(Herpe)neutic: The Historical Hermeneutic of Snake-Handling Churches Pt. II
(In this second part of a three-part paper (read the first part here), I discusssss the historical interpretation of Mark 16:9-20 to place the snake-handling verse (Mark 16:18) in its historical hermeneutic amongst the Christian tradition. I also talk about the particular hermeneutic of snake-handling churches in regards to Mark 16:18.)
The History of the Interpretation of Mark 16:9-20
As noted, the ending of Mark 16:9-20 is largely considered inauthentic or unoriginal to the gospel by most New Testament scholars. However, it was considered canonical by many Christians by the second century. In addition, it has never been excluded from the Protestant Bible. Therefore, regardless of its probable inauthenticity, it has served authoritatively for most of the church’s history. While many may remain critical of the practice of handling snakes on the basis of a literal interpretation of Mark 16:18, J. A. Kelhoffer suggests the longer ending was added in response to non-Christian religious movements “gaining status by handling serpents.” Scholars have found numerous references to snake-handling in Greco-Roman culture as a means to gain status in society. Because of this, snake-handling for early Christians was understood as a witness of the miraculous signs and wonders of God. Therefore, the author of the longer ending was possibly justifying the handling of snakes in order for believers to gain status alongside non-Christians. However, it has never been documented whether early Christians ever handled snakes despite the justification from the author of the longer ending. Despite no historical account of early Christians handling snakes, “the twentieth-century praxis of handling serpents received its legitimate justification from the longer Mark.”
While there are few, if any, incidents mentioned throughout the church’s history of handling snakes, the verse also mentions the drinking of poison. This other extreme practice mentioned in Mark 16:18, which is also practiced by snake-handling churches, is also mentioned in other Christian works such as the Passio Iohannis, Virtutes Iohannis, and the Acts of John in Rome, all of which range from the fourth to sixth centuries. Most relevantly though, is Eusebius, an early church historian, who writes in Historia Ecclesiastica of “another amazing story involving Justus, who was surnamed Barsabbas: he drank a deadly poison and yet by the grace of the Lord suffered nothing unpleasant.” While there had been historically fabricated stories of Christians drinking poison, this report from Eusebius is just that: a report. With a named source of Papias, there is no clear deliberate intent to fabricate this story. With that said, this is a report of drinking of poison and not handling of snakes; however, one could make the case that if this report of Christians drinking poison is indeed accurate, then their hermeneutic could have led them to also handle snakes. However, as stated before, there is little to no evidence that Christians, historically, have interpreted Mark 16:18 in a way that they handled snakes. Therefore, despite Mark 16:9-20 being a part of the canon for most of the church’s history, it appears that Appalachian snake-handling churches were the first Christians to have taken the ending literally…