Did Mark make a mistake?

[Talmida]

How so? Accurate means to be free from error. How could something be TRUE - yet full of error?

I believe the scriptures are inspired by God and are both true & without error.

I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and were written down by fallible humans.

The Gospels were written for a purpose – to help converts who’d never met the human Jesus. The memories of those who HAD met Jesus were FADING – they were getting older, some had already died, and the stories had to be written down before everyone forgot. Remember, the early disciples thought Jesus would be back any minute – they didn’t think they were going to need to keep records or have to depend on anything other than memory.

There are bound to be discrepancies and inconsistencies. The memories about Jesus may not be accurate in every detail (note all the discrepancies between Gospels!) but they do not detract from the Truth of the Gospel.

You could name the priest Rumpelstiltskin and it would not affect the Truth of this passage – that Jesus had precedence for his disciples’ actions and that they were well within the Law.

That’s what I meant by “not accurate, but True.”

 

[Magicsilence]

I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and were written down by fallible humans.

The Gospels were written for a purpose – to help converts who’d never met the human Jesus. The memories of those who HAD met Jesus were FADING – they were getting older, some had already died, and the stories had to be written down before everyone forgot. Remember, the early disciples thought Jesus would be back any minute – they didn’t think they were going to need to keep records or have to depend on anything other than memory.

There are bound to be discrepancies and inconsistencies. The memories about Jesus may not be accurate in every detail (note all the discrepancies between Gospels!) but they do not detract from the Truth of the Gospel.

You could name the priest Rumpelstiltskin and it would not affect the Truth of this passage – that Jesus had precedence for his disciples’ actions and that they were well within the Law.

That’s what I meant by “not accurate, but True.”

Is this supported by a single Catholic saint, or document from the magisterium?

 

[Hellisreal]

I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and were written down by fallible humans.

The Gospels were written for a purpose – to help converts who’d never met the human Jesus. The memories of those who HAD met Jesus were FADING – they were getting older, some had already died, and the stories had to be written down before everyone forgot. Remember, the early disciples thought Jesus would be back any minute – they didn’t think they were going to need to keep records or have to depend on anything other than memory.

There are bound to be discrepancies and inconsistencies. The memories about Jesus may not be accurate in every detail (note all the discrepancies between Gospels!) but they do not detract from the Truth of the Gospel.

You could name the priest Rumpelstiltskin and it would not affect the Truth of this passage – that Jesus had precedence for his disciples’ actions and that they were well within the Law.

That’s what I meant by “not accurate, but True.”

I agree, to a degree. I think that they are in many places far from accurate. But, the inaccuracies make no dent in our beliefs, since we are not literalists.

 

[runandsew]

I agree, to a degree. I think that they are in many places far from accurate. But, the inaccuracies make no dent in our beliefs, since we are not literalists.

If we think that Mark is in error in his Gospel, The problem isn’t with Mark, but it is us since we don’t understand what meaning Mark was trying to pass on to his readers. I am sure that Mark had access to the Old Testament, and knew who was the high priest at that time, but more than likely, he wrote down this other person because he was trying to make a point to his readers. If we don’t understand this, it is not because Mark was in error, but that we are not first century Jews, and we don’t know the Old Testament that well.

St. Augustine: He supported inerrancy in a letter to St. Jerome. He wrote:
“On my own part I confess to your charity that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.”

 

[Hellisreal]

Valke-

What do you think of runandsew’s post?

Does it make sense from a Jewish standpoint?

 

[carol_marie]

I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and were written down by fallible humans.

"

I believe the scriptures are 100% as God intended them to be despite being written by humans - because He inspired them. He would not allow mistakes of His Holy Word.

Does the Catholic Church actually teach that fallible humans may have screwed them up? As if God couldn’t control that?

That would be sad - and not what I believe.

 

[Hellisreal]

I believe the scriptures are 100% as God intended them to be despite being written by humans - because He inspired them. He would not allow mistakes of His Holy Word.

Does the Catholic Church actually teach that fallible humans may have screwed them up? As if God couldn’t control that?

That would be sad - and not what I believe.

They are not “screwed up” in a way that changes our faith. But, you have to realize they are not free from mistakes.

 

[carol_marie]

They are not “screwed up” in a way that changes our faith. But, you have to realize they are not free from mistakes.

says who?

 

[Hellisreal]

says who?

Again, it depends on what you consider a mistake to be.

I see no reason to desire a perfect bible, but if you do, and your threshold for mistakes are rather wide open and know no bounds, then maybe you are better off than someone who actually has no such need to have a spotless bible.

 

[LilyM]

Mark certainly isn’t a Hebrew name - he probably wasn’t Hebrew, and so didn’t attend the Synagogue or get the amount of education in the OT that the Jewish Christians had.

Quite probably he wasn’t any more familiar with the Old Testament than we are (I know I couldn’t remember half of those names and places and other details if my life depended on it!)

 

[Hellisreal]

Mark certainly isn’t a Hebrew name - he probably wasn’t Hebrew, and so didn’t attend the Synagogue or get the amount of education in the OT that the Jewish Christians had.

Quite probably he wasn’t any more familiar with the Old Testament than we are (I know I couldn’t remember half of those names and places and other details if my life depended on it!)

Even if you were quoting Jesus himself? you would play loose with facts when its Jesus speaking?

If God inspired this writer, than this mistake would have not been made, as it was words of Jesus written for eternity!!!

It must have been a copyists error. Simple.

 

[batteddy]

Thanks, yes I remember that but wanting both Protestants and Catholics to respond I chose the most popular understanding (and assumed most bible reading Catholics know this, but thanks for pointing that out I should have used both! )

Oh no. Sorry. I use the “new” names mostly too. I didnt mean you should have used the old names in your traditional post…

I was just reminding everyone because the Haydock note I referenced cited “1 K.” and “1 Par.”, and I wanted to make sure everyone would remember he was talking about 1 Samuel and 1 Chronicles.

I think the fact that the Old Testament mentions both “Abiathar son of Amilech” and “Amilech son of Abiathar” makes his explanation quite probable actually, that father and son each had two names. Even in the Old Testament, there seems to be flip-flopping of the names of a father-son pair of high priests.

Or, it could be meant to be translated “in the days of,” without implying that the person was the high priest…just that it was in the era of their life as he was about to become high priest.

 

[LilyM]

Even if you were quoting Jesus himself? you would play loose with facts when its Jesus speaking?

If God inspired this writer, than this mistake would have not been made, as it was words of Jesus written for eternity!!!

It must have been a copyists error. Simple.

Not deliberately play fast and loose, but through human frailty make a slip on a totally unimportant factoid - absolutely.

 

[Valke2]

Valke-

What do you think of runandsew’s post?

Does it make sense from a Jewish standpoint?

I’m not an expert on the Gospel of Mark. But it seems to be a simple error. I’m not sure what being a first century Jew would have to do with it, other than the fact that they didn’t have the kind of access to scripture that we have today and errors would have been more likely.

As far as Jesus being within the law when he took food from the field on sabbath, if it had to be done so that he or others might live, then he would be within the law. But it doesn’t seem to be the case. They may have been hungry, but I don’t recall anyone believing that they were starving and needed to pick food on shabbat in order to survive.

There’s an overriding principle in Torah that we are to live by its commanments, not die by them. So if one were to die rather than pick food on the sabbath, they would actually be violating a basic principle of the Torah.

 

[Hellisreal]

Oh no. Sorry. I use the “new” names mostly too. I didnt mean you should have used the old names in your traditional post…

I was just reminding everyone because the Haydock note I referenced cited “1 K.” and “1 Par.”, and I wanted to make sure everyone would remember he was talking about 1 Samuel and 1 Chronicles.

I think the fact that the Old Testament mentions both “Abiathar son of Amilech” and “Amilech son of Abiathar” makes his explanation quite probable actually, that father and son each had two names. Even in the Old Testament, there seems to be flip-flopping of the names of a father-son pair of high priests.

Or, it could be meant to be translated “in the days of,” without implying that the person was the high priest…just that it was in the era of their life as he was about to become high priest.

But, weren’t the Jews meticulous about geneology and had a consistant way for referencing - especially Priests!!!

I am hoping Valke will shed more light on this I am really loosing my mind here since I am really thinking its a mistake that we have been too loose and fast with brushing off. it does not add up to me.

 

[Hellisreal]

I’m not an expert on the Gospel of Mark. But it seems to be a simple error. I’m not sure what being a first century Jew would have to do with it, other than the fact that they didn’t have the kind of access to scripture that we have today and errors would have been more likely.

As far as Jesus being within the law when he took food from the field on sabbath, if it had to be done so that he or others might live, then he would be within the law. But it doesn’t seem to be the case. They may have been hungry, but I don’t recall anyone believing that they were starving and needed to pick food on shabbat in order to survive.

There’s an overriding principle in Torah that we are to live by its commanments, not die by them. So if one were to die rather than pick food on the sabbath, they would actually be violating a basic principle of the Torah.

Very good for my notes on Jewish law- thank you so much for that!!!

But, I am asking you to tell me if priests would ever be named in a certain way.

I am not buying this story of the names were mixed up. After all, they are words off the mouth of Jesus kept for an eternity! They have to be right.

 

[Hellisreal]

Not deliberately play fast and loose, but through human frailty make a slip on a totally unimportant factoid - absolutely.

It makes Jesus look like an idiot and not the Creator and God!!!

Jesus can not be in error!

 

[LilyM]

says who?

Try Dei Verbum for startes:

"19… The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, **selecting some things **from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4)

For their intention in writing was that either **from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” **we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4). "

So although they were inspired by the Holy Spirit in their writing, the authors of the NT were nonetheless not simply setting down the Spirit’s word-for-word dictation. They were setting down either their own memory and recollections or those of others. With all the imperfections that entails.

And no, God doesn’t commit error, but human writers certainly can, in ***unimportant ***points, even when God inspires their writings!

Just as the Apostles, though generally ACTING under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, nonetheless sometimes made mistakes in their ACTIONS. For example Peter blundering over eating with the Gentile converts.

 

[Hellisreal]

Try Dei Verbum for startes:

"19… The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, **selecting some things **from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4)

For their intention in writing was that either **from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” **we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4). "

So although they were inspired by the Holy Spirit in their writing, the authors of the NT were nonetheless not simply setting down the Spirit’s word-for-word dictation. They were setting down either their own memory and recollections or those of others. With all the imperfections that entails.

And no, God doesn’t commit error, but human writers certainly can, in ***unimportant ***points, even when God inspires their writings!

Just as the Apostles, though generally ACTING under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, nonetheless sometimes made mistakes in their ACTIONS. For example Peter blundering over eating with the Gentile converts.

LilyM,

I totally agree with Dei Verbum and have read it before.

I am speculating that in this case (and in others) we are all too quick to pin the “blame” on the writer or the one writing for the writer.

I am wondering if a copyist made this error. I find it hard to believe that the writers made mistakes about the words of Jesus himself. I mean, other - multiple errors no problem. As you said, (in so many words) no biggie.

But, I am really having a hard time with the very words of Jesus being innacurate. As he definately DID know the Hewbrew Scriptures!

 

[LilyM]

LilyM,

I totally agree with Dei Verbum and have read it before.

I am speculating that in this case (and in others) we are all too quick to pin the “blame” on the writer or the one writing for the writer.

I am wondering if a copyist made this error. I find it hard to believe that the writers made mistakes about the words of Jesus himself. I mean, other - multiple errors no problem. As you said, (in so many words) no biggie.

But, I am really having a hard time with the very words of Jesus being innacurate. As he definately DID know the Hewbrew Scriptures!

I’m not saying that the Jesus spoke any inaccuracy. Nor even that Peter, who passed his words orally on to Mark, passed them on inaccurately. By the time Mark got down to writing them, however, the Chinese Whispers effect may have taken hold and he may have written them inaccurately.

If God were so utterly determined to preserve every dot and dash of the Bible perfectly he wouldn’t have allowed any copyists errors, none of the errors that have crept into different translations, no disputes over the Canon (ie what writings actually WERE inspired Scripture), nothing of the sort.