The prestigious Oxford Bible Commentary on the Gospels (published by Oxford University Press) is clear that the author of Matthew’s gospel deliberately changed the words of Jesus in the earlier gospel of Mark because they were “embarrassing” to him.
Why were they embarrassing?
Here is the story in the earliest gospel to be written, the gospel of Mark:
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.”
The Oxford Bible Commentary on the Gospels comments (on page 113):
The evident embarrassment caused to later Christians (Matthew!) by the story in which Jesus appears implicitly to reject the notion that he himself is ‘good’ [in Mark 10:17] suggests that we have here a genuine tradition.
Matthew rewrites the story to have the man ask Jesus ‘what good thing must I do?’.
Here is the same story in the gospel of Matthew 19:16-17 (most New Testament historians believe Matthew used Mark to write his own account):
Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.
To summarise:
Mark writes: Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
Matthew changes Mark to read: Jesus said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.”
Conclusions:
Matthew did not treat Mark as the precious Word of God as Christians do today. He felt free to change it and correct it as he pleased. Scholars have noticed other significant changes Matthew made to Mark because he disagreed with him.
In the earlier more historically accurate account in Mark Jesus is portrayed as a humble Jew who rightly attributes all goodness to his Creator. The real Jesus was an embarrassment to later Christians who began to exaggerate his significance. As the Qur’an warns Christians:
‘O people of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion, nor utter anything concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of God, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say ‘Three’. Desist, it will be better for you. God is only One God. . . . The Messiah would never have scorned to be a slave of God.’ (Surat al-Nisa, 171-2)
Dr Timothy Winter of the University of Cambridge notes:
‘The Qur’anic term for ‘exaggeration’ used here, ghuluww, became a standard term in Muslim heresiography for any tendency, Muslim or otherwise, which attributed divinity to a revered and charismatic figure. We are told that during the life of the Prophet’s son-in-law Ali, a few of his devoted followers from Iraq, where Hellenistic and pagan cultures formed the background of many converts, described him as God, or the vehicle of a Divine incarnation – hulul. The claim of course irritated Ali profoundly, and he banished those who made it from his sight; but even today marginal Islamic sectaries like the Kizilbash of Turkey, or the Alawites of the Syrian mountains, maintain an esoteric cosmology which asserts that God became incarnate in Ali, and then in the succession of Imams who descended from him.
Mainstream Islam, however, despite its rapid spread over non-Semitic populations, never succumbed to this temptation.’
Categories: Bible, Christology, Gospels, New Testament scholarship
That’s because Mark was a LIBERAL!!!!!
LOLOL
Reblogged this on The Quran and Bible Blog and commented:
Matthew changed Mark? What a shock!
Reblogged this on Pondering Soul and commented:
Awesome little piece on the wobbly nature of the bible.
wobbly??
Like jelly on a plate!
Luke 18:18-19 has it, so it is not “embarrassing” at all.
18 A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
The historical event had both details in all three gospels, of the conversation, but each one only records and focuses on one aspect. Mark and Luke are the same.
So the rich young ruler asked “Good teacher . . . ?
and also “what good thing . . . ?
not a problem at all.
All three synoptic parallels retain:
“No one is good except God alone”
Matthew 19:17 has that part – “there is only one who is good”
More on that, which I have refuted you since 2012 (see the link inside this article from 2017)
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/one-of-a-muslims-favorite-scholars-refutes-islamic-mis-use-of-mark-1018/
Kennywise the clown again offers a laughable response. How does any of this change the fact that Matthew changed Mark? Jesus’ response in Matthew is different from Mark. The claim that each author focused “on one aspect” is one of the dumbest excuses Christians make.
Kennywise will always be a blind clown leading other blind clowns.
((More on that, which I have refuted you since 2012 ))
You haven’t refuted anything.
This response is just beyond bad.
In Mark Jesus DENIES he is God while you don’t have that in Matthew. You can beat around the bush as much as you like but everyone can see this, no matter how much acrobatics you puke out.
Quoting Luke does NOTHING. It doesn’t even scratch the argument.
Matthew’s editing is very non-sensical: ‘why do you ask me about what is good. There is only one who is good.’???
Not only are those two sentences weird since the follow up sentence to the first one is very awkward where the first talks about the deeds and the second one about a person where the switch is non-sensical. But also the Messiah and a prophet of God should never say ‘Why do you ask me about what is good’, let alone if you believe he is God himself. Cus who else is the jew supposed to ask if not him.
Just save your mental gymnastics. It’s more cringy than the idea of Kayne West saying he wants to be president.
Read the articles I linked.
I have – and they are not worth reading. Fundamentalist missionary claptrap.
Indeed.
@ Ken
Okay so I read them however the link to the podcast didn’t send me to the one you were talking about nor was there a refrence for me to find it. But several points here:
1. Double Entendre?
You and Bauckham kept saying “Mark” was doing a double entendre and I neutrally just don’t see this. If you guys were saying “Matt” said this I would get the argument, but on Mark, I’m just not following.
2. Can’t reconcile the statements
You said:
So the rich young ruler asked “Good teacher . . . ?
and also “what good thing . . . ?
Uhhh… what in the verbal gymnastics… let’s read them side by side:
Mark
17As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up and knelt before Him. “Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone…
https://biblehub.com/bsb/mark/10.htm
Matt
16Just then, a man came up to Jesus and inquired, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to obtain eternal life?”
17“Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied, “There is only One who is good…
https://biblehub.com/bsb/matthew/19.htm
How are you reconciling the man’s question and Jesus’s(as) answer?
3. Awkward question:
Also, some major points that Atlas pointed out “Matt’s” version doesn’t even make sense on multiple fronts:
A. Why would a prophet say to a man why are you asking me about what is good? That is LITERALLY the thing to ask a prophet. “Mark’s” version makes sense as a response: “Hey don’t over-praise me only God is the one who’s good, okay this is what you need to do…”
B. The sentence of “Matt” is just plain awkward.
C. It’s clear “Matt” moved the good from the greeting teacher to the action.
3. “Luke”
Appealing to “Luke” HURTS not helps you. “Luke,” says he was compiling an orderly account of everything that actually happened and he left out this alleged “what good thing…” statement. So he either:
A. Didn’t do a good job of his “orderly account” and missed this text
B. Rejected it.
Also, you have a 2 to 3 split saying he(as) said “only God is good”
@Ken The gospel of Luke is irrelevant.
The top Biblical commentary published by Oxford University says on page 113:
Your failure to address this proves you concede the point.
No, all three are true.
I already refuted you fro 2012 onward in several articles.
LOLOL laughable.
Mere bluster.
Your own scholars refute you. The article is written by the professor of New Testament studies at Oxford. He is a Christian too. But unlike you he is not afraid of the truth about the Bible.
You are a truly terrible missionary Ken.
No, it is just assuming it can read Matthews mind and motives without giving the benefit of the doubt to both Mark and Matthew and Luke .
The method of suspicion against the New Testament documents is a bad method revealing a bad heart .
According to you and many articles you have put up by Raymond Brown and James D. G. Dunn, etc., and others seemingly claim that Luke came later so since Luke keeps what Mark has written then there is no problem and no embarrassment and Matthew is just recording a part of the conversation that Mark and Luke didn’t record .
Not including every word does not mean a contradiction nor does it mean deleting something.
At the historical event, The rich young ruler said both he called him good teacher and asked him what good thing can I do ?
Mark writes: Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
Matthew changes Mark to read: Jesus said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.”
Which did Jesus say.
if we add marks version to matthew
mark:
“Good Teacher, what good deed must I do to inherit eternal life?”
matthew:
Why do you ask me about what is good?
Matthew:
There is only one who is good.
in back of matthews mind “good teacher” was still there so he seems to have addressed it like this
There is only one who is good.
since he has removed “only god is good” we can see that his crime was to make jesus good.
//The article is written by the professor of New Testament studies at Oxford.//
Sinful pride of knowledge. Your constant method of always saying “well your scholars say”, and “this is intellectual”, just oozes with sinful pride and arrogance .
Watch the video that Stewjo004 put up about motives and intentions, and hell.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf0aEU8wYuE&feature=emb_logo&ebc=ANyPxKp1_IppHItiKfatJpevx1corqvB1liM_n0xpHqJNxH8u-4S-sLP6JcbNounTq4zEi8tT_5wnXPFLWS5McSULb0l1kJHzg
It is sinful not to show respect to fellow Christians who are experts in their field.
You are not an expert on the New Testament. He is.
Christopher M. Tuckett is a British biblical scholar and Anglican priest. He holds the Title of Distinction of Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford.
Show some humility missionary.
You think you promote more scholarly things constantly rather than faith.
They are assuming things with a liberal suspicion vs. the supernatural.
You use suspicious anti-supernatural scholarship vs. believing the previous Scriptures with respect.
Show some humility missionary.
Your self-righteousness is disgusting.
Ken Temple: You think you promote more scholarly things constantly rather than faith.
I have complete faith that you are a dishonest ignoramus.
”’anti-supernatural”’
Has NOTHING to do with this. Stop strawmanning. We didn’t raise anti-supernatural arguments. In Mark he DENIES being God while in Matthew the ‘good’ is changed from the person (ie jesus) to a deed/action and what we are left with in Matthew makes ZERO sense!
Why do you ask me about what is good and that followed up with only god is good???? What??
That is non-sensical. And like I said a prophet of God should not be saying this. It becomes even more absurd when you make him into God.
Just another MAJOR error. Plus Jesus denies he is God.
You rape the most obvious verses that clearly show he is not God but then play games with other verses to make him into God: o this verse says X and that verse says Y and in the OT only God is/says/does X and Y and so because of this verse and that verse and this and this and that and that and this we can conclude jesus is God.
Ridiculous.
The Lord ( Yahweh), through the writer of Psalm 2 (David – Acts 4:25) asks a rhetorical question:
“Why do the nations rage?
and the peoples plot in vain? ”
Psalm 2:1
obviously God knows why, but the question is rhetorical.
So, when Jesus asks:
“Why do you call Me good?”
Mark 10:17-18
and
“Why do you ask Me about what is good?”
Matthew 19:17
He is getting the inquirer to think – about ultimate goodness.
To realize that only God is good (therefore, if Jesus is good, then He is God by nature) and mankind is not (original sin, hidden motives, pride, selfishness, his idolatry of not willing to let go of his bondage to his possessions, etc.)
Both are true.
Mark and Matthew are just recording two different historical sentences from the same event. Each one focusing on one sentence and not recording everything word for word is actually a positive point for non-collusion of the testimony of what happened.
Points to the historical reliability of both.
((So, when Jesus asks:
“Why do you call Me good?”
Mark 10:17-18
and
“Why do you ask Me about what is good?”
Matthew 19:17
He is getting the inquirer to think – about ultimate goodness.)))
That is an UNBELIEVEBLE stretch!
Wooow, just wow. Even you don’t believe that.
That is NOT what the verses say and you know it.
When someone walks up to me and calls me xyz and I would respond by saying ‘why do you call me xyz, there is none that’s xyz but John Smith alone’, everyone would know what I am saying (ie i’m denying to be xyz and attributing it only to JS and hence denying I’m him as well) and no one would ever even think nor would anything else cross their minds. This is just pathetic at this point Ken. I lost all respect for you.
How you take something that’s the epidemy of editing and try and turn it upside down and having the audacity to claim it’s actually ‘affirming’ reliability is unbelieveble.
Another fail.
The nature of the 4 gospels is just that – 4 eyewitness accounts at each of the 4 corners of a traffic accident. Each one is focused on the different angle of looking at the same event. Harmonization is not a stretch at all. Jesus said both, and the rich man said both, but Matthew records one aspect of the conversation and Mark another aspect.
Both are true.
It’s not a ‘different angle’, it’s an edition to a quote from Jesus where he denies he is good. Keep up with the acrobatics, it won’t help you on the day of Resurrection.
We teach about the day of resurrection. 600 years before your religion and true and beautiful.
John 11:25
Revelation 20:10-15
Hebrews 9:27
Galatians 2:16
1 Corinthians 4:5
John 5:24; 5:28-29
John 3:15-18
Romans 5:1
Romans 8:1-39
Yours is false; a 600 year late subjective claim which was false.
That’s nice keep changing the subject.
When you can’t defend your pagan mumbo jumbo, just throw out another red herring. And yes that was a red herring so save me your ‘o you mentioned judgement day’.
So what have we established:
-Jesus denied being God (shocker!).
-Matthew made the story ABSURD beyond belief in his editing.
-Kenny is still pathetic and brings the same crap to defend his manworship even though he knows full well it’s trash and doesn’t refute anything but adheres to the old saying ‘if you repeat it with great confidence then it might come off as actually having some substance’.
-Keeps deflecting with truly the most retarded statements a human being can come up with like the 600 year… as if that refutes anything. And btw the torah came 13 centuries before the joke which is the NT and we are told by xtians that it mentions day of Resurrection so using the worlds most retarded argument that means xtianity is false.
-And as always NOTHING of what he has presented refutes anything as per usual.
-Talks about ‘subjective’ when his comickbook is the definition of subjectivity when unkown authors make stuff up about Jesus to justify their paganism and give their own opinions and twists and change texts they don’t like all the time which is even acknowledged by most xtian scholars.
At this point I’m convinced this joker loves getting humiliated. It’s his fetish you could say.
“Jesus said both, and the rich man said both, but Matthew records one aspect of the conversation and Mark another aspect.”
MATTHEW:
16 Then someone came to him and said, “good Teacher what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”
17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.
MARK:
16 Then someone came to him and said, “good Teacher what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”
18 Jesus said to him,
“Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
kens reading
MATTHEW:
16 Then someone came to him and said, “good Teacher what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”
17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.
“Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
@ Ken
You know what, I’m not going to let the point derail, let’s say for argument’s sake they did harmonize (and this is pushing it) It still doesn’t negate Jesus(as) denied being God. Saying: “Why do you call ME (i.e. Jesus) good? No ONE is good BUT (i.e except) God alone?
Meaning:
1. I am not “good” (i.e perfect)
2. I am not God.
Again common sense reading, if I said:
“Atlas, why do you call me a scholar the only scholar here is QB”
This means:
1. I am denying being a scholar
2. QB is the only scholar in the room and we are not the same level.
No amount of verbal gymnastics will change a statement of Tawheed into Shirk.
@ Atlas
Yeah…that just about sums it up.
“It’s his fetish you could say.”
That…would explain a lot.
“It’s not a ‘different angle’”
This is a LIE. You had better stop it! We are in the age of free sources and internet. Christians, whom you mislead with your lies in the churches, can now read and check the facts by themselves.
“Not including every word does not mean a contradiction nor does it mean deleting something.”
when you compare miracle stories in mark and matthew and the teachings of jesus , we see that it is not about “not including words” something was driving one of them to make changes.IF WE JUST HAD MATTHEWS GOSPEL, You would be arguing “jesus never denies being good”
MARK IS A LIBERAL
EVERYONE I DISAGREE WITH IS A LIBERAL!!!!!
williams…. good discussion :
brojangles 2 points 12 hours ago
Elijah and Elisha all performed the same miracles as Jesus, including multiplication of food, control of the weather, levitating objects on water and bringing people back from the dead.
Mark says Jesus is performing his works by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit enters into him at his baptism, he performs his healings by the power of the Spirit (which apparently emanates from the hem of his robe) and the Holy Spirit leaves him on the cross.
Mark definitely does not think Jesus was God. He has Jesus praying to God and asking him for things. He says that God and Jesus have separate wills. etc.
megustame1 2 points 11 hours ago
To my point, Elisha’s multiplication of food and control of the weather is preceded by “This is what the Lord says” (2 Kings 3:16 and 4:42) control of the weather. Elisha brings someone back from the dead after praying (4:33). It was culturally acceptable to perform miracles as long as it was in the name of a deity or in the context of prayer, as in Elisha and Elijah’s case. This is why the disciples are surprised when they say “Who is this that the wind and the waves obey him?” (Mark 4:41). Performing miracles without the divine name is either demonic blasphemy (as the pharisees thought) or divine (as Mark must have thought, given the consistent “son of God” reference in chapter 1, 10 and 15).
Besides the baptism, what support do you have that it is merely the spirit that allowed him to do miracles, would that not be a more consistent theme in the gospel? Would not a pious jew rebuke his disciples for marveling at his intrinsic power?
brojangles 1 point 11 hours ago
You are just making up criteria out of thin air and Mark make it pretty clear that the requirement for miracle is faith. People are healed by their own faith. When people do not have faith, Jesus has no powers.
Mark says that the Holy Spirit enters “into” (eis auton) Jesus at the baptism (1:and the “drives him into the wilderness.” (1:12). Jesus sees in the Spirit that tell him what other people are thinking or talking about (2:8). Jesus feels the power “go out” of him when a woman heals herself by touching then hem of his robe (5:25).
There is also still the fact that Mark has Jesus praying to God as a separate being with a separate will.
megustame1 1 point 9 hours ago*
It’s not from thin air its from semantic analysis of dunamis when compared to mageia. (Moises Silva TDNT) Dunamis in the context of miracles involves harnessing a divine power to achieve something supernatural, often by invoking a divine name. This is why Jewish sailors used clubs that said “ehyeh asher ehyeh” to calm storms (see Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic). Its also why Simon the Sorcerer asks Peter to pay to receive the Holy Spirit, because he has seen that the Spirit has a power which is stronger than those by which he performed magic.
The power by which one performs miracles is the primary way that miracles were differentiated from magic, which the Mishnah makes clear. Further, spoken incantations were generally seen as unacceptable while written incantations (including amulets) were not (Sanhedrin 10a). Jesus never used written incantations but only oral ones, which would have added to the charge of blasphemy.
The power going out of Jesus I think is actually an argument for me, once again the power is Jesus’ own and so touching him can be interpreted as tapping into Jesus’ intrinsic dunamis.
It may appear to be “out of thin air” for us, but I argue that its exactly the way that 1st century Jews would have thought about it.
Edit: Forgot to mention prayer. I don’t feel this is conclusive. John records more prayers than any other gospel writer but nearly everyone agrees that he sees Jesus as God.
brojangles 1 point 9 hours ago
The δύναμις in Mark comes directly from the Holy Spirit which enters into Jesus at the baptism and abandons him on the cross. It is not from Jesus himself. It is all coming from the Holy Spirit.
The power of the Spirit is directly correlated to the faith of the believers, not to Jesus. Jesus is unable to heal them if they don;t have faith. When Jesus is accused of using spirits to heal, he says that blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. That is why he says that. It’s directly because they attribute works of the Holy Spirit to demons. Jesus is healing with the Holy Spirit, not with demons. That is Mark’s point.
Mark does not think Jesus is God. Mark does not think Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Mark is not a Trinitarian. Reading that into Mark is anachronistic and incorrect.
megustame1 1 point 9 hours ago
I don’t think that Mark is a Trinitarian (nor do I really think anyone really was until Nicea). But you do make a good point about the blaspheming against the Spirit. But I still feel that my interpretation explains the data of the entire book better. Particularly that Jesus’ incantations never mention a deity, while incantations in the first century unanimously did. There at least seems to be something about Jesus’ miracles which are completely unique within the first century.
brojangles 2 points 9 hours ago
No entity needs to be mentioned because the power is coming directly from the Holy Spirit. It is also stated that faith is necessary, which implies, necessarily, faith in God.
Nothing Jesus does in Mark is unique within the Jewish prophetic tradition. See Geza Vermes’ Jesus the Jew. JP Meier’s’ Marginal Jew series or EP Sanders’ Historical Figure of Jesus.
Mark sees Jesus essentially as a vehicle for the Holy Spirit, in the same way as Elijah and Elisha who were said to do their miracles by the spirit. In fact, Elisha supposedly gets “twice the spirit” of Elijah, and this relationship is alluded to by the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist, who Mark explicitly has Jesus identify as Elijah.
and ken temple thinks that its all big happy family “one message” ?
”
To realize that only God is good (therefore, if Jesus is good, then He is God by nature) ”
8 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’” 20 He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.”
1 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said
jesus does not think this guy is selfish, prideful or idolater. according to this pagan, the guy CLEARLY missed what jesus was getting at , but jesus LOOKED at him and “LOVED him….”
after he stopped calling him “good teacher” and addressed him as “teacher” the reaction of jesus is “looking at him…loved him….”
“you only LACK one thing”
OBEYING a commandment was MORE important than following jesus.
You just need to get the divinely preserved kjv text and no problem:
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
See how Mark reported the words “take up the cross”.
@ Ken
Out of curiosity, do you hold to Watson’s position that the KJV is “divinely preserved” (despite the fact that none of these people speak English?)
No.
Dr. James White’s book, “The King James Only Controversy” answers the issues on that.
King James Onlyism is crazy.
It is better to go by the eclectic text method of comparing all the available Greek manuscripts.
Erasmus (in western Europe) only had about 7 Greek manuscripts that he could find, to work with, that eventually became the foundation for the Greek text (1516, which became the Greek text that Luther used, etc.) that eventually became what is known as the “Textus Receptus”.
Many more Greek manuscripts were discovered in the sands of Egypt and monasteries and caves after that.
NASB, ESV are better English versions.
The NIV is fine for basic understanding, and probably the best version for people whose first language is not English; although I much prefer NASB for accuracy in “word for word”.
ken temple says there are no contradictions in the bible, how does he explain this
https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/acl5vc/the_problem_of_biblical_inerrancy_in_catholicism/?st=k3bsn7cm&sh=e0286b26
How does this refute the post about Matthew changing Mark and also Jesus denying to be God in Mark?
It doesn’t. Another xtian deflecting.
@ Watson
So why do you feel about White’s arguments in his book are lacking?
this verse has been like nail in coffin for crosstians, he(jc) denies having the goodness of god.
now when jesus said “take up the cross” we must understand this in context
peter said “i have given up everything”
– family
– job
-house
jesus tells the rich man that it is PRIORITY that he obey torah and give up his money and “take up the cross”
the writer did not have in mind “but if i give up, how will i feed the poor” because god , according to jesus will PROVIDE in your HOMELESS LIFE/state
“God provides” recall abrahams was provided.
Now we are seeing what “take up the cross ” means
it does not mean to wear GOLD crosses , have bank accounts and have treasures
now
ken money making missionary and watson
Your tasks
give up your treasures
Keep hands unwashed
sleep in card board box
Turn other cheek
And if you have faith, you will move mountains, even whitney houston believed this because she made a song.
So, what’s “embarrassing” about the passage in Mark?
When you compare the goodness of Jesus to the goodness of God, Jesus is not good.
The absolute holiness is for God alone.
@ christianonyekachiazegba
Because it disproves Jesus being a god as he himself separates himself from God (who he worshipped)
But the text in Matthew removes no such embarrassment. So this means that it’s not as a result of any “embarrassment” that Matthew changed Mark.
@ christianonyekachiazegba
Here are the versions with emphasis from me
Mark:
As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up and knelt before Him. “GOOD Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call ME good?” Jesus replied. “NO ONE is good EXCEPT God ALONE…
https://biblehub.com/bsb/mark/10.htm
Matt:
Just then, a man came up to Jesus and inquired, “Teacher, what GOOD thing must I do to obtain eternal life?”
“Why do you ASK me about what is good?” Jesus replied, “There is only One who is good…
https://biblehub.com/bsb/matthew/19.htm
In Mark’s version, Jesus straight-up says he isn’t God nor good (i.e. perfect). Matt seeing this alters the question and answer from:
“Why do you call me good when only God is…”
to
“Why do you ask me about what is good, there is only one who is good…”
So that Jesus(as) doesn’t exclude himself from God or being perfect so that people can continue to worship Jesus(as). It shows also that people will alter Jesus’s words for their own agenda because remember these texts were originally used by different Christian communities and were later assembled together. I hope that clarifies everything.