"MISTAKES" IN MARK'S GOSPEL

“Mistakes” in Mark's Gospel

Frank Zindler of American Atheists has written a lengthy article titled “Did Jesus Exist?” Much of his attacks on the historicity of the Four Gospels are of a general nature and have been adequately addressed many times by evangelical scholars. But here are four specific charges Zindler makes regarding the Gospel of Mark:

    1. “The author of Mark displays a profound lack of familiarity with Palestinian geography.” As one example he cites the exorcism in Mark 5 which resulted in a herd of pigs careening down a cliff to their death in the water. Mark says it takes place in Gerasa, which is over 30 miles from the sea. And he states that the variant readings are no better.

Metzger actually lists four variant names for the region which are found in early Greek manuscripts. One of these is Gergesa. Ortiz notes, “The problem is in the similarity of spelling in Greek. Ancient scribes probably heard or saw one name in the process of copying a manuscript and thought they heard another.” He states that Gergesa “is undoubtedly the right one.”

Ortiz explains as follows: “In the early 1970's a Byzantine church was excavated there. It had been built over a spot considered holy because of some activity of Jesus there, just as were the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the Holy Sepulchre Church in Jerusalem. Rising up on the east behind the church is a hill in which tombs have been found, just as the story describes. And on the west of the church is a steep bank, the only one on the entire eastern shore of the sea, which extended to the water's edge. Archaeologists excavated a memorial tower and chapel between the church and the cemetery that they conclude was built to mark the spot as the place of the miracle.”

Thus, we have striking confirmation of the historicity of the story which only requires the addition of one consonant to our present Greek text. And even if Mark were responsible for the mis-identification of that Gentile region in the first place, that is not really unusual for someone like Mark who lived in the area of Jerusalem.

    2. Zindler claims that Mark commits a second geographical faux pas in describing Jesus movements in verse 7:31 when he has Jesus traveling to the Sea of Galilee (approximately 30 miles away) by going by way of Sidon, which increased the distance to 70 miles instead.

Grassmick summarizes this journey as follows: “Jesus left...Tyre (cf. v. 24) and went north 20 miles through Sidon, a coastal city, and then turned southeastward, avoiding Galilee, to a place on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee within the region of the Decapolis.” As to why Jesus would want to stay as far from Galilee as possible, Riesner explains that “due to the growing danger posed by the petty king Herod Antipas (Mt 14:13; cf. Lk 13:31-33), Jesus withdrew with his most loyal disciples into regions outside Galilee's borders. These included the 'hills of Tyre' (Mk 7:24) and the Decapolis (Mk 7:31) or Gaulanitis (Mk 8:27).”

When someone travels it is either because he wants to visit a particular place or just get away from where he is at. Thus, since (according to the above motive) the latter is the case here, Jesus is not necessarily concerned to get to any specific place in the most expeditious manner and so the route he takes can be quite a random one. Marcus puts it this way, “After his encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, Jesus' tour of Gentile regions (7:31) apparently brings hm to the notice of other people in need...”

A second solution is a textual one. Lane notes fifteen early manuscripts from a wide variety of geographical regions which read “Tyre and Sidon” in place of “from Tyre and through Sidon.” But admittedly, the better manuscripts have the later reading. Metzger feels the variant readings came about either accidentally or purposefully “because Jesus' itinerary appeared to be extraordinarily roundabout.”

Finally, Mann says, “It may be that Mark expresses awkwardly the sense of 'the region of Tyre and Sidon. Equally Mark may have been confused and vague about an area of which he knew little or nothing.” As I said earlier, these were regions far away from the environs of Jerusalem with which Mark was most familiar.

3. A third charge against Mark's reliability concerns 7:1-7, in which Jesus responds to the accusation of the Pharisees that his followers do not wash before eating, as required by Jewish tradition. Jesus uses the Greek Septuagint translation (LXX) of Isaiah 29:13 (“in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” in place of the Hebrew “their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote.”) Zindler quotes Wells as stating, “That a Palestinian Jesus should floor Orthodox Jews with an argument based on a mistranslation of their scriptures is very unlikely.”

Watts refers to the above charge when he explains, “It is often claimed that the Markan Jesus' argument depends particularly on the LXX's attack on the 'teachings of men' because the MT (Hebrew text) and Targum (paraphrase) are concerned instead with deficient worship 'commanded by men and learned by rote.' However, there is in fact no substantive difference between them, since in each case the fundamental issue is Yahweh's refusal to accept worship when the worshipers themselves are actively disregarding him. In this respect, adherence to 'the traditions of men' is only a symptom of this deeper issue...Obviously, such worship is 'empty', as the LXX pointedly notes.” Watts then cites five recent commentaries which say basically the same thing.

But there is one more possibility here. Commentators have pointed out that indications given in the NT are that Jesus could converse in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic depending on the circumstances, and this was not that unusual for a Jew of that time period, and Aramaic was probably the language in which most of his teachings were given. So we can't preclude the real possibility that Jesus on this particular occasion actually recited the Hebrew text of Isaiah 29:13 to the Jewish leaders. But when it came time for Mark to write to his mainly Gentile audience, he rendered all of Jesus' words in Greek as did the other three Evangelists. And that audience would have been more familiar with the Greek Bible than the Hebrew one, and so Mark simply quoted directly from the Septuagint instead.

    4. The final objection Zindler makes against Mark's account is as follows: “Mark 10:12 is meaningless since only a man could obtain a divorce. It was obviously written for a Gentile audience.”

I would counter this statement by saying that his objection is even more meaningless. If, in his mind, Jesus is not allowed to criticize any of the many Jewish rules and regulations of the time, one could just as well make that same argument to throw out most of Jesus' teachings since they were constantly critical of these various human laws propounded by the Jewish teachers of the time. Most evangelical scholars take a very positive attitude toward Jesus' teachings on marriage and divorce, as seen by the few examples below.

Horsley: “To the Pharisees' focus in divorce as a male prerogative, Jesus insists upon the equality of marriage intended in the creation stories, Gen 1.27; 2.24.”

Bruce: “the law [i.e. Deuteronomy 24:1] was unequally balanced to the disadvantage of women and Jesus' ruling, with its appeal to the Creator's intention, had the effect of redressing this unequal balance. It is not surprising that women regularly recognized in Jesus one who was their friend and champion.”

Bruce also mentions the possibility that Jesus was not so subtly alluding to the recent scandal of Herodias divorcing one uncle in order to marry another one, Herod Antipas. That formed the reason behind John the Baptist's beheading. Thus, Jesus is laying down eternal principles that are to be valid for all humanity, both Jew and Gentile, men and women.

Lane: “The unconditional form of Jesus' statement served to reinforce the abrogation of the Mosaic permission in Deut. 24:1. This sharp intensifying of the concept of adultery had the effect of elevating the status of the wife to the same dignity of her husband and placed the husband under an obligation of fidelity.”