How do you account for this difference in Matthew and Mark?

Question

Mark 10:17-18 says,
"As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments..."

Matthew 19:16-17 also tells this same story, yet Matthew seems to change it slightly. Instead of Jesus saying, "Why do you call me good?" Matthew says Jesus said, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good...."

Do you believe that these were 2 separate incidents?
Do you believe that Matthew changed the wording because he was uncomfortable with Jesus asking "Why do you call me good?"
Or do you have another explanation?

I appreciate whatever insights you have. Thanks.

Midge - yes, I have no problem with the concept of Jesus saying this as it is in Mark, because as you say, it could merely mean that yes, he is God. My question is more about why there are 2 different versions of this story.

It's not the same thought. "Why do you call me good" is not the same at all as "Why do you ask me about what is good?" In one, the person (Jesus) is being called good. And in the other, the deed is being called good. These are not the same.

Schneb - I just looked up the Greek and you are correct. Apparently the NRSV which I was basing this on uses something other than the Textus Receptus. It makes me wonder if perhaps a later scribe made the change in some versions, because the scribe was uncomfortable with it. Or, perhaps, if the manuscript that the NRSV is basing this on is the oldest version, then perhaps a later scribe made the change in order to mesh Mark, Luke, and Matthew. Or perhaps something else. ;-)

Schneb - I'm not using the Catholic Bible but the New Revised Standard.

Answer 1

A combination of three possible reasons is likely for the differences:
-The Gospels were originally distributed by word of mouth; they weren't written down right away (some believe until almost 200 years after Jesus's death) so it would be impossible to keep them verbatim in that time.
-None of the Gospels are believed to be written solely by the men for which they were named (this would go hand in hand with reason #1, above). This could have affected the "accuracy" of the recordings.
-Scholars believe the the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic and/or Hebrew, then translated to Greek. This original translation, coupled with the countless translations to different languages and Bible versions (King James, NIV, etc.) lends itself to variations in wording between the Gospels.

Answer 2

You are reading the Catholic New American Bible which is based on the New Testament fragment collection of Westcott & Hort which has not withstood textual scrutiny. The versions based on the Textus Receptus, such as the King James and New King James Version, render the two accounts the same.

“Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?"

“Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”
So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good?
___________________________________

Actually, Scribes of that day (trained under the Hebrew tradition of perfection and scrutiny in copying) brought the same technique into the copying of the gospels. However, there were many counterfeits being written by the enemies of the gospel, so they made changes to bring distrust to the genuine. (just as counterfeits do in currency). Paul spoke of these in 2 Thess. 2:2. People back then were not easily fooled. These texts were never used and hardly read. As a result, they remained in very good condition. These are those that were picked up by Westcot and Hort. The ugly, over-handled copies were examined and collected in the Textus-Receptus version. I do not study the various versions, but this much I did know regarding this verse.

Answer 3

The important thing to remember about the four Gospels is that they are SUPPOSED to present Jesus in a different light. They are NOT supposed to be duplicates of each other.

The four Gospels are mystically prophesied in the first chapter of Ezekiel. The Messiah is presented by the Gospels in four different ways in order to fulfill this prophecy.

This was actually discovered by many people earlier in history but they had a hard time deciding which book went with which creature. Since we are in the last days, understanding this prophecy has become much clearer.

The book of Matthew is intrinsically Jewish. Matthew presents Jesus as the Lion of the tribe of Judah and gives a specific genealogy of Christ back to Abraham, through David to prove this. This is the face of the Lion.

Mark highlights the suffering of Christ and presents Jesus as the suffering servant and offers no genealogy. Who cares about the pedigree of a slave? This is the face of the Ox.

Luke presents Christ as a man and gives a genealogy all the way back to Adam. This is the face of the man.

John gives us the strange genealogy of the “pre-existent one” which of course presents Christ as the Son of God that can be seen as the eagle.

It helps to understand that the “wheels” Ezekiel is describing is the actually the Zodiac. Originally named the Mazzaroth, it predicts the four Gospels which is the presentation of fulfillment of the Messiah prophecies.

Answer 4

Two different perspectives. Ask a police officer when they ask for eye witness accounts. Five people can see the same thing and each version will have a slightly different account. I believe that this is why God inspired four gospels instead of just one. We get a slightly different persective to the same story. But the meaning doesn't change.

Answer 5

I believe it is speaking of the same incident but from two separate points of view. Matthew was one of the 12 chosen disciples and most likely would have been "on the scene" & an eyewitness to this story. Mark on the other hand came on the scene later & would probably have heard this story from one of the disciples, possibly Peter. Because he got the story second hand (so to speak) the wording changed slightly. Hope it helps

Answer 6

These two accounts were written by two humans who as we all know can sometimes make mistakes. Just look at witnesses in court who swear that is the person they saw commit a crime and 20 years later we find out through DNA that person is innocent.

Also, the bible has been translated many times and the translater might have been the one to slightly change the wording.

Answer 7

Mark was written by Mark, Matthew was written by Matthew. (sorry, not trying to be sarcastic or snide) if you and your friend went to a movie, then were to go into seperate rooms and write a paper about it, your papers will be very different from one another...they will tell the same story but the details you chose to add will differ greatly from what your friend remembered. so, same story, two different points of view. the detail of the question was irrelevant and not needed get the point accross, which they both clearly did: the only one who is good is God.

Answer 8

Heron - I believe that two different people wrote the account from two different perspectives. Just as two different people often will report incidents differently...in fact, its very suspicious is they do not..its pretty much expected.

The Bible has also be translated so many times from one language to another and when they translated to English, it really went nuts. Words had changed meanings or different connotations...I think you will find this accounts for a great deal of the slight variations in wording in different accounts.

GG

Answer 9

It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This becomes an irreconcilable contradiction after an examination of all the relevant facts. See this link.

Answer 10

It was the same incident. It is all just semantics. the words have the same meaning. It happens all the time, 2 people remembering the phrasing of a thought differently but that idea still came across.