Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

[The Tanager]

Let me say it plainly. You want to use the apologetic that certain events can be moved around in time to fit a theme in order to counter the obvious contradictions that potentially render at least some of these stories wrong.

However, when I suggest we can do the exact same thing with sightings of Jesus, all of a sudden I've crossed some logical line.

No, not to counter contradictions. Many of the events that are only in one account could be expected to be moved around chronologically and fit perfectly into what ancients did with their biographies. They didn’t care much about chronology. The temple cleansing is not tied to a particular chronology, while post-resurrection sightings are logically tied to a prior resurrection or they, logically, wouldn’t be post-resurrection. It would be silly for an author to put a post-resurrection sighting of Jesus three years before he is said to have resurrected. Temple cleansings aren’t logically tied to being at the beginning or end of someone’s ministry.

[benchwarmer]

Let me say it plainly. You want to use the apologetic that certain events can be moved around in time to fit a theme in order to counter the obvious contradictions that potentially render at least some of these stories wrong.

However, when I suggest we can do the exact same thing with sightings of Jesus, all of a sudden I've crossed some logical line.

No, not to counter contradictions. Many of the events that are only in one account could be expected to be moved around chronologically and fit perfectly into what ancients did with their biographies. They didn’t care much about chronology. The temple cleansing is not tied to a particular chronology, while post-resurrection sightings are logically tied to a prior resurrection or they, logically, wouldn’t be post-resurrection. It would be silly for an author to put a post-resurrection sighting of Jesus three years before he is said to have resurrected. Temple cleansings aren’t logically tied to being at the beginning or end of someone’s ministry.

I'm not sure if you are purposely misunderstanding me, actually misunderstanding me, or just avoiding directly giving me the examples I asked for.

For the third and last time. Please give an actual, scripture example of one of these sightings that is DEFINITELY when the author states it is. Then we can explore if this has to be true or if it could also be thematic timing. i.e. the theme being a resurrection happened.

Then we can provide other scripture that is timing related and explore how one can know if that is simply thematic or actual timing. I have a prophesy that contradictions involving timing that seem to break things will be labelled 'possibly thematic' and swept under the carpet.

So far we have continued evasion to put some 'teeth' to this line of reasoning with actual evidence (i.e. scripture)

[The Tanager]

I'm not sure if you are purposely misunderstanding me, actually misunderstanding me, or just avoiding directly giving me the examples I asked for.

For the third and last time. Please give an actual, scripture example of one of these sightings that is DEFINITELY when the author states it is. Then we can explore if this has to be true or if it could also be thematic timing. i.e. the theme being a resurrection happened.

Then we can provide other scripture that is timing related and explore how one can know if that is simply thematic or actual timing.

I don't play stupid games, so I'm not purposely misunderstanding or directly avoiding it. I felt I adequately responded to your claim, believing my point to be obvious enough, but maybe I did misunderstand you.

In John 20:19-20, we have Jesus appearing to some of the disciples and showing them his hands and side (where he was crucified and had a spear thrust into his side). This sighting logically must have come after Jesus' death and resurrection.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not sure if you are purposely misunderstanding me, actually misunderstanding me, or just avoiding directly giving me the examples I asked for.

For the third and last time. Please give an actual, scripture example of one of these sightings that is DEFINITELY when the author states it is. Then we can explore if this has to be true or if it could also be thematic timing. i.e. the theme being a resurrection happened.

Then we can provide other scripture that is timing related and explore how one can know if that is simply thematic or actual timing.

I don't play stupid games, so I'm not purposely misunderstanding or directly avoiding it. I felt I adequately responded to your claim, believing my point to be obvious enough, but maybe I did misunderstand you.

In John 20:19-20, we have Jesus appearing to some of the disciples and showing them his hands and side (where he was crucified and had a spear thrust into his side). This sighting logically must have come after Jesus' death and resurrection.

Problem right there. Where is that in Matthew? It isn't. The disciples go to Galilee as told.Where is that in Luke?He has that evening appearance, but no trip to Galilee., nor (in the narration) any opportunity for it.

Even in the evening appearance,there is no wound in the side, because that isn't in the synoptics. In Luke, Thomas isn't absent as in John. All "eleven" are there (minus Judas). And Mark of course has none of this.

Just that one example that you gave calls the reliability of the resurrection - story into question as much as anything else.

[oldbadger]

Yet you've failed to produce some examples like I've asked so we can examine whether your example is obviously different than the contradictory examples that led to this line of debate.

Let me see if I can help you.
The gospel of Mark clearly tells of how Jesus started his movement in Galilee, attempted to build it up there, failed and so went to Jerusalem in the hopes of really getting it started, being executed that same week. This whole mission lasted 11-12 moths from beginning to end. The gospel of John spins this out to a 3 year mission during which Jesus pops down to Jerusalem and back as if this was a short journey and not the two-three day trek involved.

Mark's 1 year mission as compared to John's 3 year mission is a contradictory example, I think. These examples can just continue and continue, but you could start with that, maybe?

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #14]

My friend, it is a fact which cannot be denied that any detective worth his salt understands that if witnesses report the same exact story almost word for word the witnesses are suspected of collusion.

Correct! Well done! And so would you like to review the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke and discover that at least two of those gospels copied from one other, Mark being the original! You're becoming a detective!

In other words, this would be evidence that the witnesses rehearsed their testimony together.

Oh no! And you were doing so well, you had suspicions (good) and now you're jumping to conclusions. The copyists may have simply cheated when they copied the original. You can't conclude that the original was involved. And you were doing so well.......

On the other hand, if the testimony of the witnesses completely contradict each other, then the suspicion would be that one, or the both would be lying. In fact, one does not have to be a detective, or a lawyer to understand this.

Bingo! You're back on track. Now please consider how Mark's gospel tells of a 11-12 month mission, mostly in Galilee and Norther Provinces, with one final journey to Jerusalem when all that trouble occurred in the Temple over two days, and the execution. John's gospel tries to tell of a three year mission with constant returns to Jerusualem and back. So which do you suspect?

What you are doing is to avoid the fact that we have those who complain about the fact that the Gospel writers report some events almost word for word, and go on to complain that this is evidence the authors copied each other, while on the other hand we have those who complain that there are variances in the reports,

No I'm not! I'm researching and finding out what I can. You must decide whether some of the authors are cheats (copyists) or fibbers (deceivers)....... which do you choose? Let me know what you choose.

The question then becomes, exactly what would make you happy? Would you be suspect if they reported all the events exactly? Would you complain if all the reports contradicted? My whole point is, I am not asking you to believe the reports,

Well thank goodness for that! I believe the basic account of the gospel of Mark. I even believe that most of the miracles actually happened, but in a worldly way. I believe in many of the anecdotes shown in the other gospels and if you know anything about 'truth-pills' then you'll have figured out how they were used.

The fact of the matter is this is not that uncommon at all. My wife and I will witness the same exact thing, and when she begins to explain the event to others I will have to stop her at times and say, "that is not exactly how it happened". When I do, she may say, "oh yeah, you are correct". Would this be an example of my wife lying about the event? Well no! Rather, she and I remember certain details differently but this does not mean the main event she is reporting did not occur.

To err is not to deceive. Early Christians might have been so sure of their beliefs that they thought it acceptable to edit writings, add to them, enrich them and more. But this could lead to outrageous fabrications.

As far as the rest of what you have to say I intend to address it, but I do not want to get off the topic of the OP until it is resolved. So then, either the contradictions, and variances you point out are reasons to doubt the reports, or it is a fact that witnesses of the same events do report certain events differently, including contradictions, and variances, but this is not evidence that the main event they are reporting did not occur.

No no! Each part of every account is assessed on its own merits. And G-John did not copy Mark, it just made stuff up, interspaced with probably true anecdotes drawn from oral-tradition, so lots of research is needed to sift out the fact from the fiction.

Effective detectives don't work with prejudgement and bigotry in mind. Sadly many very bad detectives do, and need to be weeded out if possible.
I know.
But I don't think you'll make one....ok?

[oldbadger]

You are demonstrating a lack of understanding here. Paul traveled the known world at the time planting Churches. This means Paul would have spent years in one town before traveling to the next, and it would be only then that Paul would have had the need to write a letter to the first Church he planted. When he wrote to said Church, he was not in any way intending his letter to be contained in the Bible which he had no idea about. Rather, Paul was only addressing that particular Church, addressing concerns in that Church. In other words, Paul's letters are not at all concerned with explaining to the world the life and teachings of Jesus. Again, his only concern was to address particular concerns in the Church he was addressing. Moreover, I did not say anything concerning Paul being a witness to the life of Jesus. Rather, what I said was, "it is a fact which cannot be denied that Paul was alive at the time of Jesus". The only point I was making there was the fact that we have very strong evidence that one of the Gospel writers was a traveling companion of Paul which would mean that we have an author of a Gospel alive at the time of the events he records, and would have known and spent time with the original apostles.

If Paul was communicating with churches then and truly interested in Jesus, the son of his God, then every other sentence would have been explaining what he said and did. Paul couldn't have cared a hoot about what Jesus said or did..... Paul was all about Paul!

The point is really not the detective. Rather, the point is the fact that witnesses can, and do witness the same exact event and report some things exactly, along with there being variances, and contradictions, but this is not evidence the reports must, and have to be false. This is what you need to address.

...then why did you mention detectives? !! The gospels of Luke and Matthew repeat accounts in Mark that quite often match 'word for word'. Most researchers are convinced that these are copies which is why these cospels are called 'the Synoptics'.

Swim against the tide if you must.

I do not know what sort of evidence you have that the author of Mark would have been any sort of witness? What I do know is, we have very strong evidence the author of one of the Gospels would have been alive at the time of the events recorded, and would have known and spent time with the original apostles.

That's easy! The author wrote about events that only he would have known about.
THere is one very striking example of that.

You make this statement as if it were a fact, and it is not a fact in the least. I mean think about what you are saying here? It is not like there were copies going around in order for all to have access. Copies would have been hard to come by at that time.

You've been telling me that exact copies can be evidence of collusion, which isn't exactly correct, but it IS evidence of cheating.
Collusion is different from cheating.

My friend, you can make statements like this if you wish but it is not helping your case.

It neither hinders nor helps my case, it is simply what I have found. I think that G-Mark (without the edits and inserts) is the true account. I also believe that Cephas was so upset by the way that things were developing that he dictated that account to his friend for the purpose of putting things right.

I do not have dreams, but rather I deal with fact. It is a fact that Jesus walked the face of the earth.

You don't dream? I don't believe you. Everybody has dreams.
But yes, I think that Jesus was a real person............ haven't you figured that out yet? You're no detective.

It is a fact that he had a large following. It is a fact that Jesus was crucified. It is a fact we have reports of Jesus alive after the crucifixion.

NO, Jesus had a poor following up North, which is why he went South in that last attempt.
Yes, Jesus might have been crucified, but as you say he definitely didn't die..... His mates even saw him alive later on, up North in Galilee. So all the 'resurrection' claims I do not accept.

It is a fact that this same Jesus is the most well-known name in the history of the world some 2000 years later, and it seems you would have us believe that all this was accomplished by peasants who could not read, or write, when we have evidence these folks would have spoken more than one language. These are the facts we have, and you can believe as you wish. The problem is the fact that you seem to want to cast some sort of doubt about the reports but what you have given us thus far does not lend to doubt. In other words, I am not suggesting in any way you have no reason to doubt, but you seem to be suggesting there is no reason for anyone to believe, when you are not giving me any reason for doubt.

NO, North Jewish peasants were mostly illiterate and their language was Eastern Aramaic, noticeably different from the language of the Southern/Judean Jews. We know that from the gospels.
Some may have managed with a second language.......... which do you think that was?
NO, you haven't got many facts about a huge % of the Jewish peasant classes of the early first century.
No, you clearly have no clue about what I believe. You haven't even discovered what my religion might be.

I'm simply claiming that the Gospel accounts vary a great deal....PLease see my thread Title.

[oldbadger]

In John 20:19-20, we have Jesus appearing to some of the disciples and showing them his hands and side (where he was crucified and had a spear thrust into his side). This sighting logically must have come after Jesus' death and resurrection.

That proves that Jesus never died! So where's your resurrection?

I've seen a surgeon thrusting a hole in to a youth's lung in a real-life tv program, thus releasing fluid and blood from his lung and allowing him to breath.
By the way, I've had a hole pierced in to my left lung for a similar purpose this last January!
You need to go to the Dorcas Ward, Guys Hospital, London, where you could see over 50 patients with similar holes in their sides after such surgeries.

Those Romans knew how to keep a convict alive, when so ordered.

Josephus writes of an exactly similar case where he appealed for the lives of three crucified friends, all being taken down and one surviving.

So G-John showed how Jesus never died.

[benchwarmer]

In John 20:19-20, we have Jesus appearing to some of the disciples and showing them his hands and side (where he was crucified and had a spear thrust into his side). This sighting logically must have come after Jesus' death and resurrection.

Finally, thank you!

I see others are already responding now that we have something to focus on.

I will grant that this sighting logically must have happened (if it happened) after Jesus was nailed to a cross. However, since Jesus is not dead here, it seems we can have a natural explanation (he didn't die in the first place) or a non natural explanation (magic/miracle/however you want to phrase it). Thematically, the author may want this event to 'prove' a miracle, that's why it comes after the crucifixion narrative.

Now let's look at the original narrative that started this OP:

From John, the very same book you are pointing us at:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

13 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves and the money changers seated at their tables. 15 Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, with the sheep and the cattle.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, and he spent some time there with them and baptized.

In your example, the timing is based on marks on Jesus's body indicating it's post time on the cross.

In the initial example, the timing is based on the author giving the time line. Yet your argument was (bolding mine):

These writings aren't modern historical texts, as concerned with chronology as we are today. Ordering one's account seems to be more about grouping themes together and making points with the stories shared even if that means shifting events around a little. It was just a different approach to writing that their audiences would understand and not have a problem with.

If the authors of the time weren't concerned with chronology, why are they giving a very clear chronology? i.e. In this case the author is using the Passover as an anchor point in time and telling the readers where each of the events is based around that. Yet you now are telling us we should ignore this specific chronology because at the time authors weren't terribly concerned with timing/chronology?

I'm not buying it. If they weren't concerned with chronology, then the story would likely be told differently. i.e. perhaps in some order, but not referencing specific dates (the Passover) or giving amounts of time spent.

Essentially, if we can't trust the author to at least be consistent with themselves when placing events according to time markers (like the Passover), then it basically renders the entire story questionable at best. Maybe Jesus was crucified in November, but was later seen with scars in April. If some of the anchored in time events can be moved freely around, then all of them can.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is one Problem noted that John's Temple cleansing happens before the baptism. The only excuse (aside from simply not talking about it) is there were two separate Temple incidents. This would not stand up 'In a court of law" as they not only look the same event, but there is a gap in John where the supposed '2nd cleansing' ought to be. John has shifted it. Plain as day.

I propose that such a violent incident has to be removed by John to an early date before jesus became sanctified by the Spirit, as in his gospel he is not holy from birth.