Expert: Bruce Gourley - 9/18/2008

Question
QUESTION: Hello. I am a member of the church of Christ and sincerely hope that our differences in beliefs does not affect your answer. I submitted the question to our people on this site, but none were able to be of much help.  The question is really non-denominational anyway. Hopefully, you will be able to provide some resources.  I am copying and pasting it; hence, the difference in appearance.  Thanks.

I am a member of the church of Christ, about the same age
> as you.  Could you give me our best defense of Mark 16:16a
> (I am not so concerned about the second sentence), with
> particular emphasis on the Koine Greek.  I know the first
> phrase is aorist participle, second person, imperative and
> the second phrase is also an aorist, third person, passive -
> properly rendered "let be baptized".  These really
> have no time element except as determined by the action of
> the main verb "shall be saved".  The action of
> aorist participles cannot occur subsequent to the action of
> the main verb. I am simply hoping for more, deeper
> information as I am no Greek scholar - I just know who to
> use Greek textbooks a little bit.  Any parallel examples in
> the NT, for instance, would be appreciated. In fact, any
> parallel examples from the same time period outside of the
> NT would be appreciated. I have done about as far as I can
> go, and it's of no use to ask our local preachers:  they
> do not know an aorist participle from a middle voice from a
> future imperative.  I do have some more difficult questions,
> but thought I would start with the easiest and see how
> things go.


ANSWER: Hello Brent,

I would say that the problem with this text is that verses 9-20 of Mark 16 are simply not present in early biblical manuscripts, including both Greek and Latin texts. You have to move way forward to the sixth century before you see verses 9-20 included in some manuscripts.  Considered a forgery by many early Christians, there is some extra-biblical evidence that the passage was composed sometime in the second century (although not added to some biblical manuscripts until significantly later). Not until the Council of Trent in the 16th century did the Roman Catholic Church Church declare verses 9-20 to be authoritative.

Therefore, the kind of questions I would ask, include: why were some believers in the second century concerned that baptism be a requirement for salvation?  And why were they concerned that believers would exhibit certain signs of their salvation?  In terms of the text, if you are doing comparison studies, look at some of the later Greek apocryphal texts from the second century such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistle of Barnabas.

Best wishes,

Bruce Gourley
BaptistLife.Com
BruceGourley.Com



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you.  Yes, I knew that there were questions surrounding the authenticity of Mark 16: 9-20, and that decent, honorable arguments could be made either way. I believe I read somewhere years ago that its inclusion or exclusion was one of the most difficult problems in textual criticism.  I sort-of straddled the fence on it:  I believe it to be authentic because it was specifically quoted by Iraneus who was a student of Polycarp who studied under the Apostle John; however, if it contained teachings which could not be found elsewhere in the Bible, I suppose I would more seriously question it.  I used to get a kick out of reading the debates of Dr. Ben Bogard, one of the greatest orators and debaters who ever lived.  He had the habit, however, of declaring it either spurious or solid as a rock, depending upon whom he was debating at the time.  I do plan to read some of the apocryphal texts sometime; I think they might be interesting.  I did read quite a bit of the Works of Josephus and enjoyed it.

However, I still wish someone could tell me whether an aorist participle, or, rather, the action of an aorist participle can occur subsequent to the action of the main verb.  What are the rules and exceptions?  I'd like to know that whether Mark 16:9-20 is inspired or not.

I do appreciate your answer, and hope that you might have some insight on the Greek.  Thank you.

Answer
I am a church historian and Baptist scholar, not a language scholar. So if you wish to learn more about the technical side of the NT Greek, you would need to turn to a Greek scholar. As to your comment regarding the contents of Mark 16:9-20 (the disputed verses) being found in Scripture otherwise, Mark 16:9-20 is unique in claiming that believers will handle poisonous snakes and not die, and drink poison and not die, and that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

Best wishes in your Greek language pursuits,

Bruce Gourley