The Long Ending of Mark in the Book of Mormon | Ep. 1632 | LDS Discussions Ep. 15

[@danvogel6802]

Good discussion. The long ending of Mark is a very serious anachronism in the Book of Mormon.

[@EmilyBigelow]

AGAIN… LOVING ❤️ this series and can’t wait til the next one! Thank you both

[@senorbb2150]

"And these signs shall follow them that believe" Just gotta say- I went on an LDS mission and was a believing, faithful missionary working with other believing, faithful missionaries. I never once witnessed the casting out of spirits, someone drinking poison with no effect, speaking in tongues, serpents biting a missionary with no harm done, or anyone being healed by a priesthood blessing.

[@joellavergne2001]

The devil doesn't bother those who are already deceived, nor does a false gospel hold the power to cast out darkness. My parents have both experienced demonic manifestations in real time. The biblical Jesus does save.

[@pioneercynthia1]

​@@joellavergne2001 That sounds like an exciting (albeit scary) story! Would you relate some of it?

[@joellavergne2001]

​@@pioneercynthia1sure thing. My father worked in a mental health center for years. One afternoon a woman came into the office in a fit of rage. She was screaming so violently that her throat was bleeding. She shattered a gumball machine as security guards/police officers tried to apprehend her. FOUR grown men struggled to get handcuffs on her. Once she was cuffed on her wrists and ankles, she broke one of them and bent the other. I fail to remember which pair of cuffs she broke and which she bent. Either way, this average sized woman was exuding strength beyond what is possible. A more explicitly spiritual story has to do with a church my parents used to go to. It was a charismatic church where worship would take place and it was common for those in worship to speak in tongues. At a particular evening service, as the worship was beginning a woman who was an acquaintance of my parents all of a sudden became possessed. Her voice deepened dramatically, her eyes rolled to the back of her head, and she began to curse God in this raspy voice which was not her own. The immediate response was a prayerful laying on of hands to free her in the presence of so many believers. She regained consciousness eventually as she was freed in Jesus name. She had no recollection of the event. These events are strange yet quite recurrent throughout history. From a Biblical worldview, spiritual darkness knows that Jesus defeated the grave, so much so that they literally flee at the mention of His name. They know their destruction is coming and that Jesus has dominion over ALL things including that destruction. Additionally, the Biblical commandment to steer clear of mediums and spiritualists is one of protection against demonic forces who seek to deceive and torment.

[@pioneercynthia1]

@@joellavergne2001 Whoa... I've seen a lot of strange things in churches, but nothing this wild.

[@notmyrealname9469]

At last, we have been hearing about this episode for weeks!

[@Jack-eo5fn]

Great job. We can say it more concisely like this: Manuscript scholars (both conservative and liberal) now agree that the popular ending of the book of Mark was added years after the original book of Mark was completed. The popular ending includes the promise that all followers of Jesus can heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, drink poison, and handle poisonous snakes. Instead, the original gospel of Mark simply ends with the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, and the question of the empty tomb.

[@Hallahanify]

Well your summary doesn't mention what that has to do with the book of mormon. I'm confused about the timeline that the book of mormon is supposed to take place in, and when this longer ending of mark was written.

[@leeannlinder1931]

Love this series, huge thanks to “Mike” and John for these deep dives. I’ve seen a couple of comments about the speed…if you subscribe to KZbin premium, you get no commercials/ads AND you can control playback speed. So, you can speed up slower speakers to save you time or slow down speakers so that you can process at the speed of your personal choice. .75 is perfect for me!

[@anandrew6641]

You can change speed on regular, free version of KZbin also.

[@steveg1961]

The creation of the religious doctrines forming "Christology" in early Christianity is most prominently seen in the writings of Paul (Saul of Tarsus), the Roman educated Jew. And as Paul's Christology grew and took on prominence in the teachings of early Christianity, then the gospels after Mark (which contained only a brief mention of the resurrection) felt the need to "backfill" the general story (already given in Mark) with a more extensive resurrection story to give fuller meaning to the Pauline Christology - which then itself (still in a brief form) was added to the end of Mark.

[@patricianoel7782]

Just a thought 💭 I’ve been reading the book “Q, the Earliest Gospel “by John Kloppenborg. On page 148 Glossery shows “Ur-Markus. The hypothesis was decisively rejected by Paul Werner in 1899 but has more recently reappeared …as part of the effort to understand the relationship of the LONGER (Secret) GOSPEL OF MARK to canonical Mark. “ Anyway, just further hypothesis of relationship between Luke, Matthew and Mark. Thanks guys. These anachronisms of Mark and the Book of Mormon is fascinating, as always.

[@ItsMeCheryl1231]

The sign on your thumbnail caught my attention. I remember seeing one when we were visiting the national parks in Utah in June of 2021.

[@cassandragreer6614]

So the question I see is: Why didn't God give JS the original ending of Mark instead of the addon?

[@lizzieb19450]

Love the commentary! Great episode! Donate!!!

[@arucaneshurtugal1523]

8:20 It's incorrect to say that Mark (widely accepted as the first gospel) portrays Jesus as simply a "wise man". In the account of healing the paralytic in Mark 2, Jesus claims the power to forgive sins. His critics the scribes rightly charge him with blasphemy, saying "Who but God alone can forgive sins?" (Mt 2:7). Mark the describes Jesus as knowing the thoughts that the scribes were thinking, which is also a divine attribute. He then refers to himself as the Son of Man, which is a clear reference to Daniel and the divine figure described there. So the scribes think Jesus is claiming to be God, Jesus displays miraculous abilities, doesn't rebuke the scribes who think he is blaspheming, and then associates himself with a divine figure from the Old Testament. It's true that John contains very clear assertions of divinity (e.g. the I AM statements in John 8), but to say that Mark does not portray Jesus as divine is not correct. Frankly, Bart Erhman is not a particularly credible or serious scholar. He might have been a serious academic at one point, but now writes pop books that are meant to appeal to laymen who don't know much about biblical criticism. He makes claims in his popular works that he is forced to backtrack on in his actual scholarly publications. To me, that looks like lying because he has an anti-Christian bias and he knows most people won't check his references.

[@timisa58]

It is my understanding that earlier Mark findings do not have the ending that exists now. So, why isn't it in the earliest Mark gospels?

[@raptor6347]

Perhaps later Christians removed the offending part of Mark because it was like the Gospel of Peter. Written very strangely. Gospel of Peter Chapter 9 (34) When the Sabbath morning dawned, a crowd came from Jerusalem and the surrounding area that they might see that the tomb had been sealed. (35) But during the night in which the Lord's day dawned, while the soldiers were stationed in pairs to keep watch, a great voice came from heaven. (36) And they saw the hea[v]ens open and two men descend from there, having a great radiance and approaching the tomb. (37) Then, the same stone which had been put in the entrance rolled away from it and gave way partially. And the tomb was opened and both young men went in. Chapter 10 (38) Then, seeing this, these soldiers woke up the centurions and elders, for they themselves were all there to keep watch. (39) And while they were describing what they had seen, again they saw three men coming out from the tomb, two supporting the other and a cross following them. (40) The heads of the two reached up to the heavens and the head of the one they were leading by the hand went beyond the heavens. (41) And they heard a voice from heaven saying, "Did you preach to those who sleep?" (42) Obediently, there was heard from the cross, "Yes." www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-andrewbernhard.html earlychristiantexts.com/the-gospel-of-peter-resurrection-reinvented/

[@Luke-hs3bf]

I find it a bit odd that a Mormon "Bible Scholar" would find the time to nit-pick the Book of Mark when the Book of Mormon has so many problematic issues that need to be addressed. As a non-Mormon it seems that most people knowledgeable about religion in general believe the Book of Mormon to be totally made up. Fictional. It doesn't help that there has been no concrete, reliable archeological finds that back up what's in the Book of Mormon. I think time would be better spent laying/strengthening the foundations of the scriptures of the Mormon faith.

[@pioneercynthia1]

Most of the things you mention are covered in other episodes.

[@ceb591]

Non Stamp Collector has a great video about the gospel changes.

[@gary_stavropoulos]

How did we not get Mormon snake handlers?

[@pioneercynthia1]

Visiting a snakes-handling church is on my spiritual bucket list.

[@jorgitosalazar38]

I was told by relatives stop sharing that material against the Church , the Church is very powerful , so I was wondering have you ever been threatened by the Church to stop doing this??I don't think so right?

[@jdarkwind]

Mike: There is, I believe, a hypothesis among some biblical scholars that the long ending might be a fragment of a different (now-lost) gospel or other text that was mistakenly appended to Mark by an early copyist, rather than being the original work of a pseudepigrapher. You don't really address this idea in your presentation, but an apologist might latch onto it as validation that those verses were inspired scripture (just from an unknown author). Or is that covered sufficiently in your estimation by the complaint that the Book of Mormon is still paraphrasing a 17th century translation, regardless of original authorship?

[@krammitman188]

Even if its mistakenly appended or still actual scripture you still have 3 major problems to contend with. 1, how did writings written 650 - 800 years after Lehi left get added word for word to a text across the world. 2.) Even if that was revelation passed to the Nephites, why was it passed to them in a broken translation that matches word for word a translation that happened 1700 years later? 3 if Joseph was receiving inspired translation why is God passing 2 broken gospels jammed together and not taking the opportunity to fix it, everything in that space screams he coppied straight from the KJB no matter what the original source text looks like? Somewhere along the way this poor translation / mashed up gospel got passed along by the power of God (according to the mormon narrative) weather to the nephites or to Joseph Smith. Either way it doesn't tell a story of divinity. Instead it shows right where Joseph got his material.

[@jdarkwind]

​@@krammitman188 ​ Yeah, those are fair points. I guess the point I'm driving at is that Smith didn't claim to be quoting Mark the way he did Isaiah, so it's not _necessarily_ a case of copying a flawed transmission of Mark. If verses 9-20 of Mark 16 were written by a different Christian authority, then we don't have to assume that "Moroni" is quoting the gospel of Mark at all and are free to assume he's quoting that other author. Then we're just left with questions like "Why is Moroni quoting _anything_ written 7000 miles away in a language he didn't know?"

[@krammitman188]

@@jdarkwind That logic checks out, but doesn't address the source of the problem of that text being included in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. This text which could not have been written any earlier than 35 A.D. (when Jesus died) somehow ends up in a supposedly historical record, word for word, 7000 miles away. True we don't have to make the statement we are quoting Mark, we could be quoting some other lost gospel that happens to be tagged onto the end of Mark, but we do have to acknowledge an account of Jesus' resurrection and the actions his disciples took couldn't have been written until that event takes place. Which means that either God gave this revelation to Moroni directly but chose only to include a fragmented version of this lost gospel rather than restore it, or alternatively JS copied it from the Bible, like so many other inclusions in the BoM.

[@grumpylibrarian]

Suddenly, textual analysis of the gospel of Mark has turned into book reviews? There's no non-theological reason to think that 16:8 is too abrupt to have been the original ending. This is simply theological ret-con to think that anything is "missing" from this story. * Mark 14:11-12 hints that the book itself is a parable, not literal history. ----- 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’” ----- * Mark has a literary structure we've dubbed a "Markan Sandwich" where he starts with one incident, tells a different but related incident, then finishes the original incident. * One of these Markan sandwiches in 11:12-21 has Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, with the crunchy innards being him clearing the temple of money changers. This story is WEIRD if literal. As allegory, it is open to multiple interpretations, but can easily be seen as a critique of Jewish temple practices. This story adds evidence to Mark having been written after 70CE in response to the destruction of the temple. * Many people know Jesus fed 5000 people. Fewer people know that Jesus did it AGAIN for 4000, in very similar stories, in Mark 8:1-13. This isn't in a sandwich. * Jesus later chides the disciples for being as dumb as a bag of hammers for NOT EVEN NOTICING that he was performing the same miracle AGAIN, in 8:14-21. * In the final chapter, the women were going to go anoint Jesus's body... on the third day AFTER he was buried. This happens BEFORE burial. On the way there, they realized that they were too stupid to have planned to move the stone. Fortunately, it was already moved. Scholars can feel free to submit their scathing book reviews, but the sequence of A) Jesus not being there, B) some dude tells the women to meet Jesus in Galilee, and C) they run away and instead TELL NO ONE creates a perfect ending for this mystery parable. The ret-con is believing that the author of Mark was intending to actually narrate history and believing that the history didn't end right here. If you don't assume those, then this ending is as good as it gets for literary works. The biggest ret-con is that modern christians think that Jesus came back to Earth in a human body after he died. Most of Paul's epistles are actually quite vague, but 1 Corinthians 15 strongly suggests that Paul believed that Jesus's resurrection was into a heavenly body, and didn't have a physical foot to set on Earth. Mark's 16:8 ending is compatible with this, and Matthew's ending is also vague on whether Jesus appears in Galilee in person or in a vision. It's not until Luke that we get a non-ambiguously fleshly Jesus, and Luke is the only biblical author who ever refers to ascension. John also asserts a physical body, but implies both that Jesus wasn't born and that he continues to wander the Earth.

[@ddbrosnahan]

We shouldn't forget the likely explanation that the added text in question very likely came from the early unavailable source known as "Q" or the "Sayings of Jesus". Also, the main reason why scholars claim multiple authorship of Isaiah is because many don't believe a prophet can speak to things beyond their own time period (eg Cyrus). The literary analysis is divided but the best studies overwhelmingly demonstrate unity.

[@mormonstories]

I believe there's also tonal and syntactical differences that are greater evidence of multiple authors of Isaiah.

[@ddbrosnahan]

@@mormonstories There is not agreement among scholars on this. The real literary difference in Isaiah 40-55 is passages which speak of the suffering Messiah and deliverance from captivity. Non-contextual word print analysis are mixed showing a possible shift around chapter 30 but when compared to other books in the bible. Isuah demonstrates greater internal consistency than any of the other books compared. My point is, we shouldnt talk about deutero-Isaiah as if its "settled science". It is not. But I get it. talking about deliverance from captivity before it happened is supernatural.

[@ddbrosnahan]

@@mormonstories It appears Mark or at least the Mark portion that was availible did end abruptly and someone likely added material, but the material added likely came from Q. So the ideas of signs following belief is likely authentic teaching not to mention a trillion believers that could attest to this teaching as true from personal experience. (D&C 124-98-99 clarifies spiritual venom was to be avoided)

[@Mark_McC]

@@mormonstories what happened to the LDS Discussions series? It’s been two weeks since the last broadcast. Concerned. Mike’s episodes are golden!

[@timmiestabrnak]

I understand what you’re getting at but what you mention of the gospels aren’t really discrepancies

[@The_Other_Ghost]

Smith's spellcheck was the king james bible.

[@kirkharrington1508]

Maybe Moroni and the BOM prophets had access to the KJV version of the Bible though. That was sarcastic 😂

[@chrissessions6108]

35:42 if Mormon was quoting the resurrected Jesus's words to the Nephites, then why doesn't that show up in Christ's commission to the Nephite disciples in 3 Nephi 12? Oh, because that's quoting Matthew 5, so Mark will have to be a separate track on the mix-tape.

[@sandrajohnson5624]

thank God we have modern prophets, because of crap like this

[@chuthimagillins5386]

After Jesus gone. The guy name Paul wrote and that when new testament came and that when all the history abiut Christ has been changed. 2000 different Bible. If this is really word from God the Bible wouldn't change. Even book of Mormon is has changed.

[@abb9017]

Why does he use a pseudonym???

[@chuthimagillins5386]

Islam not reject christ. A lot of people misunderstanding Islam. Islam believe everything about Jesus that he was born from Virgin Mary, Jesus even spoke when he was a baby that was miracle, he shew miracle help all sick people, lift people from dead, 12 apostles followed him. But the only think they not believe is Jesus died. God lifted Jesus up to heaven before he got caught. And if Jesus's mission to died for our sin so why he pray to God to remove his bitter cup. And why Jesus died when we are not perfect and keep mistake over and over again. What's the purpose of Jesus gone through all those pain and we still make sin as human being. Another thing is when Jesus died it was on Friday. If Jesus resurrected on Sunday that was 2 days not 3 days. And if Jesus gone through all those hit slash he couldn't be able to carry heavy cross and hold himself for 6-9 hours on cross like the bible said. Just being realistic here. The whole story didn't make sense. You guys should do research on Jesus specifically that would solved all the Christian questions

[@capercaillieskye]

Yikes, that one fair mormon argument is _quite_ circular indeed XD I mean their argument is basically: The book of mormon is true, therefore moroni was not pulling from Mark in the bible, therefore the book of mormon is true. Definitely some major circular logic there XD You can't use the truth of something you're trying to prove as evidence that proves it's true lol! XD

[@kirkharrington1508]

Interesting this one. If God really did speak to JS, surely he would know the real ending after verse 8. I feel like God has more class than to plagiarize something written later 😂

[@ClarkAboudaz]

Justin Martyr from 160ad quotes the end of Mark which proves it’s not a later addition, the Catholic Church didn’t even exist at this time for them to have altered any text

[@anselman3156]

"the last twelve verses of Mark ....have an enormous weight of testimony in their favor which cannot lightly be set aside. They are found in all the Greek manuscripts except Aleph and B and in all the Latin manuscripts except k. All the Syriac versions contain these verses, with the exception of the Sinaitic Syriac, and so also does the Bohairic version, And even more important, they were quoted as Scripture by Early Church Fathers who lived one hundred and fifty years before B and Aleph were written, namely Justin Martyr (c. 150) Tatian (c. 175), Irenaeus (c.180) and Hyppolytus (c. 200). Thus the earliest extant testimony is on the side of these last twelve verses" Edward F. Hills The King James Version Defended, See also John William Burgon "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1871).

[@sandrajohnson5624]

he says Dont lean on your own understanding, we ask the holy ghost for direction, when i joined the church, i had never read the book of Mormon , but i got a testimony by asking in faith if the church was true, and the holy ghost told me it was and he told my why i was born in this family and more, John dehlin are you encouraging people to deny the holy ghost, fair mormon my not have all the answers but either do you, Dont lean on your own understanding

[@carmengale3311]

I dont care if the longer ending came later. If the words are helping God get the good news to His people and spiritual truth is confirmed, then God can use it to further His kingdom on earth and in heaven.

[@MerkieAE]

or what if it’s some random guy adding in a story he made up? sure it’s a nice story but when we have lawmakers making laws based on their faith i think it’s important we fact check their religious beliefs.

[@carmengale3311]

@@MerkieAE true. But spiritual truth cant be found by the natural man as scripture says. Its by the laws of God that we find faith in God, and are able to repent through Jesus Christs atonement.

[@Mon-Alisa]

@@carmengale3311 Does it not bother you that Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon, which means it is not historical, which means he was lying and deceiving people every time he explained it as a historical record of the native Americans?

[@roark0806]

@@carmengale3311 if the words are made up, it matters. The ending of Mark isn't a sermon of nice thoughts. It's a story. If the story never actually happened, that matters. If you believe in the scriptures, as you seem to, you believe that God cannot lie. So if these words are a lie, they are not from God, no matter how lovely or faith-affirming they feel to you.

[@robmullin1128]

I believe the Bible from cover to cover. Biblical apologist’s with PhD’s who have spent their lives studying this very topic have addressed these so called “biblical contradictions”. As a Bible reader I will readily trust someone who has actually read the Bible as opposed to some guy who has barely cracked a Bible and gets their information from google.

[@anselman3156]

I am nor arguing for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but you are on shaky ground here, building too much on an opinion about the ending of Mark which, although it has become popular, has been refuted by experts in New Testament textual criticism. The rejection of the last 12 verses came about in the 19th century due to the speculative revision of the text based on a couple of faulty manuscripts. You should research the thorough defense of te authenticity of the last 12 verses by the likes of the Anglican Bible scholar Dean John William Burgon and Dr E F Hills (author of The King James Version Defended). The long ending is found in the majority of manuscripts and preserved in the historic Church. You are grasping at straws in giving too much weight to the doubtful conjectures of relatively recent (in the history of Christianity) textual revisionism.

[@ascalon132]

I think i'm going to go with Bart Ehrman on this one. Seems like there's more than just 19th century evidence to see why these verses are added after the fact. And he's not alone in that thinking either.

[@anselman3156]

@@ascalon132 Check out John William Burgon and E F Hills for thorough scholarly consideration.

[@anselman3156]

@@ascalon132 Also, I think the Trinitarian Bible Society still publishes an inexpensive pamphlet "The Authenticity of the Last Twelve Verses of The Gospel According to Mark".

[@howieroarke]

@@anselman3156 Ahhh, the rejection of the last 12 verses did not start in the 19th century, but can rather be documented as early as the third century by the Christian historians Eusebius and Jerome, and in the fourth by Severus of Antioch.

[@ascalon132]

​@@anselman3156 First, evangelicals and religious organizations aren't really the greatest unbiased source. If they're beholden to saying the Bible is Holy Scripture, they probably aren't going to be very objective and 2-sided, let alone something that's maybe a little more recent, since new things have come out. So when i say that new evidence and research has been done and you refute it with "Check out this 100+ year old source", i feel like you're missing my point. It's just weird to me that people can scrutinize the Book of Mormon and see the problems with it and then become a biblical literalist, never bothering to do the same deep dive they did for the BoM but now for the Bible.. By i digress. That said, I've seen some of the Burgon arguments. Definitely comes off as arguing for a conclusion than following the evidence. A lot of today's scholars don't even use the two manuscripts for their evidence as to why the last 12 are not authentic. So IMO, his evidence was weak then, but maybe plausible then, but now seems pretty blown out of the water in the 21st century.