Why does Mark declare that a composite quotation from Malachi and Isaiah was from Isaiah alone?
Mark 1:2 (cf. Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3)
It was apparently common for the New Testament writers to cite the more important (major vs. minor) prophet when quoting a conflation of two passages (cf. my remarks in “Who Prophesied the Potter’s Field”).
Why does Jesus say He will not go up to the feast in John 7:8, but goes up to the feast two verses later?
Indeed, the anti-Christian philosopher Porphyry seized on this to accuse Jesus of inconsistency.37 Some manuscripts show οὐκ (“I am not going up” cf. KJV, NAS), while others show οὔπω (“I am not yet going up” cf. NIV). Textual critics see this as an example of a scribe altering the text in response to Porphyry’s attack.38 If the textual critics are wrong and οὔπω was in the original, then there is no problem. However, if οὐκ was in the original text then we must understand that Jesus was being led by the Spirit of God. We know from Philippians 2 and remarks by Jesus in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 that the Son, while on earth, was limited in terms of omniscience. Perhaps, as a man, he did not plan to go because of the knowledge that it wasn’t his time to be arrested (something that the Holy Spirit had revealed to Him earlier), but between vs. 8 and 10 the Holy Spirit told Him to go, and He obeyed.
Luke made a mistake in associating the birth of Jesus with a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius
This error was proposed by John Dominic Crossan39 but it is not original with him. Quirinius was evidently put in charge of a previous census enrollment in Syria that happened before the one alluded to by the historian Josephus. For a thorough discussion of this alleged error, see Archer, pp. 365-366.
The accounts of the paralytic at Peter’s Mother’s House
Aren’t there two errors in the account of the lowering of the paralytic through the roof of Peter’s mother’s house (Mark 2 and Luke 5)? First, Luke has the man lowered through “tiles” when roofs in First Century Capernaum were not covered in tiles, and second, Mark quotes Jesus as saying to the paralytic “Son” whereas Luke has Jesus saying “Friend.”
Here is a long excerpt from Tektonics40website which explains “intentional anachronization” to demonstrate that there is no error between Mark (2:4) and Luke (5:19) in the story of the lowering of the paralytic through the roof of Peter’s mother’s house:
In short: critics who simple-mindedly complain that one account "clearly says" one thing, while another "clearly says" another, lack the creative discipline to understand how ancient writers shaped their reports for didactic purposes, yet thereby did not (of necessity) compromise truth.
Now for a related cultural consideration in composition. Check this verse:
Luke 5:19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.
Nitpicky critics will complain that "tiling" is an error because roofs on Jewish homes in Palestine did not have tiles -- only Greek and Roman houses did. Therefore, they assume Luke is erroneously anachronizing. They assume right on the latter, but have been mixed up on the former. If intent means that one has not committed error, then such cites as these simply cannot be called errors. In this case, we see Luke intentionally anachronizing for the purpose of making the story more intelligible to a more sophisticated audience. Today we would do no such thing -- we would say that the roof was made of wood or straw, or whatever, and then include explanatory footnotes like this:
In Palestine, roofs are made of wood or straw, unlike roofs in Greek and Roman areas which are made of tile.
In this era before footnotes and limited office supplies, Luke had no room for such diversions. It would therefore behoove him rather to make the account easily intelligible, rather than distract the reader with the question, "How is it they have a roof not made of tiles?" Keener in his Matthean commentary observes that Josephus (as well as Philo) "as frequently as possible...translates native Jewish ideas into broader Hellenistic categories to make them more intelligible (and acceptable to his milieu)." (Josephus was writing to an audience of educated Romans.)41 Keener therefore advises keeping a wider frame of reference when consulting ancient texts, and it is in the same light that we should read verses like Luke 5:19.
In the same parallel passage, Mark has Jesus saying in 2:5 "Son, your sins are forgiven" directly to the paralytic (λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ· τέκνον, ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι) and Luke has Jesus saying "Friend, your sins are forgiven" in 5:20 to the paralytic (ἀφέωνταί σοι αἱ ἁμαρτίαι σου.). It is interesting that ἄνθρωπεis usually translated “O man” in the vocative; however, it can be translated “son” as in Matthew 10:35.42 This would, of course, remove any discrepancy: Mark is translating a word originally spoken in Aramaic one way and Luke, following Matthew, another way.
The writer of Hebrews made a mistake in 9:4 which places the “golden altar of incense” in the Holy of Holies; whereas Exodus 30:1-6 places it in the Holy Place on the other side of the curtain
Bruce Metzger43 uses this “inconsistency” as an illustration of the problems of textual criticism. Apparently, the scribe of Codex Vaticanus and the translator of the Ethiopic version offer a correction of the account by transferring the “golden altar of incense” to verse 2 where the items of the Holy Place are itemized. However, the phrase is in verse 4 in all the best manuscripts, so how do we account for the discrepancy?
One argument is as follows:
The New King James translation of Hebrews 9:4a says the Holy of Holies has the Altar of Incense. The NAS translation of Hebrews 9:4 says that the Altar of Incense stood in the Holy of Holies. This would put it behind the second curtain. However, according to Exodus 30:6, the Altar of Incense was positioned in front of the second curtain. There isn’t really a contradiction however, as a more accurate rendering of Hebrews 9:4a would be, “In the presence of the Holy of Holies was the golden altar of incense,” and putting it in front of the second curtain puts the altar right in front of the ark and mercy seat, with the second curtain separating them.
The source of confusion when translating Hebrews 9:4a could come from one of the Altar’s functions. According to Leviticus 16:12 – 13, the priest was instructed to put some of the altar’s coals into a bowl, bring the coals and some incense into the Holy of Holies, and “put the incense on the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the ark of the covenant, lest he die.” Therefore, the Altar of Incense serves an important purpose in preparing the Holy of Holies. Without a way to prepare the Holy of Holies for the High Priest, he could not enter without risking his life.44
Another (and better) possible explanation:
Hebrew scholar F. Delitzsch describes it like a sign board of a shop. The sign belongs to the shop, and not to the street. The golden censer was kept in the Holy Place, but brought into the Most Holy Place when the high priest entered once a year (Leviticus 16:12). The Rabbis (in the Mishnah) state that the censer was taken into the Most Holy Place, and incense burned in it, then returned to its stand in the Holy Place (Yoma 5:1-4).45
I think the passage inescabably claims that the golden altar of incense was in the Holy of Holies with the ark. But there would be no reason for it not to be moved in and out of the Holy of Holies in line with its intended use.
