J.W. McGarvey's Evolving Relationship with Mk 16.9-20

J. W. McGarvey is widely regarded as the greatest scholar produced by the Stone Campbell Movement. As we continue to think about the ancestry and history of the King James Version I thought I would tie Stone Campbell history with that of the KJV. McGarvey was indeed a great scholar and one of his strengths was the ability to let fresh light change his mind on even important subjects. Briefly in this blog I will trace the "evolution" of his views on the ending of the Gospel of Mark. His "conclusion" of the matter in his commentary on Mark dating from 1875 (really became nothing but a point on the timeline), his visitation of the subject again in 1886 and then ten years later in 1896 (2x). Its should be fairly obvious that McGarvey softens and alters his original position in light of further evidence.

1875: Commentary on Matthew and Mark

McGarvey has an extended discussion on the ending of Mark in this commentary. He says "Our final conclusion, is that the passage in question is authentic in all its details, and that there is no reason to doubt that it was written by the same hand which indited [sic] the proceeding [sic] parts of this narrative. The objections which have been raised against it are better calculated to shake our confidence in Biblical Criticism than in the genuineness of this inestimable portion of the word of God." (p. 379).

McGarvey, in his Commentary, had made great efforts to disprove the work of British scholar Henry Alford (The Greek New Testament) who had made -- at the time -- the most persuasive arguments against Mark 16.9-20. At the end of his discussion McGarvey reveals that he had received John W. Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. He cautiously recommends the book to his readers with this interesting caveat that Burgon tends to be "extravagant in many of his expressions, and often extreme in his conclusions." McGarvey’s endorsement of Burgon is hardly the wholesale or “over the top” like some of Burgon’s later fans. We will mention Burgon again below.

Also of interest is this interesting qualification that McGarvey make, especially in light of his rather confident "conclusion." He writes: "The authenticity of the passage being conceded, and the fact being apparent that it was written by some one who possessed of independent and correct sources of information, the question of its genuineness might be waived without detracting from its authority or credibility; for a true piece of history attached to Mark's book is not less valuable or authoritative because some other person than Mark may have been the author of it . . ."

Why make this qualification? Why separate authorship and authority?

1886: Evidences of Christianity

The eleven years after the publication of McGarvey's Commentary, were years filled with significant developments in the field of textual criticism. One of the most important was the publication of the 1881 Revised Version of the Bible and Westcott and Horts Greek New Testament and Introduction with the Appendix of variant readings. McGarvey briefly returned to the issue of the ending of Mark. He says, "The genuineness of these [Mk 16.9-20 & Jn 7.53-8.11] is doubted by some critics, though confidently defended, especially the former, by others. Further investigation will doubtless bring all to the same judgment concerning them" (Evidences, pp. 15-16).

In a lengthy footnote McGarvey pitted Hort's discussion against that of Frederick Scrivener (Introduction to the Critical Study of the New Testament). Scrivener, in McGarvey's view, has provided an "elaborate answer to all the arguments of Dr. Hort.” But McGarvey does not say anywhere where he comes down on the issue. Significantly, I think anyway, McGarvey makes no mention -- at all -- of Burgon's book that also tried to meet the arguments of Hort.

1896: Christian Standard

We are now twenty-one years after McGarvey's Commentary and his original conclusion. In the space of two months McGarvey visited the subject of Mark 16.9-20 two times (in his column "Biblical Criticism"). I quoted one of those in my earlier post that was questioned. By this time much more light had been shed on the subject than was available in 1875, and even in 1886. Significantly, McGarvey defers to Alford's opinion rather than his own (which recall he tried to refute in 1875):

"Yes, the statement is true; and it is true of more verses than the gentleman said; for the last twelve verses are absent from the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., the two oldest now extant, both belonging to the fourth century. They are also absent from some later MSS., and in some others they appear in various forms. The question whether this negative evidence proves that the verses are not genuine, has excited much controversy among textual critics. Some contend that they have been accidentally lost from the few MSS. which have a gap here, while others contend that the original gospel did not contain them. I think the trend of opinion in recent years is in favor of the suggestion first made by Alford -- that the fragment was not originally part of Mark's Gospel but that it is an authentic piece of history appended by a contemporary writer. This would account for its absence from some MSS. and its presence in others." ("An Oft Repeated Question," Christian Standard 32 [1896], p.1239).

Immediately one thinks of the "qualification" McGarvey made originally in 1875 in his Commentary -- the historicity and authorship do not depend on coming from Mark's hand. Why is it that McGarvey does not come out as strong as he did in his Commentary? One can see that he has moved in his position regarding the Ending of Mark.

One month later, McGarvey received a question from C.H. Thompson concerning Mark 16.9-20 and Vaticanus. I will quote his reply:

"The question of the genuineness of these verses is one of the most intricate with which textual critics of the New Testament have to deal. At the close of my commentary on Mark, I attempted to set forth the principal evidence, pro and con, as it was known at the time of publication. Since then new light has been thrown upon the question, and the most elaborate discussion of it, in the light of them recently gained information, can be found in the appendix to the Greek text of Westcott and Hort. I think that, after a candid study of the evidence as a whole, it must be conceded that the question is as yet unsettled. It would be reckless to say that the passage is spurious; and it would be hazardous to affirm that these verses are certainly genuine. At the same time, I think it safe to say, as I did before, that the statements contained in them are authentic, whether written by Mark or appended by another hand." (Ending of Mark, Christian Standard 32 [1896], p. 1367).

This is certainly an "evolved" view from his "conclusion" at the end of his Commentary in 1875. He flatly states the question is unsettled and it is hazardous to affirm them as genuine. He returns to his position -- his "out" -- in his commentary. The information in 16.9-20 is accurate whether written by Mark or not. Why? Because the information is all paralleled in the other Gospels. Please note that Burgon is not even on the radar scope of McGarvey any more. In fact McGarvey says that the best discussion to be found is in Westcott and Hort commending that source. There is clear movement, by McGarvey, away from his confident conclusion of 1875.

One should note that the question has moved considerably since 1896. I would say two thirds of the info now available was not in 1896. The status of the versions has changed drastically since then, Burgon's claims about the Church Fathers has been disproved in study after study. Perhaps we can learn from McGarvey's willingness to amend his conclusion in light of further information.

A McGarvey Appendix from a letter I wrote several years ago:

Greetings Brother ... from the land of beer and cheese. Thank you for the copy of the article by Brother Wayne Jackson in the Carolina Christian about Baptism and Mark 16.9-20. I read the article. . . agreeing with some . . . disagreeing with some. My reply will be simply to a few short footnotes to the article.

Before I give my two footnotes on Jackson's article let me say that we should be able to present a biblically based, Christ-centered theology of both the form and function of baptism without recourse to Mark 16.9-20. Now just in case Brother Jackson sees this I confess that I do believe in baptism and Acts 2.38 (all of it). Now to the footnotes.

First the textual issue regarding Mark 16.9-20. Jackson cites J.W. McGarvey as a defender of the authenticity of the "Long Ending" of Mark. McGarvey's Commentary on Matthew and Mark was published in 1875 (if my memory serves) before the publication of Westcott and Hort's Greek NT. It was before the discovery of the Syriac MSS at St. Cathrine's in the Sinai Desert. It was before the discovery of many other evidences that suggest these verses are not authentic. McGarvey's commentary is about as out of date on textual issues as a book on the Solar System from the same period. That is not a put down just a simple fact.

However, McGarvey was an astute student of textual criticism and his views on the "long ending" of Mark went through considerable evolution after 1875. By 1896, writing in his column in the Christian Standard "Biblical Criticism," he indicates that Mark probably did not write verses 9-20. Today there are few scholars of any kind (including Churches of Christ) that accept the authenticity of these verses. There are actually four endings to this Gospel that are known. I would not base any "doctrine" on this text. We have nothing to fear from this. As Jackson says in his article (when he critiques A.T. Robertson) we should let "grammar" (i.e. the TEXT) determine our theology and not theology the text.

Second, it is most fascinating that Jackson uses McGarvey in the manner he did. Why? Because McGarvey did not believe that baptism (immersion) was absolutely, necessarily, essential to salvation on that glorious day of reckoning. He declared this very clearly in the Gospel Advocate in reaction to some he believed were taking extreme views on the issue,

"Dear Bro.:
Replying to yours of the 15th, I have no doubt there are pious persons who have never been immersed. It would be absurd and ridiculous to deny it in the face of what we see and know of thousands of persons living and dead who have exhibited self-sacrificing love of God and man, which puts to shame all common disciples. I have as little doubt that many unimmersed persons will be saved in the final day. It is not necessary in order to contend for scripture teaching on the subject of baptism to take the ground that God has tied his hands and put it out of his power to grant mercy to any who have been misled in regard to that ordinance. He has bound us, but he has not bound himself; except that he is bound to do what he has promised. He has not bound himself to do no more than he has promised. Don't injure the cause of truth by taking positions which rob God of the power to be merciful.

Yours fraternally,
J.W. McGarvey"

(Gospel Advocate [vol 37 [December 12, 1895], 790).

Now I wonder if McGarvey is one of those "apostate change agents" that Jackson was talking about “brother …” But I think McGarvey has some pretty wise words here. We do not have to become folks who rob God of mercy in order to present the biblical theology of baptism. Baptism is, after all, about God's mercy and grace -- to present it as otherwise is to present an untruth.

__________

Concluding Thoughts

I want to recommend an outstanding resource by my friend Stan Helton. Stan has done a yeoman's task sifting through nearly all the articles published on the textual issue of Mark 16 in the Stone Campbell Movement. See his article "Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20" in Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994): 33-52. I give him credit for first calling my attention to McGarvey's maturing views.

Read More

A Talk With McGarvey on Books, Reading & Preachers

Greetings from the land of Saguaros and Scorpions. It is a marvelous day here in the desert. Bright sunshine, snow capped mountains, majestic cacti and even a few coyotes have been seen this morning.

I have watched discussion on books and study come and go by and have been struck by how different the lists look when compared to say the lists that either Alexander Campbell or J. W. McGarvey recommended to preachers. In 1883, J. W. McGarvey appeared on the Missouri Christian Lectureship in Independence. He addressed the gathering on "Preacher's Method's." This is an outstanding presentation by McGarvey and shows that the expectations placed on preachers in the 19th century Stone-Campbell movement were seemingly different than in many places today.

McGarvey begins his speech by exhorting every preacher to "continue to grow" lest "inevitable decay" sets in. For McGarvey every preacher needed a "method" that included four areas:

1) a system of study of the Scriptures themselves
2) a system of study of books to deepen study of the Scriptures
3) a system of preparing for the pulpit
4) and finally a system to remain faithful in these other areas of study

McGarvey recognizes there are more ways than one to approach the biblical text, but "historically" and "devotionally" are highlighted (see Kingdom Come, 79-92 for Lipscomb's & Harding's views on these same matters). McGarvey stresses "historical" study of entire books themselves in their original context ... and the original language. To do this we must 1) simply read the entire book through beginning to end repeatedly and getting the "flow" of the book; 2) produce an outline of the book that reflects your grasp of the flow of the work looking for "transitions" especially; 3) and the preacher must master the historical background of the book to ground the exegesis. This includes understanding the "circumstances [i.e occasion] under which it was written, and the influences at work upon the mind of the author." To do this McGarvey notes most preachers will need other sources for help. McGarvey has very high standards that he holds up for the preachers in restoration churches: "Complete, systematic and exact information is what our calling demands, and this we must as soon as possible acquire."

McGarvey recognizes that what he calls for is a "laborious process" and many will be tempted to basically cheat or skimp. The failure to do this was however, in McGarvey's view, "the greatest defect" in the lives of preachers. These brothers "who lack this industry must remain contented with a very imperfect knowledge." McGarvey even questions if they should be preaching! Exegetical study, which McGarvey calls "historical study" must be a deliberate way of life for the minister. Indeed congregations have a right to not only expect this of them but to demand it.

Every preacher, every one of them, McGarvey insists should be concerned with exegesis including textual criticism in his historical study of the text ... even those that do not know Hebrew or Greek. Sounding a different note than heard in some quarters today he opined:

"As a kind of concluding remark to this part of my lecture, that in all of our study of the Scriptures we must constantly consult the original if we can, and that we must by all means use the best version. The Canterbury revision of the New Testament should now totally supplant the King James version, because it is a great improvement as a version, but because it is the only representative in English of the corrected Greek text. A man is not safe in venturing upon the exegesis of a single passage by the aid of the other version."

McGarvey next expounds, in his lecture, on his advice for the preacher to develop a system of study of books to aid the deeper understanding and exegetical study of THE book. He opens it up with the frank confession: "There is a well known prejudice against the use of Commentaries." McGarvey did not share this opinion. Not only does McGarvey see that it is implicitly the height of arrogance on the part of most would be preachers but also sheer foolishness.

"The man who attempts to gain a knowledge of the Bible by his own unaided powers, while the aid furnished by a multitude of learned predecessors is at hand, seems to declare himself the equal in exegetical power of all who have gone before him. In no other department of human study do we reject the aid of our fellow-students; why should we reject it in this?"

So McGarvey confronts the arrogance that many of us ministers fight by thrusting the question of humility in the face of the student of the word. Do we "declare [ourselves] equal in exegetical power of all who have gone before ..." Gets to the heart of the matter. But good commentaries perform at least four services to the serious student of the word according to McGarvey:

1) They "guard against blunders." McGarvey was of the opinion that "the most egregious blunders are those committed by men of inferior learning or judgment who interpret the Scriptures without aid." A really good commentary helps keep the student or preacher honest as well as guards against really bad interpretation!!

2) They are sources of "multitudes ... of information throwing floods of light upon important passages." McGarvey declares "no man can afford to decline the use of these gathered treasures."

3) A good commentary performs a third role according to McGarvey, a good commentary does not simply confirm what we think or make us comfortable in our ways. Rather a good commentary "awakens thought." He says pointedly "everyone WORTH CONSULTING presents the subject in some new phase ... it compels us to think again over the whole ground." A good commentary will guard against a religious version of inbreeding!

4) The final function of a good commentary is that they "do in the main give us the right interpretation of passages, and the right application of those ..."

At this point in the lecture McGarvey sort of pauses. He wants the student, the preacher, to have more than commentaries. But it will also pay for us to ask what KIND of commentary did he recommend? He tells us explicitly. He is forceful on this point too. The preacher should "procure two or more" of what he calls "standard" commentaries on "every portion of Scripture." Further he says

"In making selections, always choose from the more recent rather than the older works. In all departments of literature immense advances are being made on the knowledge and methods of former times, and in no department are they more rapid than in the interpretation and illustration of the Bible."

Get a book that is abreast of the latest information. One that is informed by the best recent scholarship. He says the books the preacher seeks should "be the best commentaries in English." Thankfully McGarvey tells who and what he thought those commentaries were for his day. It is most enlightening given the trend in most preaching schools that McGarvey does not list a single commentary written by a member of the Stone-Campbell movement ... INCLUDING HIS OWN! The preacher, the student of the word, needed the works of these men:

1) Lange
2) Ellicot ("who produces some of the finest specimens of grammatical exegesis")
3) the towering figure of J. B. Lightfoot who in McGarvey's opinion was "the finest
in the way of profound historical research")

Missing is any mention of even Alexander Campbell's stuff. McGarvey's Commentary on Acts did not make the list. Lard on Romans did not. This is, in retrospect, fascinating. He was on guard against the ever subtle creeping in of tunnel vision and sectarianism.

But as I pointed out, McGarvey thought other works were equally important as standard commentaries. He lists Smith's Bible Dictionary, which wold be an equivalent of the Anchor Bible Dictionary of today. In his mind it "contains the cream of all knowledge possessed by the most cultivated minds in Great Britain on Bible themes." Every preacher needed Conybeare & Howson's Life and Epistles of Paul, they need Rawlinson's History of the Seven Ancient Monarchies to dig into the "Old Testament." Pressense' Life of Jesus, and his Early Years of Christianity along with "Canon Farrar's Life of Jesus, His Life and Epistles of Paul are to be found in the library of serious preachers. McGarvey believed the preacher should grasp the history of the Bible and the state of contemporary research as it bears on textual criticism. He places this in the field of "evidences."

"The study, then, of the state of the Greek and Hebrew text, by the aid of works on Biblical criticism, is the first task before the student of evidences."

And what kind of books should the preacher master to learn about this kind of stuff. We learned earlier in the lecture that McGarvey is critical not only of the King James Version but also its underlying text. So the preacher committed to a "method" in Bible study will have read, understood, and have in his library such ground breaking works of scholarship (for their day) as:

1) Tregelles' History of the Printed Text (of the English Bible)
2) Scrivener's Introduction to the Critical Study of the New Testament
3) and most unnerving for some today is Westcott & Hort's edition of the Greek text.

After the preacher has digested these works he "is prepared to study appreciatively Westcott's work on the Canon, "the most masterly work on the subject now extant in the English language."

In McGarvey's view the preacher should develop a method where he will "study the Scriptures" at a "fixed part of every day." Cultivating the habit of historical study, exegetical study every day for "over the course of a year he will be astonished at the result."

We would do well to remember that McGarvey is not lecturing those he intends to make into scholars! He is addressing ministers ... preachers!! He was not afraid to challenge the ministers with the "laborious" task of digging deeply in exegetical reverence into the written word of God. By the time he delivered this lecture, McGarvey was a household name in Stone-Campbell churches. He had already published commentaries on Acts, Matthew and Mark, and many other studies. Yet once again not one work of the "brethren" makes his list of recommended books to preachers. When we look at his views of what a good commentaries does for the student we understand why.

When we look at the authors he lists and the books named, McGarvey is unabashedly promoting the very best of contemporary scholarship upon "the brethren." He was not afraid of that scholarship. He was not afraid of books because his object was the pursuit of truth and not some already agreed upon position. In my view, and that is what it is, I think if McGarvey were alive today he would recommend books like F. F. Bruce's Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free; N. T. Wright (anything by him); Christopher Wright; Walter Brueggemann and others. I have given lists of books elsewhere but I think it is refreshing, enlightening and even challenging to know what some of the leading lights of yesteryear thought was worth owning and reading.

When McGarvey was given the chance to recommend a book he did not do what so many tend to do. He did not recommend something a hundred years old. He did not simply recommend "in house" writers. He recommended the "best in English." Nor did he even recommend his own commentary. Perhaps we can learn from this great student of the word ... perhaps we can profit from his wisdom.

He who has an ear let him hear,
Bobby Valent
Tucson, AZ

Read More

J. W. McGarvey: What is Valid Baptism?

The very mention of the name "J. W. McGarvey" inspires awe among many descendants of the Stoned-Campbell Movement. His name is synonymous with biblical scholarship among us. He courageously took on the liberals of his day in The Authorship of Deuteronomy. But he is most remembered for his Commentary on Acts. A work that some hold to this day to be the best study ever of Luke's second volume. Today he is cited in our intramural conflicts between progressives and conservatives, usually by the "conservatives." But who was McGarvey? What did he believe? He is rightly remembered for his scholarship. He is rightly honored as one who can help us understand deeper levels of the biblical text. He may not, however, if he were alive today fit snugly where some imagine he would. Let me use the issue of baptism to illustrate the point.

In McGarvey's day it was the rule, not the exception, that immersed believers from Baptist or Methodist churches were welcomed into Stoned-Campbell churches without undergoing a rebaptism. This would have covered Alexander Campbell himself. Evangelistic reports from the period frequently highlight how many were "baptized" and then how many have embraced the "plea" to be only Christians. This latter category were folks from other churches that practiced believers baptism.

Periodically some one would raise the question (as Dr. John Thomas did in the 1830s but that is another story for another time) of this practice among "us." J. W. McGarvey was faced with this question in the American Christian Review in 1862. He asked "What is Valid Immersion?" There are those, McGarvey, admits who are confused on the subject of baptism. Sometimes due to the failure of the preacher they are not fully taught on the matter and believe "error" about the "ordinance." Does the belief of the error undo the candidate's obedience? Biblically, McGarvey argued, there are two conditions for the candidate to fulfill:

1) the candidate was commanded to believe [the gospel] and

2) the candidate was commanded to repent.

These were the commands to which God required obedience for valid baptism. A false or incorrect notion about the ordinance does not undo baptism. Why? Because "it belongs to God and not man." The blessings, or gifts, of baptism are not commands to be obeyed but rather grace that flows from the hand of God. So ...

"when the conditions [belief & repentance] are complied with, he will be as good as his word, and it would be most unreasonable to suppose that he would withhold the blessing simply because I do not know that I am entitled to it. A man, therefore, cannot forfeit the blessing by mere ignorance of the promise, unless a knowledge of the promise is found to be a condition of its fulfillment, which certainly will not be assumed by any reader of the New Testament."

After declaring what constitutes valid baptism ... a candidate coming in faith in the gospel and a penitent heart ... McGarvey turns to the prevailing practice of the Stoned-Campbell churches of accepting into fellowship immersed Baptists, Methodists and others. In fact, McGarvey presents us with a concrete example ...

"[S]uppose a Baptist presents himself for membership with us, and we attempt to decide upon the validity of his immersion. We find that he was a believer [condition #1], and a penitent [condition #2], before he was immersed. He did not make the confession in express terms, but it was because he was not required to so, the preacher having become satisfied of his faith through other evidence. He believed that his sins were pardoned before he was immersed, and said so; but this was a mistake, not an omission of any duty, unless it be the duty of understanding Scripture. But this duty is not peculiarly connected with immersion, and we have seen that its omission cannot invalidate the immersion ... it is most unreasonable to suppose that his sins are still unforgiven."

Since valid baptism consists in fulfilling two conditions (faith & repentance) McGarvey believed restoration churches were completely true to the Bible in the practice of welcoming all immersed believers in Christ as members of God's family. That is as real Christians. Just to make his point emphatic and clear McGarvey stated ...

"If I were to attempt [to rebaptize the candidate], I would be making him repeat a duty which he had already fully performed ... We conclude, with all confidence that the brethren have been doing right to receive into fellowship all who have with faith and repentance have been immersed and have since led a reputable Christian life."

One wonders if McGarvey had published his thoughts in 2009 and not a hundred years ago if he would still be thought as the greatest biblical expositor in our heritage. But from what I can tell, McGarvey's understanding is in harmony with the Scriptures ...

Read More