The Long Ending of Mark and the Book of Mormon: A Scholarly Response

A point-by-point rebuttal of LDS Discussions, grounded in manuscript evidence, patristic testimony, and the latest textual scholarship.

Introduction

LDS Discussions argues that language closely paralleling Mark 16:17–18 in Mormon 9:24 constitutes proof that the author of the Book of Mormon had access to the King James Bible. The argument rests on three premises: (1) the Long Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20) is a late scribal fabrication; (2) Joseph Smith copied these verses verbatim from the KJV; and (3) neither text can be authentic given these facts. Each premise is demonstrably flawed.

I. The Claim of Near-Unanimous Scholarly Consensus Is Overstated

LDS Discussions relies entirely on Bart Ehrman and frames the matter as settled. This misrepresents current scholarship. The following credentialed scholars have mounted rigorous peer-reviewed defenses of the Long Ending:

Nicholas P. Lunn — The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9–20 (James Clarke & Co., 2014). A 378-page monograph demonstrating through linguistic, literary, thematic, and structural analysis that Mark 16:9–20 bears authentic Markan authorship. Craig A. Evans (Dean of Christian Thought, Houston Baptist University) publicly reversed his prior skepticism after reading it, declaring Lunn “succeeds in showing just how flimsy that position really is.”

James Snapp Jr. — Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9–20 (2016). An exhaustive survey of manuscript, patristic, and internal evidence concluding the verses are genuine.

David Alan Black (ed.) — Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views (B&H Academic, 2008). Multiple credentialed contributors argue for authenticity in a formal scholarly four-views format.

William R. Farmer — The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Cambridge University Press, 1974). One of the earliest modern scholarly monographs arguing for originality.

LDS Discussions dismisses these scholars with: “you can always find a few scholars who will argue for any position.” This is rhetorical dismissal, not engagement with evidence. Lunn’s monograph was published by an academic press, peer-reviewed, and demonstrably moved credentialed scholars. Calling the consensus “near-unanimous” while refusing to engage the dissenting scholarship is not intellectual honesty.

II. The Manuscript Evidence: More Complex Than Two Manuscripts

A. Ninety-Five Percent of Greek Manuscripts Include the Long Ending

Over 1,600 extant Greek manuscripts of Mark contain Mark 16:9–20, representing more than 95% of the Greek manuscript tradition. The two dissenting manuscripts — Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (both mid-4th century) — belong to a single Alexandrian textual tradition and are not independent witnesses. When LDS Discussions implies these two manuscripts represent the full picture, it ignores the overwhelming weight of the manuscript tradition. Critically, Vaticanus leaves an unusually blank column following Mark 16:8 — a scribal practice signaling the copyist knew of additional text but chose not to include it. This is not evidence of original absence; it is physical evidence of deliberate omission.

B. Second-Century Versional Evidence

The Long Ending is attested in the Old Latin versions, the Peshitta (Syriac), Coptic, Gothic, and Armenian versions. Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. 172 AD) — produced within living memory of the apostolic age — incorporated all twelve verses. The Latin Codex Fuldensis and Arabic Diatessaron, descending from Tatian’s second-century work, preserve the Long Ending intact. The Alexandrian omission is the anomaly, not the norm.

C. The Freer Logion

Codex Washingtonianus (4th–5th century) contains the Long Ending along with an additional interpolation known as the Freer Logion between verses 14 and 15. Jerome (c. 417 AD) mentions this variant. Multiple independent manuscript streams, each including these verses, do not point toward a single late forger — they point toward an ancient and widely distributed text.

III. Patristic Testimony Places Mark 16:9–20 in the Second Century

LDS Discussions says nothing about patristic evidence. This silence is conspicuous. The Church Fathers place the Long Ending firmly in the second century — two hundred years before the oldest manuscripts that omit it were copied.

Papias (c. 110 AD): Eusebius quotes Papias describing a believer unharmed after drinking poison — a precise illustration of Mark 16:18. This is the earliest possible witness, placing knowledge of the Long Ending at the edge of the apostolic age itself.

Clement of Rome (late 1st century): First Clement 42:3–4 contains striking verbal parallels to the commissioning language of Mark 16, including shared vocabulary not found in the short ending.

Epistula Apostolorum (c. 150 AD): Echoes the narrative structure of Mark 16:10–11, depicting disciples disbelieving a woman’s resurrection report — a scene recorded nowhere in the Gospels except the Long Ending.

Justin Martyr (c. 155 AD): In First Apology, chapter 45, alludes to Mark 16:20 using three Greek words that appear together nowhere else in the New Testament except in that verse.

Tatian (c. 172 AD): Incorporated all twelve verses into his Diatessaron, a Gospel harmony used in Syriac Christianity for centuries.

Irenaeus (c. 180–184 AD): In Against Heresies (Book III, Ch. 10), directly quotes Mark 16:19 as authentic Scripture — the earliest unambiguous direct citation, within living memory of the apostolic era.

Further attestation: Tertullian (195–220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Vincentius (256 AD), and Eznik of Golb (440 AD, quoting Mark 16:17–18 four centuries before the oldest Armenian manuscript omitting the ending). Jerome included the Long Ending in the Latin Vulgate despite knowing manuscripts ending at 16:8.

No forger operating centuries after the apostolic period could have inserted fabricated text into Tatian’s second-century Diatessaron, caused Justin Martyr to mirror its unique vocabulary, or prompted Irenaeus to quote it as Scripture. The Long Ending was known from the earliest Christian generations.

IV. Internal Evidence: The Long Ending Reads as Authentic Mark

A. The Unique Vocabulary Argument Is Self-Defeating

Lunn demonstrates that when the rate of unique vocabulary in Mark 16:9–20 is compared to passages of similar length elsewhere in Mark, it falls within normal Markan parameters. Every passage of comparable length in Mark contains vocabulary unique to that passage. The claim that unique vocabulary proves inauthenticity would, by the same logic, render much of the undisputed Gospel inauthentic.

B. Distinctive Markan Collocations

Lunn identifies word combinations in the Long Ending appearing in Mark 16 and nowhere else in the New Testament except the undisputed body of Mark. The phrase “lay hands on the sick” uses the Greek form arrōstois appearing only in Mark 6:5 and Mark 16:18 across the entire New Testament. Grammatical patterns including rare temporal phrases and genitive absolute constructions match Markan usage. These are the involuntary fingerprints of the same author.

C. Structural Parallels: A Literary Inclusio Spanning the Gospel

Maurice Robinson identifies structural correspondences linking the Long Ending to Mark’s opening chapters: healing the sick (1:34 and 16:18), casting out demons (1:34 and 16:17), speaking in tongues (1:34 and 16:17), early rising (1:35 and 16:9), and proclamation using the verb keryssō (1:38–39 and 16:15). The appointment of the Twelve in Mark 3:14–15 mirrors the commissioning of the Eleven in 16:14–18. This extended literary inclusio is the intentional design of the Gospel’s author, not the patchwork of a scribe.

D. Exodus Typology as Authorial Signature

Lunn traces throughout Mark a sustained New Exodus theological framework in which Christ’s ministry recapitulates the Exodus narrative. The Long Ending continues this without disruption: “taking up serpents” (16:18) parallels Moses taking up the serpent (Exodus 4:2–3); the commission to “go” echoes God’s commission to Moses in Exodus 3:10; the ascension language in Mark 16:19 uses the identical Greek words as the Septuagint account of Elijah’s ascension (2 Kings 2:11), completing the Elijah motif woven throughout the Gospel. This level of intertextual precision is beyond the capability of a random scribe.

V. The Book of Mormon’s Independent Source

A. Moroni’s Explicit Source Citation

Mormon 9:22 explicitly identifies Moroni’s source as “the words which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, hath spoken unto them” — the teachings of Christ recorded among the Nephites. Moroni is not quoting Mark; he is citing independently preserved Nephite records of Christ’s own words. The translation process rendered ancient records into KJV-register English familiar to a 19th-century audience. When parallel ancient content existed in both the Nephite record and the KJV, the translation naturally produced parallel phrasing. This is a feature of the translation method, not evidence of plagiarism.

B. Contextual Fitness in Mormon 9

Scripture Central demonstrates that Moroni’s use of the commissioning language is theologically integrated, not mechanical borrowing. Moroni writes to a future secular audience, deploying the signs-following-believers passage as evidence that miracles confirm the Gospel record he is sealing up. The specific promise about handling serpents and deadly things had “unique relevance to the Nephite disciples” who faced persecution (4 Nephi 1:30–33). A forger lifting text from Mark would be unlikely to appreciate or intentionally deploy this specific contextual resonance.

C. The 3 Nephi Exodus Parallel Pattern

Jeff Lindsay’s Interpreter Foundation analysis documents that 3 Nephi’s account of Christ’s Nephite ministry independently exhibits the same New Exodus typological framework Lunn identified in Mark: Christ’s appearance (3 Nephi 11:8) echoes God’s theophany (Exodus 3:2); “Go forth unto this people” (3 Nephi 11:41) parallels Moses’s commission (Exodus 3:10); disciples transfigured with glowing faces (3 Nephi 19:24–25) parallel Moses at Sinai; sacramental bread and wine without prior provision (3 Nephi 20:3–7) parallel wilderness manna; and the Three Nephites translated (3 Nephi 28) parallel Moses taking three persons up the mountain (Exodus 24:1, 9). This shared typological framework — identifiable only through careful intertextual scholarship — points toward a common divine authorial intelligence, not 19th-century fabrication.

VI. Direct Responses to LDS Discussions’ Arguments

Claim: “These verses were not written by the author of Mark, but added by a later scribe.”

Response: This claim is contested by substantial evidence LDS Discussions never engages. Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 as Scripture in 184 AD. Tatian incorporated all twelve verses c. 172 AD. Justin Martyr mirrored its unique vocabulary c. 155 AD. Papias possibly illustrated Mark 16:18 c. 110 AD. Lunn, Snapp, and Robinson demonstrate authentic Markan authorship through rigorous internal analysis. LDS Discussions cites only Ehrman and addresses none of this counter-evidence. That is selective citation, not scholarship.

Claim: The KJV is “at least two translations away” from whatever Jesus spoke.

Response: This argument proves far too much. If translational distance were disqualifying, no English Christian could ground theology in any Gospel. The Book of Mormon translation methodology deliberately rendered ancient records using KJV idiom as the familiar scriptural register of its 19th-century audience. Translational parallel is not plagiarism.

Claim: The Book of Mormon copy is “100% identical” to the KJV — proof of copying.

Response: The contested point is the source of the similarity, not the similarity itself. If Christ spoke these commissioning words to both Old World and New World disciples, and the translation rendered them in parallel KJV English, then identical wording is precisely what an authentic record would produce. LDS Discussions conflates the mode of transmission with the source of content — a category error that runs throughout the entire argument.

Claim: Even if the Long Ending pre-existed attachment to Mark, Joseph Smith still uses KJV wording unavailable until 1611.

Response: This argument is circular. It presupposes the Book of Mormon is not ancient, then cites features of an ancient-to-English translation as evidence it is not ancient. LDS Discussions imposes a rule — any resemblance to KJV phrasing is disqualifying — that, applied consistently, would render the Book of Mormon unintelligible as a 19th-century English text for a 19th-century audience.

VII. The Positive Case: What the Evidence Actually Supports

When the full body of evidence is assembled, the following conclusions are warranted:

1. Mark 16:9–20 cannot be confidently dismissed as a late fabrication. Second-century patristic witnesses, 95% of the Greek manuscript tradition, versional evidence in six ancient languages, and sophisticated internal analysis all support authenticity. The Alexandrian omission is the anomaly.

2. Even scholars skeptical of Markan authorship acknowledge the content is early. Ehrman himself acknowledges such scholars allow the content may derive from early tradition. The underlying commissioning content reflects authentic apostolic-era teaching.

3. Moroni’s source was Nephite records of Christ’s teachings. Mormon 9:22 says so explicitly. The similarity to Mark 16 reflects the same commissioning words spoken by the same risen Lord to different groups of disciples.

4. KJV-register English in Mormon 9:24 is a translation-method feature, not evidence of plagiarism. Parallel ancient content naturally produces parallel English phrasing in a translation designed for its audience.

5. The convergence of Exodus typology in both Mark 16 and 3 Nephi is a positive authenticating signal. This shared framework, identified independently by scholars of each text, points toward a common divine authorial intelligence rather than 19th-century fabrication.

Conclusion

LDS Discussions presents the Long Ending of Mark as a decisive refutation of the Book of Mormon’s ancient claims. But the argument succeeds only if the reader never examines the manuscript tradition, never reads the Church Fathers, and never engages Lunn, Snapp, or Robinson. Once those sources are consulted, the argument collapses: the authenticity of Mark 16:9–20 is far from settled, and the Book of Mormon’s parallel passage has a coherent, textually-grounded explanation that does not require 19th-century forgery.

The honest critical conclusion is that the Long Ending of Mark is a live scholarly question, that the Book of Mormon’s parallel reflects a theologically coherent independent source, and that the convergence of Exodus typology across both records is a positive indicator of authentic ancient content. Those willing to weigh the full evidence will find it pointing in a consistently different direction than LDS Discussions suggests.

Key Scholarly Sources

Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9–20 (James Clarke & Co., 2014).

James Snapp Jr., Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9–20 (2016).

David Alan Black (ed.), Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views (B&H Academic, 2008).

William R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Cambridge University Press, 1974).

Jeff Lindsay, “The Book of Mormon Versus the Consensus of Scholars: Surprises from the Disputed Longer Ending of Mark,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. interpreterfoundation.org.

Scripture Central, “Why Does Part of the Long Ending of Mark Show Up in the Book of Mormon?” scripturecentral.org.

FAIR Latter-day Saints, “Why Does Part of the Longer Ending of Mark Show Up in the Book of Mormon?” fairlatterdaysaints.org.

Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. 10 (c. 180–184 AD).

Tatian, Diatessaron (c. 172 AD); preserved in Latin Codex Fuldensis and Arabic Diatessaron.