act of speaking in tounges and other visible signs and wonders to the point where they become obsessed with visionary belief and emotionalism...not all do.
I am a member of a Penticostal church that is one of the most balanced churches I have ever heard of. Infact, in our statement of belief no passage from Mark is used at all to describe what we believe about the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts.
PART of our belief on the Holy Spirit are as follows:
"We believe in the post-salvation experience of Spirit Baptism which is evidenced by speaking in other tongues as the Spirit enables us. We believe the church should operate in the fullness of the Spirit as the first century church did in the book of Acts.
(Acts 1:8; 2, 4, 8, 10, 19 ; 2 Corinthians 3:17 ; John 16:7-13 , 14:16-17 ; Galatians 5:25 ; 1 Corinthians 2:12 , 3:16 ; Ephesians 1:13 , 5:18 )
No passage from Mark is used to back this.
I've read some of Dr. Ehrman's writings and wish that I could take my opinion up with him on certain issues, but all in all his findings on the passages of Mark are very interesting.
I know the purpose of your entry was not to cast stones at the Penticostals but it is important for me to break the stereotype that alot of people have about this particular denomination.
Love.
Kathy,
I'm glad you're discussing this. I have no problem with the fastest growing church in the world. Amen for their diligent work and amazing gift of bringing a multi-racial congregation together in a very divided Church world.
A statement that is true, which came out of the Reformation is, "Once the Church is reformed, it must always be reforming."
I want to remember that what brought me to believe may not have been able to bring me to belief today. I may have even changed my beliefs. This is also true of denominations.
Therefore, the statement that the Pentecostal Church used the Mark passage as a foundational Scripture in its beginnings may not be true of the Pentecostal Church today. But the facts remain that historically when Reverend Charles F. Parham and William J. Seymour gave birth to the Pentecostal Church on Azusa Street, Mark 16:17-18 was a powerful base for its beginnings, even if it wasn’t the primary text used.
What I think is miraculous is that, if that portion of Scripture was added later and not actually said by Jesus, then whoever wrote it gave the 20th Century the biggest evangelical boost in history after Constantine.
Thanks for your comments.
Grace and peace,
Johnny
John and Johnny,
I think one thing is clear, the Bible has been "tweaked" a little.
Walker Said:
I just called my friend Pastor Joel Schutte, who comes from Pentecostalism and was recently ordained.
If I understood him correctly, those last verses of Mark do inform some aspects of Pentecostalism, but that there are other sections of scripture which support and inform those aspects of their faith.
He/they recognize the disputed nature of those verses, and I believe he intimated (the call was unfortuantely short) that snake handling/poison drinking etc is not
exactly "mainstream" Pentecostalism.
BTW: NPR had two interviews with Bart Ehrman in late 2005, which you can listen too at:
Fresh Air: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156
And Diane Rehm: (scroll down to the 11AM show listings) http://wamu.org/programs/dr/05/12/08.php
Walker,
You are a true investor. Thanks for your comments.
I'm going to check out those interviews.
Thanks for your active research.
Grace and peace,
Johnny
Thanks Walker and Johnny.
I'm glad we're discussing this too.
I think people who handle snake on purpose are stupid and deserve whatever comes their way.
I don't think it is a good thing to call the snake handlers stupid.
They believe that they are walking on faith, in accordance to the Bible that most on this blog believe to be telling them to do it.
How can you blame them for having too much faith?
It is like saying, people who think prayer changes things are stupid and they deserve the cancer they are praying would be healed.
Come on, have some faith, grab the snake.
Walker Said:
QUOTE
I don't think it is a good thing to call the snake handlers stupid.
They believe that they are walking on faith, in accordance to the Bible that most on this blog believe to be telling them to do it.
How can you blame them for having too much faith?
END QUOTE
FWIW: I have finally learned not to comment on other folks "stupidity" until I've actually met them and spoken at depth with them
OTOH, "too much faith" can, in my opinion, be dangerous, for the person and, sometimes, the people around him.
David Koresch's and Jim Jone's followers come to mind.
Hi Walker.
Should we define faith as the state of being ultimately concerned?
I am convinced that faith has been distorted by non-Hebrew speaking Christians.
Faith to the Jew was and is an action; it is bold tenacity. Faith is not a belief or a thought. Faith is the will of God lived out by the person who lives in such a way that it only makes sense if there is a God.
Faith is not passionate ignorance or unrelenting hope in what is not seen. Faith is doing whatever it takes to get your friend to the Master; helping someone to have their needs met, even when it hurts; loving your enemy, clothing the naked, and never giving up the life of living according to the will of God, even when it becomes unpopular.
Grace and peace,
Johnny
I agree.
I think faith and trust are closely linked...and that what we do in accordance to God's will is based out of how much we trust him. Our faith is revealed by our actions so our actions become our faith. They are one in the same.
Having faith and trusting in God is what gives us reason to live a life of holiness. The faithless do nothing. The faithful act out the wil of the Father.
I think faith and trust are similar. I think faith and belief are two completely different things.
Right on, Johnny.
I believe faith to be different from belief, but not seperate. Belief is an element of faith, as is doubt, courage, reason, emotion, etc...Faith is the center of the person and when one element is compromised then the whole dilutes. Faith is the process or state of being passionate about God or god(s). Again, I recommend Paul Tillich's, Dynamics of Faith. It will change your life. I dare you to read it.
John,
Thanks for the recommendation. I agree with you and was not trying to say that belief was seperate from faith, just that they are not the same thing. I brought up belief being different than faith because often people confuse believing that a god exists with being faithful when that is not the case.
I'll have to check out that book.
The only thing I would add is that the theologians who define these biblical words, which were born in the Jewish world, often distort them.
With that said, I would not jump into any definition that was given post 70 A.D., and assume that it is the same definition that the early apostles would have used.
Grace and peace,
Johnny
A couple of thoughts:
If we are talking about scriptural faith, then I would contend that it was not entirely Jewish thought. The writers and redacters of the New Testament clearly already had some hellenized thought, including Paul. If we only take pre 70AD, then I don't know which books that would be. Either way, it would eliminate quite a few, if not most of them. Then we would have to decided which faith we are going to define based on each reference in each book.
Also, I would hesitate in equating faith and altruism. Faith, scripturally speaking, is not works. With that being said, perhaps what was meant was that Faith was the urge or compelling to act??? If that is true, then faith must be a combination of our various and complex modes of thinking(ie. belief, doubt, courage, etc.)
I completely understand that we should get to the original meaning, but
A. Is it possible, "Misquoting Jesus"...?
B. Should we ignore modern insights into the human phycological condition and the language that accompanies it?
Just a couple of thoughts....
Good dialogue, by the way. I wish I had more time to unpack this, but I have to go.
In every instance where the word "faith" is used, change the word to "tenacity" or "bold action" and we get a glimpse into the first century meaning of the word.
Faith was not a thought, it was the driving force behind the two friends who did whatever it took to get their paralyzed buddy to the feet of the prophet-rabbi, Yeshua.
"Tenacity" was always accepted as faithful living or living out the will of God with boldness for the people of Israel.
Faith was not a thought, but an action that was backed up with the confidence of knowing that God responds to boldness.
Grace and peace,
Johnny
Great post . . . good discussion . . .
This is a little of the subject, Have you picked up Rob Bell's new book "Sex God?" . . .I just know you're a fan. . .
I'm into the third chapter now . . . got it on Friday . . .
Blessings,
Bret
“Faith was not a thought, it was the driving force behind the two friends who did whatever it took to get their paralyzed buddy to the feet of the prophet-rabbi, Yeshua.”
I understand it is not a “thought”. Thoughts are moments when compiled make thinking. I would like to understand “driving force”. When we are compelled, or driven by will, or moved to action, then that is a result of our psychology. It is our past experience, our emotional attachment, our “you fill in the blank”, plus our surrender or rebellion to God leading us.
Well, I just read the comments again and I think I understand your perspective now. Are you saying that faith is our audacious will that moves us to action and that God rewards that exhibition of faith? If so, it makes sense, but if we dig deeper I think we may find that it is the synergy of our personality. Nothing can be outside of that. When we surrender ourselves to our God, or nation, or materialism, or whatever, then it requires us to courageously worship God. That worship requires bold action and to sacrifice other ideals, but it also involves all of who we are. I think we may be in the same universe, just in different dimensions.
You are a great thinker Johnny.
Thanks.
Hey Bret,
No, I don't have the book yet. Thanks for letting me know that it's now available.
John,
Thanks for getting us all to dig deeper. Between you and Controversy Harrison, there is no way we'll stop growing.
Peace out!
Walker said:
There is an interesting discussion of "faith" at http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html
--"The Greek word behind "faith" in the NT is pistis. As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof. Examples of this usage are found in the works of Aristotle and Quintiallian, and in the NT in Acts 17:31:"
And this, from the Catholic Encyclopedia: (Note, it strikes me that much in this article "back defines" faith - sort of "our doctrine is this, so this is what faith meant in the NT>'
"Faith
"I. THE MEANING OF THE WORD
"(Pistis, fides). In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word means essentially steadfastness, cf. Exod., xvii, 12, where it is used to describe the strengthening of Moses' hands;
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm
Thank you, Walker.
Great information.
There is definitely a difference between the Western and Eastern definition of "faith."
It is my understanding that Semitic people always lived their faith, putting an emphasis on acting according to or becuase of their beliefs, whereas the non-Semitic people placed great value on knowledge, whether that knowledge was lived out or only understood.
Thank you again.
Johnny
Post a Comment