![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/02\/Matthew2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog<\/span>,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher<\/em><\/a>. His<\/span>\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page<\/a>\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn\u00a0his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I am replying to the post on Jonathan\u2019s site:<\/span>\u00a0Gospel of Mark\u2019s Poor Jewish Knowledge<\/a> (3-3-21), written mostly by Steven Carr, and extracted from<\/span> another page<\/a>. Steven Carr\u2019s words will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n Time and time again, we see Matthew correcting Mark\u2019s blunders about Judaism. Clearly Matthew was a\u00a0Jew\u00a0and Mark, despite Papias\u2019 bold assertion, was not very close to the Jerusalem Church.<\/span><\/p>\n Most Christian Bible scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was directed towards Gentiles, whereas the Gospel of Matthew was primarily written for a Jewish audience. I suspect that this will be most of the alleged \u201cconflict\u201d that Mr. Carr will be trying to \u201cwhip up\u201d into yet more Bible contradictions. Christians believe that each Gospel had its own emphases and style. We have no problem accepting these differences. It doesn\u2019t follow, however, that they automatically add up to \u201ccontradictions.\u201d Let\u2019s look and see what Mr. Carr can offer by way of argument.<\/span><\/p>\n Comparing\u00a0Matthew 15:4\u00a0with\u00a0Mark 7:10, Mark represents a more Gentile attitude in quoting the Old Testament as \u201cMoses said\u201d rather than \u201cGod said.\u201d Matthew, a Jew, would never have attributed the 10 commandments to Moses. It was God who said them, as all Jews will tell you.<\/span><\/p>\n This is much ado about nothing. The Hebrews thought in \u201cboth\/and\u201d terms (St. Paul\u2019s writings often reflect this). For them, the Law of Moses or Mosaic law was God\u2019s Law.\u00a0 The two are identical. It was dictated by God to Moses, who delivered it to the ancient Hebrews. The context of Mark 7:10 clearly shows this. While 7:10 has Jesus referring to \u201cMoses said\u201d while referring to the Ten Commandments, both 7:8 and 7:9 use the terminology \u201cthe commandment of God\u201d in referring to the same thing. 7:10 refers to the prior notions by starting with the connecting word \u201cFor.\u201d 7:13 also references \u201cthe word of God\u201d in discussing the same general topic.<\/span><\/p>\n Nor is the converse true about Matthew, who makes references to Moses\u2019 teachings and his (God\u2019s) Law as well:<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 8:4<\/strong> (RSV) [Jesus speaking] . . . offer the gift that\u00a0<\/b>Moses\u00a0commanded . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 19:8<\/strong>\u00a0He [Jesus] said to them, \u201cFor your hardness of heart\u00a0<\/b>Moses\u00a0allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The parallel passage in Mark about divorce has Jesus saying:<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 10:3-5<\/strong>\u00a0He answered them, \u201cWhat did Moses command you?\u201d\u00a0[4] They said, \u201cMoses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.\u201d\u00a0[5] But Jesus said to them, \u201cFor your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Both books make reference to Moses commanding that which was God\u2019s Law given to him. They both do both things. It\u2019s not one vs. the other. St. Paul continues the \u201cboth\/and\u201d practice in his epistles, since he refers to the \u201claw of Moses\u201d twice (Acts 13:39; 1 Cor 9:9) and the synonymous \u201claw of God\u201d twice (Rom 7:22, 25). Moreover, in the Old Testament (not including the Deuterocanon), \u201claw of Moses\u201d is<\/span> used 13 times<\/a>, and \u201claw of God\u201d<\/span>\u00a0four times,<\/a>\u00a0as well as the similar \u201claw of the LORD\u201d<\/span> another 18 times<\/a>. We must conclude, then, that this point of argument is a false dichotomy. Context and cross-referencing demolish it.<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 5:22: \u201cOne of the rulers of the synagogue.\u201d Diaspora synagogues may sometimes have had more than ruler, as at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:15), but Palestinian synagogues normally had only one. Matthew 9:18, drops this phrase.<\/span><\/p>\n There were indeed multiple \u201crulers\u201d of Jewish synagogues at this time, as the following article establishes:<\/span><\/p>\n I. In one respect the ancient service of the synagogue differed very considerably both from that of a modern Christian service and from the service of the modern synagogue: The\u00a0principal parts of the service were taken not by permanent\u00a0officers of the synagogue, but by members chosen from the congregation after it had assembled. The permanent officers of the\u00a0body included the Zequenim<\/em>, \u201crulers of the synagogue \u201d (Mark\u00a05:22; Acts 13: 15) who had judicial functions as well as religious, and a Chazzan<\/em>, or \u201d attendant \u201d (Luke 4:20), who had\u00a0charge of the building and in the service performed functions\u00a0somewhat like those of a deacon in a modern non-ritualistic\u00a0church. The service was under the direction of the Rosh-ka-Kenesetl<\/em> or chief ruler (Luke 13 : 14), though his share in the\u00a0service was for the most part a silent one. (<\/span>\u201cThe Ancient Synagogue Service\u201d<\/a>,\u00a0Ernest De Witt Burton, The Biblical World<\/em>, Aug., 1896, citation from p. 144)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Somehow Mark got that right after all. Matthew 9:18 using \u201ca ruler\u201d doesn\u2019t prove that Jairus was a sole<\/em> ruler, anyway, since a sub-group of [plural] rulers (Zequenim<\/em>)\u00a0<\/em>would be consistent with one<\/em> of them being called a \u201cruler.\u201d So this \u201cpoint\u201d really proves nothing at all.<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 14:12: On the first day of unleavened bread\u00a0when they sacrificed the Passover<\/b>, confuses Nisan 15 with Nisan 14. Naturally,\u00a0Matthew 26:17\u00a0drops the phrase \u201cwhen they sacrificed the Passover\u201d. Was Mark a\u00a0Jew\u00a0who did not know about the Passover?<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 26:17 also states: \u201con the first day of Unleavened Bread\u201d and the disciples \u201cprepare\u201d the Passover, which they observe with Jesus that same night (26:17-21). No difference whatsoever, that I can see. Luke, definitely a Gentile, writes precisely as Mark does:<\/span><\/p>\n Luke 22:7-8<\/strong>\u00a0Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed.\u00a0[8] So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, \u201cGo and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jesus then says:\u00a0\u201cI have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer;\u201d (22:15). For further clarification see:<\/span> \u201cThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 14:12\u201d<\/a> by Maurice Casey (Tyndale Bulletin<\/em> 48.2 [1997]).<\/span> Apologist Jeff Miller adds<\/a>:<\/p>\n The Passover lamb was to be killed at twilight (i.e., sunset) on the evening of the 14th<\/sup>\u00a0day of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish calendar (Ezekiel 45:21). The lamb was then to be eaten that same night with unleavened bread (Exodus 12:6-8; Numbers 28:16-17; Leviticus 23:5-7), leaving none of it until morning\u2014burning any remains (Exodus 12:10). Unleavened bread was then to be eaten every day until the 21st<\/sup>\u00a0day of the month at evening (Exodus 12:18). No leavened bread was even to be in an Israelite house for that week, or those individuals would be \u201ccut off from the congregation of Israel\u201d (Exodus 12:19).<\/span><\/p>\n The language of Matthew, Mark, and Luke leaves little doubt that the Passover lamb was killed by the apostles on Thursday afternoon of the crucifixion week, which was the 14th<\/sup>\u00a0of Nisan, and that Jesus then immediately ate the Passover meal that evening on the 15th<\/sup>\u00a0of Nisan in keeping with the Law of Moses (cf. Matthew 26:17-21; Mark 14:12,16-18; Luke 22:7-9).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mark 14:13\u00a0says that the disciples were to be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water.\u00a0Matthew 26:18\u00a0drops the idea that a\u00a0Jewish\u00a0man would do a woman\u2019s work.<\/span><\/p>\n Luke 22:10 also indicates a man carrying water. Matthew simply doesn\u2019t mention it. Silence on or omission of a matter is not logically the same as a contradiction. It was customary in ancient Israel for women to carry water jugs on their heads, I agree. But I don\u2019t see that men were forbidden<\/em> to do so, or that it is solely<\/em> \u201cwoman\u2019s work.\u201d Hence, Deuteronomy 29:11 refers to \u201che who\u00a0<\/b>draws your water.\u201d Here is a plausible explanation of what was going on in these Bible passages:<\/span><\/p>\n A man walking around with a jar of water was a very unusual sight, as this was ordinarily women\u2019s work. Why would a man be carrying a water jar in Jerusalem? The only group of Jewish men that traditionally did carry water jars were Essenes. Essenes were mostly celibate, and their men did women\u2019s work. They had their communities, not only in Qumran, but in various towns. They also had a community in Jerusalem.<\/span><\/p>\n One of Jerusalem\u2019s gates was called \u201cthe Gate of the Essenes\u201d. It was through this gate that they entered their community. When Jesus told His disciples that they will see a man carrying a water jar, he knew they would enter through the Essenes\u2019 gate. Entering through this gate was crucial to finding a room for the Passover meal. The Essenes\u2019 calendar was different than the regular Jewish one, and, therefore, they still had available guest rooms.<\/span> (\u201cThe Man with the Jar of Water: The Jewish Background of\u00a0<\/a> Mark 15:42, \u201cWhen evening was already come, because it was Friday (paraskeue<\/em>) that is, the day before the sabbath \u2026\u201d . This means \u201ceither that Friday began with that sunset, and Jesus had died on Thursday; or else, the evangelist forgot [or did not know] that the Jewish day began at evening.\u201d\u00a0Matthew 27:57-62\u00a0clarifies Mark\u2019s confusion over Jewish days. Interestingly, the NIV tries to translate the problem away by writing for\u00a0Mark 15:42\u00a0\u2018So as evening\u00a0approached<\/b>\u201c, rather than \u201cand when evening had\u00a0come<\/b>\u201c, as the RSV has it.<\/span><\/p>\n Apologist John Fraser writes:<\/span><\/p>\n What must be noted, however,\u00a0is that\u00a0all four Gospels say explicitly or implicitly that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation<\/em>. In Mark we read this of the evening after the crucifixion: \u201cWhen evening had already come, because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath . . .\u201d (Mark 15:42). So Mark explicitly says that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation, agreeing with John. Luke is also explicit, giving this statement about when Jesus was taken down from the cross and buried: \u201cIt was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin\u201d (Luke 23:54). Thus Luke also agrees that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation. Finally, Matthew directly implies the same thing in Mat. 27:62): \u201cNow on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate . . .\u201d Matthew says that the day after the crucifixion was the day after the preparation, which means Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation just as Mark, Luke, and John also say. Mark\u2019s Gospel includes the explanatory note that the preparation day was the day before the Sabbath, which would mean Friday. It\u2019s also worth noting that the Greek word for preparation (paraskeue<\/em>) is the modern Greek name for Friday. Thus the most likely reading is that all four Gospels say that Jesus was crucified on the Friday of Passover week. But John and the Synoptics are in full agreement on this point.<\/span> (\u201cThe Discrepancies of Bart Ehrman Examined\u201d<\/a>, Christian Apologetics Alliance<\/em>, 11-2-12)\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Catholic apologist Karlo Broussard elaborates:<\/span><\/p>\n The phrase \u201cday of Preparation\u201d is a Jewish\u00a0<\/span>idiom for Friday<\/a>, the day that Jews made preparations for observance of the weekly Sabbath.<\/span><\/p>\n All three Synoptics use the idiom this way and say Jesus died on that day. Mark is explicit: \u201cAnd when evening had come, since it [the day Jesus was crucified and died] was the day of Preparation [Greek,\u00a0paraskeu\u0113<\/em>], that is,\u00a0the day before the Sabbath<\/em>\u201d (Mark 15:42; emphasis added).<\/span><\/p>\n Luke is explicit as well. In reference to the day of Jesus\u2019s crucifixion and death, he writes, \u201cIt was the day [h\u0113mera<\/em>] of preparation [paraskeu\u0113s<\/em>], and the sabbath was beginning\u201d (Luke 23:54).<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew\u2019s use of\u00a0paraskeu\u0113<\/em>\u00a0is a bit more implicit. He identifies the day Jesus died to be \u201cthe day of preparation\u201d (Matt. 27:62). (<\/span>\u201cThe Timing of Jesus\u2019 Death\u201d<\/a>, Catholic Answers<\/em>, 4-8-20)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Much ado about nothing (as almost always with these atheist \u201ccontradictions\u201d). This one is so desperate that Mr. Carr sinks to claiming that<\/span> \u201cthe NIV tries to translate the problem away.\u201d There is<\/em> no problem in the first<\/em> place! The Greek word involved, ginomai<\/em> (Strong\u2019s word #1096<\/a>) has a wide range of meanings, as one can readily see by following the link I just provided (which gives all 671 New Testament occurrences). The basis meaning is \u201cto come into being, to happen, to become.\u201d But the application of the word is so wide in its subtleties and nuances that here is how many ways that the NASB (similar to the RSV: I have done massive Bible-reading in both versions) translated this one word:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n accomplished (1), appeared (3), arise (1), arises (2), arose (6), arrived (3), became (53), become (83), becomes (8), becoming (2), been (12), been brought (1), been done (1), been made (2), been\u2026came (1), began (1), behaved (1), being (2), come into being (1), being carried (1), being done (2), being made (2), born (5), breaking* (1), came (45), came into being (2), came to pass (2), come (16), comes (1), comes to pass (1), coming (1), dawn (1), decided* (1), developing (1), done (20), drawing (1), during (1), elapsed (1), existed* (1), falling (1), feeling (1), fell (6), finished (1), followed (1), formed (3), found (2), get (4), give (1), got (1), granted (1), grown* (1), had (1), happen (6), happened (46), happening (5), happens (3), has (3), join* (1), joined (3), made (15), occur (3), occurred (18), performed (4), prove (7), proved (6), proving (1), put (1), reached (2), realized (1), results (2), show (1), spent (1), split (1), spoken (1), starting (1), take place (16), taken (2), taken place (5), takes place (1), taking place (3), there arose (1), thundered* (1), took place (7), turned (1), turns (3), would (1).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n One can readily see that \u201capproached\u201d and \u201chad come\u201d are well within the range of possible translations. It\u2019s the translator\u2019s judgment. The NIV rendering is a minority position among translators but still seems quite permissible, in light of the above. I found four others that had similar renderings:<\/span><\/p>\n Good News<\/strong> getting on toward evening<\/span><\/p>\n Barclay<\/strong> already late in the day<\/span><\/p>\n Kleist & Lilly<\/strong> now late in the afternoon<\/span><\/p>\n Weymouth<\/strong> towards sunset<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n But to accuse a team of translators (and now, in effect, five different ones) of deliberate distortion for the sake of a nefarious agenda is really<\/em> stretching it: especially with a word like ginomai<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 15:46\u00a0says that\u00a0that same evening<\/b>\u00a0Joseph of Arimathea \u201cbought a linen cloth.\u201d Matthew drops the idea of a\u00a0Jew\u00a0buying something on the Sabbath. No\u00a0Jew\u00a0could have made that mistake.<\/span><\/p>\n This, too, is a nothing burger. I dealt with this very charge just two days ago in my previous reply to Jonathan<\/a>. For readers\u2019 convenience, I\u2019ll paste it here:<\/span><\/p>\n Theology Web<\/em>\u00a0hosted a discussion on this non-issue<\/span> (\u201cJoseph of Arimathea Buying Linen On Passover?\u201d<\/a>) in which one of the commenters shredded this \u201cgotcha\u201d question:<\/span><\/p>\n The imagined issue here is that it was illegal to work and to buy or sell goods on Passover per the following passages: [cites Ex 12:16; Lev 23:6-7; Neh 10:31]<\/span><\/p>\n Joseph, who was prominent on the council, would appear to be publicly breaking Jewish law by buying linen on Passover, and he couldn\u2019t do it on the Sabbath (which was the next day) either. There appear to be a number of solutions to this issue though. So, starting with NT scholar Harold Hoehner, \u201cThe purchases of Joseph of Arimathea were proper for necessities could be obtained on the Sabbath (and on a feast day).\u201d His source for this is\u00a0Mishnah Shabbath\u00a0<\/em>23.4[:] \u201cOne may await the dusk at the limits of the techoom, to furnish what is necessary for a bride and for a corpse, and to bring a coffin and shrouds for the latter.\u201d \u201cBy \u2018techoom\u2019 is meant the distance of 2,000 ells [7,500 feet] which a man may traverse on the Sabbath, and refers to the limits of that distance.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Hoehner also cites Gustaf Dalman\u2019s Jesus \u2013\u00a0Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels<\/em>\u00a0(1929), where Dalman points out that these were extenuating circumstances. A criminal who had been hung (crucifixion was a type of hanging) had to be buried by nightfall to prevent the land from being defiled and burial on the Sabbath was likely not permitted. The body couldn\u2019t lay out in the hot Judean environment for two days. It had to be buried,<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So it turns out \u2014 again \u2014 that Mark is quite Jewish indeed: as Jewish as the Talmud. Mr. Carr just didn\u2019t dig deep enough. He is, in the end, simply ignorant as to the matters under discussion (and I will continue to demonstrate this as I proceed). His only goal is to tear the Bible down, and anything goes towards that end.<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 1:2\u00a0wrongly ascribes\u00a0Malachi 3:1\u00a0to Isaiah.\u00a0Matthew 3:3\u00a0corrects this.<\/span><\/p>\n The<\/span> Thinking and Believing<\/em> site<\/a> answers this:<\/span><\/p>\n Mark quotes from Malachi\u00a0and<\/em>\u00a0Isaiah, and the first quotation is from Malachi.<\/span><\/p>\n Some people allege that the writer of Mark\u2019s Gospel simply misattributed the quote. In other words, Mark simply got it wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n But there are good reasons for thinking otherwise. And the reasons are not simply the desperate maneuvers of evangelicals trying to defend a high view of Scripture. They are reasons based on the literary conventions of the time.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nthe New Testament\u201d<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n