JoeWallack

JW:
The Gospels contain many chronological differences when compared to each other. For instance:

From 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible:

#163
Mark 5: (KJV)
21 “And when Jesus was passed over again by ship unto the other side, much people gathered unto him: and he was nigh unto the sea. 22 And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet, 23 And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.�

Compare to:

Matthew 9: (KJV)
18 “While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.�

The wording of the accompanying stories are so similar that the authors are clearly telling the same story. Yet “Mark’s� version comes immediately after the “Gerassic Pork� story about the demoniac while “Matthew’s� version has “The Healing Of The Paralytic�, “The Call Of Levi� and “The Question About Fasting� stories in between the “Gerassic Pork� and “Jairus’ Daughter� stories.

In the words of the god awful trilogy, Highlander, “There can be only one!� (historically accurate chronology). The issue of chronological contradictions is an important one because it’s generally overlooked in amateur forums and therefore the average person has no conception it even exists. Therefore, I feel that I’m performing a valuable public service by helping to bring this issue to public attention.

So, are the different chronologies described above a contradiction in the Christian Bible or are they …?

I'm currently arguing with famed Internet Apologist JP Holding at Tweeb:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27886

about whether this is any type of error. As an Apologist he's trying to broaden the definition of chronological error to make it easier to attack and change the definition of error here to a standard from 2,000 years ago. In any case I'm not starting the thread here primarily to comment on JP Holding's Apologist efforts. My primary objective here is first to hear from Skeptics regarding whether they think the example I gave above is any kind of error in the Christian Bible. Secondly, if it is, what is the quality of the error (Important, unimportant, somewhere in between). At the same time I'm anxious to set a new record for the number of posts one of my threads can go before it ends up Elsewhere as Elsewhere reminds me too much of that room in the snotty fraternity in Animal House where they put Pinto, Flounder, the blind guy, the cripple and the Muslim.


Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

Boomeister

Although I don't believe this...
Here's one apologetic explanation:
The stories of Jesus could be like watching a syndicated television program. Every evening when you watch "Friends," for instance, the show on the night before does not go along with the show tonight, and tomorrow's show will not follow. The stories of Jesus are snippets that were put together and do not have to be in order.
I read that explanation somewhere.
The Gospels were likely written from other older sources. That's where the Gospel of Q theory comes in.

Boomeister

Matthew_Green

In studying gospel chronologies, an important distinction must be made by any serious critic of the New Testament, wether laymen or scholar. It must be noted that at times that material was arranged topically as opposed to chronologically. The discrepency that you cite may be a difference in topical order. Some authors did not follow a strict chronological sequence but rather wrote topically. Now this doesn't mean that all chronological errors can be simply dismissed as a topical arrangement as much as many apologists would like to albeit.

There are some clear examples of a chronological discrepency such as when Jesus is supposed to have cursed the fig tree or the denials of Peter while Jesus stood trial. The careful reader who knows his/her Greek should look at the Greek wording to see if the Greek words used indicate a topical ordering rather than a chronological ordering. In some cases, an apologist can legitimately argue that a sequence was topical. Matthew and Luke list the temptations of Christ in different order. Apologist Gleason Archer argues that Luke's temptations were placed in topical order and notes the Greek words used in each account. I have no bones of contention with Archer's explanation here.

But Archer also seems to take illegitimate liberties with this distinction. I read his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and noticed that he used a topical vs. chronological order explanation for the difference in the fig tree cursing sequence in Matthew and Mark. The only problem is that he didn't cite Greek words to prove his case. I suspect that he didn't because he knows that the Greek is very chronological in both Matthew and Mark and he couldn't do it without his honesty being questioned. In fact, I suspect that even Archer knows that this topical quibble won't work and that he's not honest enough to admit it. I suspect that the Greek words are very chronologically precise and are not the words used in topical sequences. Would Archer ever admit this? I strongly doubt it!

Matthew

JoeWallack

JW:
JP Holding has conceded (chink) that there is a chronological error by modern standards at Tweeb (of course getting him to say it in straightforward language is about as easy as getting The Fonz to say "I was wrong"):

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27886

He's retreated to a position that such a chronological difference would not have been considered an error 2,000 years ago. In any case, let's consider the quality of the chronological error based on some of the details in the Gospels.

Verse 5:18 establishes that at the end of the Gerassic Pork story Jesus' location was in a ship:

18 (KJV) "And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him."

An view of the verse in Greek can be found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...e/message/4918

Now let's look at where Jesus' next goes in this ship according to "Mark": (KJV)

21 "And when Jesus was passed over again by ship unto the other side, much people gathered unto him: and he was nigh unto the sea.
22 And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet,"

According to "Mark" when Jesus reached the other side he was met by a lot of people and one of the people who came to meet him was Jairus. "Mark" then begins the Jairus' daughter story.

Now let's look at where Jesus next goes in this ship according to "Matthew" 9: (KJV)

1 "And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee."

We now see two significant differences between "Mark" and "Matthew" as to what happens after the Gerassic Pork story:

1) "Mark" starts the Jairus' Daughter story while "Matthew" starts the Paralytic Healing story.

2) "Mark" gives no indication that Jesus went to his hometown here while "Matthew" says Jesus went to his hometown here.


Joseph

STORY, n. A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

JoeWallack

JW:
Yes, this seems to be the most common Christian apology:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27886

There are many problems though with trying to use the explanation of literary license to rearrange stories as defense against claimed error here:

1) The biggest problem is that you have to abandon "inerrancy". If anyone is starting with the position that the Christian Bible is perfect then you can not also accept that after the same story different authors say different things happened. Generally it's inerrantists who are arguing that there is no error here and they are ignoring that in order to defend with an explanation of intentional rearranging of stories they are temporarily giving up the Inerrant position in order to try and defend against a claimed error (ironic, isn't it).

2) "Mark" and "Matthew" are giving continuous narratives reporting what supposedly happened after Jesus reached the other side of the water. Historically, at most one of the two stories could have happened right after Jesus reached the other side.

3) After the Gerassic Pork story "Mark" starts the Jairus' Daughter story while "Matthew" starts the Paralytic Healing story . 'Mark's'
Paralytic Healing story was in Chapter 2 ("Mark's" Gerassic Pork story is in Chapter 5). Let's look at the two Paralytic Healing stories to see if they are the same or different Paralytic Healing stories:

Mark 2: (KJV)
1 "And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.
2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.
3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion."

Matthew 9: (KJV)
1 "And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
7 And he arose, and departed to his house.
8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men."

The stories here are so similar that it's probable that "Mark" and "Matthew" were telling the same story. Because "Mark" and "Matthew" give different stories after the Gerassic Pork story there is a contradiction between them.
In order to evaluate the quality of the error we need to consider other factors such as possible reasons for the contradiction. One possible reason is if an author choose to skip a story that the other author choose to report. If this was the case the contradiction would be less serious as it's reasonable to believe that authors wouldn't necessarily report every story available to them. In this case though we see that the contradiction between "Mark" and "Matthew" is a matter of changing the order of some stories and not just caused by the omission of stories.


Joseph

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

jbernier

I would like to point out that chronological "difficulties" are only difficulties if one assumes that the structure of the four gospels is primarily intended to offer a precise chronological ordering of actual events from Jesus' lifetime. Now, of course, this is the position that literalists and inerrantists want us to take. However, I am not convinced that this was the intent of the gospel writers. I think that ancient biographies, such as what we see in the canonical gospels, are written much more to persuade than present a literal chronological history.

Further, the assumption that all four must tell the same story stems from the fact that all of them ended up in the canon. This assumption ignores the fact that they had four authors and were written in four different contexts. These gospels are the product of diverse groups in the 1st century; the canon is a product of the orthodox/catholic churches of the 4th century. Imposing demands upon these 1st century texts rooted in a 4th century decision about canonicity is really quite anachronistic.

Yes, the chronologies do not conform to our modern conception of how to write history. That is not a problem. A problem only arrives when we criticize 1st century writers for not writing like 21st century historians.

Dr_Paine

This is true. Such a statement however, if made by a Biblicist, would be rife with equivocation. The problem is that many who believe in biblical inerrancy want to take a position similar to that set forth by jbernier. Once considerations are given to the human influence upon the text, then we are acknowledging the bible as a human document [correctly so IMO]. In which case, allowances can indeed be made for ancient historiographical errors and primitive literary conventions.

The chronological discrepancies do still however present a problem for those who insist upon biblical inerrancy. I think this is the issue of the OP.

JoeWallack

JW:
We've seen now that after the Gerassic Pork story 'Mark' starts the Jairus' Daughter story while 'Matthew' starts the Paralytic Healing story . 'Mark's'
Paralytic Healing story was in Chapter 2 ('Mark's' Gerassic Pork story is in Chapter 5). Since 'Mark' and 'Matthew' have different chronologies and at most one of them could be historical, there must be at least one chronological error. The question now becomes how serious is this error? Apologists claim as a defense that changing chronologies was an accepted literary practice 2,000 years ago. Let's look at possible reasons why 'Matthew' changed 'Mark's' chronology. If 'Matthew's' reason was to emphasize some point or teaching the error would be less serious as 'Matthew' may have sacrificed technical accuracy for what he considered a superior story as to content presented. On the other hand, if 'Matthew's' reason was to avoid an error or errors if 'Mark's' chronology was followed, a 'defensive' reason, the error would be more serious as this would create more doubt as to the accuracy of 'Matthew's' primary source, 'Mark', in the eyes of 'Matthew'.

As near as I can tell, neither the Church Fathers nor modern Apologists can give us any reason why the different chronology used by 'Matthew' above presents a superior story as to content. This is why their supposed defense stops at the general claim of 'accepted' literary practice and before any specifics.

Now let's look at the two Paralytic Healing stories to see if we can identify any significant differences between the versions of 'Mark' and 'Matthew' which may help explain why 'Matthew' thought that following 'Mark's' chronology as described above would create error:

Mark 2: (KJV)
1 'And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.
2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.
3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.'


Matthew 9: (KJV)
1 'And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
7 And he arose, and departed to his house.
8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.'



We see here two significant differences between 'Mark' and 'Matthew':

1) 'Mark' indicates that the location was Capernaum which was Jesus' home. KJV above has mistranslated "he was in the house" which should be "he was at home" which most moderns versions have. 'Matthew' agrees that Jesus was in his hometown but deletes the specific identification of Capernaum.

2) 'Mark' indicates that everyone present appreciated the miracle performed, even apparently the scribes. 'Matthew' qualifies that it was the 'multitudes' who appreciated the miracle apparently leaving out the Scribes.


Joseph

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

JoeWallack

JW:
Regarding the Gospels being ancient biographies even Christianity has long suspected that they are not and I think Brown gives the majority opinion of modern Christianity in An Introduction To The New Testament as follows:

"In fact, considerable differences exist between Greco-Roman biographies and the Gospels, specifically in the latter's anonymity, their clear theological emphasis and missionary goal, their anticipated ecclesiology, their composition from community tradition, and their being read in community worship....Especially Mark differs from a biography pattern that would highlight the unusual birth and early life of the hero, plus his triumph-or if he was unjustly treated, his fearless and noble acceptance."

I can go beyond Brown and list other even more significant differences:

1) In the Christian Bible most of Jesus' actions are Supernatural.

2) The Christian Bible was maintained for a long time by an institution that had motive and opportunity to change it.

3) The Christian Bible accounts have significant dependence within.

My point and Brown's is that the Gospels are primarily evangelistic tools designed to persuade as opposed to ancient biographies designed to present history. Evangelistic tools are much more tolerant of historical error than ancient biographies.

Chronological problems in the Gospels historically have not been discussed much by anyone. Christians haven't had much interest in them because it publicizes a problem that isn't normally discussed and Skeptics haven't had much interest in them because there are bigger problems to publicize. Therefore, after writing a few posts here on the subject and doing a little bit of research on the Internet, as near as I can tell I Am now the foremost authority on chronological differences in the Gospels that the world has ever known.

Of course I'm going to use modern standards to determine error rather than ancient standards. Tell me in what area it would be appropriate to use ancient standards instead of modern? This is a position that deserves ridicule. If you built a house but used ancient standards would a Judge or jury accept as a defense that the house would have been considered properly constructed 2,000 years ago?

Apologists are using the anachronistic defense here because that's all they can think of. "Anachronistic" though is a broad claim. Let's try to make a specific anachronistic defense here. If two accounts that are in the same presentation give conflicting chronologies then at least one must not be historical. The anachronistic defense here claims that re-arranging the historical order of stories was an accepted literary practice of the time. Here are the reasons why I think this type of re-arrangement in the Gospels would be an error in modern times and in ancient times:

1) At least one of the accounts must not be historical which would be an error by modern standards. As for the anachronistic defense of accepted ancient literary convention this is actually tolerance of an error. It would be in the same category as exaggeration, saying Jesus fed 5,000 with one fish when he really fed 50. An error by our standards but a literary convention of exaggeration 2,000 years ago, maybe not even an accepted convention then but more tolerable by the time. Tolerance of error. This all leads into an interesting side issue. By arguing anachronistic defense here which is really a tolerance of error 2,000 years ago defense Apologists are acknowledging evidence that the authors of the Christian Bible were more tolerable of error in the Gospels than modern authors would be. If they were willing to change or were at least unconcerned about the historicity of chronology what else where they willing to change or be unconcerned about?

2) Defenders of the Bible normally have an Inerrant position. Part of this position is that the Bible is 100% historically accurate. Once it's demonstrated that there is a chronology that is not historical this is the point where the Judge says, "I've heard enough".

3) I'm not convinced that re-arranging chronologies could be categorized as an accepted literary practice 2,000 years. When I told Holding I could present quotes from many Church Fathers showing they were concerned with chronology he responded by saying the Gospellers were Jewish (Improvisation, I like it!). What I am convinced of is that even 2,000 years ago presenting contradictory chronologies in the same work would have been considered an error. I'm still waiting for anyone to present such an example outside of the Christian Bible. Obviously "Matthew" had a reason for changing the chronology of "Mark" and intended his Gospel to be a replacement for it rather than a supplement for it because if they were placed in the same work they would have contradictions, such as chronology.

I've given my reasons above why I think there's a chronological error in the Christian Bible. Regardless of the reason "Matthew" had for changing "Mark's" chronology there is error. Determining the quality of the error would depend partly on the reason that "Matthew" had here. Let's take a look at an apparent difference in theological presentation between "Mark" and "Matthew". "Mark's" Jesus is primarily a man of action, a doer of good deeds. This Jesus' words are primarily used to confuse the opposition. "Matthew's" Jesus is primarily a man of words, a teacher. "Matthew" edits "Mark's" Messianic Secret theme so that there is clearer communication between Jesus, the disciples and the subsequent Church. Note that in "Matthew" Jesus' most significant event during his career was probably the Sermon on the Mount, teaching. Also note that "Mark" doesn't have any Sermon on the Mount. Not appropriate behavior for an action figure (let the Reader understand).

The last thing that happens in "Mark" and "Matthew" before Jesus supposedly launches his career is his testing by Satan. In Judaism Satan was a tool of God and a Trainer and "Mark" and "Matthew's" presentation is close to the Jewish understanding. Jesus is tested and refuses to use the power he received at baptism for Bad, which would be using it for himself. Subsequent Christianity turned this Satan into a competitor of God and Obstacle. After Jesus' testing in "Mark" the hero goes right into Action:

Mark 1KJV)
21 "And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.
27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.
29 And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.
31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.
32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.
33 And all the city was gathered together at the door.
34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.
36 And Simon and they that were with him followed after him.
37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.
38 And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.
39 And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.
40 And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.
43 And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;
44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
45 But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.
2:
1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.
2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.
3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion."


JW:
Now let's look at what happens in "Matthew" after Jesus' testing:

Matthew 4KJV)
23 "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.
5:
1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."


JW:
The big difference here between "Mark" and "Matthew" is that "Mark" presents individual healing stories to emphasize the Actions of Jesus while "Matthew" doesn't present any individual healing stories which deemphasizes the Actions of Jesus. "Matthew" first gives the Sermon on the Mount, to emphasize the Words of Jesus, before giving any individual healing stories. This difference in theological presentation is a possible reason why "Matthew" changes the chronology of the Paralytic Converter story in "Mark".


Joseph

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

JoeWallack

JW:
In the words of that great 20th century philosopher, Kramer, "Uh, bingo!(with finger pointing)". And now, not because it's responsive to anything anyone else has said in this thread but only because I must bring Closure to this thread

The Sheriff: Must you?

JW: I must, I must!

I will now give my final post on the subject here in an attempt to have it avoid sharing a Room with all my other threads at St. Elsewhere:

We've seen previously a possible reason for different chronologies relating to Mark Chapter 5. "Mark" presented individual healing stories early in his Gospel to emphasize the Actions of Jesus while "Matthew" doesn't present any individual healing stories early which deemphasizes the Actions of Jesus. Now let's look at another possible reason for different chronologies relating to Mark Chapter 5.

Two important themes of "Mark" are:

1) Jesus was the greatest Healer of all time (of all time).

2) Jesus was largely rejected in his native country.

From a common sense standpoint it would be difficult for "Mark" to plausibly reconcile these two themes. If the historical Jesus was the greatest healer that Israel ever knew it defies logic that he would have been largely rejected in his own country. Let's look at a clear story by "Mark" indicating that Jesus was largely rejected in his own country:

Mark 6: (KJV)
1 "And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching."


JW:
Let's make a list of important assertions here by "Mark":

1) Many in the synagogue were offended that a member of their community had wisdom and healing ability.

2) Jesus says, "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

3) Jesus could not do mighty works in quantity "there".

4) Jesus was surprised at the level of unbelief "there".

The assertions in this story have a number of problems all by themselves without comparison to any other story by "Mark". That people in a community would be offended by the Hero being a member of their community is against human nature. Jesus tries to justify this by giving a quote that is apparently otherwise unknown. It's stated that Jesus was surprised by the level of unbelief but the story doesn't say "many" didn't believe, in fact it states that they recognized Jesus' powers. Now let's look at the Healing and Teaching stories that "Mark" gives early in his Gospel:

Mark 1: (KJV)
21 "And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.
27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.
29 And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.
31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.
32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.
33 And all the city was gathered together at the door.
34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.
36 And Simon and they that were with him followed after him.
37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.
38 And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.
39 And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.
40 And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.
43 And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;
44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
45 But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.
2:
1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.
2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.
3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion."


JW:
And now the contradictions between these individual healing stories and The Prophet Without Honor Story:

1) Jesus teaches in the Capernaum synagogue and people are astonished. Why would people be astonished again in Chapter 6 if they were already astonished in Chapter 1?

2) All present at the synagogue are amazed at Jesus' healing without any negative connotation and Jesus' fame is said to spread throughout his country of Galilee. Yet in Chapter 6 Jesus claims there is unbelief in his country.

3) It's said that the whole city gathers at a house in Capernaum and Jesus heals many without any complaints. In Chapter 6 the people of Capernaum are offended that a member of their city has healing powers.

4) Jesus was said to be so popular in Galilee that it was difficult for him to move around in the cities. In Chapter 6 Jesus states that a Prophet is without honor in his own country.

5) Jesus heals a paralytic in his own house and all appreciate the healing. In chapter 6 Jesus states that a Prophet is without honor in his own house.

In summary, the assertions of the early healing stories are so contradictory to The Prophet Without Honor story of Chapter 6 that it's hard to believe they were written by the same author. "Matthew" gives his version of The prophet Without Honor story as follows:

13: (KJV)
54 "And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."


Note that while "Mark" preceded his Prophet Without Honor story in Chapter 6 with honored healing and teaching stories in Chapter 5 "Matthew" precedes his Prophet Without Honor story in Chapter 13 not with honored healing and teaching stories like "Mark" does but rather stories about reaching out to Gentiles instead of Jews and many people missing out on Salvation. This is another possible reason why "Matthew" changed the chronology of "Mark". He wanted to retain The Prophet Without Honor story because it helped explain in his mind why Jews largely rejected Jesus but he thought that retaining "Mark's" chronology of placing stories directly before it which contain clear contradictions to it was a mistake so he re-arranged these stories as best he could to fit his Gospel.


Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html