New Testament And Book Of Mormon Parallels (Mark 16:Mormon 9)

[canard78]

I started reading the Book of Mormon aged 7, and have loved it ever since. It remains one of the firmest foundations of my gospel testimony.

I recently started studying the sources for the Book of Mormon writers (Nephi, Mormon's sources I mean).

I found Sorenson’s article ‘Mormon’s Sources’ fascinating. (http://maxwellinstit...20&num=2&id=607)

I have also been looking at the range of Biblical and Hebraic parallels and came something that I’d welcome your input on.

Mark 16 and Mormon 9

Mark 16:15-18 has the final words of Jesus before his ascendancy. Mormon 9:22 then tells us that Jesus had told his disciples in the New World, in the hearing of the multitude, the same thing. Mormon’s account has Jesus using identical wording to Mark 16:15-18. This isn’t a problem per se. The 3 Nephi account of Christ’s visit to the ‘New World’ has multiple occasions of him using the very same wording to the ‘Old World’ – the Sermon on the Mount is one such example. I see no problem in Jesus having a consistent message on both sides of the world.

It would also be reasonable to find a parallel in his last words to disciples on both sides of the world. There is however a challenge to this parallel.

Many scholars (including at least one from BYU) think Mark 16:9-20 was added much later (up to 200 years later) and is not Marcan. A detailed article can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

There are multiple theories about why it might have been added (such as someone else finding Mark's ending in 16:8 too abrupt and adding a summary of their own from other sources). 16:8 ends with the women leaving the tomb having been told of the resurrection, but no record of the resurrected Christ appearing. Many different denominations and versions of the Bible do not consider this 9-20 to be Marcan. Bart D. Ehrman proposes the motives for the addition as: “But then the Gospel ends in Codex Sinaiticus and other manuscripts by saying the women fled from the tomb and didn’t say anything to anyone because they were afraid, period. That's where the Gospel ends. So nobody finds out about it, the disciples don’t learn about it, the disciples never see Jesus after the resurrection, that’s the end of the story. But later scribes couldn’t handle this abrupt ending and they added the 12 verses people find in the King James Bible or other Bibles in which Jesus does appear to his disciples.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ible/pip/9vwi1/ and http://en.wikipedia....olarly_opinions

BYU's assistant professor of Ancient Scripture, Lincoln H. Blumell concludes that Mark 16:9–20 is ‘Likely Added (Unoriginal)’

http://maxwellinstit...es/?vol=3&id=73

See section: ‘11. Mark 16:9–20 KJV’ (page 24) and the final conclusion on page 60 .

For me, when reading 9-20, it comes across as a quick summary of what other gospels and Acts conveyed in more detail. Mormon on the other hand says his quote to be from Jesus’ visit in 3 Nephi.

A comparison of the two sections shows a very close parallel:

Bold = identical , Bold italics = similar

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them [talking to his disciples, my note], 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

• Was this section of Mark 16 in the original – or is it added to enhance the climax of the final chapter of the gospel that was initially considered as taking first place in the sequence? If it wasn’t in the original version of Mark, was it added to be other writings of Mark or by someone else? Did Jesus actually say this and it’s accurately recorded in both Mark and Mormon. Are the scholars are wrong? Even if it’s not in early versions of the Bible text, has it been later added from an accurate alternative source?
  
• Where did the notion of the signs that follow believers come from? Are these signs and promises still valid today? There are some strong parallels to Acts with the speaking in tongues and particularly Acts 28, when Paul is bitten by a snake. This could be either seen as fulfillment of prophesy, or a source of inspiration for an interpolator's addition to Mark 16.
  
• If Mark 16 isn’t an accurate record is it reasonable for Mormon to use an identical phrase?
  

• Why do we have no record of this promise anywhere else? Why is there no reference to this promise in the actual account in 3 Nephi?
  
• 3 Nephi does not mention this promise or instruction. One BYU writer addresses this and the Mark 9-20 issue by saying the Mormon reference corroborates Mark and gives the detail of what was missed by 3 Nephi’s version: “Many biblical scholars, noting that the text of Mark 16:9–20 was not found in the earliest extant manuscripts, have concluded that these verses were added to the text in the second century by an editor named Aristion (or Ariston) and that these passages are therefore not “Markan” (Interpreter’s Bible 7:915–16). But the Book of Mormon confirms that the Lord indeed taught these principles. It undoubtedly parallels what the Savior taught in the Old World. We also have a briefer account of these teachings the Lord gave to Mormon as he abridged the Jaredite record (Ether 4:18).”
  http://rsc.byu.edu/a...-every-creature (Bruce A. Van Orden, professor of Church history and doctrine (BYU)
  
• He references 3 Nephi 11:33-34 which has some limited parallels:
  

Mark 16:16/Mormon 9:23 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

3 Nephi 11:33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

• It’s possible the full instruction and promise was said by Jesus and not recorded in 3 Nephi. In 3 Nephi 26:6-12, Mormon says he’s only written a 100^th of what was said but the rest was written on the plates of Nephi. He was going to write more but the Lord commanded him not to so Mormon only writes what he’s been commanded. The greater things are withheld and instead we are left with a lesser part which he taught. If we prove our faith then the greater things will be made manifest. It may be, for example, that temple endowments were taught to the people, in which case, today there is indeed a place where the greater things are taught once our faith has been tried.
  
• However… Mormon’s 9:23 quote is evidently not one of ‘greater’ things, given he was allowed to use it in Mormon 9 – so why not include in 3 Nephi too? “100^th part” limitation again may prevail?
  

• Why does the phrase ‘go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature’ appear in Mark only (possibly interpolated in 2^nd C or later) but no-where else in the Bible and then only in latter-day publications: Book of Mormon and multiple D&C references?
  

• The phrase appears nowhere else in the bible. But it is used a lot in the BoM and D&C:
  

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them [talking to his disciples, my note], 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.

D&C 112:28 …go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel unto every creature who has not received it;

29 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

D&C 68:8 Go ye into all the world, preach the gospel to every creature

9 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.

10 And he that believeth shall be blest with signs following, even as it is written.

D&C 84:62 …go ye into all the world; and unto whatsoever place ye cannot go ye shall send, that the testimony may go from you into all the world unto every creature.

63 And as I said unto mine apostles, even so I say unto you, for you are mine apostles, even God’s high priests; ye are they whom my Father hath given me; ye are my friends;

64 Therefore, as I said unto mine apostles I say unto you again, that every soul who believeth on your words, and is baptized by water for the remission of sins, shall receive the Holy Ghost.

65 And these signs shall follow them that believe—

66 In my name they shall do many wonderful works;

67 In my name they shall cast out devils;

68 In my name they shall heal the sick;

69 In my name they shall open the eyes of the blind, and unstop the ears of the deaf;

70 And the tongue of the dumb shall speak;

71 And if any man shall administer poison unto them it shall not hurt them;

72 And the poison of a serpent shall not have power to harm them.

73 But a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not boast themselves of these things, neither speak them before the world; for these things are given unto you for your profit and for salvation.

74 Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father’s kingdom where my Father and I am.

Some further questions on the parallels:

• With all of these parallels and verbatim quotes should we simply consider God as the author of our faith who gave these words in a similar language to the KJV to make them fit as a stronger united gospel message?
  
• Did Joseph’s translations and revelations in BoM and D&C use similar Mark 16 wording because he was translating and therefore used the phrases he was family with in the translation process? This enters the debate of the tight or loose translation process – more of which can be had here: http://en.fairmormon...mon/Translation and here: http://en.fairmormon..._Book_of_Mormon
  
• Should we just take the approach of some writers who are fairly dismissive of this whole issue or parallels and simply say ‘God can write whatever he likes’ so it doesn’t matter where the sources and parallels take you? This tone is found in some of Bowman’s “I have an answer”: http://books.google....giarism&f=false
  

My summary and an invite for further input from the board:

Mark and Mormon present a challenging parallel. Mark’s section is generally accepted to have been added by other writers long after Mark completed his account, including at least one BYU professor (but in an article that doesn't link directly to the issue in Mormon). Mormon is also referencing a parting message that wasn’t actually in the original 3 Nephi account

Assuming Joseph as translator, the possible explanations are:

• Jesus did actually say this, twice, in the same words. It’s accurately recorded in both books. The early bible versions missing this in Mark are simply bad copies and the versions including it are more accurate copies.
  
• Mormon was inspired to use the exact same language as the Mark ‘interpolator.’ They were, after all, writing within 100 years of each other, albeit on different sides of the world. Regardless of whether Jesus said these or not, both writers recorded it in the same way.
  
• Joseph found a passage during his translation that reminded him of the NT account and used similar language to translate a message that was already familiar to him. Mormon may have used entirely different language on the plates, but Joseph used words familiar to him as translator.
  
• God is the author of our faith and if he wants a message to be repeated perfectly to be ‘two or three witnesses,’ then he has the power to ensure that happens, regardless of the means and tools he uses.
  

Out of interest - would you lean towards 1, 2, 3 or 4? (I've attached this as a PDF as the scriptures are easier to compare in tables).

Mark 16-Mormon 9.pdf

[Nathair/|\]

Assuming that Mark didn't write those words, must we then believe that Jesus didn't speak them and someone else wrote them down so the later "interpolator" could add them to Mark's account?

[canard78]

Assuming that Mark didn't write those words, must we then believe that Jesus didn't speak them and someone else wrote them down so the later "interpolator" could add them to Mark's account?

This is a reasonable question - it's inconclusive whether the "interpolator" (if there was one) was taking from old sources or making it up. The scholarly opinion is divided. Having said that, my testimony of the Book of Mormon is not based on scholarly evidence either and it's not been a problem!

[Calm]

BYU's assistant professor of Ancient Scripture, Lincoln H. Blumell......

Oh my gosh, I feel old. Lincoln was a kid in my old Canadian ward.

[canard78]

Oh my gosh, I feel old. Lincoln was a kid in my old Canadian ward.

Lol, maybe you could ask his opinion on Mark 16 in the context of Mormon 9

[Calm]

We really do need to have him over to dinner one of these days.

[mfbukowski]

Oh my gosh, I feel old. Lincoln was a kid in my old Canadian ward.

I know what you mean. I taught a kid in seminary who was a class mate and good friend of Mark Wright the up and coming Book of Mormon scholar who now also does tours with David Bokovoy- they are all about the same age.

[canard78]

@calmoriah and @mfbukowski, glad to have triggered some happy memories

Out of interest, do either of you have any perspective on the question of the match between Mark and Mormon?

Having done as much reading around it as I could I came across a couple of critical sources citing it as "plagiarism proof." The irony of that of course is that when mentioned on other Christian critical sites they first have to 'discredit' the perfection of the Bible in order to discredit the Book of Mormon.

On my mission a favourite riposte from EVs to the Book of Mormon was Revelations 22:18-19 "let no man add to this book." In order for them to complain about Mormon 9, they first have to demonstrate that Mark 16:9-16 is not original and has been "added by man." As a result the critics tend to be a bit tentative. I don't think, for example, that the Tanners feel able to cite it.

On the other hand, given we're more comfortable making the "as translated correctly/corrupted by the hands of men" point, it's something I feel more uncomfortable quickly dismissing.

[mfbukowski]

@calmoriah and @mfbukowski, glad to have triggered some happy memories

Out of interest, do either of you have any perspective on the question of the match between Mark and Mormon?

Having done as much reading around it as I could I came across a couple of critical sources citing it as "plagiarism proof." The irony of that of course is that when mentioned on other Christian critical sites they first have to 'discredit' the perfection of the Bible in order to discredit the Book of Mormon.

On my mission a favourite riposte from EVs to the Book of Mormon was Revelations 22:18-19 "let no man add to this book." In order for them to complain about Mormon 9, they first have to demonstrate that Mark 16:9-16 is not original and has been "added by man." As a result the critics tend to be a bit tentative. I don't think, for example, that the Tanners feel able to cite it.

On the other hand, given we're more comfortable making the "as translated correctly/corrupted by the hands of men" point, it's something I feel more uncomfortable quickly dismissing.

Well, straight up, my views on all that are probably "out there" to literalists.

I think the only possible way scripture can be regarded as "scripture" is to rely on spiritual confirmations. I do not care about Book of Mormon origins quite honestly. I believe it to be an ancient work translated as we all believe by Joseph Smith etc but that is not important to me.

I KNOW on the other hand that God wants me to accept it as scripture because he has told me so. I kind of don't care where it came from.

I look at the Bible the same way- it's a bunch of stories put together by folks with good intentions (hopefully) who carried them on down through the ages. I look upon it as "inspired" and "revelations" however the only way I can know that is by spiritual confirmation. Intellectually I am about the most skeptical person on earth about everything except that I know that I could not have faked or dreamed up the spiritual experiences I have had which tell me that God wants me here, as a Mormon.

How God handles his business is his business and all I know is that if I don't follow what he wants for me I will be on my own- and I have tried that and it didn't work so well.

So I kinda quit worry about the details of such matters, quite frankly. The problem with the Tanners et al. is that the Bible cannot be supported through historical evidence as being anything more than tall tales and they are on thin ice trying to think that they can have some kind of intellectual proof that it is God's word or God Breathed or whatever it is supposed to be.

There is no possible evidence that a person has ever come back from the dead based on history. There is no possible historical evidence that a human being was the "Son of God" and that by his death could "save the world" from its sins.

Not possible- no evidence- for all anyone can tell intellectually it's a bunch of fables.

And THAT is the absolute ROOT of the tree of Christianity. If that is not true, NONE of it is true. And that has to be based on testimony alone- nothing rational will tell you that a man came back from the dead after paying for your sins.

So if you have to accept the root based on spiritual testimony, why worry about some apparent inconsistency that you don't even know for sure is inconsistent- on some sub-branch leading to twigs way high up on the tree? If the root is based on testimony and nothing more- you are going to worry about some twig?

Anyway, that's the way I see these questions.

Scholars beat these issues into the ground and that's how they learn their living. That's nice if you want to live in a library and study ancient languages all day- but that's not my cup of tea.

If I had to do that, all I would be thinking about is why I was doing so and whether or not it was a waste of time to bother with picayune details when the whole enterprise is potentially based on a sandy foundation in the first place, and if it was, to deal with the foundation issues first.

That's kind of the way I see it. Not much help probably in answering your question I am afraid.

[mfbukowski]

Canard

The above said, I kind of like your last two bullet points in the OP and that is probably how I would answer the question after my long explanation above

Edited November 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

“Many biblical scholars, noting that the text of Mark 16:9–20 was not found in the earliest extant manuscripts, have concluded that these verses were added to the text in the second century..."

Does anyone see a problem with this sentence.

"Many Biblical scholars" -- yawn.

"was not found in the earliest extant manuscripts" This is the fatal flaw in this reasoning. The dating of a manuscript has nothing to do with the original text, While it is interesting, we try to go to the Urtext, or closest to the original text.

The BOM gives us a benchmark to judge the text. The tail does not wag the dog, so we do not judge the BOM by what "many scholars" conclude using the dating process of texts, but vise versa.

[canard78]

Does anyone see a problem with this sentence.

"Many Biblical scholars" -- yawn.

"was not found in the earliest extant manuscripts" This is the fatal flaw in this reasoning. The dating of a manuscript has nothing to do with the original text, While it is interesting, we try to go to the Urtext, or closest to the original text.

The BOM gives us a benchmark to judge the text. The tail does not wag the dog, so we do not judge the BOM by what "many scholars" conclude using the dating process of texts, but vise versa.

That's based on the presumption that the Book of Mormon is the 'the dog.' I appreciate that it's "most correct" status gives it a position of authority. But that doesn't make it a perfect book. Nor does it mean that every word was delivered by some "floating quill" transcription. If it were, then there wouldn't have been so many corrections in later editions.

I think the presumption that all scholarly efforts in history or in science must be wrong if they contradict our current attitudes to the gospel is limiting and unneeded. For example, many members are comfortable not being advocates of a "young earth" and accepting the notion of "pre-adamites." We don't have to take everything literally for it to have a spiritual impact in our lives.

As I stated in the OP, I consider the BoM to be of divine origins. But I also find its sources interesting.

[canard78]

Does anyone see a problem with this sentence.

"Many Biblical scholars" -- yawn.

"was not found in the earliest extant manuscripts" This is the fatal flaw in this reasoning. The dating of a manuscript has nothing to do with the original text, While it is interesting, we try to go to the Urtext, or closest to the original text.

The BOM gives us a benchmark to judge the text. The tail does not wag the dog, so we do not judge the BOM by what "many scholars" conclude using the dating process of texts, but vise versa.

Cdowis, I referenced this thread in the KJV thread. I've just noticed that you had already replied at the time to this one.

As mentioned, Mark 16 remains a smoking gun.

It also serves as a good illustration of how some apologists approach things: "I know X to be true, therefore Y must be wrong. I will ignore or refute all other evidence to the contrary." This goes as far as the suggestions that an angel brought Mormon/Moroni a copy of the NT. One of the later ones with Mark 16:9-20 included of course. Already translated. They referenced Brant Gardner for this idea. That would hugely surprise me.

[tagriffy]

Cdowis, I referenced this thread in the KJV thread. I've just noticed that you had already replied at the time to this one.

As mentioned, Mark 16 remains a smoking gun.

It also serves as a good illustration of how some apologists approach things: "I know X to be true, therefore Y must be wrong. I will ignore or refute all other evidence to the contrary." This goes as far as the suggestions that an angel brought Mormon/Moroni a copy of the NT. One of the later ones with Mark 16:9-20 included of course. Already translated. They referenced Brant Gardner for this idea. That would hugely surprise me.

That would hugely surprise me to. The Brant I know does not engage in such idle speculations. He would have either sought to place the verses in a Mesoamerican context or at most suggest Joseph shaped the underlying text to conform to the longer ending. Possibly both.

[Robert F. Smith]

..........................................

Mark 16 and Mormon 9

Mark 16:15-18 has the final words of Jesus before his ascendancy. Mormon 9:22 then tells us that Jesus had told his disciples in the New World, in the hearing of the multitude, the same thing. Mormon’s account has Jesus using identical wording to Mark 16:15-18. This isn’t a problem per se. The 3 Nephi account of Christ’s visit to the ‘New World’ has multiple occasions of him using the very same wording to the ‘Old World’ – the Sermon on the Mount is one such example. I see no problem in Jesus having a consistent message on both sides of the world.

...............................................

There are multiple theories about why it might have been added (such as someone else finding Mark's ending in 16:8 too abrupt and adding a summary of their own from other sources). 16:8 ends with the women leaving the tomb having been told of the resurrection, but no record of the resurrected Christ appearing. Many different denominations and versions of the Bible do not consider this 9-20 to be Marcan. Bart D. Ehrman proposes the motives for the addition as: “But then the Gospel ends in Codex Sinaiticus and other manuscripts by saying the women fled from the tomb and didn’t say anything to anyone because they were afraid, period. That's where the Gospel ends. So nobody finds out about it, the disciples don’t learn about it, the disciples never see Jesus after the resurrection, that’s the end of the story. But later scribes couldn’t handle this abrupt ending and they added the 12 verses people find in the King James Bible or other Bibles in which Jesus does appear to his disciples.”

.....................................

For me, when reading 9-20, it comes across as a quick summary of what other gospels and Acts conveyed in more detail. Mormon on the other hand says his quote to be from Jesus’ visit in 3 Nephi.

A comparison of the two sections shows a very close parallel:

• section of Mark 16 in the original – or is it added to enhance the climax of the final chapter of the gospel that was initially considered as taking first place in the sequence? If it wasn’t in the original version of Mark, was it added to be other writings of Mark or by someone else? Did Jesus actually say this and it’s accurately recorded in both Mark and Mormon. Are the scholars are wrong? Even if it’s not in early versions of the Bible text, has it been later added from an accurate alternative source?
  
• Where did the notion of the signs that follow believers come from? Are these signs and promises still valid today? There are some strong parallels to Acts with the speaking in tongues and particularly Acts 28, when Paul is bitten by a snake. This could be either seen as fulfillment of prophesy, or a source of inspiration for an interpolator's addition to Mark 16.
  
• If Mark 16 isn’t an accurate record is it reasonable for Mormon to use an identical phrase?
  
• Why do we have no record of this promise anywhere else? Why is there no reference to this promise in the actual account in 3 Nephi?
  
• 3 Nephi does not mention this promise or instruction. One BYU writer addresses this and the Mark 9-20 issue by saying the Mormon reference corroborates Mark and gives the detail of what was missed by 3 Nephi’s version: “Many biblical scholars, noting that the text of Mark 16:9–20 was not found in the earliest extant manuscripts, have concluded that these verses were added to the text in the second century by an editor named Aristion (or Ariston) and that these passages are therefore not “Markan” (Interpreter’s Bible 7:915–16). But the Book of Mormon confirms that the Lord indeed taught these principles. It undoubtedly parallels what the Savior taught in the Old World. We also have a briefer account of these teachings the Lord gave to Mormon as he abridged the Jaredite record (Ether 4:18).”
  
• ............................
  
• He references 3 Nephi 11:33-34 which has some limited parallels:
  

.............................................

• It’s possible the full instruction and promise was said by Jesus and not recorded in 3 Nephi. In 3 Nephi 26:6-12, Mormon says he’s only written a 100^th of what was said but the rest was written on the plates of Nephi. He was going to write more but the Lord commanded him not to so Mormon only writes what he’s been commanded. The greater things are withheld and instead we are left with a lesser part which he taught. If we prove our faith then the greater things will be made manifest. It may be, for example, that temple endowments were taught to the people, in which case, today there is indeed a place where the greater things are taught once our faith has been tried.
  
• However… Mormon’s 9:23 quote is evidently not one of ‘greater’ things, given he was allowed to use it in Mormon 9 – so why not include in 3 Nephi too? “100^th part” limitation again may prevail?
  

• Why does the phrase ‘go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature’ appear in Mark only (possibly interpolated in 2^nd C or later) but no-where else in the Bible and then only in latter-day publications: Book of Mormon and multiple D&C references?
  
• The phrase appears nowhere else in the bible. But it is used a lot in the BoM and D&C:
  

Actually, several such phrases appear elsewhere in NT literature:

Mark 16:

16 kerygma -- Col 1:23

17a signs -- Mat 10:1, Acts 1:8

17b tongues -- Acts 2:4ff

18a serpents -- Lk 10:19, Acts 28:3-6

18b lay on hands -- I Tim 4:14, Heb 6:2

• With all of these parallels and verbatim quotes should we simply consider God as the author of our faith who gave these words in a similar language to the KJV to make them fit as a stronger united gospel message?
  
• Did Joseph’s translations and revelations in BoM and D&C use similar Mark 16 wording because he was translating and therefore used the phrases he was family with in the translation process? This enters the debate of the tight or loose translation process – ..................................
  
• Should we just take the approach of some writers who are fairly dismissive of this whole issue or parallels and simply say ‘God can write whatever he likes’ so it doesn’t matter where the sources and parallels take you? This tone is found in some of Bowman’s “I have an answer”: ..............
  

Rob Bowman has discussed this issue at length on this board, finding that exact phrasing, wording, and sequence are prima facie evidence of plagiarism in LDS Scripture. However, the intertextuality and intratextuality of the Bible itself can be equally suspicious.

Assuming Joseph as translator, the possible explanations are:

• Jesus did actually say this, twice, in the same words. It’s accurately recorded in both books. The early bible versions missing this in Mark are simply bad copies and the versions including it are more accurate copies.
  
• Mormon was inspired to use the exact same language as the Mark ‘interpolator.’ They were, after all, writing within 100 years of each other, albeit on different sides of the world. Regardless of whether Jesus said these or not, both writers recorded it in the same way.
  
• Joseph found a passage during his translation that reminded him of the NT account and used similar language to translate a message that was already familiar to him. Mormon may have used entirely different language on the plates, but Joseph used words familiar to him as translator.
  
• God is the author of our faith and if he wants a message to be repeated perfectly to be ‘two or three witnesses,’ then he has the power to ensure that happens, regardless of the means and tools he uses.
  

Out of interest - would you lean towards 1, 2, 3 or 4? (I've attached this as a PDF as the scriptures are easier to compare in tables).

I would lean toward #3, which reflects the best type of translation: Dynamic metaphrase. Thus, regardless of the exact syntax and wording in an original, one can seek to transmit the basic ideas in already familiar phrases. No need for a literal and unfamiliar rendering of what is basically a formulaic and kerygmatic charge reminiscent (to me at least) of the Apostles Creed.

The matter of the endings of Mark, or lack of them, are caught up in a much larger debate about the composition of the Synoptic Gospels generally. Most scholars, for example, theorize that Mat & Lk used both Mark and a sayings source (Q) in composing their Gospels. Unfortunately that leaves some crucial phenomena unexplained, leading those same scholars to theorize that Mark was created in three stages, and that Mat & Lk had access to the earliest stage. What we see is the third stage, which (as with the formulaic doxology) may have dropped something like the ending we are here discussing.

There is abroad a very faulty notion about ancient literature, i.e., the false belief that we have most of it, or if not most of it, then at least a representative sampling. This applies to Christian lit generally. We have only a very small proportion of what was actually written. The exigencies of time have left us with only a very small and fragmentary collection. The NT is a lucky selection. That's all.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[cdowis]

delete

Edited May 31, 2013 by cdowis

[CV75]

I have also been looking at the range of Biblical and Hebraic parallels and came something that I’d welcome your input on.

Perhaps the same person that wrote or provided the material that Aristion (or Ariston) eventually obtained and used in his 2^nd Century editing was the same person that made sure the same information was in the Nephite record after the Lord’s visit but before Moroni obtained it. Mormon 9: 22 points out that this was spoken “unto his disciples who should tarry,” so this person could be around adn travelling around quite a bit. Also, it wouldn’t be the first time important information was added later (3 Nephi 23: 6-13).

[Tacenda]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/opinion/luhrmann-belief-is-the-least-part-of-faith.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=1&

This is a great article about belief, and why do we put so much emphasis on it, kind of another way to look at things. Just thought some of you on here might appreciate it.

[canard78]

Actually, several such phrases appear elsewhere in NT literature:

Mark 16:

16 kerygma -- Col 1:23

17a signs -- Mat 10:1, Acts 1:8

17b tongues -- Acts 2:4ff

18a serpents -- Lk 10:19, Acts 28:3-6

18b lay on hands -- I Tim 4:14, Heb 6:2

Thanks for the references. Interesting reading.

Col 1:23 - not sure how this related to Mark 16:16, but that verse is fairly straightforward. It's 17-18 that seems out place and odd as a very last parting message to his followers. Some thoughts:

Mark 16:17 -,

Matt 10:1 - He gives then power (faith, or priesthood?). No mention of these acts being signs, they are gifts to give to others.

Acts 1:8 - power of the HG to be witnesses.

Mark 16:18 -

Luke 10:19 - it does say serpents and scorpions but he seems to be using metaphor/simile at this stage given in 18 he says "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. (19) Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." I've seen some bible apologists suggest that Mark 16:17-18 should be viewed in the same way, symbolic not literal (but Mark 16 doesn't have any 'speaking metaphorically' qualifier). Either way, Luke 10:19 promises power to crush the serpent (the devil), not survive a serpent's bight.

The others are actually entirely the case in point that suggests Mark 16:17-18 was added later as a way of suggesting each miracle was fulfilling prophesy.

Acts 2:4ff

Acts 28:3-6

I Tim 4:14, Heb 6:2

These were all after Mark 16. If vv 9-20 were added (made up) later then it's a bit convenient that the writer has Jesus give signs of the believer that the writer already knows have been fulfilled.

If I interpolated one of my journals from the 90s and made some predictions about Iraq wars or global credit crunch it might be amazing to a great, great, great grandchild reading my journal. Until, that is, someone points out that the new pages are on different paper, with different ink. Over simplistic analogy perhaps.

Rob Bowman has discussed this issue at length on this board, finding that exact phrasing, wording, and sequence are prima facie evidence of plagiarism in LDS Scripture. However, the intertextuality and intratextuality of the Bible itself can be equally suspicious.

In case there's any confusion about the Bowman in my OP, I meant David Bowman. He wrote a 'soft apologetics' book. Some content's useful but there are a few cases where, with a question with no easy answer he effectively says 'God can do/say what he likes' and doesn't answer the question.

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/I_Have_an_Answer.html?id=kFfLEY84cJYC&redir_esc=y

I would lean toward #3, which reflects the best type of translation: Dynamic metaphrase. Thus, regardless of the exact syntax and wording in an original, one can seek to transmit the basic ideas in already familiar phrases. No need for a literal and unfamiliar rendering of what is basically a formulaic and kerygmatic charge reminiscent (to me at least) of the Apostles Creed.

The matter of the endings of Mark, or lack of them, are caught up in a much larger debate about the composition of the Synoptic Gospels generally. Most scholars, for example, theorize that Mat & Lk used both Mark and a sayings source (Q) in composing their Gospels. Unfortunately that leaves some crucial phenomena unexplained, leading those same scholars to theorize that Mark was created in three stages, and that Mat & Lk had access to the earliest stage. What we see is the third stage, which (as with the formulaic doxology) may have dropped something like the ending we are here discussing.

There is abroad a very faulty notion about ancient literature, i.e., the false belief that we have most of it, or if not most of it, then at least a representative sampling. This applies to Christian lit generally. We have only a very small proportion of what was actually written. The exigencies of time have left us with only a very small and fragmentary collection. The NT is a lucky selection. That's all.

I also lean towards 3, but it presents a problem.

Critics (or 'environmentalist' as I've recently read about) say "Joseph copied sections of the KJV when writing the BoM."

We reply: He can't have, he had his head in a hat and no one saw a Bible nearby.

They say: Then he must have memorised sections to dictate.

We say: When? He was so busy on the farm he hardly had time to read. Besides, his mother says he was no great reader.

Later another asks: Why does the "most correct book" have quotes from the KJV NT? How's that possible when the bible is taught by you to be "translated incorrectly?"

We reply: Joseph, while translating, came to a section of Nephi or Mormon's writing that reminded him of a section of the bible and he used that wording (even if the original was something different), with confirmation from the spirit.

They reply: How is that possible? I heard you say earlier that he was no bible scholar? How's he able to be recalling huge chunks of the bible that he's not been a student of.

We say: Well God brought it to his remembrance or gave him the exact words to say.

They reply: If God's giving him the words to dictate, why not just give him the right words all the time that Mormon actually wrote down? Aren't some of the Book of Mormon evidences (e.g. Chiasms) dependent on this too?

We say: Sometimes, but sometimes he used his own words or the KJV if it suited the passage.

They ask: But where did he get the KJV passage from? His memory? If not, why would God send him scriptures that are "incorrect translations" or not even original scripture.

We say: Oh, but those bits are original scripture.

They say: So you say the Bible is incorrect and needs a second witness. But the parts in the bible that non-LDS (and at least one LDS BYU professor) accept to actually be incorrect or unoriginal, you are going to defend because otherwise their presence in the BoM would also make it incorrect?

Can you see why my head hurts?

[canard78]

Perhaps the same person that wrote or provided the material that Aristion (or Ariston) eventually obtained and used in his 2^nd Century editing was the same person that made sure the same information was in the Nephite record after the Lord’s visit but before Moroni obtained it. Mormon 9: 22 points out that this was spoken “unto his disciples who should tarry,” so this person could be around adn travelling around quite a bit. Also, it wouldn’t be the first time important information was added later (3 Nephi 23: 6-13).

So there's a guy travelling round the world some time between 200-400AD giving extra bits of information?

Mormon makes no allusion at all to this being 'found later.' It is also claimed as an original statement made to the Nephites (not an emailed copy of what some writer in 200AD thought he should have said before his ascension near Jerusalem):

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: etc etc

His disciples who should tarry (3 Nephites), the other disciples (the 9 who didn't get to live forever) and the multitude.

[tagriffy]

I also lean towards 3, but it presents a problem.

Critics (or 'environmentalist' as I've recently read about) say "Joseph copied sections of the KJV when writing the BoM."

We reply: He can't have, he had his head in a hat and no one saw a Bible nearby.

They say: Then he must have memorised sections to dictate.

We say: When? He was so busy on the farm he hardly had time to read. Besides, his mother says he was no great reader.

Whoa! Hold one here! I would consider critics and environmentalists two different subspecies. The difference between the two is that for the critic, "Joseph copied sections of the KJV when writing the BoM" is an endpoint--therefore Joseph was a fraud. Environmentalists make the same statement as beginning point--asking new questions about how and why he used the material. If that wasn't clear before, I apologize and will keep it in mind if and when I revise the essay.

Later another asks: Why does the "most correct book" have quotes from the KJV NT? How's that possible when the bible is taught by you to be "translated incorrectly?"

Personally, I find the "most correct book" canard (sorry) rather tiresome. Go back to the History of the Church. Better yet, go back to the entry in Wilford Woodruff's journal from which the entry was taken. There is no context provided for why Joseph made this statement. There was a meeting. Presumably something was said during this meeting that prompted Joseph's statement. We don't know what that was, and therefore we cannot say with any sort of certainty what Joseph meant by it beyond the further statement about abiding by its precepts.

We reply: Joseph, while translating, came to a section of Nephi or Mormon's writing that reminded him of a section of the bible and he used that wording (even if the original was something different), with confirmation from the spirit.

They reply: How is that possible? I heard you say earlier that he was no bible scholar? How's he able to be recalling huge chunks of the bible that he's not been a student of.

We say: Well God brought it to his remembrance or gave him the exact words to say.

They reply: If God's giving him the words to dictate, why not just give him the right words all the time that Mormon actually wrote down? Aren't some of the Book of Mormon evidences (e.g. Chiasms) dependent on this too?

We say: Sometimes, but sometimes he used his own words or the KJV if it suited the passage.

They ask: But where did he get the KJV passage from? His memory? If not, why would God send him scriptures that are "incorrect translations" or not even original scripture.

We say: Oh, but those bits are original scripture.

They say: So you say the Bible is incorrect and needs a second witness. But the parts in the bible that non-LDS (and at least one LDS BYU professor) accept to actually be incorrect or unoriginal, you are going to defend because otherwise their presence in the BoM would also make it incorrect?

Can you see why my head hurts?

Being a believing environmentalist presents its own sets of problems, but it does get around this sort conversation entirely.

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................

I also lean towards 3, but it presents a problem.

Critics (or 'environmentalist' as I've recently read about) say "Joseph copied sections of the KJV when writing the BoM."

We reply: He can't have, he had his head in a hat and no one saw a Bible nearby.

I am well aware of that claim, but I don't buy it. The list of scholars I gave you all agree that Joseph used a copy of the KJV Bible when he came to extensive passages being quoted, and they are well aware of claims that Joseph did not used the Bible -- no doubt interpreting that to mean that Joseph didn't use the Bible when that individual was watching. In other words, such copying was not a frequent issue.

They say: Then he must have memorised sections to dictate.

Memorization is off the table as highly improbable, and unnecessary.

.....................................................

Can you see why my head hurts?

Not really, no.

[tagriffy]

Critics (or 'environmentalist' as I've recently read about) say "Joseph copied sections of the KJV when writing the BoM."

We reply: He can't have' date=' he had his head in a hat and no one saw a Bible nearby.[/quote']

I am well aware of that claim, but I don't buy it. The list of scholars I gave you all agree that Joseph used a copy of the KJV Bible when he came to extensive passages being quoted, and they are well aware of claims that Joseph did not used the Bible -- no doubt interpreting that to mean that Joseph didn't use the Bible when that individual was watching. In other words, such copying was not a frequent issue.

A number of the scholars who agree Joseph used the KJV especially in the extensive passages are historicists (I believe this idea originated with B. H. Roberts, for example]. Though I'm not aware of anyone stipulating the "how," I don't think they would have meant Joseph only used the Bible when the relevant individuals weren't watching. I suspect most of them would have considered that cheating. However, they should speak for themselves here.

Memorization is off the table as highly improbable, and unnecessary.

I wouldn't consider it improbable. Indeed many people in the companion thread have posted good reasons to believe that memorization was at least possible.

[Calm]

I don't think they would have meant Joseph only used the Bible when the relevant individuals weren't watching. I suspect most of them would have considered that cheating.

I assume Robert meant that those witnesses of the translation process (at least to the extent of being in the room while it was happening) who state he didn't use a Bible just didn't happen to see the translation during that time period. It is not like people had appointments to come by and watch him in my understanding. If they saw the translation, they were either involved as a scribe (which would have been at the earlier part except for Oliver) or they happened to have dropped by where they either took off quickly or stuck around to watch...perhaps on more than one occasion such as Sister Whitney (IIRC) describes herself. It was not an intentional avoidance by Joseph, iwo, to prevent others seeing him use a Bible, it just happened that way.

Someone help me here so I don't have to go look it up: When was the Bible purchased that has been referenced and was the BoM translation done by that time?

[tagriffy]

I assume Robert meant that those witnesses of the translation process (at least to the extent of being in the room while it was happening) who state he didn't use a Bible just didn't happen to see the translation during that time period. It is not like people had appointments to come by and watch him in my understanding. If they saw the translation, they were either involved as a scribe (which would have been at the earlier part except for Oliver) or they happened to have dropped by where they either took off quickly or stuck around to watch...perhaps on more than one occasion such as Sister Whitney (IIRC) describes herself. It was not an intentional avoidance by Joseph, iwo, to prevent others seeing him use a Bible, it just happened that way.

Okay, that makes sense to me. Come to think of it, the witnesses didn't mention which parts they witnessed him dictating.

Someone help me here so I don't have to go look it up: When was the Bible purchased that has been referenced and was the BoM translation done by that time?

If you are referring to the copy used to produce the JST, that was purchased after the Book of Mormon was translated. I don't have a specific reference at hand, however. I'm sure both Bushman and Vogel said something about it in their respective biographies.