A mistake upon a mistake?

[Maestrophil]

Saw this posted on a friend's social media the other day.  Had never heard this argument. (I know it's a meme, and not a full argument). :-)

What are your thoughts?

PM

Edited February 24, 2018 by Maestrophil
Spelling

[Kenngo1969]

"Virtually all scholars" can believe virtually whatever they wish to believe about the Book of Mormon, the other Restoration Scriptures, and about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that belief will have virtually no effect* on my testimony.

*I actually understate the case here, of course, simply as a rhetorical device.  In reality, the beliefs of "virtually all scholars" will have absolutely no effect on my testimony.   In any event, saying that "virtually all scholars" believe something not only may be more than a bit of a stretch, logically, as an appeal to authority, it's a fallacy.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

This was addressed last year by Jeff Lindsay in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture:

• The Book of Mormon Versus the Consensus of Scholars: Surprises from the Disputed Longer Ending of Mark, Part 1
• The Book of Mormon Versus the Consensus of Scholars: Surprises from the Disputed Longer Ending of Mark, Part 2

Here is the abstract:

Quote

Abstract: Following the account of the ministry of Christ among the Nephites as recorded in the Book of Mormon, Christ gave a charge to His New World disciples (Mormon 9:22–25). These words are very similar to the commission of Christ to His apostles at the end of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9–20). According to the consensus of modern Bible scholars, Christ did not speak those words; they are a later addition. If so, this is a problem for the Book of Mormon. Fortunately, recent modern scholarship offers compelling reasons for overturning the old consensus against the longer ending of Mark. Some of the factors from modern scholarship that indirectly help overcome a potentially serious objection to and apparent weakness in the Book of Mormon also help us better appreciate its strength as we explore unifying themes derived from an ancient Jewish perspective. In this Part 1 of a two-part series, we look at the evidence for the unity of Mark and the plausibility of Mormon 9:22–25. In Part 2 we examine further Book of Mormon implications from the thematic evidence for the unity of Mark.

Both are long, but well worth the read.  Here's the gist:

Quote

According to modern scholars, the following verses {after Mark 16:8}, known as the “longer ending of Mark,” covering the appearance of Christ to Mary and then the apostles and the great commission to preach the gospel to every creature, should not be there; allegedly, they were inserted into some manuscripts much later. So what is this ending doing in the Book of Mormon, ascribed to Christ in His teachings to the disciples? If the words in the longer ending of Mark were not in Mark’s Gospel and were not spoken by Christ, it is unlikely that Christ would quote them or words similar to them in the New World.

Fortunately, very recent scholarship on the longer ending of Mark provides many compelling reasons to accept the disputed longer ending after all. It is a fascinating story with many lessons for students of the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Saw this posted on a friend's social media the other day.  Had never heard this argument. (I know it's a meme, and not a full argument). :-)

What are your thoughts?

PM

If a meme has inspired one to explore an issue further with an objective and open mind, the mind has done its job!

[CA Steve]

What am I missing here?

Do we actually believe as LDS that Mark himself wrote the Gospel of Mark?

If not, what difference does it make when this insertion is believed to happen or by whom it was made? In either case it was something written later on by someone pretending to be Mark, right? So whether or not the "person" is one or two or many and did not happen at the same time, makes a difference?

 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

Saw this posted on a friend's social media the other day.  Had never heard this argument. (I know it's a meme, and not a full argument). :-)............................

Julie Smith (no relation) is right:  There is a consensus among NT scholars that Mark 16:9-20 was not originally part of that Gospel, but that does not automatically mean that it is specious.  In such case, we must ask, Where did that fragment come from?  Was it equally as ancient as Mark's Gospel, and someone thought it might go nicely with Mark?  A Baptist scholar of note (R. Lindsey) even suggested long ago that Matthew 28:9-20 was originally the ending of Mark and it was wrongly appended to Matthew.  We do not know the actual authors of any of the Gospels, and we do not know the nature of the long process of composition, editing, and redaction which went into the production of any of them.  We do not know (except by faith) the accuracy of those Gospels.  Most of the letters of Paul are far more immediate and trustworthy.

The formula in Mormon 9:24 may be as legitimate as any other of the words of Christ, and, as a formula, it takes a standard form regardless of the language in which it is communicated.  We are going to receive it in our language, according to our understanding.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

Saw this posted on a friend's social media the other day.  Had never heard this argument. (I know it's a meme, and not a full argument). :-)

What are your thoughts?

PM

Easy

Joseph was inspired to use the Bible to convey whatever he was inspired to write.

The importance of the passage is that believers will be able to work miracles.

The Lord inspired Joseph to write something about the faithful being able to work miracles, and these are the words that came into Joseph's mind.

Every bit of scripture we have comes out of the mind/words of men and is not "God breathed" or infallible.  It is written by inspired humans immersed in the spirit, but it is their words not the Lord's words.

See how easy? 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

What am I missing here?

Do we actually believe as LDS that Mark himself wrote the Gospel of Mark?

If not, what difference does it make when this insertion is believed to happen or by whom it was made? In either case it was something written later on by someone pretending to be Mark, right? So whether or not the "person" is one or two or many and did not happen at the same time, makes a difference?

 

 

 

You are "missing" (or perhaps ignoring) the feasible possibility that the scholarly “consensus” may in fact be wrong (see Smac’s post). 

Edited February 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Easy

Joseph was inspired to use the Bible to convey whatever he was inspired to write.

The importance of the passage is that believers will be able to work miracles.

The Lord inspired Joseph to write something about the faithful being able to work miracles, and these are the words that came into Joseph's mind.

Every bit of scripture we have comes out of the mind/words of men and is not "God breathed" or infallible.  It is written by inspired humans immersed in the spirit, but it is their words not the Lord's words.

See how easy? 

 

Like Lindsay, whose Interpreter piece is linked to in Smac's post above, I find this argument unsatisfying. To wit:

Quote

One could argue, as some Latter-day Saint people have, that the Book of Mormon is somehow an expanded text that builds on ancient gold-plate material or, more extremely, at least on ancient “truthy” ideas, with Joseph’s added commentary and thoughts taken from modern sources, but this is unsatisfying and is inconsistent with the data we have about the translation process, both in terms of the mechanics of dictation and composition as well as the structure and language found in that text.

 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are "missing" (or perhaps ignoring) the feasible possibility that the scholarly “consensus” may in fact be wrong (see Smac’s post). 

Perhaps you missed my point (or are ignoring it) but my question was was asking what difference it made? Obviously if scholarly consensus is wrong my question would make no sense.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Perhaps you missed my point (or are ignoring it) but my question was was asking what difference it made? Obviously if scholarly consensus is wrong my question would make no sense.

I'm saying that, instead of coming up with excuses for the alleged disparity, it's better first to examine and consider the possibility that the conventional wisdom among scholars is wrong.

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Like Lindsay, whose Interpreter piece is linked to in Smac's post above, I find this argument unsatisfying. To wit:

 

And I don't find it "unsatisfying". 

Prove either one of none came from the Lord by studying manuscripts- you can't do it-  it's a waste of time.  So we throw out the Book of Mormon, or throw out the bible, or neither or both.

Since none is proven to come from the Lord since we don't have his signature written in an unknowable technology, this pursuit of what is "satisfying" is all we have.

Did any of it come from the Lord or none?

All we have is what is "satisfying" meaning that weI  have a "testimony" of it.

That's all anyone can ever have concerning even the atonement.  All we have are old manuscripts and the spirit to make these decisions any way you cut it.  Honestly I don't see how that is so hard to see!  

Everyone is seeking for a "sign" for infallibility of their personal point of view and no one will ever find it because we are here to be tested precisely for that and the Lord did not provide us with the answer sheet in advance.  We might as well be trying to turn lead into gold. 

No manuscript will ever prove itself to be the Lord's word on its own evidence or any other evidence because that is not the plan.  I honestly cannot figure out why that is so hard for folks who supposedly believe we are here to "walk by faith"

I find it mind-boggling and contradictory.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying that, instead of coming up with excuses for the alleged disparity, it's better first to examine and consider the possibility that the conventional wisdom among scholars is wrong.

I have no problem with that, but you will never prove it any more than they will prove they are right.

It's about what the Lord said, not some scribe that thought he was inspired.  THAT is the problem with everything

 

[CA Steve]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying that, instead of coming up with excuses for the alleged disparity, it's better first to examine and consider the possibility that the conventional wisdom among scholars is wrong.

So I am posing a question which negates what the scholarly consensus is and you have a problem with that?

Edited February 24, 2018 by CA Steve

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So I am posing a question which negates what the scholarly consensus is and you have a problem with that?

I guess I'm not seeing how your question negates the scholarly consensus.

 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I guess I'm not seeing how your question negates the scholarly consensus.

 

The problem being pointed out by the OP, in my uniformed view, is that the addition claimed by scholarly consensus that should not have been part of the original Mark, but was added later on by someone other than the person or persons who wrote Mark, is a later version. As if somehow having the later version in the Book of Mormon is evidence against the  Book of Mormon being an ancient document.

But I don't know of any  firm LDS position that says the earlier version of Mark is any more or less correct that the later version, So how does the combined version found in the Book of Mormon impact the arguments for and against the veracity of the Book of Mormon? The fact that either version is or would be in the Book of Mormon is equally as problematic is it not?  What ever answers  we come up with to explain how it got to be in the Book of Mormon would be equally as valid for both versions would they not? 

 

If not, then that is the question I am asking, that someone point out how it makes a difference. If it makes no difference then we don't care what the scholarly consensus is.

 

As Robert pointed out above 

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Julie Smith (no relation) is right:  There is a consensus among NT scholars that Mark 16:9-20 was not originally part of that Gospel, but that does not automatically mean that it is specious.  In such case, we must ask, Where did that fragment come from?  Was it equally as ancient as Mark's Gospel, and someone thought it might go nicely with Mark?  A Baptist scholar of note (R. Lindsey) even suggested long ago that Matthew 28:9-20 was originally the ending of Mark and it was wrongly appended to Matthew.  We do not know the actual authors of any of the Gospels, and we do not know the nature of the long process of composition, editing, and redaction which went into the production of any of them.  We do not know (except by faith) the accuracy of those Gospels.  Most of the letters of Paul are far more immediate and trustworthy.

The formula in Mormon 9:24 may be as legitimate as any other of the words of Christ, and, as a formula, it takes a standard form regardless of the language in which it is communicated.  We are going to receive it in our language, according to our understanding

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by CA Steve

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no problem with that, but you will never prove it any more than they will prove they are right.

It's about what the Lord said, not some scribe that thought he was inspired.  THAT is the problem with everything

 

I've not finished reading the Jeff Lindsay piece yet, but I'm already finding it compelling. Since the earliest extant manuscripts could not be regarded as the oldest ever to have existed, how can they be regarded as giving the definitive word on whether there was or was not a longer version. Consider this:
 

Quote

 

Fortunately, in spite of an ongoing scholarly “consensus,” there is surprisingly impressive evidence that the longer ending of Mark is authentic. Before we explore some of those details, first note that over [Page 287]95% of the existing ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have the longer ending of Mark. The problem came with the relatively recent discovery of the two oldest extant manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, both of which end at Mark 16:8 and lack the longer ending. These mid-fourth-century manuscripts, though, differ from our canon in many other ways and need not be assumed to be the best and most accurate manuscripts simply because they are the oldest manuscripts that have survived intact.

While they are the oldest extant manuscripts, they are clearly not the oldest manuscripts that were used and quoted by early Christians. Dozens of ancient sources provide evidence that at least multiple portions of the longer ending of Mark were known and used in the Christian community before the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus came into existence. In fact, both those manuscripts provide evidence that their copyists were at least aware of an alternate ending for Mark (one has an unusually large space after Mark 16:8 as if leaving space for the additional verses, and the other has unusual markings at the end as if to physically prevent insertion of known additional verses). Both come from the same Alexandrian school, or the same “scriptorium,” and so should not be considered as independent witnesses against the longer ending.

 

Suffice it to say, I'm not impressed by the meme in the OP, nor the Julie M. Smith quote it emblazons. It's the classic appeal-to-popularity fallacy.

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

From the Interpreter article by Jeff Lindsay:

Quote

According to the consensus of modern Bible scholars, Christ did not speak those words; they are a later addition. If so, this is a problem for the Book of Mormon.

I prophesy that Lindsay will one day regret making that statement.  He should have said "If so, it still wouldn't be a problem for the Book of Mormon. But..."

Apologetics 101.  Never admit that something might be a problem, even a theoretical one, if there's a chance that future scholarship could validate the "problem."

 

As for the "problem" in the meme, if LDS aren't bothered by the idea that Moses probably didn't write Genesis or that parts of Isaiah in the BoM probably weren't written until after Lehi left Jerusalem with the brass plates, a small snippet of New Testament text showing up in the BoM isn't even going to register on the radar.

Edited February 25, 2018 by cinepro

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've not finished reading the Jeff Lindsay piece yet, but I'm already finding it compelling...Suffice it to say, I'm not impressed by the meme in the OP, nor the Julie M. Smith quote it emblazons.

Cinepro quotes Lindsay above.  Smith is saying the identical thing as the first sentence in his quote in her intro line in the BYU NT Commentary.

"According to the consensus of modern Bible scholars, Christ did not speak those words; they are a later addition."

"Virtually all scholars believe that Mark 16:9–20[1] was not originally part of the Gospel..."

Perhaps you can explain the difference, Scott, as Lindsay's comment is in the abstract, so you must have already read it.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

I like the way she ends her chapter:

Quote

There is no way to definitely determine what the original ending was, but there is an interesting silver lining to the cloud over Mark’s Gospel: “Since Mark was not responsible for the composition of the last 12 verses of the generally current form of his Gospel and since they undoubtedly were attached to the Gospel before the [Christian] Church recognized the fourfold Gospels as canonical, it follows that the New Testament contains not four but five canonized witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ.”

https://www.byunewtestamentcommentary.com/the-ending-of-marks-gospel/

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Cinepro quotes Lindsay above..  If his quote is accurate, Smith is saying the identical thing as the first sentence in his quote in the BYU NT Commentary.

 

Cinepro is quoting Lindsay out of context.

Perhaps someone quoted Smith out of context as well. I'm curious about who it was who created the meme.

28 minutes ago, cinepro said:

From the Interpreter article by Jeff Lindsay:

I prophesy that Lindsay will one day regret making that statement.  He should have said "If so, it still wouldn't be a problem for the Book of Mormon. But..."

Apologetics 101.  Never admit that something might be a problem, even a theoretical one, if there's a chance that future scholarship could validate the "problem."

 

As for the "problem" in the meme, if LDS aren't bothered by the idea that Moses probably didn't write Genesis or that parts of Isaiah in the BoM probably weren't written until after Lehi left Jerusalem with the brass plates, a small snippet of New Testament text showing up in the BoM isn't even going to register on the radar.

I've never embraced the deutero-Isaiah theory. And I haven't staked out a position on the authorship of Genesis.

 

[Calm]

Scott, Does Lindsay deny that the consensus of scholars is that Christ did not speak the words?  If not, then again how is it different from what Smith said in her quote?

And how is  it different than the truth since it is apparently out of context in your view?  Do you contend there is a majority of scholars who accept the last part of Mark as not an addition?

Edited February 25, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Scott, Does Lindsay deny that the consensus of scholars is that Christ did not speak the words?  If not, then again how is it different from what Smith said in her quote?

And how is  it different than the truth since it is apparently out of context in your view?  Do you contend there is a majority of scholars who accept the last part of Mark as not an addition?

No. You’re not understanding me. 

[Maestrophil]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Suffice it to say, I'm not impressed by the meme in the OP, nor the Julie M. Smith quote it emblazons. It's the classic appeal-to-popularity fallacy.

 

That is the first though I had when I saw the meme as well. It still raises the question of how even one faithful BYU professor could feel the Mark passages were not originally written as they now appear, and are in the BOM in the exact way- how that is reconciled.  

I have enjoyed many of the thoughts above - and I am now going to get comfy and read the Lindsay piece.  :-)

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No. You’re not understanding me. 

Please clarify then.