1001 Errors in the Christian Bible
Home
Dedication
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Contact Us
Mark -- Errors 196-202
#196
Mark 9: (KJV)
31 “For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of
man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after
that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.”
Compare to:
Matthew 17: (KJV)
23 “And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised
again.”
The underlying Greek of Mark 9:31 literally says “after three days
he shall rise.” KJV has moved “after” here to create the
phrase “and after that he is killed” and added “the”
to the phrase “the third day” even though there is no “the”
in the Greek. Obviously, KJV is mistranslating to avoid having Mark say
“after three days” when Matthew says “on the third day”.
About half of modern Christian translations share in the KJV’s mistranslation.
When “Matthew” was copying from “Mark”, being more
familiar with Jewish writings than Mark, Matthew knew that the common
phrase of the Jewish Prophets was “on the third day” rather
than “after three days”.
#197
Mark 9: (KJV)
40 “For he that is not against us is on our part.”
Compare to:
Matthew 12: (KJV)
30 “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth
not with me scattereth abroad.”
According to Mark if you are not against Jesus then you are on Jesus’
side. According to Matthew if you are not for Jesus then you are not on
Jesus’ side. This is a good example of the fundamentalist type changes
Matthew made to Mark’s story. Matthew couldn’t copy Mark’s
story of an easier going Jesus here because it didn’t fit Matthew’s
image of an exclusive Jesus with an us versus them mentality.
#198
Mark 10: (KJV)
2 “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful
for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.”
Compare to Matthew 19: (KJV)
3 “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying
unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”
“Matthew” has changed “Mark’s” question from
“is divorce lawful” to “is divorce lawful for any reason”.
Mark had no problem having Jesus blatantly contradict the law of the Tanakh
and justify the contradiction with a contrived explanation supported by
Jesus’ supposed authority to reinterpret/change. Matthew tried harder
to have his Jesus respect the existing law and since the Tanakh clearly
permitted divorce Matthew changed Mark’s question.
#199
Mark 10: (KJV)
7 “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
cleave to his wife;”
“and cleave to his wife” is not in the earliest extant manuscripts
but is included in most modern Christian translations. The motivation
for copyists would have been to make it the same as the parallel verse
in Matthew.
#200
Mark 10: (KJV)
2 “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful
for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said
unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered
to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered
and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to
his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more
twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not
man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of
the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.”
“Matthew’s” Jesus promised not to change the Law in any
way but here’s “Mark’s” Jesus changing the Law (again).
Note that Mark’s Jesus never promised not to change the Law.
#201
Mark 10: (KJV)
12 “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married
to another, she committeth adultery.”
According to the Tanakh and Jewish law of Jesus’ time a woman had
no right to divorce her husband. The author of “Matthew” realized
this and didn’t copy this part of “Mark’s” story.
The author of Mark is giving away that he was not very familiar with the
laws of Israel in Jesus’ time.
#202
Mark 10: (KJV)
17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running,
and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I
may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou
me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”
Compare to:
Matthew 19: (KJV)
16 “And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what
good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto
him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:
but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Normally, when “Mark” and “Matthew” are presenting
narratives of the same story I won’t claim an error unless there
is a significant difference in their descriptions. For conversations though
I’ll apply a stricter standard as the record of a conversation should
not have any variation. I’ll still only claim error when comparing
records of conversations if there is more than a trivial difference in
meaning. Mark and Matthew are clearly providing records of the exact same
conversation above and the difference in meaning is more than trivial.
According to Mark the event starts with Jesus being addressed as “good
teacher” and explaining that only God is good. This is consistent
with Mark’s presentation of a more human Jesus who is subservient
to God. The KJV translation of Matthew above is not supported by the overwhelming
evidence from early manuscripts. Almost all other modern translations
lack the “good” before “master” and have Jesus ask
“why do you ask me about what is good” instead of “why
callest thou me good”. This is consistent with Matthew’s presentation
of a Jesus without any flaws. This leaves Matthew’s story though
with the nonsensical question “why do you ask me about what is good?”.
Gosh, why would anyone ask Matthew’s Jesus that?