Errancy of Mark 1:2?

[Ambrosian]

Dearly beloved

St. Mark opens his holy Gospel account with what seems to be an error. He relates (Douay Rheims):

1:2 “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare the way before thee’.” This is from Malachi 3:1.

1:3 “A voice of one crying in the desert: ‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight His paths’.” This is from Isaiah 40:3.

Was Mark in error, or was Malachi considered part of Isaiah in the 1st century AD? Either way, I see no escape route from this…

 

[DCNBILL]

Dearly beloved

St. Mark opens his holy Gospel account with what seems to be an error. He relates (Douay Rheims):

1:2 “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare the way before thee’.” This is from Malachi 3:1.

1:3 “A voice of one crying in the desert: ‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight His paths’.” This is from Isaiah 40:3.

Was Mark in error, or was Malachi considered part of Isaiah in the 1st century AD? Either way, I see no escape route from this…

The footnote in my NAB states that portions of Exodus (23, 20), Malachi (3,1) and Isaiah (40, 3) are combined here but that Mark mentions only Isaiah.

I do not think that an omission necessitates a error, Isaiah is in fact quoted.

 

[Ambrosian]

The footnote in my NAB states that portions of Exodus (23, 20), Malachi (3,1) and Isaiah (40, 3) are combined here but that Mark mentions only Isaiah.

I do not think that an omission necessitates a error, Isaiah is in fact quoted.

Hmm, I’d consider it an omission if St. Mark had said “as it is written in the prophets”, since that is a literal lack of attribution. Here, he erroneously attributes the first half of the quote to Isaiah, and correctly attributes the second half of the quote to Isaiah.

The fact is that the evangelist mentions only the one prophet, whereas the only two passages in the Bible fitting the first half of his quote are indeed those of Exodus and Malachi.

 

[Jesus_123]

:bible1: Mark 1:2-3 [2] As it is written in Isaias the prophet: Behold** I** send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare the way before thee. [3] A voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.​

+The renown Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary addresses this question . . .

Ver. 2. In Isaias, the prophet. That in the ancient copies was read Isaias, and not Malachias, is confirmed by the Syriac version, and also by St. Irenæus, Origen, St. Jerome, &c. It is also proved from an objection of Porphyrius, who says, St. Mark mistook Isaias for Malachias.

In the ordinary Greek copies at present, we read in the prophets, not naming either Isaias or Malachias. The words seem taken partly out of one, and partly out of the other. These words, behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee, are found :bible1: Malachias iii. ver. 1. And the following words, a voice of one crying in the desert: prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths, are in :bible1: Isaias, chap. xl, ver. 3. (Witham) — In the beginning of his gospel, St. Mark alleges the authority of the prophets, that he might induce every one, both Jew and Gentile, to receive with willingness what he here relates, as the authority of the prophets so highly respected was very great.

St. John [the Baptist] is here styled an angel, on account of his angelic life, and extraordinary sanctity; but what is meant by, who shall prepare thy way, is, that St. John is to prepare the minds of the Jews, by his baptism and preaching, to receive their Messias. (Theophylactus) See in Matthew xi. 10.

Ver. 3. See :bible1: Matthew iii. 3.

​

​

- Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary​

**​

:compcoff: Link: haydock1859.tripod.com/id48.html

:bible1: Matthew 3:3 [3] For this is he that was spoken of by Isaias the prophet, saying: A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . guide and direct+​

 

[Ambrosian]

:bible1: Mark 1:2-3 [2] As it is written in Isaias the prophet: Behold** I** send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare the way before thee. [3] A voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.​

+The renown Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary addresses this question . . .

Beloved in Christ, thank you for this. It would clear things up, except that the “Greek copies at present” are not our standard text. The Holy Church clearly and specifically says that the Nova Vulgata is the only text for Catholics to read if we want to be absolutely sure of the faith and morals of a translation. The Nova Vulgata of Mark:

1 Initium evangelii Iesu Christi Filii Dei.
2 Sicut scriptum est in Isaia propheta: "Ecce mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit viam tuam;
3 vox clamantis in deserto:
“Parate viam Domini, rectas facite semitas eius”

 

[Gorgias]

The Holy Church clearly and specifically says that the Nova Vulgata is the only text for Catholics to read if we want to be absolutely sure of the faith and morals of a translation.

Interesting; I don’t recall having seen that notion asserted before. Do you have a reference to the Church document that makes that statement?

Thanks!

 

[TimothyH]

Mark adds the passage from Malachi. Matthew does not. Luke adds the following:

Every valley shall be filled
and every mountain and hill shall be made low.
The winding roads shall be made straight,
and the rough ways made smooth,
and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
(Luke 3:5-6)

This is also from the 40th chapter of Isaiah, right after the line about making straight the way of the Lord. But to understand what is going on, we have to understand how the Book of Isaiah is constructed.

The Book of Isaiah is made up of two sub-books. The first 39 chapters are the “Book of Woes” where Isaiah says things such as:

For Jerusalem has stumbled, and Judah has fallen; because their speech and their deeds are against the LORD, defying his glorious presence. Their partiality witnesses against them; they proclaim their sin like Sodom, they do not hide it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil upon themselves. Tell the righteous that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat the fruit of their deeds. Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him, for what his hands have done shall be done to him. (Isaiah 3:8-11)

*Woe to those who call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20)

Woe to the rebellious children, (Isaiah 30:1)*

“Woe!” was always a curse. “Woe to you!” was like cursing someone. Isaiah, as the mouthpiece of God, is proclaiming God’s curse. But the 40th Chapter to the end is the sub-book called the book of consolation, where Isaiah proclaims mesages such as the following:

***for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed. *(Isaiah 56:1)

Where John the Baptist is drawing from is as important as the words he says. What the Pharisees, Saducces, chief priests and scribes always did was to condemn people. They demanded that sinners who did not obey the law of Moses seperate themselves from the righteous who Obeyed the Law of Moses. They never helped anyone, but only condemned. They proclaimed “Woe!” to sinners.

John the Baptist starts immediately from the first lines of Isaiah 40, the first chapter in the Isaiah’s Book of Consolation. John the Baptist proclaims salvation, straight from the opening lines of the Book of Consolation! This would have been noticeable to those who listened to him as Jews knew scripture very well. They would have said, “Aha! See where he is preaching from!? This is Isaiah! This is the Book of Consolation!!!”

Jesus himself reads from the Book of Consolation in the Synagogue. This is extremely important.

**He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring glad tidings to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.”

Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him. He said to them, “Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.” And all spoke highly of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth.**(Matthew 4:16-20)*

When we understand where Jesus (and John the Baptist) is quoting from, it is no wonder why the people speak highly of him and call his words gracious. Jesus is quoting from the Book of Consolation…

The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
because the LORD has anointed me;
He has sent me to bring good news to the afflicted,
to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
release to the prisoners.
To announce a year of favor from the LORD
and a day of vindication by our God;
To comfort all who mourn
(Isaiah 61:1-2)

People were excited to hear these words. It was new and different. Instead of being condemned, and always having Isaiah 1 to 39 taught to them, someone was finally preaching consolation, freedom, vindication, liberty and comfort.

And notice how John preaches from the beginning of the Book of Consolation and Jesus preaches from the end of the Book of Consolation. John announces the beginning of consolation from the very first lines of the Book of Consolation and Jesus concludes it with a passage from near the end.

Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon. This man was righteous and devout, awaiting the consolation of Israel, and the holy Spirit was upon him. (Luke 2:25)

Luke is no dummy. Look at the notes in your Bible and it just might have a notation about what the word “Consolation” means with a reference to Isaiah 40 through 66. Luke is dropping hints to his readers, that the woes of Isaiah 1 to 39 are over and the consolation of Isaiah 40 through 66 is about to take place.

And Malachi 3:1-5 is about impending judgement. But it is also about purification and refining silver and gold so that it is acceptable to God. It is worth reading here. And that is really Mark’s message. Judgement and purification, and consolation.

It’s as much about where in scripture this comes from as the words it says.

Maybe Mark just got it wrong. Who knows? But the Authors were telling their readers something definite, as were Jesus and John the Baptist, in where they chose to quote from.

-Tim-

 

[Ambrosian]

Interesting; I don’t recall having seen that notion asserted before. Do you have a reference to the Church document that makes that statement?

Thanks!

This is my fault… a reliably orthodox franciscan friar told me this. Maybe he was referring to the old Vulgate which is ‘free from error in faith and morals’, and he extended that permission of the Church on to the Nova Vulgata. Either way, they both say the same thing.

It has come to my attention that different Greek versions of Mark say “the prophets” and “Isaiah the Prophet”. The KJV translators in 1609 rendered Mark 1:2 “as it is written in the prophets”. Douay-Rheims rendered it “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet”!

EDIT: Thanks for that, TimothyH! Very beautiful, and a lot to contemplate, but… it doesn’t change the fact that Mark mixed the quotes up.

 

[DCNBILL]

This is my fault… a reliably orthodox franciscan friar told me this. Maybe he was referring to the old Vulgate which is ‘free from error in faith and morals’, and he extended that permission of the Church on to the Nova Vulgata. Either way, they both say the same thing.

It has come to my attention that different Greek versions of Mark say “the prophets” and “Isaiah the Prophet”. The KJV translators in 1609 rendered Mark 1:2 “as it is written in the prophets”. Douay-Rheims rendered it “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet”!

EDIT: Thanks for that, TimothyH! Very beautiful, and a lot to contemplate, but… it doesn’t change the fact that Mark mixed the quotes up.

So exactly how does an omission of a reference by a human author or may be a redactor constitute a error in faith and morals?

 

[Ambrosian]

So exactly how does an omission of a reference by a human author or may be a redactor constitute a error in faith and morals?

My problem: Mark attributes his first two quotes to Isaiah the Prophet. The quote in Mark 1:3 is Isaiah, but the quote in Mark 1:2 is Malachi.

Why would the very second line of this Gospel be erroneous in attribution? Why would one of only four precious histories of the Lord, which God knew would last more than 2000 years as the only immediate testimonies of His life, begin with an error? The worst doubt: if Mark is wrong about a quote from Isaiah here, what else is he wrong about later on? What are the other evangelists wrong about?

Maybe this is just cascading scrupulosity, but I think it is a valid problem.

 

[TimothyH]

My problem: Mark attributes his first two quotes to Isaiah the Prophet. The quote in Mark 1:3 is Isaiah, but the quote in Mark 1:2 is Malachi.

Why would the very second line of this Gospel be erroneous in attribution? Why would one of only four precious histories of the Lord, which God knew would last more than 2000 years as the only immediate testimonies of His life, begin with an error? The worst doubt: if Mark is wrong about a quote from Isaiah here, what else is he wrong about later on? What are the other evangelists wrong about?

Maybe this is just cascading scrupulosity, but I think it is a valid problem.

Don’t forget who the primary author of scripture is. Maybe God is teaching us something here and the only mixup, the only error is that we don’t see what he is trying to teach us.

The way we read scripture is not the way the Early Church Fathers, the early monastics and the Desert Fathers read scripture. They didn’t have commentaries and Google. They prayed scripture, and let God speak to them through scripture. They didn’t try to figure things out like it was a puzzle and didn’t automatically think that an apparent contradiction was a mistake.

They didn’t read scripture in a linear fashion, from A to B, as a puzzle to be solved like we do. They read scripture in a circular way, with every verse taken in context of its surrounding verse, the context of the overall message of the book, and in the context of the whole story of the Bible. If they could not figure something out, they would reread it, slower, over and over, and mediate about it, and pray the scriptures back to God. They worked through their problems by exegesis, and prayer, and often spent six months reading only one book of the Bible. They wern’t looking for information but read in a spirit of peace and calm, and tried to let the words speak to them as a conversation with God - read, pray, read, pray, repeat. I am not saying that you are doing this. It is how our modern minds operate.

This is how the Holy Spirit helped the Church determine what was inspired and what wasn’t, a deep prayerful reading of scripture, and it became clear that after spending months and years and decades and two or three centuries with different writings, which were inspired and which weren’t.

My point is, maybe we shouldn’t assume a mistake. It is often difficult for us to understand what God is saying, but for God, scripture is baby talk to his little children. Don’t forget who the primary author of scripture is.

-Tim-

 

[bmullins]

Mark outlines the mission of John and Jesus by splicing together three Old Testament passages. The Exodus passage recalls how Yahweh appointed a messenger (angel) to lead Israel from the slavery of Egypt to the safety of the Promised Land. Isaiah projects this memory from the distant past into the future, announcing that both Israel and the nations will experience a New Exodus in the messianic age. Preparations are in order for a new Deliverer, the Suffering Servant, who will bring the nations from the darkness of sin and idolatry to the light of Mt. Zion. Malachi’s oracle presents the dark side of this scenario, warning Jersualem that the coming of the messianic Lord will mean disaster if the shepherds of Israel are unprepared to welcome his arrival. For Mark, these passages are linked together by a common call to prepare the “way” of the Lord: John is the herald who points out the “way” of this New Exodus, while Jesus is the"Lord" and Suffering Servant who accomplishes it. This is the only time Mark quotes directly from the Old Testament as the Gospel Narrator.

The purpose of this quote(Mark 1:2) is to set the stage for the rest of the gospel. Mark presents the motif of a New Exodus from the bondage of sin. I don’t think there is any error here, simply Mark’s understanding of how the passages are inextricably linked together and that his motif is the same as Isaiah’s, that there will be a spiritual Exodus out of sin.

 

[Jesus_123]

+Translations require translators . . . and apparently seeming mistakes can happen . . .

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Latin Vulgate Translation
was **
“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.”**
With St. Jerome . . . who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . .

:compcoff: Link: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html . . .

you can’t go wrong with this :bible1: Bible . . . the English Bishop Challoner Version of the Douay Rhiems has been abundantly blessed of God for centuries . . .

The NAB translation utilized today, however, is a classic example of extremely poor translators and translations. . . which go light years beyond the minor simple seeming mistake in Mark . . . (which has long been recognized and revealed within the Church) . . . the below link is to the renown and highly respected priest . . . **Father Richard Neuhaus’ **. . . dissertation published in the Adoremus Bulletin re the genuinely . . . *and at times gravely serious *. . . problems with the NAB translators and translation . . .

:compcoff: Link: adoremus.org/0306BibleTranslations.html

. . . all for Jesus+​

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here is the explanation from the Aquinas Study Bible

1:2-3 The words of verse 3 are taken from Isaiah; but, the words of verse 2 are quoted from Malachi 3:1. Hence, interpreters are more or less perplexed in endeavoring to explain why the quotation, taken partly from Malachi, partly from Isaiah, should be exclusively ascribed by St. Mark to Isaiah. In the ordinary Greek reading it is, “in the Prophets”. In this reading the difficulties at once vanish. But the Vulgate reading, besides being the reading of all Latin copies, is that of most versions, the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Persian, Arabic, and found in all the writings of the holy Fathers, who quote from this passage, and also of many Greek copies. The question, then, with those who adopt the Vulgate, is, how to explain the above difficulty. Some, with St. Augustine, say, that as Isaiah was the more celebrated, and had prophesied before Malachi in reference to the Baptist; hence, the Evangelist, having principally in his mind to quote Isaiah, who was the first to prophesy on the subject of the Baptist’s mission, incidentally inserted the prophecy of Malachi, to show the thorough agreement of the Prophets on this important point, and quotes only Isaiah. (Bishop John McEvilly)

 

[Gorgias]

Translations require translators… and apparently seeming mistakes can happen…

Jesus_123,

First off, thanks for your dedication to the Word of God! It’s inspiring!

I just felt compelled to mention, though, that I think that Pius XII isn’t saying what you think he’s saying, with respect to the Latin Vulgate.

There is no one who cannot easily perceive that the conditions of biblical studies and their subsidiary sciences have greatly changed within the last fifty years. (#11)

Moreover ancient codices of the Sacred Books have been found and edited with discerning thoroughness… All these advantages … are… an invitation and inducement to interpreters of the Sacred Literature to make diligent use of this light… to … explain more clearly … the Divine Oracles.(#12)

In other words, new discoveries yield new insights into the truth of Scripture.

We also… desire to insure that the work may not only proceed without interruption, but may also daily become more perfect and fruitful; and to that end We are specially intent on pointing out to all what yet remains to be done…and to give new incentive and fresh courage to the laborers who toil so strenuously in the vineyard of the Lord. (#13)

Pius XII stands behind this work.

The Fathers of the Church… warmly recommended to the Catholic scholar, who undertook the investigation and explanation of the Sacred Scriptures, the study of the ancient languages and recourse to the original texts. (#14)

Uh-oh. “Recourse to the original texts” is a good thing…

we ought to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern (#16)

Hmm… “the original text… has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation”. Greek would be “original”, and the Vulgate a “translation”, right?

Why is it preferable to start with original texts?

Augustine… put in the first place the care to possess a corrected text. “The correction of the codices” - so says this most distinguished Doctor of the Church - “should first of all engage the attention of those who wish to know the Divine Scripture so that the uncollected may give place to the corrected.” … (T)his art… is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books. … For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions…which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries. (#17)

So… original texts should be used in order to correct mistakes that crept into “translations of translations”. Are you talking about Jerome’s Vulgate, or the Nova Vulgata? 'Cause we should talk, if it’s the former…

Now, before you complain, let’s make one thing certain: it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that there’s a particular doctrinal tension between “original texts” and the Vulgate:

Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent concerning the Latin Vulgate. (#20)

But, that doesn’t mean that the Vulgate trumps the authority and value of original texts?

And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, … (it does not) in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. (#21)

Why? If the original texts have authority and value, why was the Vulgate commissioned?

there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which “had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.” Hence this special authority or … authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries (#21)

Oh. So, the Vulgate is legitimate not because it’s qualitatively “better” in any sense, but because it was in legitimate use for many centuries.

OK – so, what then of your quotation from this encyclical? How do we understand it?

(The Vulgate is) free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; … its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

Ouch. OK, then … it’s not that the Vulgate is the ultimate resource; it’s just that, as a matter of law, it’s free from error in that most lofty (and rare) standard: matters of faith and morals.

But doesn’t that mean that the Vulgate is always right? That we should always only rely on it in order to find the correct meaning of Scripture?

this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents - nay rather today it almost demands - either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. (#22)

So… we should make sure that the original texts agree with the Vulgate, in order to make sure that we get things right, instead of just looking at the Vulgate and assuming that it’s correct in every instance, and on every occasion…

Jesus_123, it’s amazing and awe-inspiring to see your love of Scripture! Please, though – don’t be so in love with one particular translation, that you think that only one particular translation of Scripture holds the truth of God’s Word…!

Peace,

G.

 

[Crumpy]

My problem: Mark attributes his first two quotes to Isaiah the Prophet. The quote in Mark 1:3 is Isaiah, but the quote in Mark 1:2 is Malachi.

Why would the very second line of this Gospel be erroneous in attribution? Why would one of only four precious histories of the Lord, which God knew would last more than 2000 years as the only immediate testimonies of His life, begin with an error? The worst doubt: if Mark is wrong about a quote from Isaiah here, what else is he wrong about later on? What are the other evangelists wrong about?

Maybe this is just cascading scrupulosity, but I think it is a valid problem.

You’ve been pounding this point over and over. Have you ever heard of transcription errors?

I don’t know what the technical answer here is, if there is one. But, the old saying is, education turns an empty mind into an open mind. You might be needing some education about all kinds of errors that occur in scripture – because they do occur.

The most common “errors” in the Bible are spelling errors; then, down the list someplace there are transcription errors. But, there are other types of errors, as well, which could explain this. Your point, if there is one, is that this is an obvious error here. Yes, it may be.

In spite of the occasional error in the manuscript, the Catholic Church still maintains the divine inspiration and inerrancy of scripture. You would be well-advised to keep that in mind.

Any Catholic who pays attention to these types of things, knows that the typical attack of Protestants on Catholicism is to find an error or alleged error of some sort, and then to amplify it maybe a hundred thousand fold, to “prove” that the Catholic Church is a “false” church and the Pope is the anti-christ. My experience is that the critics who do this, seldom turn their sights on themselves. They can dish it out, but they can’t take it – is the old saying.

A unemployed Lutheran minister gave me a popular Lutheran handbook on the Christian faith. Here and there the author turned his withering criticism on the Pope and the Catholic Church. can you imagine, he said, the pope writes something down and then expects people to believe it? Duh, does he mean EXACTLY like he’s writing something down in the 17th edition of his book? Does he expect anybody to believe what HE said, or to automatically reject it? See, he can write something, anything, in fact, that he wants. But, he doesn’t criticize himself like he criticizes the pope – for doing exactly the same thing!

We’ve heard it before.

 

[Crumpy]

I’ve been reading the Jewish Study Bible (Oxford Press) in the section of Deuteronomy on the ten commandments.

WELL!!! The Jews also point out that there is no official numbering of the commandments given at Sinai/Horeb. They also point out that the sixth commandment (as they number them) does not say, thou shalt not kill. It says, thou shalt not murder. They said that the word “kill” was popularized in the KJV but that the word “murder” is the actual translation.

Not only is that the correct translation, but it is significant that the death penalty is commanded in scripture for a number of sins, like teaching idolatry, fornication, male homosexual acts, a disrespectful son, etc.

You could easily sympatiize with the quandries of Jews and Christians, that the lists of commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy do not agree. One says to observe the Sabbath, another says to remember the Sabbath.

Well, which is it?

It’s especially embarrassing that both books are attributed to Moses. the great Moses. Hmmmm. what shall we do with that?

There are also many evidences that the first five books of the Bible (the Torah) were NOT written by Moses, although Jewish tradition (and even Jesus) says that is true.

Gee, more problems. This gets bad real fast.

In one place, the Israeiltes are told to boil the Passover lamb, in another place they’re told to roast it. Yikes!

Deep, deep, doo doo.

these are obvious problems like the error in citing Isaiah instead of Malachai.

Maybe we should just all sleep in next Sunday, right?

 

[Todd_Easton]

In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard M.A., and published in 1953 in New York by Thomas Nelson & Sons, on page 908, concerning Mark 1:2-3, it says, in part:
2-3. The prophetic passage in [verse] 2 is taken from Mal 3:1. Of the numerous solutions put forward to explain how the words of Malachias are included under the name of Isaias the most probable seems to be that this is an interpolation which has found its way into the present context from Mt 11:10 (Lk 7:27), where Christ applies these words to the Baptist. A scribe who was familiar with them in Mt or Lk may have included them here because of their application to the Baptist; cf. Lagrange, Saint Marc, 3 f.

 

[Ambrosian]

For anyone who was at all sarcastic or condescending: thanks for replying, but maybe you should improve your manners. I never suggested that this will completely destroy anyone’s faith, just that it was disconcerting. Do not suggest that asking such questions immediately implies Protestantism; oh no, God forbid that! It’s just regular “Scrupulantism”!

This seems to be common on our Catholic Answers Forum:

1. ask a question,
2. be slightly unsatisfied with the answer,
3. it is suggested that you are an heretic or protestant for denying the infallible perfect glorious shining amazing incontrovertible truth of Poster XYZABZ123.

Your replies are enlightening, all of you. Everything another human being says is providential: both to the hearer and the one heard! It just seemed to me that even one slight error in the Gospel, even if it is not related to faith and morals (such as quote attribution), gives the atheists a little foot in the door. Having been one until recently, their contentions still pierce the heart.

 

[thistle]

For anyone who was at all sarcastic or condescending: thanks for replying, but maybe you should improve your manners. I never suggested that this will completely destroy anyone’s faith, just that it was disconcerting. Do not suggest that asking such questions immediately implies Protestantism; oh no, God forbid that! It’s just regular “Scrupulantism”!

This seems to be common on our Catholic Answers Forum:

1. ask a question,
2. be slightly unsatisfied with the answer,
3. it is suggested that you are an heretic or protestant for denying the infallible perfect glorious shining amazing incontrovertible truth of Poster XYZABZ123.

Your replies are enlightening, all of you. Everything another human being says is providential: both to the hearer and the one heard! It just seemed to me that even one slight error in the Gospel, even if it is not related to faith and morals (such as quote attribution), gives the atheists a little foot in the door. Having been one until recently, their contentions still pierce the heart.

And you think your response is not sarcastic and condescending??