yummyfur

The only true differences are the name of the city and wether there were two or one person possesed. Each account might have minor details that aren't in the others(Matthew is the shortest version, so short on details), but they aren't major, nor do they contradict each other, so they wouldn't be considered differences that show two different storys.

Also your missing the fact that in Mathew, Mark and Luke the story starts right after Jesus had calmed the terrible storm on the Sea of Gallilee, when crossing by ship.

All three story's start with him entering the city right after this crossing, so are you saying Jesus calmed the Sea of Gallilee twice? and if so, why were the Apostles suprised, afraid and amazed both times?

Amaleq13

Good point! :thumbs:

That aspect of the story certainly suggests it to be the first time they've ever witnessed such a thing.

Steven Avery

Disagree. In addition to the two you mention, the geographical inclusion of Decapolis and Galilee in Mark and Luke is a very true difference, especially since so much of this discussion is geography. Also the demons addressing Jesus directly in Matthew is a very significant spiritual/doctrinal difference. The others are "true differences" as well, although if you mean that they could be viewed as omissions in one account, if there were only one event, I heartily agree. The fact that there is so much specifically Luke/Mark, and never a Luke/Matthew or Mark/Matthew, stands as evidence of separate events.

Naah.. I didn't miss that, I even pointed it out to you in my last post. Now I took the time to look at the chronology issues, and Luke is the chronological account (Luke 1:1), matched pretty closely in this section by Mark, fitting my exposition. This includes even going back to the telling of the parables. Matthew however is not chronological at all, with references to events from about six different times in Matthew 8, and he does not lead into the events from the parables in Capernaum. You can see this clearly simply by looking at the "foxes have holes" account, which correlates with the Luke 9 chronology. Any attempt to force a short-term linkage of Matthew 8:18 and 8:28 would be mistaken, especially in view of the "foxes" of 8:20 and the very small but pertinent time differences, such as the below mentioned lack of any mention of immediately coming off the ship, and the lack of the preceding parable in Capernaum teaching.

All told, there is no compelling, or even consistent, reason to impose a short-term chronology on Matthew here. So while we have two demoniac healing events, there is only one calming of the seas :-)

Nope. Please look more closely at my chart. Luke and Mark have "Immediately, when he went forth" from the ship, the Matthew account does not.

Covered above. The seas were stilled once, in the Gospels.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

btw, I used to take the Gill/Lightfoot view of one swine to the sea historical account, until I studied out all the issues much more in depth. When I went through some archives tonight, I noticed that a fellow named Keith Dotzler had pointed out how clear are the expressions "the country of the Gadarenes" and "country of the Gergensenes", and that they should be taken at face. In the recesses of the mind I probably remembered Keith's point, and that led to the much more indepth study on this forum, the comparision of the Gospel accounts (we had done the geography earlier).

For an example of my earlier point of view, (which research came after Joe W. was insisting on the alex versions to manufacture an error), you can see..

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia...c/message/7254
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:28 am
Subject: Gerasenes (Jerash) - modern version blunder in Mark 5:1 and Matthew 8:28 (updated)

Vorkosigan

Details! How are these two accounts correlated?

yummyfur

This argument is complete crap, have you actually read the NT? please don't go by that awfull chart you posted from another site, as I've already shown it was wrong on the Tomb aspect of the story.

The demons directly address Jesus in all three Gospels.

Mark 5:7
And cried with a loud voice, and said, "What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not."

Mark 5:12
And all the devils besought him, saying, "Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them."

Matthew 8:29
And, behold, they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?"

Mathew 8:31
So the devils besought him, saying , "If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine."

Luke 8:28
When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said , "What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not."

Luke 8:32
And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.


I know you didn't miss that, I worded my point poorly, the point you were missing, is that you seemed ready to possibly accept two calming of the storms, despite thte fact the Apostles were totally suprised both times. Now I guess your saying there can only be one storm calming.

on to the next point

Mathew 8:27-8:28
27) But the men marvelled, saying , What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him! (my note:end of the calming of the Sea) 28) And when he was come to the other side, into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

How exactly is this not "immediatly", it's clear from the text that He is in Gergesenes right after getting off the boat. By the way Luke doesn't use the word immediatly(eutheos), only Mark does. The author clearly intends that Jesus is in Gergasenes dealing with demonics right after he gets off the boat, and uses clear chronological language, that we use every day. The only way you can honestly get around this reading, is to allow readings in everything you do, to be vague and useless.

for example if I write a letter to you stating "there was a terrible storm while I was crossing lake Michigan, when I got to the other side, into area of Muskegon, I met some schizoids"

you will not be able to question my honesty/memory/sanity, when later I tell you that I didn't meet the schizoids after crossing lake michigan at all, that was later, on some other trip, even when shown the letter, though I will tell you the letter is also accurate.

All in all, I'm fairly certain that you will have to accept the divinely inspired works of Homer to be inerrant, if you find these arguments you make compelling.

S.C.Carlson

Gadara is about 6 miles from the sea and also lacks a cliff, so it appears that the line dividing errancy and inerrancy for you is somewhere between a 6-mile pig trek and a 30-mile pig trek. You're welcome to draw the line there, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Holding's argument, to the extent I understand it, is that the "country of Gerasa" is the designation for a large geographical region, part of which is a lot closer to the Sea of Galilee than the city of Gerasa itself. Accordingly, Holding is one inerrantist (?) who is unaffected by the difference between the KJV and the critical text here nor needs to argue that 30-mile pig trek is impossible while a 6-mile pig trek is sufficiently possible.

Steven Avery

That would be true if the incident was in the city of Gadara, but it was in the "country of the Gadarenes", and Gadara was a Decapolis city, bordering the Tiberias and the Bet She'an (modern name) and Hippos polis. Ergo, by many understandings, the country of the Gadarenes has no problemo being on the shores of Kinneret, although we did hash this out some :-)
I'm sorry you came in late to this discussion, I would think you would realize that we might be aware of your 6-mile concern :-) and would have read the text a little more carefully - "country of the Gadarenes", not "Gadara".

There is a big problem with the "country of Gerasa" because there is no way, shape or form in any known geography that it would reach Kinneret. No matter how much you extend the boundries, in any known fashion or reference, it doesn't jump over Gadara to reach the Kinneret. Holding was "winging it" in the "making pigs fly" sense.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

You seem to be confused in a number of ways. You didn't show anything wrong, as I was well aware that the tombs was one aspect that was in fact shared with the three accounts, the most important non-fundamental to the story, yet also non-surprising element.

And Yummyfur, I really don't appreciate the false accusation of using another's work, without giving reference.

Integrity first

(And I will take your hostility to the chart as an indication that it was an excellent work, and it frustrated your view of the healings as one event.)

Of course, but they don't INITIATE the conversation in all three Gospels.

Notice the chart..
" First Jesus addressed by the man - Jesus addressed by the demons"
Note the word **First**

Agreed. I mentioned that I hadn't really looked at it, yet. Keep in mind that I have a lot of confidence and faith that a careful viewing of the Scriptures will always be edifying, so I don't get all flustered about a point that I hadn't yet considered. Your view of the surprise was of course valid -- but also I had already been surprised with what I found when I actually compared the three accounts (the chart) and then also when I looked up the chronology issue, and saw there was no reason to consider them as two calming the waters events.

Luke uses "when he went forth to land" also meaning that they didn't disembark, have lunch, do a tour, and then run into the demoniac.

Its a close call.. "there met him" on the other side, into the country of the Gregesenses. I don't want to get bogged down on this, but it could have a time or distance gap from where they landed, unlike Mark or Luke. As he got "into the country of the Gergesenes", not necessarily coming off the boat, or immediately.

Not true. We know that Luke claims to be chronological, and Matthew makes no such claim. Since we know that the chapter is not chronological, (I will let others more scholarly than me conjecture as to the reasoning of order of events in Matthew) I have no difficulty in seeing

"And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes ..."
be a later time and place, there is even a sense of non-chronology in the construction...
"And when he was come..." Matthew
"And they came over... " Mark
"And they arrived at.." Luke

Notice that Matthew then immediately switches into short-term chronology
"there met him"
"they cried out"

In fact there is a second indication of non-chronology, the lack of any indication of "they" landing at Gergesenses. Unlike Mark and Luke, where they were landing in Gadarenes after the calming of the storm, the apostles and disciples are simply not mentioned as landing in Gergesenes.

"And when he was come"
"there met him"

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

S.C.Carlson

That's what you say. Holding's argument is different:

How can two inerrantists be wrong?

yummyfur

Anyone casually reading the chart you posted, would come to the conclusion that there is no mentions of tombs in Matthew, you give no qoutes to this part of the pericope, and the "unspecified" implies that tombs are not mentioned. In Mathew it actually says the demonics are "coming out of the tombs" and that they were "exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way." this is clear that they are, for all intents and purposes, dwelling there, as they never leave, otherwise people could get by without being accosted.

All I said was that the chart you posted was from another site, the reason was to clue people reading along to go to the link you provided, as the chart is pretty unreadable format on this forum becasue of lack of columns.

No hostility, just my opinion that the chart is very unclear on what it is really trying to demonstrate.

Ok my point on the clearness of this chart, is that I'm not even really sure what you are saying here. My attempt to interpret, is that you are saying in Mark/Luke the man speaks first, but in Mathew the demons speak first?

Uhm, the man is possesed by demons(and in all three storys there are mutiple demons doing the possesing), therefore the demons are always speaking, is this too hard to understand?. I posted the first utterance of the possesed(or anyone) in all three Gospels, it is remarkbly the same in all three Gospels.

good, I'm pretty sure if you accepted two storm calmings, you would have to accept many more events in the NT as happening multiple times, even though only described as one event in each Gospel.

Your misinterpreting the word land in this section, the Greek is the word Ge, and unlike English is only a noun, and can't be used as a verb to mean "anchor a ship" a clearer reading would be "When he was (back)on the ground", most definately it means that he is disembarked at minimum. Matthew has "other side" Luke "back on ground", when describing a voyage across water these are synonymous. By the way Mark uses "other side" so it actually matches Mathew.

Remeber Luke is not talking about "landing" in the English sense, he is talking about being on land, Luke also doesn't use immediatly, Mark doesn't say "land" but "other side".

It isn't a close call at all, there is no other reading possible. he actaully says "When he came to the other side" notice that:

W H E N

This is a chronoligical marker word, no significant amount of time has passed.

WHEN is a chronoligcal marker word, using it in a sentence, as it is in Matthew 8:28, it means the events are synchronous. Are you claiming that Matthew is schizophrenic when he writes even a single sentence? and there is no chronology even in a single sentence, even when it uses words that are meant to show synchronous events.

the sentence again
"And when he was come to the other side, into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way."

WHEN, is to literally spell it out for you "at the time" or "as soon as"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=when

By the way in Mark 5:1, the verb "to come"(êlthon) could be read as either the 1st person singular or 3rd person plural form, it's read as 3rd person plural mostly from the context. In Mark 5:2 the verb "to come out of"(exelthontos) in reference to the boat is clearly third person singular. So he is not saying all the Apostles are leaving the ship, just Jesus. Same is true with Luke, he has only Jesus coming on to the land.