Did Mark make a mistake?

[jamannor]

All one has to do is read the four gospels, even causally, to find there are some very substantial differences in the four accounts of Jesus’ life and mission. These differences have spurred many attempts to understand the reasons for these differences and attempts have been made to reconcile them, for example, throught the Church’s history there have been periodic attemps to fuse all four accounts into one.

So what’s your point? They don’t contradict each other. They are different. But I agree that they are different because they are reaching out to different audiences.

However, I think the works of modern scripture scholarship has presented a very important insight into why there are four different gospels and not one. And these insights have been acknowledged in “Dei Verbum”.

I think the most important insight is the gospels are faith documents, not historal narratives in the modern sense. As faith documents we must approach them as coming from the faith response of different communities of the Church, each have their own particular understanding who Christ Jesus is and how His life, mission and Paschal Sacrifice/Resurrection has affected the particular faith community. The gospels have come to us from different people at different times, culture and locations and needs all of which affected their faith response differently.

Who says the Gospels aren’'t historical. The Bible is, I agree, not made up of only historical narratives, but some are. Some are to be taken as such too. The Bible has historical, prophetic, poetic, and other forms of discourse. I do agree with you that it is a faith document, but I disagree that it isn’t historical. The “mistakes” can be explained. I can tell you a story that is completely true in four different ways leaving out and adding details in it for different audiences and still make it a historical account of how the story happened.

I have read in many different works that the best way to understand the gospels is to view them as portraits, not photographs or historical narratives. Therefore, I think if we say one gospel is more historically correct than another is to miss the point. Again, each gospel is coming from a different faith communities’ response so there is bound to be - there has to be
differences and not mistakes.

What are your sources, I have looked up through a Google search, and the catholic encyclopedia and the church maintains that they are historical accounts that are to be taken as how they are written. In the past there have been scholars that have questioned this but I would say they maintain they are historical in nature, and also error free.

And if there are historical errors (in the modern sense) are these errors accidental or substantial errors in regards to the Divine Revelation coming to us through them? I think and hope most of us would agree the differences are accidental when considered in the light that all four gospels are faith documents whose truth is guided and guaranteed b the Holy Spirit.

 

[TOME]

Jammanor,

The point I was hoping to make, but I guess I didn’t express myself clearly enough, was if a person’s starting point is the gospels are historical narrartives, that is accurate historical accounts in the modern understanding of history, this will naturally lead to questions such as the one presented in this thread. The gospels, as we have been taught in Dei Verbum, must be understood in the context that they are first and foremost the history of salvation expressed through human understanding and language of the cultures from which they were written. I agree that there are historical events and persons and places etc. (Christ existence, His Ministry passion and death are historical events which have more historical backing than the life of Socretes or Plato, and the Resurrection was a historical event) but again that is not the gospels main purpose nor the New Testament’s for that matter.

As for my sources, over the years I have studied the works of many scholars who employ the historical critical method in their studies however, I would suggest that the next time you google a source look up the works of the “Ressourcement” theologians. They have been the greatest influence on my theological understanding of scripture, church, Christology and the sacraments.

 

[RichardAValdes]

Dear Adriancombe,

I appreciate and respect the replies of all who participate herein; but I was at the home of a non-Catholic Christian reading the Bible and we found a statement which I found alarming. I am very sorry but I cannot recall what or where. We took out several other translations of the Bible, both Catholic and non-Catholic and found a significant difference: some called for us to love our Christian brothers while others called for us to love our brothers. If one accepts the mesage of the NT that Jesus came for all men, we cannot deny our love to our brothers who have not heard His message. I ususally try to check out the different translations using Biblegateway.com when I find a difficult passage.

In the love of Christ
RAV

 

[Hellisreal]

Dear Adriancombe,

I appreciate and respect the replies of all who participate herein; but I was at the home of a non-Catholic Christian reading the Bible and we found a statement which I found alarming. I am very sorry but I cannot recall what or where. We took out several other translations of the Bible, both Catholic and non-Catholic and found a significant difference: some called for us to love our Christian brothers while others called for us to love our brothers. If one accepts the mesage of the NT that Jesus came for all men, we cannot deny our love to our brothers who have not heard His message. I ususally try to check out the different translations using Biblegateway.com when I find a difficult passage.

In the love of Christ
RAV

Biblegateway?

Gag me.

 

[Crumpy]

It seems the most logical answer to your question is “yes”. Mark made a mistake.

An acquaintance of mine who is a minister provided the following, which varies from Valke’s conclusion that Mark made an error.

In the

Gospel of Mark 2:23-28, it is mentioned recounting
the particular historical incident: “…in
the days of Abiathar the high priest…”

 In the actual historical narrative, itself, 1st

Samuel 21: 1-6 relates how David interacted with
Ahimelech, the priest at “Nob.”

   This historical event took place before

Solomon’s death, before the Kingdom of Israel was
divided, because of God’s judgment. The reason that
I mention this, is, because the Kingdom of Israel
was a large “entity.”

    Notice that in the O.T. account, it says

that “…David came to Nob…” That was one
part of the whole vast, geographical kingdom. There
wasn’t just one priest but many. 1 Samuel 22: 6 -
23. Also, take note verse, 19: “Also Nob, the city
of the priests, he struck with the edge of the
sword…”

Back to Abiathar – I believe we can readily
conclude with the information available, that he was
either in another geographical location – or,
possibly, he was included (although not mentioned by
name in the 2 Sam. account) of the priests at Nob
who met their deaths at King Saul’s vengeance.

Again, I repeat, the Scripture itself
distinguishes between Ahimelech, the priest as
compared to Abiathar, the high priest. No
contradiction here – only if one desires a
contradiction and a hasty conclusion without taking
into account the the specific context and, the
totality of Scripture and also its “inerrancy” and
“inspiration.”

 

[RichardAValdes]

Biblegateway.com Lists various Bible translations in many languages. I live in Mexico and take Bible classes in Spanish. It is very useful to compare translations in English and Spanish as well as to compare the NIV to the King James, etc.

RAV

 

[HailMary]

Biblegateway.com Lists various Bible translations in many languages. I live in Mexico and take Bible classes in Spanish. It is very useful to compare translations in English and Spanish as well as to compare the NIV to the King James, etc.

RAV

On that same note, if you go to preferences and "include Aprochrphya, you can actualy use the 1899 Douay version on this website.