Mark 16:9-20 and Sola Scriptura

 

Introduction

Recently, apologetics Wunderkind and genuinely nice guy Wes Huff put out a video looking at the provenance of the largest textual variant found in the New Testament, that of Mark 16:9-20. In the video, Huff highlights the history of the text in key portions of the textual history as well as extra-textual witnesses to demonstrate the colorful history of the text. He comes to the conclusion that, based on a number of factors, it’s not original to Mark, and therefore not Scripture.

Now, such a conclusion is likely to be concerning…especially if you haven't given much thought to the textual issues and their relationship to both inspiration and inerrancy, which is something that I’ve written about elsewhere but haven’t really dealt with in a while. So…why not?

Where’s the Inspiration?

One of the fundamental questions is, where does inspiration start and where does it end?

This question is particularly perplexing because there’s an inherent recognition with even a casual reading of Scripture that sometimes there are voices speaking that aren’t those of the original author or perceived author.

It’s generally been believed that Moses wrote the Torah, after all they are called “The Five Books of Moses”. However, when it comes to the last book of the Pentateuch, which is essentially an extended farewell address by Moses, the final chapter is told from third person. This is taken to mean that at some later time, an author appended the story to the end of the book. 

There are notes in Deuteronomy that Moses either wrote down personally or had his speeches transcribed (Deut. 31:9, 22, 24).[1] If one goes and looks at those passages in their context, however, it appears that what is being written down isn’t necessarily what we call Deuteronomy, but is something else entirely, but that is not germane to our current question, especially when Deuteronomy is read against its cultural backdrop. Deuteronomy shares many component similarities with documents known as “vassal treaties”.[2]

That point makes certain people uncomfortable because they've already made certain…well…precommitments to the text which often means that it gets divorced from the very context that one needs to understand and defend the text.

Speaking wholly from my own research, which I’ve documented throughout this blog’s history, when it comes to the question of “proving” the truth of Scripture, I’ve noted numerous times that one cannot appeal to the biblical text as history and then exclude it from the very context that demonstrates not only its historicity but also its reliability then one necessarily has to treat Scripture as a historical text: something that has both a history and is historical.

Less anyone risks misunderstanding me, what I mean by that is not that one can separate its theology from its history, but it also requires a recognition that the theology only makes sense in its context, both historically and literarily.

So, that brings us back to the question, where does inspiration start and where does it end?

That’s a difficult question to answer because of…well…precommitments that one may have.

If your precommitment is to a particular theological tradition or to a particular textual tradition then we might have our answer. And this is where Mark’s interesting textual hiccup plays a part.

Starting… to Finish

Mark’s serious textual speed bump has a lot to do with the fact that the ending is fairly well documented across the textual tradition with few exceptions and those exceptions are found in just a few controversial original language manuscripts…and by few, I mean two: Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the boogeymen of King James Onlyists. While it is absent from the two oldest, complete manuscripts that we have, it is also absent from a number of early translations. [3]

But, for a moment, let’s go back to Deuteronomy: in chapter 31, three times it says that Moses “wrote”. Clearly Moses didn’t “write” that instead a narrator wrote that. It’s difficult to believe that someone would transition from speaking in first person and then–on a whim, seemingly–transition to speaking in third person about yourself. So, clearly there’s something else going on that we know little to nothing about. Unless…

As I noted earlier, people often have precommitments that determine how they will or won’t approach the text. I’m not immune to this bug and won’t pretend to be. I also won’t feign any neutrality: I am convinced that what is found in what we call “the Bible” is the truth and that it has authority over our lives. However, I recognize that truth, especially divine truth, cannot be confined or shoe horned into a single category. God is not a one-trick pony, and he doesn’t have to use the front door.

What does that have to do with our question at hand, you ask and that is a good question. 

Imagine for a second you were to meet Moses and ask him about writing Deuteronomy and he was to look at you as if you were crazy and reply, “I didn’t write that.” Would that admission break your belief about the truth of Deuteronomy or the validity of your beliefs in general?

If it would, then we’ve found your precommitment. After all, how many bold young Christians have had their faith destroyed by even less…or claim to have, which is a subject for a different post.

But let’s say some industrious young priest is cleaning out a room in the tabernacle or his parent’s house and finds something he had only heard rumors about: these “writings” of Moses. After all there are texts mentioned in Scripture that we have no evidence for, texts that the readers are directed to in order to verify the validity of the statement as presented.

For example, Deuteronomy 28:61 refers to “the book of this law”. The context appears to be referring to Deuteronomy yet also appears to be directing the reader to an external source. A similar situation is encountered in Deuteronomy 29:21 where “the Book of the Law” is mentioned, yet the context appears to be directing the reader to something that was composed and reported back in Exodus 24. Lastly, in Deuteronomy 31:26, in the same context where some draw evidence of Moses' authorship of Deuteronomy, there is a clear distinction made between what Moses wrote there and Deuteronomy as the source for reporting the scene.

Let’s say our young priest decided to take his discoveries and the stories he had heard and craft them into a narrative that transports the reader to that time and places them on the hot seat. We call that narrative “Deuteronomy”. Which of those is the “inspired text”: what Moses wrote or what that young priest wrote?

I, as someone who takes a preservationist view of inspiration–that what has been preserved is what was inspired–then Deuteronomy is what was inspired as the means for preserving what Moses said or did. That allows for Deuteronomy to be what it might be in both literary and historical terms but also in theological and religious terms.

Now, how does this affect Mark’s longer ending, given it has been preserved in the textual tradition. Does that mean that it is also inspired?

The Quandary of Preservation

It might seem that if I don’t answer “yes” to the question then I’m being inconsistent. However, here again I would simply point to Deuteronomy and its own textual issues: specifically with a nonsense reading that has perplexed readers forever that is found in one of the parts of Deuteronomy that is reported to have been specifically composed by Moses: chapter 32, or the “Song of Moses”, specifically in verse eight.

The King James, and most English translations read similarly at this point, following Blomberg’s presentation of the Masoretic text, with a few exceptions, 

When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

However the translators of the English Standard Version looked at the breadth of the manuscript tradition and made an interesting choice to represent in their translation,

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,

    when he divided mankind,

he fixed the borders of the peoples

    according to the number of the sons of God.

Why is there a disparity? Which is the “inspired” reading?

If we take the former, simply because it has been preserved the longest, then we have an interpretive problem, namely why is God dividing the nations according to the number of a people that does not exist yet–at least from the point of the context of the passage–then save that same nation for himself (v9)? However if we take the latter reading, which is preserved in the Qumran and Septuagint traditions, the interpretive problem is resolved. [4] Additionally, this helps us understand Paul’s arguments in Acts 17 more completely, especially that “God now calls men everywhere to repent”. 

Interestingly, the Septuagint reading of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 becomes the prooftext for the Apostate Emperor Julian’s rejection of Christ because of the clear differentiation there made between Israel and the other nations in his treatise “Against the Galileans”.[5] And by the time of Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate, we can seem to track when the alternative reading crept into the Hebrew by the fact that it possesses the corrupted reading.[6]

The Missing Element

One thing that seems to be missing from these discussions is the question of how the texts were preserved.

They weren’t preserved by engraving them on stone or by being hermetically sealed in a vault. The texts of Scripture were in active use from the time that they were first published. In fact, there’s reason to recognize this fact in the manuscript tradition by the discovery of incomplete copies.

The Book of Jeremiah is an interesting example because it is preserved in two different ways: a shorter version and a longer version. Why are there two versions? Because the longer version of the book records the destruction of part of Jeremiah’s prophecy, which had to be rewritten. The shorter version is the part that survived the destruction and began to be copied to be supplemented by the “revised and expanded” edition that appeared later. The existence of the latter doesn’t invalidate the existence of the former, nor vice versa. In fact they support one another by demonstrating that the biblical authors accepted that an incomplete work was just as necessary as a complete one.

Another example that can be cited is in the prologue of Luke’s gospel when he tells his readers that “many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us”. How many is “many”? Did some of these “attempts” become the sources for Luke, or Mark, or Matthew? Are Matthew and Mark among them? These are questions that we don’t have any answers to because there are unknown factors: did they not have the funds to purchase the materials; did they not have the requisite rhetorical skills; were they just not good storytellers, etc, etc. 

Luke’s mention of these “attempts” could be just rhetorical flourish or it could represent a genuine reality: the life of Jesus was so impactful that  everyone who could attempted to record it but through the process of preservation only four survived. Glory to God, amen.

Part of that preservation included the copying of those texts for distribution. And the copying process wasn’t as efficient as closing the lid on the copier, punching in the desired number and hitting “start”, it was manual, hand-copying, sometimes letter-by-letter. And sometimes, by means of an imperfect process, a variety of “goofs” crept into the text. How many were intentional? How many unintentional? Is Mark 16:9-20 one of those “goofs”?

A Little Textual Healing

We have to recognize that Mark 16:9-20 is one among many endings to Mark’s gospel. Indeed, it is one of the better attested endings, but it is still just one among others. As the screenshot below illustrates there is, in some manuscripts, an additional line of text between v8 and v9. The fact that there is such a wide distribution of readings and no real consistency across the textual tradition is evidence that the various readings demonstrate their lack of authenticity.[7] 

This lack of authenticity, regardless of how popular or well-attested a particular reading might be, means that the reading holds no authority over the reader. 

That’s a statement that likely bothers some people…likely because of the precommitments that they hold but it is simply a reality. 

There is some speculation that there might have been two versions of Mark: a short version and a long version, where Mark tacked v9-20 on at some later date.[8] However, the material in the ending has few Markan features–either stylistically or theologically–and evidences a general unfamiliarity with Mark’s material and a preference for the unorthodox.[9]

Textual Variants and Sola Scriptura

An interesting claim that has been made recently is that the dismissal of such a large section of Scripture as Mark 16:9-20 has a detrimental effect on the principle of Sola Scriptura. 

Once again, I restate the definition as, “Scripture alone as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church”.[10] The objection being that if such an excision of something that had been perceived as “Scripture” and had authority to rule the faith could be overturned and dismissed with such seeming casualness, then isn’t the whole definition of what is or isn’t Scripture subject to some arbitrary standard that no one can define going so far as to allege a crisis of canon.[11]

This problem seems to be amplified by the fact that the word “canon” itself comes from a word that means “measuring rod”, so that when we speak of the “canon of Scripture” in the Bible then we are referring to it as, “the supreme measuring rod or authority for the church.”[12] But what are we to make of it when we effectively shorten our measuring rod?

That question seems to assume that one segment of the text is representative of the whole, this is what is known as the fallacy of composition. Conversely, we must also be careful not to commit the fallacy of division and read too much into the question.

The fact that we have identified an element of Mark’s gospel, even though it appears early and is preserved in the transmission of the text, has no effect on what Mark himself wrote. Our goal, our whole intention as students of Scripture is to be focused on what Mark wrote, not what someone else wrote–no matter how well-meaning they might have been. And the church, very early on, appears to have set up a three-fold test–with regard to the works that would become our New Testament–to determine what was or was not authoritative: apostolicity, early acceptance, and compatibility.[13]

But, we need to ask a question: why write anything in the first place?

If, as some in the big-C Catholic traditions assert, that oral tradition was so important and necessary and instrumental to the growth of the church, then why was anything written down?

Christianity, growing from the earth of second temple Judaism, appears to have had adopted and accepted that there was a covenantal aspect to the faith and such authority was placed in written form, especially as the apostolic eyewitnesses began to die out and thus cementing themselves to their Jewish heritage.[14] This requires that we know what the apostolic witness wrote or directed to be written, since that is what is “inspired” and subsequently “Scripture” and the manner that this is investigated is through the method of textual criticism since what we are after is the autographs.

As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states in Article X,

… [Inspiration], strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. (emphasis added) 

Notice the statement, “We…affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.” The issue then is what was written originally. That is what is authoritative since it was what God, by the Holy Spirit, working through the apostle, intended for us to possess. The cumulative excess, regardless of its age, patristic acceptance, or even its authoritative citation, especially Mark’s longer ending, is simply static on the line.

Conclusion

People are generally lazy, intellectually lazy especially.

We don’t like to think too hard or too often about matters, especially about matters that have two thousand years of context behind them. It’s why people can get upset about the Bible so easily. It’s why there was almost a riot when it was believed that Jerome changed a single word in his Latin translation. It’s why when translations such as the New International Version came out and verses of Scripture appeared to change or disappear from the text, that there were any number of conspiratorial allegations because of people’s familiarity with the readings found in the King James Version.

It’s our familiarity that breeds contempt, not merely for the familiar but the possibility that the familiar could change.

The problem with Mark’s gospel is that, if it ends at v8, then we have no resurrection.  Without the longer ending we are left hanging in anticipation. We have no resolution. But then that assumes that Mark’s gospel is all that we have and ignores the fact that we have three other gospels that do.

We don’t know anything about the circumstances under which Mark’s gospel was written, nor the other gospels for that matter. We aren’t able to pull Mark up, point at v8 and ask, “What gives?” And that bothers some people. 

We engage in textual criticism to attempt to get us back to what the authors wrote. That means that long accepted accretions may be revealed, but our goal is to get back to what was written by the inspired author, not what someone living even fifty years later might have written because he didn’t like how the text ended.

Mark’s original, intended ending may be lost to history. Or it could be sitting in some dusty corner. We won’t know unless we look for it. Some people may be comfortable with what we have, after all it doesn’t contain anything heretical or contradictory. But as Desidarius Erasmus has said, “You must distinguish between Scripture, the translation of Scripture, and the transmission of both.”[15]

As imperfectly as the Scriptures have been transmitted to us, something we can see because of the sheer mass of the evidence. We should be wise in how we approach the text of Scripture, our hearts ready to receive the word of Christ from the record passed to us and be prepared to encounter disruptions. What we have to remember, or perhaps analogize, when we encounter these variations and accretions is that they are insulation intended in the process of preservation to protect the inspired writing.

Notes

1. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. “The Book of Deuteronomy”. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Lexham Press. 2016.

2. Ibid.

3. James R. White. The King James Only Controversy: CanYou Trust Modern Translations?. Bethany House Publishing. 2009. p.316

4. Jeffrey Tigay. The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy. The Jewish Publication Society. 1996. p.302-3

5. The Emperor Julian. “Against the Galileans”. The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume 3, trans. Wilmer C. Wright. Harvard University Press. 1953. p.341

6. I am not attributing motive to the alternative reading, just noting a chronological fact. We can also track other anomalous readings by comparing Jerome’s translation with the Septuagint and the Masoretic text, a trend that I pointed out here.

7. White, p.317

8. Ibid, p.319

9. Ibid, p.318-9

10. James R. White. Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible’s Accuracy, Authority, and Authenticity. Bethany House Publishing. 2004. P.37 (ePub)

11. Jeffrey T. Riddle. “Ending of Mark as a Canonical Crisis”. Puritan Reformed Journal Volume 10, No. 1 (January 2018) p.31-54.

12. R. C. Sproul. Can I Trust the Bible?. Reformation Trust Publishing. 2017. p.38

13. Ibid, p.41-2

14. Michael J. Kruger. The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate. InterVarsity Press. 2013. P.53-6 (ePub)

15. Roland Bainton. Erasmus of Christendom. Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1969. p.134 (as quoted in White [2009], p.39)