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

[cdowis]

He may. But would you be able to share the evidence that you think would convince him that 9-20 is original. I've not seen you present any evidence that it is. You've only said 'the exact same thing is in the BoM so Mark must also be authentic.' That's not very convincing.

OK, let me put this into a different framework.

On close inspection of the issue, I do not accept the assumption that the BOM is quoting Mark, but that it is a direct quote of the the words of Christ. I can then conclude that Jesus said it in the Old World as well. The similarity of the wording is interesting, but there is not enough information to draw any definite conclusion.

It's all a matter of the underlying assumptions as well as the facts.

Do you have a problem with that.

Edited June 2, 2013 by cdowis

[Questing Beast]

...

And then shall ye know that I (Moroni) have seen Jesus, and that he hath talked with me face to face, and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language, concerning these things;

And only a few have I written, because of my weakness in writing.( Ether 12:39-40)

...

This is key to any questioning of BoM content, and I was going to bring it up too. Any (sic) contents are possible, from any time or place, because written under inspiration (which the BoM arguably was), the metaphysical connection renders all writings available. The BoM claims to have been assembled and transmitted via Jesus Christ, in the flesh, as a "man telleth another". Anything that winds up in the Bible later is surely available to Jesus Christ in c. 421 CE! So the whole topic of anachronisms in the BoM or any other scripture is a non starter. Nobody can ever disprove that God was involved in the creation of the BoM or the Koran or the New Testament or the Old Testament. Then we have the other religious traditions not "Abrahamic". Anyone want to have a go at showing which chickens and eggs came first? God came first.

(edit to add: and Skousen's observation that Old or medieval English phraseology appears in the BoM, though extinct in JS's milieu, supports both the idea that God does indeed have a sense of humor, and that such content has only one explanation, and that is the one I just gave: God comes first, so all "anachronisms" are his province, to use to twit us endlessly, for our own good, of course....)

Edited June 2, 2013 by Questing Beast

[canard78]

OK, let me put this into a different framework.

On close inspection of the issue, I do not accept the assumption that the BOM is quoting Mark, but that it is a direct quote of the the words of Christ. I can then conclude that Jesus said it in the Old World as well. The similarity of the wording is interesting, but there is not enough information to draw any definite conclusion.

It's all a matter of the underlying assumptions as well as the facts.

Do you have a problem with that.

That's fine, no problem with you reaching that conclusion. I appreciate your contribution.

Personally, given there are so many exact and close matches in the BoM to KJV (including parts that are not Jesus speaking in either or both), I find it hard to accept that a 1604 UK translation of a multi generation compilation and an 1829 US translation of an angel delivered compilation both naturally matching wording for all of biblical type passages.

[cdowis]

Personally, given there are so many exact and close matches in the BoM to KJV (including parts that are not Jesus speaking in either or both), I find it hard to accept that a 1604 UK translation of a multi generation compilation and an 1829 US translation of an angel delivered compilation both naturally matching wording for all of biblical type passages.

How do you account for the differences in Isaiah, including at least one from the septuagent. I forget the percent, but it is significant number.

That would indicate to me, and perhaps to "reasonable scholars", that these are two independent transmissions of the same material. If you are going with "JS simply copied the KJV passages", when you also include other questions, you have a very high hill to climb.

I believe that I stand on firm ground.

[Kevin Christensen]

Thank you for your generous contribution. Whenever you join a conversation it's like a friendly uncle putting his arm round my shoulder and saying 'don't worry about it lad.'

But how does answer why Mormon 9 is translated as an exact match to Mark 16 - an unoriginal text?

Both the definition and evidence for the concept of unoriginal are the issue here. I don't think the evidence at hand requires me to accept those assumptions. I certainly don't need to adopt them as paradigmatic for my own inquiries. And I can also question concept of originality in texts that were composed in a society that did not think in that way. They thought in terms of type scenes, standard forms, and formulaic quotation. Deliberately unoriginal composition. 2 Nephi 29:8 describes God who is quite willing and able to speak "the same words unto one nation like unto another."

My point in citing Barker's "The Secret Tradition" was to emphasize the existence and importance of oral tradition for early Christianity. Just because a phrase did not exist in the oldest copies of Mark does not mean that it does not go back to Jesus, that it could not be legitimately added later. There must have been some reason that it does appear in Mark. That reason, in my view could well be that it did go back to Jesus. The text in Mormon, in my view, is evidence that this is so.

If you don't like the way that test is set up, we can text Moroni's reliability as an eye-witness in a number of other ways. One of my favorites is the Thomasson and Hawkins essay "Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon." A brief summary is here:

http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=844

That is very difficult to account for in terms of Joseph Smith's experience. It makes perfectly good sense, however, if Moroni was a real person who experienced what he said he did. Consquently, I have never seen Book of Mormon skeptics even mention that it exists. That is one item I could mention of hundreds. It is just one branch of one tree in the neck of the forest that I have explored.

The passages at the end of Mark strike me as related to the 40 Day teachings. Nibley talked about them here:

http://maxwellinstit...scripts/?id=114

Margaret's essay, The Secret Tradition looks from another direction. And Nibley makes direct comparison with the Book of Mormon here:

http://maxwellinstit...d=73&chapid=899

Richard L. Anderson has an important essay that looks from a different angle but has an important discussion of 3 Nephi compared to the Logia traditions:

http://maxwellinstit...nscripts/?id=15

New Testament studies are filled with theories on the vivid pronouncements of Jesus, often assuming an evolution in the stories accompanying them or in the summary truths Jesus gave. But lines from Shakespeare and common-sense proverbs have circulated from generation to generation without change. Likewise, the quotability of Jesus' spiritual axioms ensures their essential accuracy when recorded in the four Gospels. These sayings typically express a call for commitment in forceful terms:

Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able (Luke 13:24).

I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? (Luke 12:49.)

These vivid challenges embedded in sermons and dialogue are stylistic signs of Jesus. They differ from religious proverbs in blending insight with the tension of the eternal. The beginning of this paper noted the continuation of Jesus' sayings in quotations by Paul and by the Christian fathers. Here scholars seek some basis for judging whether these free-floating sayings have historical credibility, since they are not in canonical Gospels. To be considered authentic, the quotation should come from an early source with probable access to authentic information about Christ. But given this condition, how can one separate folklore from responsible tradition? That forces a judgment after first determining these "genealogical" credentials. Then comes the question: is the saying "conceivable in the mouth of Jesus, in view of what the canonical Gospels make known to us of his thought and spirit"?¹²⁵

There are many terse and wholesome utterances, utterly unobjectionable and free from the bias of dubious theology or the tinsel of fantasy, which have appeared to many critics as not inappropriate to the Jesus of the canonical Gospels.¹²⁶

We can test the Book of Mormon against that tradition, and it ends up looking remarkably good.

I don't need to hypothesize an implausible three Nephite story, because Moroni, the author of Mormon 9 declared that he had spoken to Jesus, and of the things Jesus said to him, "only a few have I written," which does not mean "I would never presume to quote Jesus just because he spoke to me face to face, in my own language." Moroni is writing in the late 4th and early 5th Century.

The passage is not an anomaly for my paradigm, not unexpected. It actually represents just the kind of thing I would expect. It would be odd if such things didn't show up. All I need to account for the text is a common source behind both the Mark text and the Mormon 9 text. That is Jesus. Even a late editor of Mark, due to his interest in Mark, must a person intereted in the traditions about Jesus, and would be irresponsible if he or she did not update the text based on the best information and traditions at hand. I think it would be difficult to argue that such a person could not possibly have had access to texts and oral traditions that modern scholars would not envy and would love to have.

I also recognise that in isolation Mark 16 is a twig. But lots and lots of twigs build a bonfire. And mine's a growing pile. If a fire gets big enough it will take out a whole forest.

Is that the goal? it gather as many twigs as possible and then to use them to start a fire that destroys a whole forest? Is that a wise use of resources? When you use a few twigs to start a fire to burn a tree and then a forest, what does that say about your understanding of the worth of the forest?

My goals is to get to know the forest as well as I can, to explore it in all its many aspects, and to improve my maps and increase my understanding. It's an open ended project.

If Mark 16 were the only issue it would probably not be a problem. But to say, 'don't worry about Mark 16 when all this other evidence exists supporting the BoM as historical' is still not answering what Mark 16 is doing in the BoM in the first place.

Like I keep saying, it's not the existence of problems, but of context and perspective. Paradigm debates always involve personal decisions regarding "what problems are more significant to have solved, and which paradigm is better?"

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the relationship of Mark 16 and Mormon 9. I see a reasonable common source in Jesus. I also have a long personal history in watching alleged anachronsims bite the dust. It used to be that 1 Nephi 1:14 was supposed to be a smoking gun, drawing on Hamlet. When LDS scholars started pointing out parallels to Job and Jeremiah, and Nibley pointed out Ancient Near Eastern items centering on the conspicuous tendency to call the after life "The Land of No Return," things got a little quieter. Robert Smith put out a brilliant paper showing that, line by line, the entire passage fit nicely with Ancient Near Eastern sources, it taught me personally that modeling my response on Chicken Little is not only unreasonable, but irresponsible.

The single most intimidating essay that charged the Book of Mormon with Anachronism for me was David Wright's in New Approaches, claiming that Alma 13 borrowed from Hebrews.

David Wright argues that the Melchizedek material in Alma 13 is anachronistically derived from Hebrews:

Scholarship recognizes that Hebrews does not create all of its argument by itself but relies on tradition and perhaps even on some unknown written sources (in addition to the Bible) in some of the places where we have seen the epistle parallel elements in Alma 12-13. But these traditions and sources are in general relatively recent developments for the author of Hebrews, not traditions going back 700 years. Moreover, the traditions and sources found or supposed by scholars for the passages in Hebrews relevant to Alma 12-13 are diverse; . . . They are not likely to be found in one traditional source.

56

I initially used the balance scale approach, not having a good answer, but leaning on helpful observations in responses from Jack Welch and John Tvedtnes. My patience paid dividends later when I noticed what Barker had provided.

She also remarks that the Qumran Melchizedek text exemplifies a set of ideas regarding "a heavenly priest figure from the cult of the first temple who would bring salvation and atonement in the last days."⁵⁴ Despite his being mentioned only briefly in the Old Testament, Barker explores the figure of Melchizedek:

Melchizedek was central to the old royal cult. We do not know what the name means, but it is quite clear that this priesthood operated within the mythology of the sons of Elyon, and the triumph of the royal son of God in Jerusalem. We should expect later references to Melchizedek to retain some memory of the cult of Elyon. . . . The role of the ancient kings was that of the Melchizedek figure in 11QMelch. This accounts for the Melchizedek material in Hebrews, and the early Church's association of Melchizedek and the Messiah. The arguments of Hebrews presuppose a knowledge of the angel mythology which we no longer have.

55

In contrast to Wright's conclusion, Barker's work connects the Melchizedek traditions to the First Temple, which not only moves them back seven hundred years earlier than Hebrews but also argues for the source of unity in those traditions behind Hebrews as being those of the temple.

Such perspectives helped me read the passages in Alma 13, paying more attention to the whole, rather than fixating on what might seem problematic.

With respect to the Melchizedek passages in the Book of Mormon,⁵⁸ we should note that the Alma 13 discussion is crowded with themes that recur in Barker's books as signs of the preexilic tradition—the Father God (Alma 13:9),⁵⁹ his Begotten Son as the atoning one (Alma 13:5),⁶⁰ the council in heaven at the foundation of the world (Alma 13:3),⁶¹ the Day of Atonement imagery of garments being "washed white through the blood of the Lamb" (Alma 13:11),⁶² angels being sent to "all nations" (Alma 13:22),⁶³ judgment (Alma 13:29-30),⁶⁴ hell, and the second death (Alma 13:29-30).⁶⁵ This puts the Melchizedek passage in the Book of Mormon in tune with the angel mythology presupposed by Hebrews. None of these themes elicited any notice in Wright's article.

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=2&id=547

This kind of successful resolution has become paradigmatic for me, providing model strategies for dealing with problems that come up. I'm happy to wrestle with problems as they come up, but see them as puzzles for which I expect solutions, not as counter-instances that unravel my paradigm.

There is a danger, in focusing on problems, of overlooking much else, and therefore loosing perspective, all the while supposing that one is being bold and critical and bravely facing the unpleasant facts.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 3, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[tagriffy]

OK, let me put this into a different framework.

On close inspection of the issue, I do not accept the assumption that the BOM is quoting Mark, but that it is a direct quote of the the words of Christ. I can then conclude that Jesus said it in the Old World as well. The similarity of the wording is interesting, but there is not enough information to draw any definite conclusion.

It's all a matter of the underlying assumptions as well as the facts.

Do you have a problem with that.

Not at all. Would you spell it out some more? I understand not assuming the BoM is quoting Mark, but for some people, this is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. How do you come to your conclusion that it is a direct quote from Christ--assuming, of course, the answer isn't the circular "because it says so." How does your conclusion of what was said in the New World carry back into the Old? Why don't you think the similarity in wording is enough to draw conclusions one way or the other?

[cdowis]

Not at all. Would you spell it out some more? I understand not assuming the BoM is quoting Mark, but for some people, this is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. How do you come to your conclusion that it is a direct quote from Christ--assuming, of course, the answer isn't the circular "because it says so." How does your conclusion of what was said in the New World carry back into the Old? Why don't you think the similarity in wording is enough to draw conclusions one way or the other?

Because it says so, "for behold, thus said Jesus Christ". He gave precisely those instructions to the Nephites.

Now, my approach is to query why it is that we find this same wording in Mark, if it is supposed to be a later addition. Like the weatherman, is it possible that these Bible scholars are wrong? How do you prove what in the autograph, dear fellow. Perhaps the weatherman is generally correct, but not on my patch of ground.

As I posted previously, the textual critics use the tool of "the older text is superior" (which is easy to prove) rather than "quality of the text is superior" (which is very difficult to prove). This crude tool may work in general, but dangerous when applied in specific cases like this one. These scholars reject the BOM as a source, so they use this crude tool to judge the BOM text. I am not proposing to throw away that tool, but to recognize its limitations.

So, again, it is a matter of assumptions.

Instead of speaking of absolutes, may I propose it would be more useful, like the weatherman, to speak in probabilities. If you assume that the BOM text is authentic, then the issue of Mark comes into greater clarity.

Do you have a problem with that.

Edited June 3, 2013 by cdowis

[tagriffy]

Delete post. I made my comments too early.

Edited June 3, 2013 by tagriffy

[tagriffy]

Because it says so, "for behold, thus said Jesus Christ". He gave precisely those instructions to the Nephites.

Now, my approach is to query why it is that we find this same wording in Mark, if it is supposed to be a later addition. Like the weatherman, is it possible that these Bible scholars are wrong? How do you prove what in the autograph, dear fellow. Perhaps the weatherman is generally correct, but not on my patch of ground.

As I posted previously, the textual critics use the tool of "the older text is superior" (which is easy to prove) rather than "quality of the text is superior" (which is very difficult to prove). This crude tool may work in general, but dangerous when applied in specific cases like this one. These scholars reject the BOM as a source, so they use this crude tool to judge the BOM text. I am not proposing to throw away that tool, but to recognize its limitations.

So, again, it is a matter of assumptions.

Instead of speaking of absolutes, may I propose it would be more useful, like the weatherman, to speak in probabilities. If you assume that the BOM text is authentic, then the issue of Mark comes into greater clarity.

Do you have a problem with that.

I do, but I don't want to spell out my problems yet. I asked you to spell it out for canard78's benefit, not mine. Before I put my two cents in, I going to wait and see what his reaction is.

[cdowis]

Yes and no. The differences between KJV Isaiah and BoM Isaiah could indicate independent transmissions of the same text, but only if the BoM could be shown to be authentically ancient. Hence the importance of that proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign. As it stands, the contention the differences between the two points to different textual traditions has to be taken pretty much on faith.

Ah, yes. It comes down to that "book delivered by an angel" thing, does it not.

That treasure seeker Joseph Smith was certainly remarkable -- here we are talking about textual traditions, Judah and Joseph, as if the BOM were really something.

Edited June 3, 2013 by cdowis

[tagriffy]

Ah, yes. It does come down to that "book delivered by an angel" thing, does it not.

That's why scholars will not touch it with a 50 foot pole, because you then would have to admit the possibility of the existence of angels.

My apologies. I should not have posted what I did earlier. Will you agree to hold off this conversation or least move it to another thread?

[cdowis]

No, I am a compulsive poster. Go ahead and open a new thread, and I'll post in both of them.

I can't help it!!

"He's here, he's there, he's everywhere... so beware..."

"Here he comes to save the day.....Mighty Mouse is on his way"

Edited June 3, 2013 by cdowis

[canard78]

Because it says so, "for behold, thus said Jesus Christ". He gave precisely those instructions to the Nephites.

Now, my approach is to query why it is that we find this same wording in Mark, if it is supposed to be a later addition. Like the weatherman, is it possible that these Bible scholars are wrong? How do you prove what in the autograph, dear fellow. Perhaps the weatherman is generally correct, but not on my patch of ground.

As I posted previously, the textual critics use the tool of "the older text is superior" (which is easy to prove) rather than "quality of the text is superior" (which is very difficult to prove). This crude tool may work in general, but dangerous when applied in specific cases like this one. These scholars reject the BOM as a source, so they use this crude tool to judge the BOM text. I am not proposing to throw away that tool, but to recognize its limitations.

So, again, it is a matter of assumptions.

Instead of speaking of absolutes, may I propose it would be more useful, like the weatherman, to speak in probabilities. If you assume that the BOM text is authentic, then the issue of Mark comes into greater clarity.

Do you have a problem with that.

It's a fair perspective. If you hold the BoM up to be its own standard and everything else should be measured against it then there's no issue. If the BoM is the inerrant word of God then of course Joseph has simply delivered a translation of the exact words transcribed by Moroni of the exact words said by Christ before he left the Americas. The fact they match a section of Mark 16 of dubious origins either is a coincidence or means that Mark 16 is not actually dubious in the first place. I can see why that solves the issue and leads you to presume that the origins of 16:9-20 are authentic.

I don't have a problem with you believing that. That is your reason for considering this a non-issue.

Unfortunately it doesn't give me a good reason to consider it a non-issue. Given I'm not in a position to say 'it's in the book so must be right courtesy of it being there.' So while I appreciate you sharing why this doesn't bother you I hope you'll be able to see why that answer doesn't work for me or others who don't simply see the Book of Mormon as the dog that wags every other tail.

Any perspective on the 1604 translation and how they managed to choose identical English words to translate into as Joseph would over 200 years later? If the 1604 translation is the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly" how come every time the academic translators under the employ of King James got to a section that Mormon et al had also recorded (often memories of a previous event) they would often use identical language. I know there are also times when the BoM has minor differences, but I'm interested in your perspective of the ones that are an exact match.

Even if we accept the BoM as the standard we've still got the question of how it manages such a close match to the KJV. Do you believe that if Hyrum or Oliver or Brigham had been called to translate it that the words of the published book would be identical?

[tagriffy]

Because it says so, "for behold, thus said Jesus Christ". He gave precisely those instructions to the Nephites.

Now, my approach is to query why it is that we find this same wording in Mark, if it is supposed to be a later addition. Like the weatherman, is it possible that these Bible scholars are wrong? How do you prove what in the autograph, dear fellow. Perhaps the weatherman is generally correct, but not on my patch of ground.

As I posted previously, the textual critics use the tool of "the older text is superior" (which is easy to prove) rather than "quality of the text is superior" (which is very difficult to prove). This crude tool may work in general, but dangerous when applied in specific cases like this one. These scholars reject the BOM as a source, so they use this crude tool to judge the BOM text. I am not proposing to throw away that tool, but to recognize its limitations.

So, again, it is a matter of assumptions.

Instead of speaking of absolutes, may I propose it would be more useful, like the weatherman, to speak in probabilities. If you assume that the BOM text is authentic, then the issue of Mark comes into greater clarity.

Do you have a problem with that.

Now I feel like I can spell my problem. First, biblical scholars already do talk in terms of probabilities. That the Longer Ending of Mark is not original to the gospel is an inductive, evidence based conclusion. It is inherently a probabilistic argument.

Second, because it is inductive, probabilistic argument, it is quite possible biblical scholars are wrong. However, you have failed to account for the fact that scholarly consensus, especially in a contentious field like biblical studies, is very difficult to achieve. And the consensus on the Longer Ending is nearly universal. It crosses both confessional (Catholic, Protestant, non-aligned) and theological (conservative, liberal) boundaries. While this is not conclusive proof, appealing to biblical scholars in this case is not a fallacy because because they are in fact experts and a consensus on the subject has been achieved.

[canard78]

Both the definition and evidence for the concept of unoriginal are the issue here. I don't think the evidence at hand requires me to accept those assumptions. I certainly don't need to adopt them as paradigmatic for my own inquiries. And I can also question concept of originality in texts that were composed in a society that did not think in that way. They thought in terms of type scenes, standard forms, and formulaic quotation. Deliberately unoriginal composition. 2 Nephi 29:8 describes God who is quite willing and able to speak "the same words unto one nation like unto another."

My point in citing Barker's "The Secret Tradition" was to emphasize the existence and importance of oral tradition for early Christianity. Just because a phrase did not exist in the oldest copies of Mark does not mean that it does not go back to Jesus, that it could not be legitimately added later. There must have been some reason that it does appear in Mark. That reason, in my view could well be that it did go back to Jesus. The text in Mormon, in my view, is evidence that this is so.

If you don't like the way that test is set up, we can text Moroni's reliability as an eye-witness in a number of other ways. One of my favorites is the Thomasson and Hawkins essay "Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon." A brief summary is here:

http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=844

That is very difficult to account for in terms of Joseph Smith's experience. It makes perfectly good sense, however, if Moroni was a real person who experienced what he said he did. Consquently, I have never seen Book of Mormon skeptics even mention that it exists. That is one item I could mention of hundreds. It is just one branch of one tree in the neck of the forest that I have explored.

The passages at the end of Mark strike me as related to the 40 Day teachings. Nibley talked about them here:

http://maxwellinstit...scripts/?id=114

Margaret's essay, The Secret Tradition looks from another direction. And Nibley makes direct comparison with the Book of Mormon here:

http://maxwellinstit...d=73&chapid=899

Richard L. Anderson has an important essay that looks from a different angle but has an important discussion of 3 Nephi compared to the Logia traditions:

http://maxwellinstit...nscripts/?id=15

We can test the Book of Mormon against that tradition, and it ends up looking remarkably good.

I don't need to hypothesize an implausible three Nephite story, because Moroni, the author of Mormon 9 declared that he had spoken to Jesus, and of the things Jesus said to him, "only a few have I written," which does not mean "I would never presume to quote Jesus just because he spoke to me face to face, in my own language." Moroni is writing in the late 4th and early 5th Century.

The passage is not an anomaly for my paradigm, not unexpected. It actually represents just the kind of thing I would expect. It would be odd if such things didn't show up. All I need to account for the text is a common source behind both the Mark text and the Mormon 9 text. That is Jesus. Even a late editor of Mark, due to his interest in Mark, must a person intereted in the traditions about Jesus, and would be irresponsible if he or she did not update the text based on the best information and traditions at hand. I think it would be difficult to argue that such a person could not possibly have had access to texts and oral traditions that modern scholars would not envy and would love to have.

Thanks for the reading resources. I've started working through them. The Survivor one is interesting, though I can't imagine the emotional pain of losing a treasured big brother and burying my first born child. I'm not saying that stands as evidence of Joseph as author - but it does mean the desire "to bear witness" could also be in him.

Is that the goal? it gather as many twigs as possible and then to use them to start a fire that destroys a whole forest? Is that a wise use of resources? When you use a few twigs to start a fire to burn a tree and then a forest, what does that say about your understanding of the worth of the forest?

My goals is to get to know the forest as well as I can, to explore it in all its many aspects, and to improve my maps and increase my understanding. It's an open ended project.

A fair question. Especially as most of my contributions to this board are as a negative/critical voice. I simply can't have this conversation at church or with my family. It wouldn't be fair and would be irresponsible. So I bring all my concerns and questions here. Your question struck a chord though. It reminded me of something I wrote about 9 months ago:

"I don’t want to leave and abandon something that fundamentally makes me feel good, gives me a purpose and place in life, teaches me and my family good, moral family values. I currently want to find a solution to the history and staying. I’m not looking for a way out."

That remains my position. I'm not trying to build a bonfire. If I wanted to leave I feel I've already ample kindling to do so. But at the same time I want to find as many answers to the things that trouble me and my wife. Maybe it's a personal crusade on her behalf. Who knows. I started the process of exploring the church history with the intention of reaching a safe haven at the end of it. I'm not there yet. I don't feel able to "just drop it" and I don't feel I'll be able to reach the safe haven until I've resolved the various choppy waves around me.

I'm trying to avoid stuffing the turkey through the beak - but appreciate that it might appear otherwise given the focus of my tone and contribution on this board.

Like I keep saying, it's not the existence of problems, but of context and perspective. Paradigm debates always involve personal decisions regarding "what problems are more significant to have solved, and which paradigm is better?"

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the relationship of Mark 16 and Mormon 9. I see a reasonable common source in Jesus. I also have a long personal history in watching alleged anachronsims bite the dust. It used to be that 1 Nephi 1:14 was supposed to be a smoking gun, drawing on Hamlet. When LDS scholars started pointing out parallels to Job and Jeremiah, and Nibley pointed out Ancient Near Eastern items centering on the conspicuous tendency to call the after life "The Land of No Return," things got a little quieter. Robert Smith put out a brilliant paper showing that, line by line, the entire passage fit nicely with Ancient Near Eastern sources, it taught me personally that modeling my response on Chicken Little is not only unreasonable, but irresponsible.

The single most intimidating essay that charged the Book of Mormon with Anachronism for me was David Wright's in New Approaches, claiming that Alma 13 borrowed from Hebrews.

I initially used the balance scale approach, not having a good answer, but learning on helpful observations in responses from Jack Welch and John Tvedtnes. My patience paid dividends later when I noticed what Barker had provided.

In contrast to Wright's conclusion, Barker's work connects the Melchizedek traditions to the First Temple, which not only moves them back seven hundred years earlier than Hebrews but also argues for the source of unity in those traditions behind Hebrews as being those of the temple.

Such perspectives helped me read the passages in Alma 13, paying more attention to the whole, rather than fixating on what might seem problematic.

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=2&id=547

This kind of successful resolution has become paradigmatic for me, providing model strategies for dealing with problems that come up. I'm happy to wrestle with problems as they come up, but see them as puzzles for which I expect solutions, not as counter-instances that unravel my paradigm.

There is a danger, in focusing on problems, of overlooking much else, and therefore loosing perspective, all the while supposing that one is being bold and critical and bravely facing the unpleasant facts.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

It's not motivated through wanting to be brave about the difficult questions - though I can see where that view would seem apparent. It's just being at a stage where confidence in the origins are sufficiently knocked to not be able to fully buy in to the whole story.

Regarding the resolved anachronisms from KJV NT. It's reassuring to read those. They serve as examples of how KJV texts have ancient origins. That may also mean that Mormon's sources are ancient. Or it may still mean that Joseph copied the idea from the KJV (which is turn has ancient origins). If I catch a cold from my daughter she will have also caught it from someone else. That doesn't mean I caught the cold from them, but does mean they are its origin. We may simply be seeing Joseph taking ideas from an ancient source (via the KJV). But you're right, it's not our only option and explanation.

[CV75]

Thanks, you're right. Moroni adds it while wrapping up Mormon. But what Moroni wrote and what Joseph dictated (or was inspired to read out of the KJV) may be two different things.

Are you saying that it's plausible to you that one of the three Nephites first travelled to Greece around 150AD to tell Ariston to add the passage, then back to Mesoamerica around 250 years later to ask Moroni to do the same? Passages that were things said on both continents at his departure but both coincidentally missed at the time? And then both identically translated by a group of academics in 1604 and Joseph in 1829?

"Plausibility" is another calculation altogether (and doesn't fit well with spiritual matters anyway), but to flesh out what I was saying a bit:

One of the Three Nephites could have travelled between Greece and wherever Moroni was. He may have spoken directly with either or both person, with other persons who then spoke with either or both (or wrote the passsages in their own texts), or simply led them to or placed in their path the original or corrected written source material that he either created or knew about. Coincidences do happen. As mentioned in other posts, Joseph may have used a simpified translation process by copying the Biblical version of the passage.

I’m sure there are other ways that important sayings went missing or were excluded from one set of contemporary texts, included in other sets or remembered and passed down (whether by translated people or others), and later brought to the attention of future editors directly or indirectly, by personal conversation, word of mouth or actual texts.

[cdowis]

Now I feel like I can spell my problem. First, biblical scholars already do talk in terms of probabilities. That the Longer Ending of Mark is not original to the gospel is an inductive, evidence based conclusion. It is inherently a probabilistic argument.

OK dokey, and what specific percent do the scholars attribute to their theory -- 50% 75% 90% 99.9999999999999999%

Second, because it is inductive, probabilistic argument, it is quite possible biblical scholars are wrong. However, you have failed to account for the fact that scholarly consensus, especially in a contentious field like biblical studies, is very difficult to achieve. And the consensus on the Longer Ending is nearly universal. It crosses both confessional (Catholic, Protestant, non-aligned) and theological (conservative, liberal) boundaries. While this is not conclusive proof, appealing to biblical scholars in this case is not a fallacy because because they are in fact experts and a consensus on the subject has been achieved.

I understand the difference between opinion/consensus/assertion and opinion. One significant discovery could change that consensus. I would specifically point out that they are **ignoring** an important source document, so the consensus is based on ignorance.

A few suggestions: read Nibley on scholars, read about logical fallacies, specifically the "fallacy of authority".

Edited June 3, 2013 by cdowis

[volgadon]

read Nibley on scholars, read about logical fallacies, specifically the "fallacy of authority".

You just might have spared him the effort of doing all three...

Edited June 3, 2013 by volgadon

[tagriffy]

OK dokey, and what specific percent do the scholars attribute to their theory -- 50% 75% 90% 99.9999999999999999%

Specific percentages are not usually assigned like that. In any field. That is where the analogy to a weatherman fails. In the case of the Longer Ending, the probability is strong enough to find near-universal agreement among biblical scholars.

I understand the difference between opinion/consensus/assertion and opinion. One significant discovery could change that consensus. I would specifically point out that they are **ignoring** an important source document, so the consensus is based on ignorance.

A few suggestions: read Nibley on scholars, read about logical fallacies, specifically the "fallacy of authority".

I have read about the fallacy of the appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is only fallacious when a) the authority is not an expert on the subject and b) the authority does not reflect the consensus view on the topic, and/or c) the appeal is asserted as conclusive proof of the argument. I've done none of these things.

[cdowis]

Specific percentages are not usually assigned like that. In any field. That is where the analogy to a weatherman fails. In the case of the Longer Ending, the probability is strong enough to find near-universal agreement among biblical scholars.

OK, so they do not assign probabilities. You were speaking as if they do, but now admit that they do not.

Do you understand that 50% is less than 90%, and they refuse even to give a spit-in-the-wind guess. How silly they will look if some new discovery will dramatically change things.

I have read about the fallacy of the appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is only fallacious when a) the authority is not an expert on the subject and b) the authority does not reflect the consensus view on the topic, and/or c) the appeal is asserted as conclusive proof of the argument. I've done none of these things.

Sorry, I meant "argument from authority"

Argument from authority

The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy – see below.)

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.

This logical fallacy crops up in more subtle ways also. For example, UFO proponents have argued that UFO sightings by airline pilots should be given special weight because pilots are trained observers, are reliable characters, and are trained not to panic in emergencies. In essence, they are arguing that we should trust the pilot’s authority as an eye witness.

(emphasis mine)

http://theskepticsgu...lfallacies.aspx

As I said, when speaking of an expert or scholar, think of the weatherman, with all his technonolgy and training.

Edited June 3, 2013 by cdowis

[tagriffy]

OK, so they do not assign probabilities. You were speaking as if they do, but now admit that they do not.

Do you understand that 50% is less than 90%, and they refuse even to give a spit-in-the-wind guess. How silly they will look if some new discovery will dramatically change things.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I did not mean to imply scholars speak in terms of probabilities in the same way a weatherman would assign a percentage of likelihood. Hard and fast percentages are hard to come by, especially in the humanities. Scholars usually only indicate their degree of certainty by the use of terminology (e.g., "plausible," "likely"). If some new discovery dramatically changes things, they simply accommodate the evidence in a new, still inductive, still probabilistic way.

Sorry, I meant "argument from authority"

Argument from authority

The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy – see below.)

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.

This logical fallacy crops up in more subtle ways also. For example, UFO proponents have argued that UFO sightings by airline pilots should be given special weight because pilots are trained observers, are reliable characters, and are trained not to panic in emergencies. In essence, they are arguing that we should trust the pilot’s authority as an eye witness.

(emphasis mine)

http://theskepticsgu...lfallacies.aspx

As I said, when speaking of an expert or scholar, think of the weatherman, with all his technonolgy and training.

Um, we are still speaking of the same thing. If you had clicked my link, you would see that the title of the page is "Argument from authority." In the first sentence, it identifies this argument as the same thing as an appeal to authority. Again, even your quote notes that a consensus of expert authority has legitimate authority. It is only when the appeal is used as conclusive proof for a given claim (i.e., used deductively) that the argument becomes a fallacy. So long as the other conditions are met (the authority is an expert on the subject and reflects the consensus view), using the appeal to authority inductively is a perfectly legitimate argument.

[canard78]

Ah, yes. It comes down to that "book delivered by an angel" thing, does it not.

That treasure seeker Joseph Smith was certainly remarkable -- here we are talking about textual traditions, Judah and Joseph, as if the BOM were really something.

Some conclusions about LDS origins made by others are clearly driven by "the angel thing." That's the point of certainty they pivot around.

But the conclusions reached by many people (you and I can't claim this) are independent of any pre-existing view of the Book of Mormon. Conclusions are reached about Mark 16 by people who've never read the BoM - let alone considered the Mormon 9 parallel. These people are also often not critics of the bible. Given several other churches also caveat or remove 9-20 from their canon this shows believers can comfortably accept it as unoriginal. I'm not using this as an 'argument to authority' etc. Just showing that the angel issue has nothing to do with most people's Mark conclusions.

[cdowis]

Some conclusions about LDS origins made by others are clearly driven by "the angel thing." That's the point of certainty they pivot around.

But the conclusions reached by many people (you and I can't claim this) are independent of any pre-existing view of the Book of Mormon. Conclusions are reached about Mark 16 by people who've never read the BoM - let alone considered the Mormon 9 parallel. These people are also often not critics of the bible. Given several other churches also caveat or remove 9-20 from their canon this shows believers can comfortably accept it as unoriginal. I'm not using this as an 'argument to authority' etc. Just showing that the angel issue has nothing to do with most people's Mark conclusions.

You are missing the point.

These people do not see the BOM as a valid ancient source document. If they did, then their view of Mark 16 would likely be very different. The BOM text verifies that this passage in Mark is a recitation of the actual words of Christ.

Now, let's make this very basic ==>> They refuse to consider the BOM as a valid source document primarily BECAUSE of the angel thing.

Edited June 4, 2013 by cdowis

[volgadon]

You are missing the point.

These people do not see the BOM as a valid ancient source document. If they did, then their view of Mark 16 would likely be very different. The BOM text verifies that this passage in Mark is a recitation of the actual words of Christ.

Some of us do see the BoM as a "valid ancient source document," but that doesn't automatically take away the (not unsurmountable) problems with Mark 16 or its presence in the BoM.

[cdowis]

Some of us do see the BoM as a "valid ancient source document," but that doesn't automatically take away the (not unsurmountable) problems with Mark 16 or its presence in the BoM.

And I wish them all the best in attempting to reconcile it. I have done so to my own personal satisfaction, whether to see this as dumping the KJV into the BOM or whether this is an actual quote from Christ to the Nephites with no reference to the book of Mark.

The BOM is quoting Christ, not the book of Mark.

Edited June 4, 2013 by cdowis