How did Mark 16:18 get into the Book of Mormon?

[_Nevo]

As far as I can tell, pretty well all of the New Testament quotations in the Book of Mormon are anachronistic, not just the "longer ending" of Mark. How did any New Testament passage get into the Book of Mormon? The likeliest explanation is that some modern person (whether Joseph Smith or the ghost of William Tyndale) put it there.

Is that conclusive proof that the Book of Mormon is a fake? I don't think so. It's not inconceivable to me that the risen Jesus actually said something like what is ascribed to him in Mark 16:15-18, and that he repeated a version of that charge in the New World.

[_Bazooka]

As far as I can tell, pretty well all of the New Testament quotations in the Book of Mormon are anachronistic, not just the "longer ending" of Mark. How did any New Testament passage get into the Book of Mormon? The likeliest explanation is that some modern person (whether Joseph Smith or the ghost of William Tyndale) put it there.

Is that conclusive proof that the Book of Mormon is a fake? I don't think so. It's not inconceivable to me that the risen Jesus actually said something like what is ascribed to him in Mark 16:15-18, and that he repeated a version of that charge in the New World.

It may not be conclusive in isolation! But when viewed as part of all the other anachronisms, it's pretty damned conclusive.

[_honorentheos]

Would you agree BC that IF it could be shown that Mark 16:9-20 was in fact a late scribal addition to the original manuscript that this would prove difficult for LDS apologists?

Sure. Apparently, it's a pretty big IF...

I tend to disagree with this on both counts. I don't think it's that big of a problem for LDS, and it's a might small IF.

First, the evidence for the Marcan appendix is substantial. Huckelberry and I went the rounds on that a while back, but the short version is that both internal evidence points to a different author than the rest of Mark and the two other synoptic gospels follow Mark in lock step up to 16:9 and then take radical turns in content. It seems very apparent that neither had a version of Mark that progressed past that point while compiling their narratives. At that point, both the authors of Luke and Matthew then include conflicting accounts of what followed showing two different likely oral traditions about the last moments of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. With the MA, we have three different versions of what may have happened that were in circulation some time in the middle 1st century CE.

So, getting the validity of the MA out of the way, here's why I don't think LDS necessarily need be as troubled by this as, say, second Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. That being, the source for the saying in both Mark 16:18 and the Book of Mormon is claimed to be the same person - Jesus of Nazareth. In the case of Second Isaiah, there is a sourcing problem that isn't necessarily the case here. Of course, the most parsimonious conclusion is that Joseph Smith used Mark to make up the story about Christ teaching the peoples of the New World, but there's nothing parsimonious about the Book of Mormon itself so why strain at that gnat if you're willing to swallow the camel?

[_mackay11]

I know nothing about scholars suspecting this verse in Mark was put in later, but, using the Book of Mormon timeline, wouldn't Moroni have written the passage we also find in Mark, sometime in the early 400's A.D.? I don't know when Mark (or whoever) wrote the Gospel of Mark that we find in the Bible, but wouldn't it have been roughly around 50-75 A.D. (quite a while before Moroni wrote his passage)? When do the scholars think the verse in question was added to the Gospel of Mark?

EDITED to fix dates and authors.

Reading in context an apologist would say that Moroni is quoting from the words of Jesus during his visit to the Nephites:

For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry, yea, and also to all his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude...

So a literal reading of this is that Moroni is quoting a passage in the record of Nephi(3). It's a passage that his father, Mormon, excluded from the original record for some reason. There is absolutely no reference to this final send off message in 3 Nephi.

Mormon 9:22-24 is an almost exact match of Mark 16:15-19

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Mormon 9:22 For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry, yea, and also to all his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;
23 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned;
24 And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover (the entire section,

Mark 16:9-20 is considered "unoriginal" by many of the scholars who have studied it.

Even BYU's Lincoln H. Blumell concludes that Mark 16:9–20 is ‘Likely Added (Unoriginal)’ http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... ol=3&id=73
See section: ‘11. Mark 16:9–20 KJV’ (page 24) and the final conclusion on page 60 .

Most conclude that it was added in around 200AD as a way of giving Mark a more impressive and prophetic conclusion. Almost all of the "signs" that follow believers are fulfilled in Acts. Given the signs were probably written after they actually happened it's a nice trick.

So rough timeline of when they are claimed to have been written:

Mark 16:9-20 = around 70AD if Mark wrote it or around 200AD if added later
Mormon 9:22-24 = either around 400AD if added by Moroni, quoting Nephi (3) or of course in 1829 depending on what you believe

I've seen a surprising theory from an apologist that accepts the 200AD unoriginal addition, but has said that maybe Moroni was brought the revised version of the Mark manuscript (flown over from Greece) and Moroni added it. Bonkers!

[_mackay11]

As far as I can tell, pretty well all of the New Testament quotations in the Book of Mormon are anachronistic, not just the "longer ending" of Mark. How did any New Testament passage get into the Book of Mormon? The likeliest explanation is that some modern person (whether Joseph Smith or the ghost of William Tyndale) put it there.

Is that conclusive proof that the Book of Mormon is a fake? I don't think so. It's not inconceivable to me that the risen Jesus actually said something like what is ascribed to him in Mark 16:15-18, and that he repeated a version of that charge in the New World.

I always appreciate your engagement both here and on MDDB Nevo, you seem among the most reasonable on both sides of the discussion (I'm canard78 on MDDB, but haven't posted in a while).

So here's a question...

What are the odds of the following process producing the exact same words:

Jesus spoke these parting words in the old world, these were added by an unknown scribe using an unknown source in Greek (?). These were copied and re-copied for another 1400 years until they were translated into English by some poet translator working for King James.

Jesus spoke these parting words in the new world, recorded by Nephi 3, copied over by Moroni, translated in 1829 by Joseph Smith.

A tight translation advocate can simply say: "God can put whatever words he likes on the stone, deal with it" (even if that includes something was never actually said in the first place).

[Guest]

As far as I can tell, pretty well all of the New Testament quotations in the Book of Mormon are anachronistic, not just the "longer ending" of Mark. How did any New Testament passage get into the Book of Mormon? The likeliest explanation is that some modern person (whether Joseph Smith or the ghost of William Tyndale) put it there.

Is that conclusive proof that the Book of Mormon is a fake? I don't think so. It's not inconceivable to me that the risen Jesus actually said something like what is ascribed to him in Mark 16:15-18, and that he repeated a version of that charge in the New World.

I find such assertions to be rather baseless, purely subjective and lacking in any credible proof. Now don't get me wrong. I don't think much of scripture is very representative of what actually happened or what was said just because of the fact human-beings were involved. However, I think such speculations, while in general are true, are not provable except in a general sense. Certainly in this case, unless and until someone can produce early copies of Mark showing that this was later added, it will remain purely subjective nonsense.

You are also failing to address the attack here made by Craig. The attack is that the added scripture wasn't inspired, so why did uninspired stuff added by some unknown scribe end up in the Book of Mormon?!? You just do some hand-waving and try to make it go away, which you fail at. Stating that it is an obviously uninspired addition in Mark and then stating that it is later made inspired when it appears in the Book of Mormon is utter nonsense.

[Guest]

You are also failing to address the attack here made by Craig.

Not an attack...just a question. It's just yet another nail in Mormonism's coffin that seems to counter its claims of being what it says it is. The only reasonable explanation that seems to explain this inclusion is that the Book of Mormon is a fictional book written by Joseph Smith. How else could a scribal Bible manuscript addition find its way into the Book of Mormon?

[_Nevo]

What are the odds of the following process producing the exact same words:

Jesus spoke these parting words in the old world, these were added by an unknown scribe using an unknown source in Greek (?). These were copied and re-copied for another 1400 years until they were translated into English by some poet translator working for King James.

Jesus spoke these parting words in the new world, recorded by Nephi 3, copied over by Moroni, translated in 1829 by Joseph Smith.

I'd say the probability of such a process producing "the exact same words" is pretty high given that Joseph Smith had access to a KJV when translating the Book of Mormon.

[_Nevo]

I find such assertions to be rather baseless, purely subjective and lacking in any credible proof.

Which of my assertions are you referring to?

You are also failing to address the attack here made by Craig. The attack is that the added scripture wasn't inspired, so why did uninspired stuff added by some unknown scribe end up in the Book of Mormon?!? You just do some hand-waving and try to make it go away, which you fail at. Stating that it is an obviously uninspired addition in Mark and then stating that it is later made inspired when it appears in the Book of Mormon is utter nonsense.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Tobin. You claim that I was dismissive of Craig's "attack" that the longer ending of Mark was uninspired? Where? I didn't say anything about that. And where did I state that "it is an obviously uninspired addition in Mark" and that "it is later made inspired when it appears in the Book of Mormon"? I never made either statement. What are you smoking?

For the record, I do not think the longer ending of Mark is "uninspired," even if it is not original to the Gospel of Mark. As Lincoln Blumell notes in the article mackay11 cited, "If it is not the original ending to Mark, then at the very least it probably contains some of the characteristics of the original ending (i.e., postresurrection appearances and a charge to spread the gospel)." I don't really care who wrote it, whether it was Mark or a later scribe drawing on different Jesus traditions. It is scripture all the same.

[_Tobin]

I find such assertions to be rather baseless, purely subjective and lacking in any credible proof.

Which of my assertions are you referring to?

I'm referring to the OP or the

"longer ending" of Mark.

if you'd like. The reason I stated my objection to it is there is no proof it is true. It is subjective nonsense. Basically, it is some Biblical so-and-so thought such-and-such. That doesn't prove a thing.

You are also failing to address the attack here made by Craig. The attack is that the added scripture wasn't inspired, so why did uninspired stuff added by some unknown scribe end up in the Book of Mormon?!? You just do some hand-waving and try to make it go away, which you fail at. Stating that it is an obviously uninspired addition in Mark and then stating that it is later made inspired when it appears in the Book of Mormon is utter nonsense.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Tobin. You claim that I was dismissive of Craig's "attack" that the longer ending of Mark was uninspired? Where? I didn't say anything about that. And where did I state that "it is an obviously uninspired addition in Mark" and that "it is later made inspired when it appears in the Book of Mormon"? I never made either statement. What are you smoking?

I'm referring to what you said:

Is that conclusive proof that the Book of Mormon is a fake? I don't think so. It's not inconceivable to me that the risen Jesus actually said something like what is ascribed to him in Mark 16:15-18, and that he repeated a version of that charge in the New World.

What I said is that seems like hand-waving to me. Your response that follows makes that even more clear.

For the record, I do not think the longer ending of Mark is "uninspired," even if it is not original to the Gospel of Mark. As Lincoln Blumell notes in the article mackay11 cited, "If it is not the original ending to Mark, then at the very least it probably contains some of the characteristics of the original ending (i.e., postresurrection appearances and a charge to spread the gospel)." I don't really care who wrote it, whether it was Mark or a later scribe drawing on different Jesus traditions. It is scripture all the same.

The reason I think it is nonsense is now all scribes are inspired to speak for God (your assertion here). The problem I have with that is the scribe is deceiving us about who actually wrote the text and was not witness to the actual events. Do you really consider deception an inspired godly practice? And if that is true, why even have prophets and apostles at all?!? It would have been easier for God to just have inspired the scribes (since they ultimately were writing it anyway) to make it all up (and according to you it is just as good).