CONTRADICTION IN JESUS' SECOND GETHSEMANE PRAYER (MARK 14:39; MATTHEW 26:42)

The following is given as Contradiction #72 in the ubiquitous internet list of 101 contradictions in the Bible:

    “Mark does not give the actual wording of Jesus' second prayer; however, he says that the words were the same as in the first prayer (Mark 14:39). By contrast, Matthew gives us the words, and we can see that they are not the same as in the first prayer (Matthew 26:42).”

Here are those first two prayers for comparison:

    “Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.” (Mark 14:36)

    “My Father, if this can not pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” (Matthew 26:42)

There are at least three possible responses a Christian could make to this accusation:

A. The differences in wording are minor and do not affect the meaning.

Only a pedantic insistence on word-for-word agreement between two listeners on a something said years earlier would label these two statements as a contradiction. If that is the kind of agreement the critic insists on, I could easily give him literally a hundred additional “problem passages” in comparing the four gospel accounts with one another. Actually, I have noted this strange sort of similarity in mentality between dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist Christians and atheists. Both groups will only be satisfied with a rigid adherence to a literal understanding of the Bible.

B. The text in Mark 14:39 in the Greek translates literally to “And again he went away and prayed saying the same word (not words).”

Thus, we are not at all talking about the individual words being the same, but about the word being the same. Because of this, we need to know what is the definition of the singular word “word” (logos in Greek).

Vine notes that logos denotes “the expression of thought – not the mere name of an object – (a) as embodying a conception or idea,...(b) a saying or statement by (1) God...(2) by Christ.” In Klapport's extensive discussion on logos as used in the New Testament, he lists the following meanings: utterance, question, report, discourse, matter, account, proclamation, teaching, instruction, etc. Thus, both scholars agree that it is not the exact wording that is in mind but the teaching as a whole.

Various English translations correctly render this meaning of logos (actually logon in the accusative case) in Mark 14:39 in the following ways:

    “Once more he went away and prayed the same thing.” (NIV)

    “And he went away again and prayed, repeating his pleadings.” (The Living Bible)

    “And again he went away and prayed, saying the same thing.” (Anchor Bible)

    “He then went back and prayed the same prayer.” (The Message)

William Lane puts it this way: “The singular ton...logon demands the translation 'the same request.'”

Raymond Brown notes that “the use of logos ('word') for sayings of Jesus is frequent in Mark (4:33; 8:32,38; 9:10; 10:24)...”

C. The phrase “using the same word(s)” may not even have been in the original text.

The New English Bible reads “Once more he went away and prayed” with a footnote saying “Some witnesses [i.e. ancient manuscripts] add 'using the same words.'”

Hugh Anderson says, “Verse 39 is probably editorial and the phrase 'saying the same words' lacking from some mss, may be a later gloss.”

And the commentator Bruce Metzger states that there are two opinions among textual scholars (among whom he is one of the most prominent) regarding the authenticity of these last words in Mark 14:39. They are either either (a) a later addition which crept into all the manuscript types except the so-called Western Text or (b) a copyist from that tradition accidentally omitted them in transmission. In regard to Metzger's comment, it is perhaps pertinent to note that the Western Text is generally characterized by its many additions rather than its deletions.

Raymond Brown notes that commentators such as Wellhausen, Cranfield and Taylor consider those final words of verse 39 to be a gloss.

So the bottom line is that we could be quibbling over the meaning of words which may not have even been written by Mark, but added by a later copyist.