![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/02\/MarkEvangelist.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I just finished yesterday an exhaustive (over 8,000-word) point-by-point refutation of a wholesale attack on the Gospel of Mark, written by atheist Steven Carr:\u00a0Pearce\u2019s Potshots #15: Gospel of Matthew vs. Gospel of Mark?<\/a>. That piece was actually part of a longer diatribe, entitled\u00a0The Gospel According to Saint Mark<\/a>: written by another atheist:\u00a0Vexen Crabtree<\/a> in 2006. Now I will examine his piece, too, to see if it is any more worthy of belief than Carr\u2019s relentlessly erroneous analysis. Vexen\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This anonymous gospel was the first to be written, around 80\u00a0CE<\/abbr>, by an unknown Roman convert to\u00a0Christianity.<\/span><\/p>\n Many early Christian writers state that Mark (or John Mark) is the author. The most important \u201cwitness\u201d is Papias, a bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (Turkey) until about 130 AD. His statement is recorded in in Eusebius\u2019 History of the Church<\/em>, written in 325:<\/p>\n 14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.<\/p>\n 15. \u201cThis also the presbyter\u00a0960<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.\u00a0961<\/a>\u00a0<\/sup>For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord\u2019s discourses,\u00a0962<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.\u201d These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.\u00a0(Book III, 39:15<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The \u201cpresbyter John\u201d referred to may be the apostle John himself. If so, the identification of Mark as the author goes back (via oral transmission) to the first Christians. Other early witnesses to Mark\u2019s authorship include Irenaeus<\/a> (c. 130-c. 202),\u00a0Clement of Alexandria<\/a> (150-c. 215), \u00a0Tertullian<\/a> (c. 155-c. 240), and Origen<\/a> (c. 184-c. 253). No one can be found in the early Church who dissents from this opinion of authorship.<\/p>\n That this Mark referred to by these early Christians is also the same as \u201c(John) Mark\u201d (mentioned in Acts 12:12, 25;\u00a0 13:5, 13; 15:37; Col 4:10; Philem 24; 2 Tim 4:11; 1 Pet 5:13) is almost certain.<\/p>\n The author of Mark was not an eyewitnesses of Jesus, and wasn\u2019t friends with any of the disciples nor any other witnesses who could have easily corrected many of his mistakes.<\/span><\/p>\n Papias states otherwise: that he drew from Peter, and we have no compelling reason to doubt his report.<\/p>\n The evidence is that (1) the author uses a lot of existing stories (both Hebrew and Greek) and wrote them into the text with\u00a0Jesus<\/i>\u00a0as the centre of the story, instead of the original characters.<\/span><\/p>\n A common theme in atheist biblical skepticism is to simply assert these sorts of wild claims, while not presenting any evidence why anyone should accept them. Joe Blow atheist asserting x, y, z skeptical claims about supposed Gospel \u201cfictions and fairy tales\u201d \u2014 provided by no evidence whatsoever \u2014 has exactly no<\/em> plausibility or ability to persuade any fair-minded, objective thinking person. Why should we believe<\/em> them (even before getting into the question of the unreliability of \u201chostile witnesses\u201d)? But the early Christian tradition is agreed that the author was Mark and that he drew from an eyewitness, Peter.<\/p>\n (2) He didn\u2019t speak Aramaic (Jesus\u2019 language)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n How does he know this? The Gospel of Mark came down to us in Greek, but there is no proof that Mark didn\u2019t speak Aramaic. Professor of New Testament Language Larry Hurtado wrote<\/a> that \u201cMark has more Semitic words\/expressions (mainly Aramaic) than any of the other Gospels.\u201d As to whether Mark spoke\u00a0Aramaic, see\u00a0\u201cAramaic in Mark\u201d<\/a> by Dr. Benjamin Shaw (who earned a Th.M. from Princeton Theological Seminary, with an emphasis in biblical languages: Greek, Hebrew, Old Testament and Targumic Aramaic, as well as Ugaritic),\u00a02021.<\/p>\n Ben Witherington in\u00a0The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(pp. 18-9) documents a number of\u00a0stylistic traits<\/a>\u00a0of Mark\u2019s Gospel:<\/p>\n In sum, these traits point to an author who struggles to express himself in the language he is writing. . . . So the text itself suggests the author of Mark was, in fact, an Aramaic speaker. [source<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Kenneth Kuziej, in his article, \u201cThe Aramaic Logic of Jesus in Mark and Matthew,\u201d<\/a> Consensus<\/em>: Vol. 2 : Iss. 3 , Article 5 (1976) provides very helpful information:<\/p>\n Mark\u2019s Greek is rough, strongly Aramaic, and not surprisingly, full of grammatical errors. At the same time, however, it is language which is lively\u00a0and appealing, like that of an enthusiastic young immigrant. . . . Luke\u2019s Gospel preserves no Aramaic words of Jesus. Neither does the Gospel of John, which, though accented with Aramaic, has such a simple vocabulary it almost seems as if this evangelist chooses not to make his work hard to understand for readers who understood no Aramaic.<\/p>\n The question is why did Matthew\u2019s and Mark\u2019s Gospels preserve those Aramaic\u00a0words and phrases of Jesus? It\u2019s only a guess, but perhaps, like many people who\u00a0are new to a language, when stumped, fall back on their native words. This\u00a0almost could be the explanation for the word Mammon<\/em> (loosely translated\u00a0\u201cmoney\u201d but meaning all material things) and Raka<\/em> (which is an obscure term of abuse loosely translated \u201cyou\u00a0fool\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n and wrote in Greek, not Hebrew,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The manuscript came down to us in Greek. No one disagrees with that. So why mention it? But the evidence presented above strongly suggests that Greek was not his first language; Aramaic very likely was.<\/p>\n even having Jesus quote a Greek mistranslation of the Old Testament. . . . All of his quotes from the Old Testament are from the faulty Septuagint translation, in Greek.<\/span><\/p>\n Catholic apologist Jason Evert explains<\/a> the New Testament use of the Septuagint: Greek translation of the Old Testament:<\/p>\n Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno,\u00a0Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey<\/em>, 25-32).<\/p>\n For those who may not know, the\u00a0Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament<\/a>. The common abbreviation for it\u2014LXX, or the Roman numerals for 70\u2014come from a legend that the first part of the Septuagint was done by 70 translators.<\/p>\n By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church.<\/p>\n But, while the New Testament authors quoted the LXX frequently, it does not necessarily follow that Christ did. We know for certain that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament at times, since he read from the scrolls in the synagogue. But Jesus could have only quoted from the Hebrew, and the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record the fact.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some details such as what Jesus said in his personal prayers is made-up. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n How did Mark know what Jesus said in his private prayer in\u00a0Mark 14:32-36?<\/b>\u00a0Jesus specifically goes out of his way to leave the disciples behind, taking only James, John and Peter with him. Then, he departs from them for such a distance that they are asleep by the time he returns \u2013 and this happens\u00a0twice<\/i>. The occasional academic is not afraid to voice the obvious truth: \u201cSo how did Mark know? He \u2018knew\u2019 because he made it up<\/i>\u201d \u2013 Price.<\/span><\/p>\n On what basis is this to be believed? It\u2019s simply the usual irrational, hostile atheist skepticism. Jesus could have simply communicated what He was praying to Peter, who passed it on to Mark. The Bible doesn\u2019t claim to be absolutely exhaustive, as to what Jesus taught His followers. Indeed, one long conversation in one evening by Jesus would contain far more words, by far, than all of His words recorded in Scripture. And that\u2019s just one night<\/em>. He was constantly with the disciples for three years, day and night. Mark 6:34 notes in one instance, even with the crowds, not just the disciples: \u201che began to teach them many things\u201d (RSV, as throughout my reply) None of them are recorded<\/em>. Mark 4:34 adds: \u201cprivately to his own disciples he\u00a0<\/b>explained everything.\u201d<\/p>\n So some of this \u201ceverything\u201d could have easily been what Jesus prayed. All Jesus had to do was tell Peter, \u201clast night I prayed [so-and-so]\u201d (maybe in response to the ever-zealous Peter asking Him) just as we have cases where He revealed what He prayed in Scripture: \u201cI have prayed\u00a0for you that your faith may not fail\u201d (Lk 22:32; spoken to Peter). Then Peter could tell Mark about one of these prayers, and that\u2019s how Mark could have \u201cknown\u201d about Jesus\u2019 private prayers. It\u2019s not rocket science to envision such a scenario. It\u2019s absolutely not impossible.<\/p>\n He included multiple copies of the same story (but often with different\u00a0<\/span>details<\/i>\u00a0\u2013 evidence that he was using passed-on stories that had diverged over time). This often results in internal contradictions and inconsistencies.<\/span><\/p>\n Another bald claim. Mr. Crabtree has to provide more specifics<\/em>, then the Christian can respond to the accusation (just as I did with Steven Carr\u2019s hit-piece: systematically refuting every \u201canti-Mark\u201d argument<\/a> that he made). Christian apologists don\u2019t have time to chase vague phantoms of anti-theist atheists\u2019 unbridled imaginations.<\/p>\n The unfamiliarity with Jewish ways of life. There was no-one to correct his blunders such as misquoting the 10 commandments, attributing God\u2019s words to Moses, and having\u00a0Jews\u00a0buy things on the Sabbath.<\/span><\/p>\n I thoroughly refuted all of these bogus charges last time<\/a>, along with many others. They are born of rank ignorance, and it\u2019s embarrassing to see how woefully inadequate and downright silly they are, once scrutinized.<\/p>\n Many of the Gospel of Mark\u2019s mistakes were edited and corrections were attempted by\u00a0Matthew\u00a0and\u00a0Luke\u00a0when they made their own copies of Mark (together there are only about 30 verses that they didn\u2019t copy).<\/span><\/p>\n Once again, specifics would have to be given, for me to reply. When such alleged \u201ccorrections\u201d of Matthew were posited by Mr. Carr, I showed in every instance that they were groundless.<\/p>\n Because of its influence, some historians have argued that Mark\u2019s text it the primary material that created the legend of Jesus: \u201cBruno Bauer believed Mark had invented Jesus, just as Mark Twain created Huck Finn\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Saying that a real Jesus didn\u2019t exist at all, or if He did, it was nothing like the Gospel portrayal, is intellectual suicide (hence, I spend little time with it, just as I rarely waste my time wrangling about a flat earth or a 10,000-year-old earth. See:\u00a0Seidensticker Folly #4: Jesus Never Existed, Huh?<\/a>\u00a0[8-14-18]<\/p>\n Mr. Crabtree cites Robert M. Price stating about the time of Jesus: \u201cthere is no evidence for synagogues in Galilee.\u201d<\/span> Nonsense. The text Price was dealing with (Mark 3:1-5) was about an incident in Capernaum (see Mk 2:1 for the context regarding place). Capernaum had a synagogue. It\u2019s located in Galilee on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. I visited it myself in 2014, and it was noted that the present one was built on top of an older one, whose foundation could still be seen at the bottom of the structure (much darker basalt rocks). Where do people like Price get off saying stupid things like this?\u00a0A UNESCO page: \u201cEarly Synagogues in the Galilee\u201d<\/a> gives the real<\/em> story:<\/p>\n The remains of as many as 50 different synagogues were identified in the Galilee, one of the most concentrated sites for synagogues in the world at that time. These early synagogues included Meron, Gush Halav, Navorin, Bar Am and Bet Alfa and Korazim, and Capernaum by the Sea of Galilee. The earliest synagogue remains in Palestine date to the late first century BCE, or by the early first century CE. By this time the synagogue was a developed central institution throughout the Jewish world.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Len Ritmeyer noted in his article, \u201cThe Synagogue of Capernaum in which Jesus taught\u201d<\/a> (3-15-18):<\/p>\n Digging deeper down in 1981, walls made of basalt stones and a basalt floor turned up 4 feet below the surface. These walls were located underneath the walls of the white synagogue and also under the stylobates (low walls that support a row of columns). It was initially thought that these walls were foundation walls, but when 1st<\/sup>\u00a0century material was found on and below the basalt floor, it became evident that these basalt walls belonged to a synagogue of the 1st<\/sup>\u00a0century, i.e, the synagogue in which Jesus taught.<\/p>\n Some of the trenches have been left open and the remains of this early synagogue can be seen today. [the article has a photo of that]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0The Times of Israel<\/em> reported on 8-19-16<\/a> about another synagogue in Galilee from Jesus\u2019 time, that He very well may have visited:<\/p>\n Israeli archaeologists in northern Israel have uncovered the ruins of a rural synagogue that dates back some 2,000 years.<\/p>\n The remains of the synagogue were found during an archaeological dig at Tel Rekhesh, near Mount Tabor in the lower Galilee, in what was an ancient Jewish village.<\/p>\n The find could lend weight to the New Testament narrative that Jesus visited villages in the area to preach.<\/p>\n Mordechai Aviam, an archaeologist at Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee who led the dig, estimated the synagogue was built between 20-40 AD and was used for a hundred years. . . .<\/p>\n \u201cThe site is 17 km (10 miles) as crow flies east of Nazareth, and 12 km from Nin (Naim), and although we don\u2019t have its name in the New Testament, it is in the area in which Jesus acted,\u201d said Aviam.<\/p>\n Mark 1:30<\/strong> And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues . . .<\/p>\n Mark 6:6<\/strong> And he went about among the villages teaching. [i.e., \u201cvillages\u201d near Nazareth<\/em>: see 6:1]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I could easily find more about this, but these counter-examples suffice.\u00a0So goes \u201cbust\u201d another atheist myth: disproven by archaeology and historiography . . .<\/p>\n We have seen already that Mark was not known as a Gospel of \u2018Mark\u2019 for over a hundred years.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s of no relevance. All that matters is whether there were reliable oral traditions, based ultimately on eyewitness testimony. These eventually made their way into the written accounts.<\/p>\n When\u00a0Christians\u00a0came to name the Gospels, they picked \u2018Mark\u2019, who they thought should be a disciple of Peter, who in Greek mythology was associated with the Egyptian god Petra, the gate guardian of\u00a0Heaven. Nowadays,\u00a0Christians\u00a0nowadays consider \u2018Peter\u2019 to be a genuine historical person, but it seems that even if he was real, Mark didn\u2019t know him.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is simply groundless, arbitrary, downright stupid speculation from atheists: as usual backed up with nothing substantial at all, let alone scholarly. Readers can see, on the other hand, how my replies consistently have scholarly backing. Mr. Crabtree is ridiculous enough to start doubting the historicity of Peter as well.<\/p>\n Peter certainly could have corrected any of Mark\u2019s errors in Jewish knowledge, and it is ludicrous to assume that Mark wrote this text without showing Peter (or any other Jew).<\/span><\/p>\n Again, I think I disposed of many of the supposed examples of Mark\u2019s \u201clack of Jewishness\u201d in my previous reply along these lines<\/a>. I flatly deny the premise.<\/p>\n It is clear that Mark didn\u2019t know any\u00a0Jews.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is an extraordinary claim. What\u2019s the evidence<\/em> for it?<\/p>\n All three\u00a0<\/span>other<\/i>\u00a0gospels refer to Peter (Matthew 16:17-20,\u00a0Luke 22:28-32\u00a0and\u00a0John 21:15-17) and give him authority, whereas Mark doesn\u2019t.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Mark mentions \u201cPeter\u201d 19 times<\/a>. Matthew mentions him 23 times, with 12 more chapters to do so. So, proportionately, Mark has more emphasis on Peter. Luke mentions him 18 times, with eight more chapters than Mark. But then we have to add the use also of \u201cSimon\u201d: his earlier name. That\u2019s ten more times in Mark<\/a> for a total of references to Peter of 29 times. Matthew adds five more references with \u201cSimon\u201d for 28 total. Luke adds 14, for a total of 32. So the grand totals are:<\/p>\n Mark: 29 in 15 chapters (average of 1.9 times per chapter).<\/p>\n Matthew: 28 in 28 chapters (average of one time per chapter).<\/p>\n Luke: 32 in 24 chapters (average of 1.3 times per chapter).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So Mark mentions Peter (\u201cPeter\u201d or \u201cSimon\u201d) almost twice as much per chapter as Matthew does and almost three times to every two times that Luke does. That\u2019s hardly an underemphasis on Peter.<\/p>\n Moreover, Mark shows him as preeminent, just as the others do, by showing that he is the most mentioned of the disciples and their leader. Peter\u2019s name invariably occurs first in all lists of apostles, including in Mark (3:16). Mark implies that he is the leader, in citing an angel stating, \u201ctell his disciples and\u00a0<\/b>Peter\u00a0that he is going before you to Galilee\u201d (16:7). Singling him out in such a way, over against the rest of the disciples, is clearly expressing his leadership. This occurs again in Mark 1:36 (\u201cAnd Simon and those who were with him pursued him,\u201d). He\u2019s a spokesman for the other disciples (Mk 8:29). He\u2019s listed first of the \u201cinner circle\u201d of disciples: Peter, James, and John (Mk 5:37; 14:37). He\u2019s the central figure in dramatic stories: for instance, Jesus walking on the water (Mk 10:28).<\/p>\n I think Mark knew Peter was not real; but merely a piece of Roman mythology used symbolically in a way all Romans would have understood.\u00a0\u00a0Later authors (such as the Jewish author of the\u00a0<\/span>Gospel of Matthew<\/a>), who copied Mark\u2019s text, did not know this, therefore they elevated him.<\/span><\/p>\n This is just manifestly ridiculous, and not worthy of any attention. It\u2019s self-refuting.<\/p>\n Sandals and Staff<\/b>: Jesus sends his disciples out to preach, but in Mark<\/span> [6:8-9] they are told to wear sandals (contradicting Matthew<\/span> [10:9-10] ), and are told to take a staff (contradicting Luke<\/span> [9:3]). Only one of these three authors could have really been there (if any).<\/span><\/p>\n At least this appears<\/em> at first glance to be a real<\/em> contradiction (unlike virtually all atheist proposed ones I\u2019ve ever seen: and I\u2019ve dealt with several hundred). So it deserves a serious treatment.\u00a0Protestant apologists Eric Lyons and\u00a0Brad Harrub<\/a>\u00a0(on a site that specializes in alleged biblical contradictions) grant the difficulty of interpreting these passages harmoniously in writing that they were \u201cPerhaps the most difficult alleged Bible contradiction that we have been asked to \u2018tackle\u2019 . . .\u00a0A cursory reading of the above passages admittedly is somewhat confusing.\u201d Then they proceed to explain the apparent discrepancies:<\/p>\n The differences between Matthew and Mark are explained easily when one acknowledges that the writers used different Greek verbs to express different meanings. In Matthew, the word \u201cprovide\u201d (NKJV) is an English translation of the Greek word\u00a0ktesthe<\/i>. According to Bauer\u2019s\u00a0Greek-English Lexicon<\/i>, the root word comes from\u00a0ktaomai<\/i>, which means to \u201cprocure for oneself, acquire, get\u201d (1979, p. 455). Based upon these definitions, the New American Standard Version used the English verb \u201cacquire\u201d in Matthew 10:9 (\u201cDo not acquire\u2026.\u201d), instead of \u201cprovide\u201d or \u201ctake.\u201d In Matthew, Jesus is saying: \u201cDo not acquire anything in addition to what you already have that may tempt you or stand in your way. Just go as you are.\u201d As Mark indicated, the apostles were to \u201ctake\u201d (airo<\/i>) what they had, and go. The apostles were not to waste precious time gathering supplies (extra apparel, staffs, shoes, etc.) or making preparations for their trip, but instead were instructed to trust in God\u2019s providence for additional needs. Jesus did not mean for the apostles to discard the staffs and sandals they already had; rather, they were not to go and acquire more.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n They continue by tackling the additional information from Luke:<\/p>\n As is obvious from a comparison of the verses in Matthew and Luke, they are recording the same truth\u2014that the apostles were not to spend valuable time gathering extra staffs\u2014only they are using different words to do so.<\/p>\n \u201cProvide\u00a0<\/b>(Greek\u00a0ktaomi<\/i>)\u00a0neither<\/b>\u00a0gold nor silver\u2026nor staffs<\/b>\u201d (Matthew 10:9-10, emp. added).<\/p>\n \u201cTake<\/b>\u00a0(Greek\u00a0airo<\/i>)\u00a0nothing<\/b>\u00a0for the journey,\u00a0neither staffs<\/b>\u201d (Luke 9:3, emp. added).<\/p>\n Luke did not use\u00a0ktaomi<\/i>\u00a0in his account because he nearly always used\u00a0ktaomi<\/i>\u00a0in a different sense than Matthew did. In Matthew\u2019s account, the word\u00a0ktaomai<\/i>\u00a0is used to mean \u201cprovide\u201d or \u201cacquire,\u201d whereas in the books of Luke and Acts, Luke used this word to mean \u201cpurchase, buy, or earn.\u201d Notice the following examples of how Luke used this word.<\/p>\n \u201cI fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I\u00a0get<\/b>\u201d (ktaomai<\/i>) [Luke 18:12, emp. added, NAS]<\/p>\n \u201cNow this man\u00a0purchased<\/b>\u00a0(ktaomai<\/i>) a field with the wages of iniquity (Acts 1:18, emp. added).<\/p>\n \u201cYour money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be\u00a0purchased<\/b>\u00a0(ktaomai<\/i>) with money!\u201d (Acts 8:20, emp. added).<\/p>\n The commander answered, \u201cWith a large sum I\u00a0obtained<\/b>\u00a0(ktaomai<\/i>) this citizenship\u201d (Acts 22:28, emp. added).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Just as\u00a0ktaomai<\/i>\u00a0did not mean the same for Luke and Matthew, the Greek word\u00a0airo<\/i>\u00a0(translated \u201ctake\u201d in both Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3) often did not mean the same for Luke and Mark (see Miller, 1997<\/a>). [Understanding this simple fact eliminates the \u201ccontradiction\u201d completely, for unless the skeptic can be certain that Mark and Luke were using the word in the same sense, he cannot prove that the accounts contradict each other.] Mark consistently used\u00a0airo<\/i>\u00a0in other passages throughout his gospel to mean simply \u201ctake\u201d or \u201cpick up and carry\u201d (2:9; 6:29; 11:23; 13:16). That Luke (in 9:3) did not mean the same sense of\u00a0airo\u00a0<\/i>as Mark did (in 6:8) is suggested by the fact that in Luke 19:21-22 he used this same verb to mean \u201cacquire.\u201d [see also the visual chart in the article that is very helpful]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, the anti-theist atheists (who love bringing up things like this) typically respond that \u201cwell, see how hard<\/em> you had to work to solve the contradiction?! It shouldn\u2019t have to be<\/em> that hard!\u201d We agree that it shouldn\u2019t be so hard, if<\/em><\/strong> one understood Greek in the first place. But for those of us who don\u2019t<\/em> know Greek, it appears contradictory, because the difference hinges upon different Greek words and even different meanings of the same Greek words (in context): just as English words usually have several definitions.<\/p>\n Therefore, it takes a considerable bit of explaining to clarify for the non-Greek speaker. Once that key difference is understood, the so-called \u201ccontradiction\u201d is shown to not<\/em> be one at all, because the writers are using different Greek words and meaning different things. And there are many alleged \u201cbiblical contradictions\u201d that are resolved in this same fashion.<\/p>\n Making Up Details on How Many Were Fed:<\/b>\u00a0The scribes who put together the Gospel of Mark included two versions of the same story of Jesus feeding crowds of people with only a small number of loaves of bread and fish. The two copies are at\u00a0Mark 6:32-44\u00a0and\u00a0Mark 8:1-10. \u201cThey are essentially the same in every detail except the precise numbers of people present and food left over. Such figures are, of course, the easiest details to lose and confuse<\/i>\u201d\u00a0as the stories were passed on from person to person. This is more proof that\u00a0Mark\u00a0wasn\u2019t an eye-witness (or even close to one).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is untrue, and easily shown to be so. The two events took place in two entirely different locations, as the text states. The feeding of the 5,000 was near<\/span>\u00a0Bethsaida<\/a>, which was on the north side of the Sea of Galilee (Mk 6:45; cf. Lk 9:10-17). The feeding of the 4,000, however, was a completely different story that occurred in a different place, as opposed to the fairy-tale of<\/span> \u201cessentially the same in every detail except the precise numbers of people present and food left over\u201c<\/i> that the foolish skeptic Robert Price invented, and Mr. Crabtree accepts uncritically.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n It occurred in \u201cthe region of the Decapolis<\/a>\u201d (Mk 7:31), which was east<\/em> of the Sea of Galilee, and included the town of\u00a0 Hippos<\/a>, which was literally on a hill overlooking it. Immediately after the miracle, Jesus \u201cimmediately . . . got into the boat with his disciples, and went to the district of Dalmanu\u2019tha\u201d (Mk 8:10). Matthew 15:39, the parallel verse, states: \u201che got into the boat and went to the region of Mag\u2019adan.\u201d That would have been directly across the Sea of Galilee, and some archaeologists believe<\/a> that\u00a0Dalmanutha has been found, very close to Magadan, or Magdala, as I recently wrote about at length<\/a>.\u00a0There is evidence<\/a>\u00a0that the place where the feeding of the 4,000 occurred was near the\u00a0archaeological site of Kursi.<\/a> In any event, it\u2019s clearly an entirely different place being described in the two feedings.<\/p>\n The two copies certainly\u00a0do not<\/i>\u00a0represent two different events, as the disciples are surprised all-over-again in the second copy.<\/span><\/p>\n The disciples were continually surprised by any miracle Jesus did. This is a more-or-less common theme in every Gospel story of a miracle. They lacked faith and thought \u201ccarnally\u2019 as Christians say, because they didn\u2019t yet have the grace of the Holy Spirit dwelling with them (that came after Jesus\u2019 death on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).<\/p>\n It seems that the story didn\u2019t start out as a story about Jesus anyway, as it looks like a Greek rewrite of\u00a02 Kings 4:42-44, where Elisha also multiplies food.<\/span><\/p>\n Similarity to something else doesn\u2019t prove that the second event is merely fictitious.<\/p>\n Mark 7\u2019s Long Story About Unclean Food Practices Contradicts Book of Acts<\/b>. Mark 7 has Jesus teach the disciples at length that the Jewish laws on food go too far. The obsession with washing hands before eating, and many other precise rules and regulations about cleanliness and uncleanliness, are not actually important. And yet, in Acts\u00a010:14, the Disciples have forgotten the entire thing. Mark might have made-up these stories or (more likely) copied them from stories about other prophets, and rewritten them as with Jesus at their centre instead.<\/span><\/p>\n I dealt with this last time<\/a> too:<\/p>\n Jesus indeed declared the principle that Peter would later publicly declare (after receiving a revelation) that all foods were clean (Acts 10:9-16): a thing shortly afterwards codified at the Jerusalem Council as applicable to all Gentile Christians (Acts 15:19-20). The difference is that Jesus did it only with His\u00a0disciples<\/em>\u00a0(Mark 7:17-23). He wasn\u2019t Himself proclaiming \u201call foods clean\u201d in so many words (let alone publicly). He simply taught the principle\u00a0underlying\u00a0<\/em>that thought, and Mark made his \u201ctheological\u201d comment about it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I would add now that the disciples didn\u2019t (as far as the text<\/em> informs us)\u00a0hear Jesus specifically say<\/em> in this incident recorded by Mark: \u201call foods are clean.\u201d It was simply the narrator (Mark) making note of the broader point Jesus had made, summarizing it as \u201cThus he declared all foods clean.\u201d This would explain why Peter was surprised to hear it more explicitly taught<\/em>, in Acts 10:14. He was probably unaware that what Jesus had said in the earlier incident had the implication of changing Jewish food laws. So there is no contradiction here.<\/p>\n Galilee or Judea?<\/b>\u00a0The gospels describe where Jesus taught. Mark contradicts both Luke\u2019s and John\u2019s accounts:<\/span><\/p>\n The different Gospels simply emphasize different things and omit some things others include. There is no inexorable contradictions here. Harmonies of the Gospels (here\u2019s an online version by A. T. Robertson<\/a>) show how a non-contradictory scenario can be constructed of all of Jesus\u2019 journeys.<\/p>\n Mark contradicts Luke and John on the issue of how Jesus was sentenced:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201c<\/span>According to\u00a0Matthew\u00a0and\u00a0Mark, Jesus was both tried and sentenced by the Jewish priests of the Sanhedrin. Luke has it that Jesus was [not] sentenced by them. Yet according to John, Jesus does not appear before the Sanhedrin at all.\u201d [<\/span>\u201cThe Jesus Mysteries\u201d<\/i>\u00a0by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999) ]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The ultimate sentence of crucifixion could not have been made by the Jews in any event. Only the Romans could put a man to death in that place at that time (see Jn 18:31). So Matthew records that the Sanhedrin concluded that Jesus \u201cdeserves death\u201d (26:66), but they couldn\u2019t sentence<\/em> him. That\u2019s why they had to send him to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate (Mt 27:1-2), who \u201cdelivered him to be crucified\u201d (27:26). So Freke and Gandy are dead wrong in their assessment of what Matthew taught in this regard. The story in Mark is precisely the same. The Sanhedrin unanimously \u201ccondemned him as deserving death\u201d (14:64), sent him to Pilate (15:1), who alone could sentence Him, and Pilate \u201cdelivered him to be crucified\u201d (15:15). So the \u201cinterpretation\u201d (to be charitable) above is dead wrong again.<\/p>\n Luke is no different. The Sanhedrin judged Him (as supposedly a blasphemer) in effect by saying, \u201cWhat further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips\u201d (22:71). They \u201cbrought him before Pilate\u201d (23:1), and we see them still trying to get Him killed (23:2, 5, 10, 14, 18, 21, 23). But Pilate decided (23:24-25). No essential difference whatsoever, and no contradiction. So the atheists, undaunted, and unconcerned with mere reason and never dissuaded from their aim of tearing down the Bible, simply move on to the Gospel of John, in their never-ending mocking crusade to find yet another biblical \u201ccontradiction.\u201d What do we find there?<\/p>\n John reports that Jesus was first questioned by Annas: \u201cthe father-in-law of Ca\u2019iaphas, who was high priest that year\u201d (Jn 18:13), who \u201cquestioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching \u201d (Jn 18:19). Annas \u201cAnnas then sent him bound to Ca\u2019iaphas the high priest\u201d (18:24). Then \u201cthey<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0[implied: the Sanhedrin] led Jesus from the house of Ca\u2019iaphas to the praetorium [where Pilate was]\u201d (18:28). And \u201cThey<\/em><\/strong> answered him, \u201cIf this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over\u201d (18:30). Note that Caiaphas was present at the judgment and \u201cmonkey trial\u201d of the Sanhedrin, as indicated by Matthew 26:57, 62, Mark (not named, but mentioned as the \u201chigh priest\u201d: 14:53-54, 60, 63, 66), and Luke (\u201chigh priest\u201d: 22:54).<\/p>\n So it\u2019s all the same overall story, told by four storytellers, with the expected differences in detail and emphases that we would expect in any<\/em> four different accounts of the same incident. Matthew and John refer directly to Caiphas the high priest as being involved (Matthew mentions also the assembly, whereas John doesn\u2019t (directly), but still indicates their presence by the two uses of \u201cthey\u201d in describing the Jewish leaders leading Jesus to Pilate. Mark and Luke don\u2019t name him, but note that the \u201chigh priest\u201d was involved, which is no contradiction.<\/p>\n So we see that Freke and Gandy have misrepresented the nature of all four Gospels in this regard. It\u2019s nothing new<\/em>, folks. It happens all the time, and I am demonstrating it over and over in this paper. Atheists don\u2019t care<\/em> what the biblical accounts state, because they think they are a pack of lies written by liars and propagandists, and they approach the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog. There\u2019s no rhyme or reason in any<\/em> of it; only irrational hostility: which alone can explain how they can consistently be factually and logically wrong, every<\/em> time.<\/p>\n This is my fourth lengthy paper in the last seven days (links: one<\/a>, two<\/a>, three<\/a>), exhaustively demonstrating that they get everything wrong when they attempt to do biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. Their efforts may look mighty impressive and convincing at first: until a biblical scholar or apologist like myself (who specializes in dealing with anti-theist \/ anti-biblical polemics) examines what they write and provides another side<\/em>.<\/p>\n The gospel of Mark does not describe the history of Jesus or his\u00a0virgin birth. <\/span><\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t have<\/em> to. Mark simply decided to start the story with John the Baptist, whom the Old Testament predicted (as a prototype of Elijah) as the forerunner of the Messiah. In other words, Mark presents the story as most people at that place and time would have witnessed or experienced<\/em> it: Jesus suddenly appearing out of nowhere at His baptism and commencing His three-year ministry.<\/p>\n These parts of the New Testament\u2019s stories were added by Matthew, 30 years later, who assimilated other myths into the legends.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s simply an atheist fairy-tale, with no basis. If they want to make ludicrous claims like this, the burden of proof is on them. But they have nothing. It\u2019s just wild skeptical speculation.<\/p>\n \u201cThe accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke contradict each other, even on the parts of Christian mythology which Christians consider to be the most important: The crucifixion and resurrection. They give different sets of final words, confusingly different accounts of the empty tomb (one of them including an earthquake), and wildly different accounts of the resurrection. They\u2019re all making it up!\u201d [\u201cT<\/em>he Crucifixion Facade\u201d by\u00a0<\/i>Vexen Crabtree<\/span>\u00a0(2002) ]<\/span><\/p>\n The final words of Jesus on the cross are completely harmonious and non-contradictory, as A. T. Robertson shows in his Harmony<\/em><\/a> and as many others have demonstrated. It\u2019s not difficult<\/em> to synthesize them. It just take s a little work on the chronology.<\/p>\n I just demonstrated<\/a> in two lengthy papers<\/a> that all the accusations about contradictory accounts of the empty tomb and Jesus\u2019 resurrection are bogus and a bunch of hot air.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n\n*<\/div>\n[Luke 21:19 is the only place one could argue where Luke may have used\u00a0ktaomai<\/i>\u00a0to mean something other than \u201cpurchase, buy, or earn,\u201d but even here there is a transactional notion in it (Miller, 1997<\/a>)].When Luke, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14), used the word\u00a0ktaomai<\/i>, he meant something different than when Matthew, the tax collector, used the same word. Whereas Luke used\u00a0ktaomai\u00a0<\/i>to refer to purchasing or buying something, Matthew used the Greek verb\u00a0agorazo<\/i>\u00a0(cf. Matthew 14:15; 25:9-10; 27:6-7). Matthew used\u00a0ktaomai<\/i>\u00a0only in the sense of acquiring something (not purchasing something). As such, it would make absolutely no sense for Luke to use\u00a0ktaomai<\/i>\u00a0in his account of Jesus sending out the apostles (9:3). If he did, then he would have Jesus forbidding the apostles to \u201cpurchase\u201d or \u201cbuy\u201d money [\u201cBuy<\/i>\u00a0nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money\u2026.\u201d]. Thus, Luke used the more general Greek verb (airo<\/i>) in order to convey the same idea that Matthew did when using the Greek verb\u00a0ktaomai<\/i>.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n