Even after the codification of the Hebrew Bible, the Catholic Church continued to use the LXX version of the canon (though they adopted Hebrew manuscripts in the translation process). During the Reformation, many Protestant groups decided to adopt the Hebrew Bible as the OT instead while continuing to put the Apocrypha, etc. in an appendix. The elimination of the Apocrypha as an appendix was a purely political issue.

So, which version of the OT is correct? I don’t know… I don’t really care either. It’s not that big of a deal to me.

Oh, and some Orthodox Jews would debate the later codification of the Hebrew Bible. They’d say that Ezra codified it and the LXX was not meant to be an accurate representation of the Hebrew sacred writings.

I was not suggesting that Lutheran doctrine is based solely on Mk. 16:16. My point is that Martin Luther is among the many churchmen who have set a precedent regarding the acceptance or rejection of the passage. Now, it’s always possible to conjecture that he would not have accepted Mk. 16:9-20 if only he had been better informed, just as it is possible to conjecture that all scholars who reject Mk. 16:9-20 would not do so if only they were better informed. But the fact of the historical precedent remains.

My own view is that the canonical form of a NT book should be the form of the book in which it was first disseminated for church-use. But for those who think that the church’s recognition of a passage as authoritative is what renders that text or passage canonical, regardless of whether or not it was part of the book when it was first disseminated for church-use, Luther’s use of Mk. 16:9-20 has some weight, inasmuch as he is part of the church and the leading figure of the early Lutheran church.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
Tipton, Indiana

“Is it the sole source of the Lutheran doctrine of baptism? No. In fact, you could delete the Gospel of Mark entirely, and our doctrine of baptism would be the same.”

I took a class in the theology of Charles Wesley’s hymns and the teacher asked if we lost the writings of John Wesley, could someone put back together Wesleyan theology from Charles hymns? The answer by the end of the semester was Yes!

Now, I am not Methodist (although I go to what is generally assumed to be a Methodist school), but I really agreed with that. The quoted post and this observation bring me to raise a new question.

At what point does our denominational traditions move to a point at which they are no longer defined by scripture, but instead by denominational heritage?

When we start to look at loosing different points of scripture and their necessity concerning a point of doctrine, how far have our beliefs become non-influenced by scripture (and thence by canon).

I guess I ask this because my denomination (SBC) usually doesn’t fight over biblical doctrine anymore, but different peoples interpretations of it.

On a different note, I find it interesting that no one has mention the grammatical problems with the ending of Mark. But I have gone on to far already.

Recently, I read an interesting article by Meredith Kline about the canon. His thesis is basically that Scripture is self-canonizing, having been inspired by God. It is not the authority of the church that creates the canon (by a councillar decision or a bishop’s declaration), but it simply recognizes the self-testifying Word of God. From the standpoint of human reason, this idea raises some difficulties. But I am inclined toward it, as it places the emphasis on God’s will to provide his Word to his people rather than on which Church Father said what to whom about which book and whether or not Luther was justified in wanting to use “Jimmy [the book of James] to start the fire.” I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

Yes; my observation was simply that the real Luther (like Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Irenaeus, back in the 100’s) used it as part of the Gospel of Mark. To anyone with a Lutheran background for whom the borders of canonicity are drawn by the landmarks of traditional use, this is a major landmark. (Traditional use is not canon-defining to me, but it matters quite a bit to others.)

And, yes; SEBTS had a symposium on Mk. 16:9-20 in 2007; I attended it. But I don’t think it, or the book planned to showcase its participants’ views, will settle anything.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

I believe that Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary had a symposium on this subject last. Year. Probably had several presentations of several points of view.

I’m not sure how you’re defining “baptismal regeneration;” Christian Churches do not regard baptism as a meritorious work, or as something which God recognizes if it is unaccompanied by faith. But that’s probably something for another discussion.

It looks like you’re raising the possibility that a fondness for Mk. 16:16 has had an impact on my research. The possibility can also be raised in the opposite direction: some commentators who have been taught that baptism is an afterthought or a public affirmation may be predisposed to dismiss Mark 16:9-20 on doctrinal grounds, working from the premise that a unit of text containing Mk. 16:16 cannot be Scripture. I invite you to consider my research; I don’t think you will find any place where my case for the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 depends on the sort of doctrinal assumption you mentioned.

Plus, the claim that the commentators I mentioned (and many other I haven’t mentioned) have promoted falsehoods and inaccuracies can be objectively verified. It doesn’t depend on whatever doctrinal views I have.

Martin Luther, btw, used Mk. 16:16 as Scripture in his Smaller Catechism.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

According to your email, you are a member of a Christian Church, and it should be said that the doctrine of your church requires a belief in Baptisimal regeneration as a normal condition of salvation. That doesn’t determine the meaning of the text in question, but it does explain why the text is more important to you than to me, because Mark 16 is a crucial text for that position.

Two reasons why I consider many commentators uninformed and/or misinformed about Mark 16:9-20 are (a) I don’t think they are deliberately lying, and (b) I’ve read their commentaries. In the online Files at the TC-Alternate Yahoo discussion-forum, you can find a file titled “Inaccuracies” in which I review material about Mark 16:9-20 from dozens of commentaries and Bible-footnotes. The documented errors listed there — ranging from minor miscitations to ridiculously false claims — will allow you to come to your own conclusions about the accuracy of my statement.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.