A question regarding scripture, Located within the Gospel of Mark.

[Herbie]

I have often read a particular section of Mark " chapter 10 verses 29 and 30 to be exact".
I understand that several people here have experience with older translations in other languages, and the original meanings and interpretations lost to time.
What I am eluding to is the use of the word wife in verse 29, as it does not reappear in a plural form in verse 30. Whilst reading it is like encountering a speed bump or rather a crudely patched piece of roadway while driving that is not quite as it should be.
I have often felt that the word wives has been intentionally removed to enforce an agenda contrary to scripture.
So what I suppose I am asking is.
Does anyone else feel this way?
Can anyone prove it?
Thank you for your help in advance.

 

[PeteR]

I

I have often read a particular section of Mark " chapter 10 verses 29 and 30 to be exact".
I understand that several people here have experience with older translations in other languages, and the original meanings and interpretations lost to time.
What I am eluding to is the use of the word wife in verse 29, as it does not reappear in a plural form in verse 30. Whilst reading it is like encountering a speed bump or rather a crudely patched piece of roadway while driving that is not quite as it should be.
I have often felt that the word wives has been intentionally removed to enforce an agenda contrary to scripture.
So what I suppose I am asking is.
Does anyone else feel this way?
Can anyone prove it?
Thank you for your help in advance.

It does not appear in the two Greek texts I have (TR and W&H IV).

* a side note, it doesn't matter how I 'feel' or what I want to see. Unless there is textual evidence, a suspicion will never be accepted by anyone. Asserting an omission will only reduce our credibility unless we have hard evidence.

 

[cnystrom]

NIV:

29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

NIV does not seem to have the word wife in v29.

 

[PeteR]

NIV does not seem to have the word wife in v29.

So, on further review, it appears that the word 'wife' does not appear in the Westcott-Hort Greek for v. 29 either. So, one major stream of Greek texts have 'wife' in 29 but not 30, the other major stream does not have 'wife' in either, if I understand what I've looked at correctly.

 

[rockfox]

So, one major stream of Greek texts have 'wife' in 29

Which one is that?

 

[rockfox]

Compare to: Matthew 10:35-37 and Luke 12:52-53

 

[PeteR]

Which one is that?

Textus Receptus

 

[Phillip]

Textus Receptus

Sounds like something out of Jurassic Park!

I just checked the NET, wife is not in verse 29 either.

 

[Nikud]

The six century translation from the Aramaic text I have has wife in verse 29 but not 30.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

If a man leaves a wife for the kingdom of God, it seems to me that he is (uuuuuusualllllyyyyyyy) also duty bound to not marry any other's, because that is Jesus' definition of adultery. He can't promise something He won't even allow you to take.

 

[Nikud]

Matthew 19:28-29 has wife with a side note that Some manuscripts do not have or wife.

Luke 18:29-30

29 And Yeshua said to them, “Amen, I tell you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not receive many times as much in this age; and in the olam ha-ba, eternal life.”

If a man leaves a wife for the kingdom of God, it seems to me that he is (uuuuuusualllllyyyyyyy) also duty bound to not marry any other's, because that is Jesus' definition of adultery. He can't promise something He won't even allow you to take.

I see a valid point in the kingdom of God part off the comment since there is no marriage in the kingdom (heaven) as long as the context of the teaching is speaking of a spiritual restoration of lost and not a physical restoration of lost. I do lean to the interpretation of spiritual restoration since I understand its about gaining a place in the body of Christ and the family that comes with that, but I could be wrong.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

errr...errr. I bite my thumb at you ,sir.

I love this. Well, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir. But I do bite my thumb, sir.

Well Dang Kevin. It does say that in Matt 19:29, and it looks like some translations omit wife there for no good reason, unless my 2 minute research was off base.
That shifts me quite a bit here.
So... I suppose the qualifier "for the kingdom of God" is going to have to match up with "in the case of sexual immorality" for me, or I'm gonna have a meltdown.

I pretty much have to chuck my initial statement. Nice.

In it's place I will offer the following for @Kevin to abuse:

Whereas it looks like the omission of wife in some texts for Matthew was intentionally done by translators who thought they were "helping", the same does not appear (2 minute research, give me grace) to have been done for Mark, because this very thing is brought up by textual critics to determine which came first and who cribbed from who. That being the case: The gospels do not match word for word, and it is my conviction that there is an important discovery to be made whenever they deviate from each other.

If Matthew says wife, but Mark is silent about it: Then wife is in there, like it or not and Mark's silence doesn't change that. It should be left as is so no-one is tempted to 'fix' scripture based on what they think it originally said. Beza did that in Rev 16 and it was a terrible idea that changed the meaning of the verse.

Lacking evidence that the scripture was corrupted, we shouldn't assume it was corrupted, but instead spend time trying to find what God is saying through the difference. The differences between Matthew and Luke are way easier for me, because the reason for the apparent discrepancies is so obvious. I have not much to offer for Mark. I know Matthew is the gospel presenting Jesus as the King of the Jews, and is written primarily for Jews. (fite me). I've heard it said that Mark portrays Christ as the suffering servant Maybe the answer is found in that vein somewhere? But like I said, Mark is sort of a mystery to me.

 

[Herbie]

I

It does not appear in the two Greek texts I have (TR and W&H IV).

* a side note, it doesn't matter how I 'feel' or what I want to see. Unless there is textual evidence, a suspicion will never be accepted by anyone. Asserting an omission will only reduce our credibility unless we have hard evidence.

exactly evidence is what i am after

 

[Herbie]

NIV:

29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

NIV does not seem to have the word wife in v29.

for what purpose would they omit it from 29 in other versions?

 

[Herbie]

If a man leaves a wife for the kingdom of God, it seems to me that he is (uuuuuusualllllyyyyyyy) also duty bound to not marry any other's, because that is Jesus' definition of adultery. He can't promise something He won't even allow you to take.

If so how would he have children in this time without taking another wife? something is seriously wrong with this passage in Mark. I just want the truth.

 

[Herbie]

Matthew 19:28-29 has wife with a side note that Some manuscripts do not have or wife.

29 And Yeshua said to them, “Amen, I tell you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not receive many times as much in this age; and in the olam ha-ba, eternal life.”

I see a valid point in the kingdom of God part off the comment since there is no marriage in the kingdom (heaven) as long as the context of the teaching is speaking of a spiritual restoration of lost and not a physical restoration of lost. I do lean to the interpretation of spiritual restoration since I understand its about gaining a place in the body of Christ and the family that comes with that, but I could be wrong.

is it this way in the 6th centruy aramaic or the textus receptus? does any one have access to any older manuscripts or have we reached as far as we can?

 

[Herbie]

If this were to be understood as a physical return for the loss that is multiplied or can be instead of spiritual in this time not in the afterlife what would it mean if we somehow discovered and proved that it was omitted contrary to the authors intention?

 

[Phillip]

for what purpose would they omit it from 29 in other versions?

And the flip side of the coin? For what purpose would they ‘add’ it to the other version? I see the question being, did the y it or take it away?

And an even bigger question, by adding or omitting the word wife, does it change the meaning that Jesus is trying to get across?

 

[Nikud]

is it this way in the 6th centruy aramaic or the textus receptus? does any one have access to any older manuscripts or have we reached as far as we can?

Actually was putting up Luke and Mathew for comparison. I was showing the Luke verses I was in a hurry and overlooked the fact that I didn't label the verse. Ill post the Aramaic verses for all 3 books in a little while if you would like.

If this were to be understood as a physical return for the loss that is multiplied or can be instead of spiritual in this time not in the afterlife what would it mean if we somehow discovered and proved that it was omitted contrary to the authors intention?

If its speaking of the physical then including wife in Mark 10:30 would have been thematically correct but it would not prove anything was omitted contrary to the authors intention.

In Mark 10:30 it also does not mention father that doesn't mean it was omited. It lends more credence that in Mark the verses are speaking of a spiritual restoration of lost.

I've seen places where words are mistranslated when it comes to certain topics and possibly for the purpose of obfuscation or to justify a dogma and its possible that it was just a poor Process of Translation due to bad Etymology or lack of knowledge. There's no way to prove one way or another without actual evidence to prove intent. At least we have the original language to translate from and Gods words were preserved.

I will admit I see a certain danger in the beleif that things were omitted from scripture to hide the truth and not preserved. That opens up a whole can of worm that brings the validity of the Bible into question. With the various manuscripts we've been able to eliminate what was commentary that crept into scripture. As we reexamine the original text we can identify translation bias. Both ways return us to the word of God. The belief that it was altered in the original language with words here and there cut out and discarded would mean we got an incomplete message.

I know your speaking of omittion in translation or at least I believe that is what your speaking of. I just wanted to point out the rabbit hole before you jumped in.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

If so how would he have children in this time without taking another wife? something is seriously wrong with this passage in Mark. I just want the truth.

Mark 4:34
and He would not speak to them without parables; but privately He would explain all things to His own disciples.


1 Cor 4:15
For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel.