Can we really trust the Bible? In his gospel, was Mark writing history or was his goal simply to inspire his audience with some fantastic stories?
“Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses makes, I think, the most conclusive argument that the Gospels are not long-evolving oral traditions but rather oral histories, written down from the accounts of the eyewitnesses themselves who were still alive and active in the community.” King’s Cross, Timothy Keller p. xii
Some scholars and skeptics point to Mark 1 and 16 as examples of what they consider “errors” in the Biblical text. A closer look, however, shows that Mark 1 and 16 are wonderful evidence of the reliability of Scripture and the accuracy and continuity of Mark!
Let’s start with chapter one. “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet [OR the prophets]” (Mark 1:2).
Read the footnote there – “some manuscripts” replace “Isaiah” with “the prophets.” Why would they do that? Well, if you read your other footnotes you’ll see that the quote to follow this statement references both Malachi 3 and Isaiah 40. So we don’t need to consult Sherlock Holmes to deduce what happened. Some copyists wanted to clarify that the original writer knew he was citing two different prophets so they dropped the reference to Isaiah and thereby “improved” the text.
But it was a commonly accepted practice in those days to group prophecies together under the heading of the major prophet. So listing Isaiah alone wasn’t a mistake it was the writer’s stylistic choice. Malachi’s prophecy was worth including but his name wasn’t needed. (For more on Mark 1:2, read this article by NT scholar Daniel Wallace.)
Mark 16 is a little trickier, but really the same principles apply. Here we see women coming to the tomb – women whose testimony would not have been accepted in a Jewish or Roman court – and they are the ones who see the angel and hear his message that Jesus has risen. Listing these women as the first witnesses of the empty tomb is strong evidence for the authenticity of Mark’s account. Later Christians would have been motivated to make Peter look better or make their case look stronger by having men appear as the first witnesses.
“Mark is letting us know that he is recording a historical account, not writing a legend. The repeated names of the women here are source citations – we could call them footnotes… ‘If you want to check out the truth of my story, go talk to these three women.’” King’s Cross, Keller 214
According to Mark, the women were so scared they ran off and didn’t tell anyone. At first this may not seem to fit with the other gospel accounts in which the women go to Peter and the other disciples to announce that Jesus was risen. But isn’t it possible that Mark was absolutely accurate –at first? The women were so terrified and confused that they ran off and didn’t tell anyone because they didn’t know what it all meant? Later they worked up some courage and snuck over to Peter’s house to process what they had experienced…
A test of true history is that it puts the one recording it into a negative or embarrassing light. In this account, with Peter behind it advising Mark, does it present Peter consistently as the hero of the story, the great leader of the early church? No! It shows his lack of understanding in chapter 8 and fully documents his denial of Jesus in chapter 14. And then after the resurrection there is no mention of Peter even going to the tomb – only the women have the nerve to go. That reads like a true historical account, not an embellished or edited legend.
Mark 16 verse 9 through the second ending, however, reads like an editorial addition. Again, you don’t need a degree in literary analysis to discern why a later editor would add something on to Mark 16:8. It doesn’t match the other resurrection accounts very well and later generations would know there is more to the story and would want a more “satisfying” conclusion. But that is like taking the Twilight novels, with their vampires and werewolves, which weren’t completely mindless drivel but have one of the worst endings in the history of fiction and re-writing it with an actual final battle in which the bad guys get wiped out even if some of the good guys have to die in the process. I would love to write a better ending to the Twilight story but I’m not the author so I don’t have the right to change it. The author wrote it the way she wanted to and ended it the way she wanted to.
Shouldn’t we give Mark the same courtesy? Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he wrote this Gospel the way he wanted to and ended it the way he wanted to – with fear and failure and hiding. Don’t you see how that is not evidence for the unreliability of the text but actually for how consistent its message is throughout, right to its final words? (For a brief pastoral explanation of the longer ending of Mark, click here and for a more detailed take click here.)
The Gospel is good news for failures like Mark and the terrified women and us. And the Gospel accounts are exceptionally reliable history. In fact, if you choose to question a fact like the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus you might as well be agnostic about all history because those details about Jesus are some of the most well attested facts we have. If you believe that Washington crossed the Delaware and Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address you better believe that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate because there are libraries more evidence for that about Jesus than for Washington and Lincoln. A lot of history we believe without question on the testimony of one or two written fragments.
When it comes to Jesus’ life we don’t just have a few fragments of parchment, we have tens of thousands of manuscripts (dip your toe in the research from Josh McDowell here). Thousands upon Thousands! Textual criticism is a whole field of research.
The conclusion is that what is often put forward as evidence for the unreliability of Scripture actually demonstrates the opposite – the reliability of the Bible. Mark’s Gospel is a wonderfully symmetrical and beautiful piece of literature that presents good news for failures. And that good news is centered on Jesus Christ.
There are dozens of great resources on the reliability of Scripture, such as Bauckham above. But my favorite book on this is by British evangelist and writer, Barry Cooper – Can I really Trust the Bible? This is a simple yet compelling invitation to check out the Bible for yourself. Barry explains why you should get his book: