Mark 6:8 verses Matt 10:10, Luke 9:3

[Rita]

I was looking at the title verses this morning and found that in Matt and Luke the disciples were told take no bag , sandals, or a staff ect, but in Marks verse it says ‘ take nothing except a staff ‘ !!
I thought perhaps it was the NIV, so I checked a few other translations, says the same things………

Any thoughts because I cannot work out why there is a contradiction.
Is it just down to human error, that the info was conveyed or remembered wrongly by Mark, or perhaps he was right and the others were wrong !!?

Rita

 

[RedFan]

It's just a different element of the story, as we should expect to happen occasionally when a story is recounted by different people. But it is an irrelevant detail. The theological point made by the writers is the same. There are lots of examples of this in Scripture.

I am about to incur the wrath of inerrantists on this site, but so be it:

Ask an inerrantist whether Jesus sent his apostles out with sandals and staff (Mark 6:8-9) or without them (Matt. 10:10), and the answer will likely come back “The gospels must have been describing two different missions.” Ask where the “must have” comes from, and the answer ultimately comes back, in words or substance, that the consistency of Scripture is a given.

Even for the inerrantist, it is not crucial to know whether the disciples were sent out with or without sandals for a particular mission. They don’t care which instruction was given, any more than they care whether the law requires driving on the left or on the right side of the road. But they care deeply that only one instruction was given, for otherwise their world would be as chaotic as a world in which the law allowed driving on both sides of the road. If the texts of two gospels give two different answers to any question―even to the issue of apostolic footwear―they care deeply that one of them be explained away.

It’s a slippery slope thing with them. It’s a Luke 16:10 thing. Most of us would not be scandalized in the least by one of two gospel authors getting a theologically-irrelevant detail wrong. But the inerrantist demands literal historical truth on every detail, however minor, because for him, there aren’t two gospel authors. There is only one, and He cannot err.

Do we really care whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matt. 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10)? Do we really care whether “Saul took his own sword and fell upon it” (1 Sam. 31:4) or whether “the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa” (2 Sam. 21:12)? Do we really care whether Jesse had seven sons (1 Chron. 2:13-15) or eight (1 Sam. 16:10-11)? Do we really care whether “Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign” (2 Kings 8:26) or whether “Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign” (2 Chronicles 22:2)? Why couldn’t two different writers just disagree on these details?

The typical inerrantist will go to great lengths to imagine a harmonizing explanation for each of these couplets. I will concede that with sufficient presumptions and mental machinations indulging the improbable, virtually all of these facial inconsistencies can be harmonized. My question is, why indulge them? The only reason I can see to do so is in order to shore up one’s initial presumption of inerrancy. And here is where I must dissent. This approach seems to me to be reasoning the matter backwards. Inerrancy should be a conclusion from the evidence, not an axiom with which to assess the evidence. My problem with Scriptural inerrancy is not so much that it presumes the thing to be proven as that it presumes that no proof is needed!

I do not see the point in downplaying the human element like this. I expect theological truth from my Bible, not factual accuracy on minute historical details. And I am not scandalized by inaccuracies as to the latter.

The better approach, in my opinion, is to focus on the inerrancy of the message of a given passage, rather than of the extraneous details with which the passage is adorned. Consider, for example, Mark 2:26, which quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” 1 Sam. 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time. In my view, it doesn’t matter whether Jesus got this detail wrong or Mark got it wrong, simply because it doesn’t matter at all―to the message of the gospel story. The point being made by Jesus (or Mark) is theologically sound even if not historically accurate, originally or in the retelling.

 

[Rita]

Why is it so important to know in your opinion?

Lol , it’s not that important it’s just that I had not noticed the difference before and was curious about whether it was significant. I tend to notice little things sometimes and from time to time the little difference has meant a great deal when I have asked others. X

 

[Rita]

It's just a different element of the story, as we should expect to happen occasionally when a story is recounted by different people. But it is an irrelevant detail. The theological point made by the writers is the same. There are lots of examples of this in Scripture.

I am about to incur the wrath of inerrantists on this site, but so be it:

Ask an inerrantist whether Jesus sent his apostles out with sandals and staff (Mark 6:8-9) or without them (Matt. 10:10), and the answer will likely come back “The gospels must have been describing two different missions.” Ask where the “must have” comes from, and the answer ultimately comes back, in words or substance, that the consistency of Scripture is a given.

Even for the inerrantist, it is not crucial to know whether the disciples were sent out with or without sandals for a particular mission. They don’t care which instruction was given, any more than they care whether the law requires driving on the left or on the right side of the road. But they care deeply that only one instruction was given, for otherwise their world would be as chaotic as a world in which the law allowed driving on both sides of the road. If the texts of two gospels give two different answers to any question―even to the issue of apostolic footwear―they care deeply that one of them be explained away.

It’s a slippery slope thing with them. It’s a Luke 16:10 thing. Most of us would not be scandalized in the least by one of two gospel authors getting a theologically-irrelevant detail wrong. But the inerrantist demands literal historical truth on every detail, however minor, because for him, there aren’t two gospel authors. There is only one, and He cannot err.

Do we really care whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matt. 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10)? Do we really care whether “Saul took his own sword and fell upon it” (1 Sam. 31:4) or whether “the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa” (2 Sam. 21:12)? Do we really care whether Jesse had seven sons (1 Chron. 2:13-15) or eight (1 Sam. 16:10-11)? Do we really care whether “Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign” (2 Kings 8:26) or whether “Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign” (2 Chronicles 22:2)? Why couldn’t two different writers just disagree on these details?

The typical inerrantist will go to great lengths to imagine a harmonizing explanation for each of these couplets. I will concede that with sufficient presumptions and mental machinations indulging the improbable, virtually all of these facial inconsistencies can be harmonized. My question is, why indulge them? The only reason I can see to do so is in order to shore up one’s initial presumption of inerrancy. And here is where I must dissent. This approach seems to me to be reasoning the matter backwards. Inerrancy should be a conclusion from the evidence, not an axiom with which to assess the evidence. My problem with Scriptural inerrancy is not so much that it presumes the thing to be proven as that it presumes that no proof is needed!

I do not see the point in downplaying the human element like this. I expect theological truth from my Bible, not factual accuracy on minute historical details. And I am not scandalized by inaccuracies as to the latter.

The better approach, in my opinion, is to focus on the inerrancy of the message of a given passage, rather than of the extraneous details with which the passage is adorned. Consider, for example, Mark 2:26, which quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” 1 Sam. 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time. In my view, it doesn’t matter whether Jesus got this detail wrong or Mark got it wrong, simply because it doesn’t matter at all―to the message of the gospel story. The point being made by Jesus (or Mark) is theologically sound even if not historically accurate, originally or in the retelling.

Thank you, good points xx

 

[Rita]

Love that psalm Matthew, my train of thought was to consider the staff and it’s relevance….
Also I see the four gospels as representing a different side of Jesus , Mark represents him as a servant. So I did wonder if it could relay another aspect of relying on him as a shepherd to his people……….the staff was used to manage the sheep.

As @RedFan has said, it’s important to remember the overall meaning of the passage.
I think my human leaning to cross all the ‘t’s and dot all the ‘ i’s gets in the way sometimes x

 

[RedFan]

As @RedFan has said, it’s important to remember the overall meaning of the passage.
I think my human leaning to cross all the ‘t’s and dot all the ‘ i’s gets in the way sometimes x

Totally agree, Rita. Let's not let the 'i's and 't's get in the way of our understanding of Scripture. And if a gospel writer didn't cross all of his 't's and dot all of his 'i's, there's no need to call him out on it.

Take Matt. 27:9, which mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah. The author went from memory, and got it wrong. No big deal. Could he have hiked down to the Temple and checked the scrolls the day he wrote this just to be certain? Yeah, he could have, but I'm happy to give him a pass on this.

What I won't do -- because verses like this one disprove the notion -- is pretend that God was moving Matthew's hand as he wrote. There is a lesson here. For a writing to be "inspired" is no guaranty that the 'i's and 't's are all dotted and crossed. The Scriptures didn't fall from heaven like manna. They were written by fallable human beings.

 

[Rita]

Totally agree, Rita. Let's not let the 'i's and 't's get in the way of our understanding of Scripture. And if a gospel writer didn't cross all of his 't's and dot all of his 'i's, there's no need to call him out on it.

Take Matt. 27:9, which mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah. The author went from memory, and got it wrong. No big deal. Could he have hiked down to the Temple and checked the scrolls the day he wrote this just to be certain? Yeah, he could have, but I'm happy to give him a pass on this.

What I won't do -- because verses like this one disprove the notion -- is pretend that God was moving Matthew's hand as he wrote. There is a lesson here. For a writing to be "inspired" is no guaranty that the 'i's and 't's are all dotted and crossed. The Scriptures didn't fall from heaven like manna. They were written by fallable human beings.

Yes, I agree.
The only thing that I have always be intrigued by is the original Greek words, understanding them can change the whole understanding of a passage. I have never really found a good way of seeking out the original words.
Things can get lost in translation.
I have always been keen to understand the cultural context of things as well, that’s always been a very strong leaning with me when I look at scripture.
Rita

 

[MatthewG]

Love that psalm Matthew, my train of thought was to consider the staff and it’s relevance….
Also I see the four gospels as representing a different side of Jesus , Mark represents him as a servant. So I did wonder if it could relay another aspect of relying on him as a shepherd to his people……….the staff was used to manage the sheep.

As @RedFan has said, it’s important to remember the overall meaning of the passage.
I think my human leaning to cross all the ‘t’s and dot all the ‘ i’s gets in the way sometimes x

That makes sense, and if you have the staff of the Shepard guiding you, and you trust fully in him, one won't have so much to worry about anymore letting go and letting him guide ones life putting down the old man/woman, and putting away what stimulates our youthful lusts.

Romans 8:38-39
2 Timothy 2:20-22

 

[RedFan]

I have always been keen to understand the cultural context of things as well, that’s always been a very strong leaning with me when I look at scripture.
Rita

I think that's wise, Rita. My favorite example:

“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

 Romeo and Juliet | Act II, Scene II

Shakespeare’s phrase, now a popular idiom, may be more than a bit of philological philosophy from the mouth of Juliet. The original English audience sitting in his Globe Theater would have chuckled at this thinly-veiled barb aimed at the rival Rose Theatre a few miles away, whose sanitary facilities were famously inadequate. The Bard’s coy joke about the less-than-rosy smell down the road is lost on the modern reader, but a bit of historical research reveals the nuance.

It’s that way with the Bible, too. Unless and until the historical context is understood, the nuances are going to be missed. For example, the practice of kriah: if a first century Jew learned that his son had just died, he would tear his clothing, grabbing his robe at the neck line with both hands and pulling it apart, ripping it top to bottom. Wouldn’t that practice be useful to know when trying to place meaning on the top-to-bottom tearing of the curtain in front of the Holy of Holies at the moment of Christ’s death (Matt. 27:51)?

 

[Rita]

I think that's wise, Rita. My favorite example:

“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

 Romeo and Juliet | Act II, Scene II

Shakespeare’s phrase, now a popular idiom, may be more than a bit of philological philosophy from the mouth of Juliet. The original English audience sitting in his Globe Theater would have chuckled at this thinly-veiled barb aimed at the rival Rose Theatre a few miles away, whose sanitary facilities were famously inadequate. The Bard’s coy joke about the less-than-rosy smell down the road is lost on the modern reader, but a bit of historical research reveals the nuance.

It’s that way with the Bible, too. Unless and until the historical context is understood, the nuances are going to be missed. For example, the practice of kriah: if a first century Jew learned that his son had just died, he would tear his clothing, grabbing his robe at the neck line with both hands and pulling it apart, ripping it top to bottom. Wouldn’t that practice be useful to know when trying to place meaning on the top-to-bottom tearing of the curtain in front of the Holy of Holies at the moment of Christ’s death (Matt. 27:51)?

Wow, I didn’t know that, adds a new layer to what happened. Thank you
I remember years ago hearing a sermon about ‘ turning the other cheek ‘ and ‘ going the extra mile ‘ I mislaid the notes, but I was blown away with the understanding once I knew the cultural context. Sadly I can never relay it because I lost the notes, thought I would remember it all but didn’t. However I do know that those words in scripture are often applied wrongly if read without that context.

 

[Robert Gwin]

I was looking at the title verses this morning and found that in Matt and Luke the disciples were told take no bag , sandals, or a staff ect, but in Marks verse it says ‘ take nothing except a staff ‘ !!
I thought perhaps it was the NIV, so I checked a few other translations, says the same things………

Any thoughts because I cannot work out why there is a contradiction.
Is it just down to human error, that the info was conveyed or remembered wrongly by Mark, or perhaps he was right and the others were wrong !!?

Rita

Go on to read the account Rita. The were sent to God's people, their brothers and sisters with good news, they would have been provided for by custom, as well as responsibility. That is why they did not have to take provisions:
(Luke 10:4-7) . . .Do not carry a money bag or a food pouch or sandals, and do not greet anyone along the road. 5 Wherever you enter into a house, say first: ‘May this house have peace.’ 6 And if a friend of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if there is not, it will return to you. 7 So stay in that house, eating and drinking the things they provide, for the worker is worthy of his wages. Do not keep transferring from house to house.