Did Mark make a mistake?

[Hellisreal]

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.

I know what you are saying Lily M, and we agree more than not.

I really want to be sure this was a mistake that was meant to be. I mean, long before commentaries- and why didnt Jerome pick up on this- or the men before him???

Lots of stuff tossing around in my head.

 

[LilyM]

I know what you are saying Lily M, and we agree more than not.

I really want to be sure this was a mistake that was meant to be. I mean, long before commentaries- and why didnt Jerome pick up on this- or the men before him???

Lots of stuff tossing around in my head.

Well, I’d look at Scott Hahn’s explanation for starters, before losing too much sleep over it.

 

[Hellisreal]

Well, I’d look at Scott Hahn’s explanation for starters, before losing too much sleep over it.

No loosing sleep here. Just getting a bit edgey. Sorry if I sound irrational. I really dont like the commentaries so far. They seem to vauge and all too pat.

I think you are right.

I will re-think all this again.

 

[carol_marie]

Try Dei Verbum for startes:

What is that please?

 

[Hellisreal]

LilyM;2244598:

Try Dei Verbum

for startes:

What is that please?

The Word

Its a papal document- I will try to find the link for you

 

[Hellisreal]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Hope that one is right…

 

[Valke2]

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.

As far as I know, there was no special way to remember the names of priests. Usually a person was known by their name and who they were the son of. i.e. Juda ben Ezra would be Juda, son of Ezra.

 

[Hellisreal]

As far as I know, there was no special way to remember the names of priests. Usually a person was known by their name and who they were the son of. i.e. Juda ben Ezra would be Juda, son of Ezra.

So, basically are you saying that the wording should have been explicit as you state here?

I am too tired now to think about this. I hope when my brain is back to sub par (normal at best) you will check back on this thread, since I really think that the Jewish perspective here will clear all this up for me.

I am not convinced about the Haydock commentary. it does not sound consistant with scripture elsewhere in the bible.

 

[lak611]

I am not convinced about the Haydock commentary. it does not sound consistant with scripture elsewhere in the bible.

What about Henry’s, Wesley’s and Clarke’s commentaries?

 

[carol_marie]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Hope that one is right…

thank you.

 

[jamannor]

I like this article. I thought I would share it. This is one excerpt form it talking about using St. Augustine as a model.

This does not mean, however, that a Catholic has to be a fundamentalist who ignores or denies difficult Bible passages, like Mark 2:26. Pope Leo XIII offered St. Augustine as a model for what to do when confronted with difficulties: "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’ " (Providentissimus Deus, no. 21). Pope Benedict XV praised St. Jerome who when finding “apparent discrepancies” in the sacred books would “use every endeavor to unravel the difficulty,” and the Pope noted that the saint sometimes “solved” a problem, “not always with the happiest results” (Spiritus Paraclitus, no. 15). Pope Pius XII devoted seven sections of the 63 in his encyclical to the subject of a “Way of Treating More Difficult Questions” (nos. 42-48), cautioning that “no one will be surprised if all difficulties are not yet solved and overcome” (no. 44). Is there error in the Bible, father Dobrowski

Honestly, I think everyone is getting to critical. There are no errors in the bible. It’s not like wow, they missed something. A simple google search will give you 10 answers to the same questions. There are 2000 years of writings on subjects just like this one.

Here is another link from Catholic Answers.

**Q: How do you explain Jesus’ statement in Mark 2:23-27 that David and his men “entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest” when in fact, according to 1 Samuel 21:1-6, Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father, occupied that office at the time? **

A: A number of solutions to this problem have been offered by biblical scholars, one of the most interesting of which involves the meaning of the Greek phrase* epi Abiathar archieros* used in Mark 2:26. Your source renders this as “when Abiathar was high priest.” The Greek translated “when” here is epi. Usually it conveys a sense of location, as when translated “upon.” Since 18 of the 21 times Mark uses the genitive form of epi he does so with reference to location rather than time, “when” probably isn’t the best rendering in Mark 2:26.

Bible scholars have observed a possible parallel in Mark 12:26 where *epi *refers to the place in Scripture “concerning or entitled the Bush.” If we translate Mark 2:26 along similar lines, then Jesus is referring his listeners to David’s actions recorded in the section of Scripture “concerning” (epi) Abiathar the high priest.

Because David’s eating of the showbread is mentioned in the chapter preceding the section on Abiathar, and since Abiathar is the more important of the two priests in 1 Samuel, it would make sense to refer to this whole section of Scripture as “concerning” Abiathar. Such an interpretation retains the sense of epi as related to location.

 

[Bishopite]

I looked this up in a Protestant book I read many years ago “Systematic Theology” by Reformed theologian Dr. Norman Geisler. Here is what he says about inspiration…

What Inspiration Does Not Guarantee

These are, however, many things tha inspiration does not guarantee.

(1) It does not guarentee that every part of a parable is conveying a truth (as opposed to the truthfulness of the point the parable is illistrating—Luke 18:2);
(2) nor that everything recorded in the Bible is true (as opposed to only what is taught or implied—Gen 3:4);
(3) not that exaggerations (hyberboles) can be used (Col,1:23)
(4) nor that all statements about God and creation are purely literal (Heb. 4:13, Job 38:7)
(5) nor that all factual assertions are technically precise by modern standards (as opposed to accurate by ancient standards—2 Chron. 4:2)…

(11) nor that truth is exhaustively revealed or treated (as opposed to adequately presented) in the Bible (1 Cor 13:12)
Page 237-238

I only had time for a few of them. Jesus in Mark 2 and the account in 1 Samuel refer to Ahimelech (or Abiathar, his other name), the son of Ahitub. There is, therefore, no inaccuracy. Jesus uses one name, and the Samuel account uses the other name,** for the same individual. **
Name nor number errors don’t convey scriptural errors as both Catholic and Protestant theologians affirm.

 

[Hellisreal]

What about Henry’s, Wesley’s and Clarke’s commentaries?

Sorry, I did not ignore them. They all seem hard to believe (yesterday that is)

And, now after some more thought, and realizing there are so many other mistakes to get stressed out over I am going to calmly sit back and let it all soak in. The fact is we dont really know why the mistake is there. All these commentaries are amount to me as excuses for the mistake. So far. I am working on seeing it otherwise.

 

[Hellisreal]

Jammanor- why are we so quick to say there are no errors in the bible? There are excuses for errors, but that does not make it error free. But, your post was very good to read thank you!

Bishopite- thank you also. I still see that explaination as a contradiction. Its like saying yes the bible is true blah blah, but- not in this case, or this case or that case. Only in maybe less than 10 percent of the volume of pages is it really true. The rest, well, its a bit blurrry so we still call it true and make things like excuses up to cover and still say its all accurate truth.

I mean, if I had read this as a young person, I may have gone agnostic.

Thank God I am Catholic and not relying 100 percent on a book, because this book is not nearly as accurate as I thought it was.

 

[Talmida]

I was thinking about this last night and I had an idea – maybe it’s crazy, I don’t know, bear with me.

I’ve been assuming that the contradiction is the author’s fault, or maybe the copyist.

But what if it was Jesus’ mistake? Jesus was human in all things but sin, but it would NOT be a sin to confuse the names of two priests who lived several 100 years previously. It would be human error.

Could we consider that possibility? or does it cross a line somewhere?

He makes reference to David, which draws our thoughts to Jesus’ kingship and royal descent, but he makes a trivial error which reminds us of his humanity?

Is that a possible explanation?

 

[Hellisreal]

I was thinking about this last night and I had an idea – maybe it’s crazy, I don’t know, bear with me.

I’ve been assuming that the contradiction is the author’s fault, or maybe the copyist.

But what if it was Jesus’ mistake? Jesus was human in all things but sin, but it would NOT be a sin to confuse the names of two priests who lived several 100 years previously. It would be human error.

Could we consider that possibility? or does it cross a line somewhere?

He makes reference to David, which draws our thoughts to Jesus’ kingship and royal descent, but he makes a trivial error which reminds us of his humanity?

Is that a possible explanation?

I am not sure. I would like to think Jesus did not make mistakes to show his humanness. But, I am not going to say you are wrong.

The thing that really bugs me, is if the writer of Mark did not make a mistake then did the writer of Samuel (Kings) make a mistake?

Cant have it both ways it seems. Someone made a mistake. The 2 ought to line up.

I think I trust the Hewbrew scriptures accuracy more than the NT since the scrolls were handled in a much different manner than the NT books were.

But, now I am worried about Paul. So off on another thread. Paul seems to not remember what he did after his conversion to accurately either.

I am getting very disheartened by all the mistakes I am seeing.

 

[Bishopite]

Jammanor- why are we so quick to say there are no errors in the bible? There are excuses for errors, but that does not make it error free. But, your post was very good to read thank you!

Bishopite- thank you also. I still see that explaination as a contradiction. Its like saying yes the bible is true blah blah, but- not in this case, or this case or that case. Only in maybe less than 10 percent of the volume of pages is it really true. The rest, well, its a bit blurrry so we still call it true and make things like excuses up to cover and still say its all accurate truth.

I mean, if I had read this as a young person, I may have gone agnostic.

Thank God I am Catholic and not relying 100 percent on a book, because this book is not nearly as accurate as I thought it was.

The Bible is a unique book above all others since it was compiled over some 1500 or so years, has many prophecies that were fulfilled thousands of years after, and that it has God as its primary author. It also has in another sense a dual authorship since God used humans to write what He wanted them to write using their human intellect, senses, will. They wrote trying to explain eternal concepts using the bounds of time and space. This can be very difficult for a human being to do (just try reading and understanding the book of Revelation) so when we put a standard upon wether a person got the number of people killed (say 100 as opposed to 1000) it really doesn’t matter because the foundational or essential message of truth that the writer of that book was trying to convey wasn’t disrupted; that’s what I keep in mind when I read the Bible since error isn’t always what we think it is. It is good that you are Catholic; for it is said that Protestantism is a religion of the book but that Catholicism is a religion of the word. As a Catholic I can say with the utmost confidence that the Bible is without error, however the term without error does not mean that humans always convey every detail of the event exactly as it happened but that its content is essentially untainted which is the truth God wanted to covey.

 

[jamannor]

Jammanor- why are we so quick to say there are no errors in the bible? There are excuses for errors, but that does not make it error free. But, your post was very good to read thank you!

Hellisreal, I’m not sure why we are so quick to say there are no errors in the bible, except to tell you what the church teaches. And as a Catholic, I’m going to follow what the catechism teaches.

God is the author. Not just part, but the whole entire works.

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” “For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

The bible teaches the truth, without error.

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

 

[Hellisreal]

The bible teaches nothing on its own, the bible and the Church do.
If you sat back and tried to make sense out of all these errors without a commentary you would be at a LOSS. So, either you ignore the errors, pick a minister to interpret it for you, buy tons of commentaries, or join the Catholic Church. Simple.

 

[mrs_abbott]

The bible teaches nothing on its own, the bible and the Church do.
If you sat back and tried to make sense out of all these errors without a commentary you would be at a LOSS. So, either you ignore the errors, pick a minister to interpret it for you, buy tons of commentaries, or join the Catholic Church. Simple.

So why did you start the thread in the first place?