Does it bother Christians that Matthew chapter sixteen is a fake?

Question

The entire second half of the chapter, which contains the 'snake handler' verses, doesn't show up in any copies of the book of Matthew until the third century AD, or any where else for that matter.

A complete fake, with words put in the mouth of Jesus by men who never knew him.

Does this bother you?

Oops.

Mark chapter sixteen. That's what I get for typing before the coffee kicks in.

Answer 1

It doesn't bother them that 2nd Peter was most likely written a century after Peter died, I don't think this will either.

Answer 2

Since we caught it, then why would it bother us? I think that only the snake handlers would be upset.

Besides, it is not clear if the last half of the chapter is an "edit". The passage in question is only missing from the two oldest Bibles that we have (the Codex Sinaiticus and the Vatican Codex, I believe), but there appears to be blank space on the page where the additional text could have been; this suggests that the two copies in question were simply unfinished copies.

All of the information presented in the last paragraph of Mark, with exception of the snake handling part, seems to be more or less duplicated elsewhere, so it seems to make little difference to anyone besides the snake handler church if this passage is authentic or not.

---edit---

The fact that Bible scholars noted in the margins that the authenticity of this passage is in question proves at least that they are honest, and that they are hard at work trying to verify the authenticity of the text.

The fact that so many people for so many centuries have tried to discredit the Bible, and failed, implies to me that the modern Bible (or at least the New Testament) is VERY close to the original texts. This impies, to me, that the Bible is reliable -- which is the opposite of the point that you were apparently trying to make.

And you will never pick this as best answer, because it disagrees with the point that you were trying to make. But so be it. I state my true opinion; I don't brown nose for points.

Answer 3

Depending on the Bible translation a person uses -- Mark 16:9~ has been MARKED (funny coincidence right!) as being possibly spurious. I think the material is too long to cut and paste here, so please check the American Standard Version Bible to verify one such translation. Another one it the New World translation. A third one is the New Jerusalem Bible!
Here is a quote from the New Jerusalem Bible, "*[Originally Mk probably ended abruptly on this note of awe and wonder. The next 12 vv., missing in some MSS, are a summary of material gathered from other NT writings.] "

Does that help you?

Are you an Anti-pastor?
Sorry, the Bible forbids the usage of the word "Father" Matt 23:9, "And do not designate a father of you upon the earth, for one is your Father, he in the heavens. " (ACV)

Answer 4

Answer: Mark 16:17-18 records, “and these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will … will pick up snakes with their hands.” As a result of this text, there are some churches that practice snake handling. During church services, people actually handle poisonous snakes, supposedly giving evidence that they are true believers who are empowered and protected by God. Is that what Mark 16:17-18 is instructing us to do?



First, it is very important to remember that there are some questions regarding whether Mark chapter 16, verses 9-20 belong in the Bible. There is some evidence that these verses were not originally part of the Gospel of Mark. Some of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark do not contain verses 9-20. Some other manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, but set them apart from the rest of the Gospel of Mark. As a result, it is not wise to use anything from Mark 16:9-20 as the sole basis for a doctrine or practice. Snake handling is one such example of a dubious concept from Mark 16:9-20. For more information, please read - Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?



If we assume, despite the evidence to the contrary, that Mark 16:17-18 does belong in Scripture, does it teach that we should be handling snakes in church? The answer to that question is a definitive no. Mark 16:17-18 does not contain any imperatives. It does not say, “go out and handle snakes.” It says “they will pick up snakes with their hands.” It is describing something that will occur, not commanding that something should occur. An example of this is the Apostle Paul in Acts 28:3-5, “Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand … But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects.” Notice that Paul did not seek out to handle a snake. The snake bit Paul, but God protected Paul from the effects of the snake bite. Mark 16:17-18 is saying that if you are faithfully serving God in the spread of the Gospel, He can protect you from anything that may cross your path.



If the snake handling churches were consistent, they would also follow the second part of Mark 16:18, “…and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all.” Scripture is consistent that God can and will protect us, according to His will, as we are serving Him. Scripture is also consistent that we are not to put the Lord to the test (Exodus 17:2; Matthew 4:7). Just as Jesus refused to jump off the pinnacle of the temple, even though God would send angels to protect Jesus, so are we to not intentionally put ourselves in situations that require God’s miraculous intervention. 1 Corinthians 10:9, while not speaking directly of snake handling in churches, says it best, “We should not test the Lord, as some of them did — and were killed by snakes.”

Answer 5

In the first place it's not a fake..

"...,but that the works of God should be revealed...(John9:3)"

Many ppl were saved from snakes such as Saint.Paul
& it was mentioned in the story of martyr Marina.
Also martyr George was saved from deadly poison by God.

Answer 6

If you look in most Bibles, there is a little footnote that states exactly what you said. It is up to the reader's discretion as to the validity of the message in that chapter.

:0)

Answer 7

No. God put it there for a reason, so it doesn't bother me. A Christian must believe that the entire bible, as delivered to them are inspired words of God ( 2 Timothy 3:16).

Answer 8

First of all, the bible does not talk about us handling snakes, You have the verses about Paul being bitten by a deadly snake & lived, & in Mark you have where it says we shall take up serpents, & that is found in Mark 16 & not Matthew, What are these serpents, snakes, NO, they are demonic spirits, & the only reason Paul lived from that snake bite was because he did not know that snake was there, & God spared his life, I see no where That we are to handle snakes to test our faith. When we take up any deadly snake trying to prove our faith, we are tempting God, Paul did not tempt God. So friend I hate to burst your bubble, You are wrong about Matt. 16 Or really Mark 16, It is true & not fake, It is that you don't have the HOLY GHOST to show you what it means. And I feel like if we don't tempt god now & we are on a mission for God, He will keep us live long enough to finish the job.

Answer 9

sh*t happens. people lie, most especially when it comes to politics, religion, &/or any way to exploit the mass ignorant.
so get off your high horse, 'cause you aint helping any one by just b!tching!!! you want change, do it yourself. believe in who/what you want to & stop trying to degrade other people who choose to use that god freedom differently than you!

plain & simply for you idiots out there: yes, i know. no, i don't care, & NIETHER should you!

Answer 10

Matthew 16 seems genuine to me.

What does it profit the man to gain the whole world but suffer the loss of his own soul?
What can a man exchange in return for his very self?

Answer 11

Better minds have long ago found these scriptures to be authentic.
Still, as always has been, the unlearned keep attacking the Bible and its credibility.