A mistake upon a mistake?

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

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.  :-)

The meme says nothing about her personal beliefs, only an awareness of the majority scholar position.

Jeff Lindsay says the identical thing and there appears to be no questioning of his belief.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Calm

[phaedrus ut]

There are hundreds of verbatim KJV New Testament quotes in the BOM.  Many of them come when people of the BOM are still in a pre-christian era but the BOM is quoting later apostolic period writings from the New Testament like the writings of Paul which were written long after Jesus' visit in 3 Nephi.   There is no need to argue for the long ending to Mark and individually for the other problematic quotations when there is probably one likely answer that would explain them all. 

Phaedrus 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

There are hundreds of verbatim KJV New Testament quotes in the BOM.  Many of them come when people of the BOM are still in a pre-christian era but the BOM is quoting later apostolic period writings from the New Testament like the writings of Paul which were written long after Jesus' visit in 3 Nephi.   There is no need to argue for the long ending to Mark and individually for the other problematic quotations when there is probably one likely answer that would explain them all. 

Phaedrus 

Yes, the Book of Mormon is textually dependent upon on many passages that post-date the claimed date of the BOM texts. These issues are insurmountable if one wants to claim, on historical grounds, that the BOM is an ancient text.

The extra ending of Mark is almost certainly not original to Mark - but that doesn't really matter. "Original to Mark" is not the same thing as "accurate transcription of Jesus' teachings". Most of the teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels were probably not spoken by him in life. So the question is more, does this particular teaching help get you closer to God? A subjective question, ultimately.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Gray

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

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.  

http://www.byunewtestamentcommentary.com/marks-human-portrait-of-jesus-julie-m-smith/

http://interpreterfoundation.org/the-gospel-of-mark-with-julie-smith/

Quote

Oddly, Jesus doesn’t actually say much in Mark. He is very active, but we don’t have the long sermons. There’s no Sermon on the Mount in Mark. With the exception of Mark 13 and then, to an extent, the parables in Mark 4, Jesus is mostly active. He does things; he demonstrates his authority by, for example, performing miracles — but he’s not a big talker. It’s maybe a different impression of Jesus than we would get from Matthew, which focuses more on discourses, or John with a farewell discourse. It’s a different picture of Jesus, and one that Smith thinks is important to balance the other pictures we have and are usually more familiar with.

Also, it’s a big deal in Mark that Jesus has chosen disciples. We do not see the lack of understanding of the disciples as sort of a surprise or an “Oh dear, I don’t know what’s going to happen.” No — Jesus deliberately chose people who would have a hard time understanding, and that is designed to give Mark’s audience courage and faith; they need not be perfect in their discipleship.

The big deal in Mark is not doubt, lack of understanding, greed, envy, nor any of those things. The big deal in Mark is a willingness to follow Jesus; are you willing to follow? As long as the disciples are willing to follow, Jesus comes across as more than happy to continue to teach them and to continue having them be disciples.

Smith thinks this would have been an incredibly reassuring message for Mark’s audience; an audience who is facing all sorts of challenges in the 1st century — the natural challenges of living in an ancient world with plague, disease, earthquakes, and extreme poverty like we can’t even imagine, as well as the challenge sometimes of persecution for being a Christian, whether that’s stemming from government, other religious groups, or conflicts within their biological families or community.

The message it gives to Mark’s audience, which is, to put it simply, “As long as you are willing to continue trying to follow Jesus, it’s okay if you mess up — even if you really, really mess up the way Peter does with denying and betraying Jesus.”

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Calm

[cdowis]

On 2/24/2018 at 4:15 PM, 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). 

As i have pointed out in a recent thread, textual criticism is based on "older is better than later manuscripts", which is a a fallacious assumption.  They have not been able to validate this assumption.

[phaedrus ut]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

As i have pointed out in a recent thread, textual criticism is based on "older is better than later manuscripts", which is a a fallacious assumption.  They have not been able to validate this assumption.

The original autograph is the oldest text. I don't know why you would think something else would be the most accurate. 

 

Phaedrus 

Edited February 26, 2018 by phaedrus ut

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

The original autograph is the oldest text. I don't know why you would think something else would be the most accurate. 

 

Phaedrus 

But the original autograph is not extant. Not even close. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Please clarify then.

When you start a question with “Do you contend that ...” and go off on something that’s not even remotely similar to what I said, I wonder what point there would be in continuing. 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

The meme says nothing about her personal beliefs, only an awareness of the majority scholar position.

Jeff Lindsay says the identical thing and there appears to be no questioning of his belief.

Compare what Lindsay wrote in context to what Smith wrote in context. They are not identical. 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

The original autograph is the oldest text. I don't know why you would think something else would be the most accurate. 

 

Phaedrus 

The older version is preferable unless later versions better support whatever it is you believe.  Or the person expands the story with additional details as their memory improves over the years.

Edited February 26, 2018 by cinepro

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

The original autograph is the oldest text. I don't know why you would think something else would be the most accurate. 

 

 

Sigh.  Please identify autographs in the possession of the scholars. 

THERE ARE ONLY COPIES WHICH ARE EXTANT.

Good grief

Edited February 26, 2018 by cdowis

[sunstoned]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The older version is preferable unless later versions better support whatever it is you believe.  Or the person expands the story with additional details as their memory improves over the years.

I can speak to this empirically. Most of my stories get better with age.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When you start a question with “Do you contend that ...” and go off on something that’s not even remotely similar to what I said, I wonder what point there would be in continuing. 

I have no doubt that I may have completely misunderstood your point and if I am mistaken, I would like to be corrected.

[phaedrus ut]

12 hours ago, cdowis said:

Sigh.  Please identify autographs in the possession of the scholars. 

THERE ARE ONLY COPIES WHICH ARE EXTANT.

Good grief

Just like primary sources are preferable to secondary sources the first copies are preferable to later versions when the autograph is unavailable.  You claim this is a "fallacious assumption".  

Phaedrus 

[Maestrophil]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

The meme says nothing about her personal beliefs, only an awareness of the majority scholar position.

Jeff Lindsay says the identical thing and there appears to be no questioning of his belief.

I was misunderstood if I seemed to be questioning any individual's belief.  I was, in general, asking how one could reconcile believing that the passages in question from Mark are not original to the text, and that the Joseph still used them in the BOM with the clear message that they are Christ's words.  Am I missing something to assume there is a situation created here where one side or the other has to be in error? In other words, if the text in Mark is not original and authentic to Christ's words, then doe that not pose a problem for BOM authenticity as the meme suggests?  Conversely, if the BOM is given the thumbs up as Christs unadulterated words, does that not make the 'majority' of bible scholars, especially LDS ones look like they are mistaken?

 

Help me see if there is a middle way or is is only a 2 sided issue.  Sorry if I am a little slow in the uptake.

MP

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Just like primary sources are preferable to secondary sources the first copies are preferable to later versions when the autograph is unavailable.  You claim this is a "fallacious assumption".  

 

 I will assume that you are intelligent enough that you can eventually figure it out.

HINT  It is overly simplistic to assume a straight line relationship.  The totality of the copies may actually be in the form of branches on a tree.  Dating of the copies is only one measure -- the "heritage" or  family of a copy may be more reliable.  An early scribe may have made changes/ deletions which then corrupts the ancestry copies.

Thus, for the book of Luke, the Syriac Aramaic family may be more reliable than any Greek family, regardless of age.  You determine the "reputation" of the family by a direct comparison with the autograph.  

 

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by cdowis

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

In other words, if the text in Mark is not original and authentic to Christ's words, then does that not pose a problem for BOM authenticity as the meme suggests?  Conversely, if the BOM is given the thumbs up as Christs unadulterated words, does that not make the 'majority' of bible scholars, especially LDS ones look like they are mistaken?

The Book of Mormon was written from a precritical perspective that assumed that Jesus actually said everything attributed to him in the NT. There are many, many places where Book of Mormon is at odds with the critical scholarly consensus—another noteworthy example being the Sermon at the Temple/Sermon on the Mount. Most scholars do not believe that Jesus ever delivered the Sermon on the Mount recorded in the Gospel of Matthew—it is widely held to be a composition of Matthew—yet it appears almost word-for-word in the Book of Mormon. So, yes, either the Book of Mormon is right and the scholars are wrong or vice versa.

The Bible, of course, has similar problems. For example, several passages in the NT seem to indicate that Jesus and the Apostle Paul both believed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, yet critical biblical scholarship rejects Mosaic authorship.

A middle way might be to say that the Book of Mormon contains mistakes but is correct enough "to answer the purposes of Heaven at this time" (to paraphrase Brigham Young).

Edited February 26, 2018 by Nevo

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I was misunderstood if I seemed to be questioning any individual's belief.  I was, in general, asking how one could reconcile believing that the passages in question from Mark are not original to the text, and that the Joseph still used them in the BOM with the clear message that they are Christ's words.  Am I missing something to assume there is a situation created here where one side or the other has to be in error? In other words, if the text in Mark is not original and authentic to Christ's words, then doe that not pose a problem for BOM authenticity as the meme suggests?  Conversely, if the BOM is given the thumbs up as Christs unadulterated words, does that not make the 'majority' of bible scholars, especially LDS ones look like they are mistaken?

 

Help me see if there is a middle way or is is only a 2 sided issue.  Sorry if I am a little slow in the uptake.

MP

Julie M. Smith's commentary on the Ending of Mark is primarily a discussion of multiple views of the ending.  She does not identify her personal preference, however there is a note on one of the reasons scholars view the ending as nonoriginal to the Mark Gospel that demonstrates imo she sees no inherent need to dismiss the addition as authentic scripture simply because it is an addition (if it is one):

"These problems not only suggest that Mark 16:9–20 was not original to Mark, but also that it wasn’t written afresh to end the text but rather was an already-extant writing added to fill a gap."

https://www.byunewtestamentcommentary.com/the-ending-of-marks-gospel/#more-937

I believe her personal belief is best summed up by the last paragraph where she quotes with approval speaking of the current ending as an additional witness to the four we usually think of (the gospels).  She therefore, imo, sees it as scripture, appropriate and desirable in its place no matter if it was written by the author of the rest of Mark or someone else.  Therefore I see no reason to see her view as in conflict with the BoM as if the ending is authentic scripture in the NT, it is authentic scripture in the BoM.

"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.”[15]"

Lindsay states in the Interpreter article (page 319-320) pretty much the same points of the two Smith quotes, imo:

"The evidence for the early existence of the longer ending, its Markan style, and its thematic unity with Mark, while strongly supporting the propriety of including the longer ending in the canon, does not necessarily mean that Mark wrote it himself or that it was in the initial draft of the Gospel of Mark. It could have been written under Mark’s direction or by a follower of Mark and may have been an update or addition to an initial manuscript. For example, David Alan Black argues that Mark wrote the longer ending as a later postscript to his Gospel that had already been in circulation.70 However it was produced, the evidence suggests that there was no reason for the early Christian community to question its inclusion in Mark and its sacred nature, and there is no [Page 320]reason for us to exclude it and condemn it today."

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-book-of-mormon-versus-the-consensus-of-scholars-surprises-from-the-disputed-longer-ending-of-mark-part-1/

Edited February 26, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

On 2/24/2018 at 10:30 AM, 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

Whether or not the scholars are right about this aspect of the NT, for me, the question isn't whether or not he copied passages from the KJV (he did)... the question is why and what should I learn from it?

[phaedrus ut]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

 I will assume that you are intelligent enough that you can eventually figure it out.

HINT  It is overly simplistic to assume a straight line relationship.  The totality of the copies may actually be in the form of branches on a tree.  Dating of the copies is only one measure -- the "heritage" or  family of a copy may be more reliable.  An early scribe may have made changes/ deletions which then corrupts the ancestry copies.

Thus, for the book of Luke, the Syriac Aramaic family may be more reliable than any Greek family, regardless of age.  You determine the "reputation" of the family by a direct comparison with the autograph.  

I understand what you're saying but that is not what you said.  You said: 

20 hours ago, cdowis said:

As i have pointed out in a recent thread, textual criticism is based on "older is better than later manuscripts", which is a a fallacious assumption.  They have not been able to validate this assumption.

Which completely misrepresents textual criticism.  I student studying textual criticism for the first time is taught to understand the stemmatology of the sources and the and placing them in a family tree.  Part of textual criticism is a modus operandi to collate these manuscripts into stemma called the recensio. This understanding of textual criticism goes back to the ancient Greeks.  Even modern textual criticism is 300 years old.  Scholars at the ancient library of Alexandria literally invented symbols for the purpose on analyzing and reconstructing texts.  

I've never heard anyone describe textual criticism as being based on older is better.

 

Phaedrus 

 

 

 

 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I've never heard anyone describe textual criticism as being based on older is better.

Of course not.  I do not speak techno babble.

 BTW my last post was an expansion on the previous post -- basically I repeated myself but with more detail.  I give you the last word.

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by cdowis

[clarkgoble]

Just because it wasn't part of the original Mark doesn't mean it didn't exist as a written or oral tradition that was handed down and viewed as authentic. Indeed if you stop and think about it, to get edited into Mark, someone obviously thought that. 

I'd note that Mormon is writing 400 years later so these 1st century textual questions are fairly irrelevant.

Edited February 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

On 2/25/2018 at 6:04 PM, phaedrus ut said:

The original autograph is the oldest text. I don't know why you would think something else would be the most accurate. 

In the case of Mark there are numerous signs that it was originally performed. Remember that most people were illiterate at that time. Probably multiple people performed it with variations, perhaps due to the needs of the local community. It's quite likely that the text of Mark was written down from one of the later performances and that originally there was no text beyond the oral one. (It's possible the mythic Q also was like this)

When you read Mark as a stage performance (well probably not stages - but you get the idea) then a lot of the foreshadowing and dramatic irony is highlighted much more. Also when reading it instead of looking at it as a history the way we think of (and value) history think of it more akin to the endowment or even an oft repeated talk of say Pres. Monson customized to motivate or cry repentance to a particular group. The theme of the gospel is discipleship and that rather than history is what it's trying to get at.

Edited February 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Alaris]

Scholars tend to err the least miraculous explanation when dealing with scripture. The book of Enoch was only so old in their eyes until they found it in the dead sea scrolls circa 200 BC. So naturally it must have been written in 200 BC and no earlier. 

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, Alaris said:

Scholars tend to err the least miraculous explanation when dealing with scripture. The book of Enoch was only so old in their eyes until they found it in the dead sea scrolls circa 200 BC. So naturally it must have been written in 200 BC and no earlier. 

I don't believe that's true. The standard view in the 1890's was that it was pre-Christian.