Tiberius

So, what exactly is the problem with the SAB?

Peter Kirby

Are we looking at things like ipsissima verba? If so, one could find a lot of such places where the thing would only be said once, but in which it is phrased differently in different gospels. The one that first came to mind is Mt 26:6-13 // Mark 14:3-9. Matthew has, "this ointment might have been sold for a large sum," while Mark has, "this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii." This is obviously a one-off event (consider the last verse). The example is uninteresting in itself, but it does raise the question of ones view of the inspiration of the Bible and the question of in what sense it would be considered without error, among those who say it is.

best,
Peter Kirby

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

Vorkosigan

What does Septuagint have for all this? Shouldn't we be looking there to explain the choices of Luke?

Boro Nut

Also the simple fact that Zebedee gets a mention at all is in itself highly suspicious. His presence is used simply as a portent to signify the approaching end times, with little relevance to the message that has gone before, yet it is completely silent on more germane characters like Dougal, Florence and Mr McHenry.

Boro Nut

Amen-Moses

Maybe it was bedtime?

Amen-Moses

Hopeful Monsters

It is good of you to acknowledge such hard work here (and by implication, I assume, in similar contributions from others in this Thread).

As a Charismatic Christian, would you care to demolish all these "alleged discrepancies in the gospel narratives" submitted by "promulgators of infidelity"?

If you don’t – the "infidels" might conclude that there are no refutations and the discrepancies are not 'alleged' at all.

spin

You certainly must admit they've made a splash. Besides, the name explains why a lot of those who deal with them are all wet.


pins

Peter Kirby

I could not find Neri in the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Every alleged discrepancy is solidly an alleged one. Just "If you think you have a solid discrepancy" would have done fine.

Okay, here are a couple that I remember about John and the synoptics.

The first one came up in the (aborted) bible study about John held here a while back. The issue is:

"In Mark 1:16-20, Jesus calls Simon and Andrew to be disciples at the same time. In John 1:40-42, Andrew had been called first and told his brother Simon about Jesus."

Here are the passages:

Mark 1:14-20 (New American Bible)
14 After John had been arrested, 8 Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God: 15 "This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel." 16 As he passed by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting their nets into the sea; they were fishermen. 17 Jesus said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." 18 Then they abandoned their nets and followed him.
19 He walked along a little farther and saw James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They too were in a boat mending their nets. 20 Then he called them. So they left their father Zebedee in the boat along with the hired men and followed him.

John 1:35-42 (New American Bible)
35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples, 36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God." 37 The two disciples 27 heard what he said and followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, "What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi" (which translated means Teacher), "where are you staying?" 39 He said to them, "Come, and you will see." So they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about four in the afternoon. 40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus. 41 He first found his own brother Simon and told him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Anointed). 42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter).

Now, to me the answer that was given then seems forced, but here is that:

"Because they’re different events. The account in John is of Christ’s initial contact with Andrew and Simon. The synoptic account is of a later event at which Simon is persuaded that Jesus is the Christ by virtue of the miraculous catch of fish. Note that in John there is no indication that he is so persuaded (although his younger brother Andrew evidently is). John does not state that they followed him at this point, although Nathanael and Philip evidently do. Note that the command “Follow me� (v43) is given to Philip, not Simon and Andrew. Moreover, the nickname Peter – which has the force of “Rocky� – is at this point as much a joke as it is a prophecy. Simon is a waverer and is called a rock in the same way that a tall man is called Shorty. Given that his older brother likely remained skeptical, it would follow that Andrew would honor his family duties and continue to work with Simon until such time as he was ready to drop everything also (Andrew not having heard the teaching on this yet)." -- Berean

It is quite evident that these would be different events if both happened, if only because later in John it is stated that the Baptist had not yet been imprisoned (John 3:24), while in Mark (1:14), Jesus begins preaching in Galilee after John is arrested. The question here is whether Andrew and Peter needed to be called and to begin following Jesus twice. There's nothing that says that Peter was initially skeptical; that is invented in order to make the extracanonical narrative that is found in the quote from Berean. The only explanation in the Bible for why Simon was named Peter, if even that is such, is found in Matthew 16:18, the well-known verse, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (English Standard Version)

The other one that comes to mind, when thinking of the Gospel of John, is the story of the "cleansing of the Temple." This happens in John 2. The crucifixion happens two years or more later, if one observes the details in the rest of John. In the synoptic gospels, the same episode takes place just a few days before the crucifixion. The only way I've ever seen this defended is to say that this quite similar and dramatic event happened twice in the life of Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby