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.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #1]

This is quite comical. I mean, on the one hand we have those who want to complain that there are variances and contradictions between the Gospel writers, and then on the other hand we have those who complain that the authors record other events so closely that they want to insist that they must have copied each other. Exactly what would make you happy? If they record the events exactly, you want to complain of collusion. If they vary in any way you want to complain about that.

How about this? When detectives question witnesses, they expect the witnesses to recall some of the events exactly, while at the same time they expect there to be variances, and contradictions. If the witnesses recite the same exact testimony with no variances, and contradictions the detectives suspect some sort of collusion, while they conclude one, or both of them are lying if the testimonies completely contradict.

So, what do we have with the Gospel accounts? It seems as if we have exactly what a detective would expect. In other words, we have some events reported exactly, while we have variances, and contradiction. Moreover, we have one of the Gospel writers who wrote not one, but two long and detailed letters addressed to one individual. In his second letter addressed to this one individual, we have very strong evidence that this author was a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul. Do you realize what this means? Well, it is a fact which cannot be denied that Paul was alive at the time of the death of Jesus, and we can know that Paul would have known and spent time with the original apostles, including Peter, James (the brother of Jesus) and John. This means, we have very strong evidence that the author of one of the Gospels would have been alive at the time of the events recorded, and that he would have spent many years with Paul and would have also known and spent time with the original apostles, hearing the claims they were making from there very lips.

My point is, it seems to me we have exactly what we would expect. We have the authors reporting some events exactly, while we have discrepancies, and contradictions, on top of the fact we have very strong evidence that at least one of the authors would have been right there on the scene. Of course, I am not suggesting in the least that what I have presented should cause one to believe the accounts, but I am not certain what you believe should cause us to doubt?

[The Tanager]

You are the one that introduced the timeline being off "a little". You failed to answer my question. What exactly fits inside this definition? Could it be anything that won't break your current beliefs?

I didn’t mean anything different from “shifting events around” when I said “shifting events around a little”. Perhaps an idiom peculiar to me here. I can see how that could be confusing. The only thing that I can see that would limit what can be shifted around would be logic, like with something like seeing Jesus after he died.

No, that's interpretation and possible thematic placement of sightings if we go by what you are saying. How can we know the sightings are of a 'resurrected Jesus' are not just a 'pre dead Jesus' placed conveniently in the timeline to fit the desired theme? The story lays out a timeline. The stories about Jesus before the crucifixion are assumed to be based on 'witness before death accounts' and the stories afterwards are assumed to be 'witness after death occurred'. However, you have just admitted that events may not be placed in the timeline according to their actual times, rendering any timeline suspect.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

When convenient to your apologetics, the contradictory timelines are not relevant. When inconvenient to your apologetics, the idea the timeline is not correct is not relevant. How convenient for you

First, you think I’m trying to eat my cake and have it, too. It makes perfect sense to eat the cake you have. It doesn’t make sense to eat your cake and have it, too, because after you eat it, it’s gone and so you don’t have it anymore.

Second, use reason only and not pop-psychology in this discussion. Address my reasoning, don’t accuse me of accepting things for convenience. The theme doesn’t seem to be that different in the placement, but it’s a theme that fits both at the beginning and the end of Jesus’ ministry. The resurrection obviously fits at the end only.

[TRANSPONDER]

You are the one that introduced the timeline being off "a little". You failed to answer my question. What exactly fits inside this definition? Could it be anything that won't break your current beliefs?

I didn’t mean anything different from “shifting events around” when I said “shifting events around a little”. Perhaps an idiom peculiar to me here. I can see how that could be confusing. The only thing that I can see that would limit what can be shifted around would be logic, like with something like seeing Jesus after he died.

No, that's interpretation and possible thematic placement of sightings if we go by what you are saying. How can we know the sightings are of a 'resurrected Jesus' are not just a 'pre dead Jesus' placed conveniently in the timeline to fit the desired theme? The story lays out a timeline. The stories about Jesus before the crucifixion are assumed to be based on 'witness before death accounts' and the stories afterwards are assumed to be 'witness after death occurred'. However, you have just admitted that events may not be placed in the timeline according to their actual times, rendering any timeline suspect.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

When convenient to your apologetics, the contradictory timelines are not relevant. When inconvenient to your apologetics, the idea the timeline is not correct is not relevant. How convenient for you

First, you think I’m trying to eat my cake and have it, too. It makes perfect sense to eat the cake you have. It doesn’t make sense to eat your cake and have it, too, because after you eat it, it’s gone and so you don’t have it anymore.

Second, use reason only and not pop-psychology in this discussion. Address my reasoning, don’t accuse me of accepting things for convenience. The theme doesn’t seem to be that different in the placement, but it’s a theme that fits both at the beginning and the end of Jesus’ ministry. The resurrection obviously fits at the end only.

The amount of evasion and tinkering with words as well as appealing to Authorities (those who fit in with Christian propaganda of course) and trying to brush away the contradictions as minor.

There are many that are not and the 'biggies' in fact set the precedent - or that's how I argue. It starts right away, at the nativities, and they are the most provable example of a tale so contradictory that one at least has to be wrong, and probably both.

The precedent having been set, the next worse one is thew resurrections. Those are provably concocted, as has been seen in recent discussion, despite persistent denial by our resident Christian denialist.

That is just the start, and rather than immediate attempts to blow away the problems before they appear...



...maybe the point can be made - the gospels are not credible, even though there may be a true story at bottom. But it is not the one Christianity wanted to tell, so it had to be substantially rewritten to suit Christian propaganda.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #1]

This is quite comical. I mean, on the one hand we have those who want to complain that there are variances and contradictions between the Gospel writers, and then on the other hand we have those who complain that the authors record other events so closely that they want to insist that they must have copied each other. Exactly what would make you happy? If they record the events exactly, you want to complain of collusion. If they vary in any way you want to complain about that.

Hello, and thankyou for your post.
Yes, I am focusing upon serious variances in the gospels, but if you want to talk about how Luke and Matthew copied whole tracts from G-Mark, that will need to be in another thread, I think. In many instances they mirror each other, which simply shows me not only that Luke was not a witness (which he tells us anyway) but also the author of Matthew. I suppose that does explain also how many of their other anecdotes are so at variance.

How about this? When detectives question witnesses, they expect the witnesses to recall some of the events exactly, while at the same time they expect there to be variances, and contradictions. If the witnesses recite the same exact testimony with no variances, and contradictions the detectives suspect some sort of collusion, while they conclude one, or both of them are lying if the testimonies completely contradict.

Wrong! So you've never been a Detective, I can see.
Detectives do not 'expect' anything........they simply investigate and present findings....to Juries and/or Judges.

So, what do we have with the Gospel accounts? It seems as if we have exactly what a detective would expect. In other words, we have some events reported exactly, while we have variances, and contradiction. Moreover, we have one of the Gospel writers who wrote not one, but two long and detailed letters addressed to one individual. In his second letter addressed to this one individual, we have very strong evidence that this author was a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul. Do you realize what this means? Well, it is a fact which cannot be denied that Paul was alive at the time of the death of Jesus, and we can know that Paul would have known and spent time with the original apostles, including Peter, James (the brother of Jesus) and John. This means, we have very strong evidence that the author of one of the Gospels would have been alive at the time of the events recorded, and that he would have spent many years with Paul and would have also known and spent time with the original apostles, hearing the claims they were making from there very lips.

So (apart from death, resurrection and communion) why didn't Paul write a sentence about anything that his God on Earth had said or done? Strange.
Again.......... Detectives who 'expect' should be dumped from their jobs. Expectations like that can lead to wrongful decisions, wrongful arrests, and more.

My point is, it seems to me we have exactly what we would expect. We have the authors reporting some events exactly, while we have discrepancies, and contradictions, on top of the fact we have very strong evidence that at least one of the authors would have been right there on the scene. Of course, I am not suggesting in the least that what I have presented should cause one to believe the accounts, but I am not certain what you believe should cause us to doubt?

The author of G-Mark was (very likely) a partial witness to some of the events in his gospel, but the others...? You've got to be joking!
Luke tells Theophilus that he compiled his gospel, The authors of G-Matthew needed to copy much of G-Mark, and the authors of G-John were writing their story at the turn of or in another century!

So you have got one partial witness, masses of Oral Tradition (Northern Galilean Jewish peasants couldn't write) and quite a lot of dreams.

[benchwarmer]

You are the one that introduced the timeline being off "a little". You failed to answer my question. What exactly fits inside this definition? Could it be anything that won't break your current beliefs?

I didn’t mean anything different from “shifting events around” when I said “shifting events around a little”. Perhaps an idiom peculiar to me here. I can see how that could be confusing. The only thing that I can see that would limit what can be shifted around would be logic, like with something like seeing Jesus after he died.

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.

Again, how do we know the sightings supposedly after Jesus died where really post death sightings if, as you say, events can be moved around to suit a theme?

First, you think I’m trying to eat my cake and have it, too. It makes perfect sense to eat the cake you have. It doesn’t make sense to eat your cake and have it, too, because after you eat it, it’s gone and so you don’t have it anymore.

??? Do you really think we all need an explanation of a common idiom?

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.

Let's explore your examples where it's clear and logical a particular sighting MUST have happened when it says it did, yet another example is clearly movable for thematic effect even if it breaks another telling of the events.

Second, use reason only and not pop-psychology in this discussion.

? This sounds like evasion. As above, let's 'use reason' and show examples. i.e. support your claims as required please. I'm not saying you are definitely wrong, but I remain unconvinced since you have not shown how this works on one case, but not the other.

[Realworldjack]

[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. In other words, this would be evidence that the witnesses rehearsed their testimony together. 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. Rather, all one has to do is to deal with children caught in some sort of mischief, and go on to question them concerning the mischief to understand that if they tell the same exact story almost word for word, it is most likely they rehearsed the report. This is exactly why police attempt to separate witnesses as soon as they can in order to prevent collusion between those involved.

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, all the while these complaints together sort of demonstrate exactly what one would expect when questioning different witnesses of the same events. You would expect different witnesses to report some events the same, while you would expect there to be some differences including variances, and contradictions.

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, rather what I am saying is you have not in any way given us any reason to doubt the reports by complaining of the contradictions involved while we have others who are complaining that they report some of the events exactly to the point they want to suggest this is evidence the authors copied each other.

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.

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ah..the old'collusion' excuse. The fact is, if the witnesses agreed, the testimony would fail on Collusion, and if they didn't agree, they would fail on Unreliable. But we do assess testimony as credible or not, unless wedo get clear indications of a concocted agreed tale.

In fact that is what we seem to find. The synoptics appear to have chunks of common text - not just story, but text, indicating copying. After all, the later synoptics are sometimes said to have 'used' "Mark" (though some will know I find Mark itself is a copy and edit of an earlier synoptic gospel).

This is why I talk of Biggies. Common stories I credit at least as common stories, give or take minor differences. The crucifixion is one of these. In fact the 'embarrassing facts' suggest that it is a true event; if Christians had invented it, they would have had Jesus killed by the Jews, not the Romans and then tried to blame the Jews for it.

So the council for the accusation would argue that the two Robbers reviling Jesus was the original account, and that Luke has one of them repent is either an added story or something everyone else missed. I'd suggest this is invention and far from the only one Luke does. But, if we check that episode out, doesn't it Firm up the consistency of the Crucifixion? This, rather than waving away all problems, (but only for the Bible, as they would never do it for other claims) is the way Bible critique works, and so minor differences don't matter, but major ones do.

I heard the excuse that nobody else heard the penitent thief. This is kneejerk excuse dismissal and no thought went into it.

Quite apart from Luke being later (on evidence) and (again on evidence) being a major inventor of material, even if everyone but some unidentified person had left the crucifixion, how does it make sense that Luke heard the true story and nobody else did? It is a medium - size contradiction and the excuse really doesn't wash. Just as Jesus giving his mother to the disciple when (arguably) the family should have looked after her. Jesus brother (James) was still alive. And I suggest this is symbolic of the Jesus -Mojo passing from the Jews to the Christians.

But medium -size discrepancies, aside, the Biggies cannot be excused; there is no way out but stubborn and boneheaded denial.

Or crickets. On my Other board, I debated the transfiguration, which is not in John. Some tried to argue it was not the same time. Demonstrably, it is, between the feeding of 5,000 (the Other feeding of 4,000 is a clumsy add -on missing from Luke and John; their feeding, messiah -event and return to Capernaum is straightforward) and we know the Transfiguration should be where John says Jesus went into the hills because the people wanted to make him a king (1). It is not credible, nor excusable that John did not know of the transfiguration if it happened. So trying to make it a different event failing, there were efforts to make him keep quiet about it. But the caveat was off after Jesus was resurrected and everyone could write about it. So that excuse fails.

This is a Biggie (not big enough to be noticed by 2,000 years of Bible Scholars and Authorities, though) and thereafter it was *crickets*. The last resort is ignore it and hope everyone forgets. But I have Faith that people love a secret, and once they know this (unless they are into denialist Biblefaith) they will love it.

This is just one of the many biggies which cannot be brushed away and dismissed by the usual 'eyewitness discrepancy' excuses. They are so big that nobody could fail to mention them and still be regarded as a credible witness or any kind of witness at all.

(1) my pet theory is that this IS the same event - the big group of men in platoons of fifty fed a token lunch on the grass accepted Jesus' messianic claim and agreed to make him a king by their force, if they could. The transfiguration is invented to have God rubber - stamp the messianic mission, while John shows Jesus running away rather than have the people stage a messianic revolt on his behalf.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #14]

So (apart from death, resurrection and communion) why didn't Paul write a sentence about anything that his God on Earth had said or done? Strange.

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.

Again.......... Detectives who 'expect' should be dumped from their jobs. Expectations like that can lead to wrongful decisions, wrongful arrests, and more.

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.

The author of G-Mark was (very likely) a partial witness to some of the events in his gospel, but the others...?

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.

The authors of G-Matthew needed to copy much of G-Mark

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.

So you have got one partial witness, masses of Oral Tradition (Northern Galilean Jewish peasants couldn't write) and quite a lot of dreams.

My friend, you can make statements like this if you wish but it is not helping your case. I do not have dreams, but rather I deal with fact. It is a fact that Jesus walked the face of the earth. 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. 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.

[TRANSPONDER]

No, you are missing or evading the case.

I already rebutted the 'eyewitness differences' excuse. The excuse for Paul is even worse. If Paul was trying to talk his Greek Pagans into belief in Jesus, he would surely have recounted the 'signs' he did. The events, the miracles that accompanies the crucifixion and God knows a reliable account of the resurrection to firm up the sloppy stories we have now.

But Paul says almost nothing. Just the fact of the crucifixion and a rather odd 'last supper' event which sounds more a ritual than an occurrence.

Where I am is, if it is based on nothing, it is no more than a ritual applied to a faithclaim and if based on a real event (execution) then the lest Paul says about who executed Jesus and why, the better.

I feel impelled to mention here, that Denial and dismissal counts for nothing whatsoever. I know the Believers assume Bible - story is the default and all they have to do is reject anything else and they win.

But the way it actually works is, if a compelling or even credible alternative explanation can be produced, the Bible story is no longer the default, Unless some good support for it can be produced.

That is what Apologetics is all about, but the fact is that the Bible has Lost credibility and the alternative hypothesis -explanation has gained traction and trust me, fella, will gain more, unless Xstianity find a way of silencing us.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

I already rebutted the 'eyewitness differences' excuse.

If you are speaking to me, then I have not suggested that any of the Biblical authors would have been eyewitnesses of the resurrection. Rather, it is a fact that we have very strong evidence that at least one of the Gospel writers would have been alive at the time of the events recorded.

The excuse for Paul is even worse. If Paul was trying to talk his Greek Pagans into belief in Jesus, he would surely have recounted the 'signs' he did. The events, the miracles that accompanies the crucifixion and God knows a reliable account of the resurrection to firm up the sloppy stories we have now.

Again, this demonstrates a lack of understanding. What Paul would have taught the different Churches he addressed in his letters would have mostly been orally as he would have spent years there planting the Church and we have no idea what all he may have explained to them. When Paul wrote letters to the Churches he had already planted his concern would not have been with what he had already taught. Rather, Paul was concerned with issues inside that particular Church. In other words, Paul's letters are not concerned with explaining the death and resurrection to the world, and he certainly was not concerned in his letters about "firming up the sloppy stories we now have" since it is more than likely that what we now have, Paul would have been unaware of, since what we now have, either was not written at the time, or was in the process of being written.

But Paul says almost nothing. Just the fact of the crucifixion and a rather odd 'last supper' event which sounds more a ritual than an occurrence.

This is answered perfectly above in that Paul would have done all of this orally, and his letters were intended to address different concerns.

Where I am is, if it is based on nothing, it is no more than a ritual applied to a faithclaim and if based on a real event (execution) then the lest Paul says about who executed Jesus and why, the better.

Again, Paul may have said a ton concerning all of what you say. With this being the case there would have been no need to address these things in his letters. The intent in Paul's letters was to address particular concerns in that particular Church. Moreover, we know for a fact that Paul wrote more letters than we now have. The point is, we have no idea what all Paul may have taught, said, and done.

That is what Apologetics is all about, but the fact is that the Bible has Lost credibility and the alternative hypothesis -explanation has gained traction and trust me, fella, will gain more, unless Xstianity find a way of silencing us.

I am not at all concerned with silencing anyone. In fact, I invite the criticism because it helps me think through the issues. This is why I would much rather converse with those opposed. I am also not concerned with alternative explanations gaining traction. However, the fact that you understand that you must and have to come up with alternative explanations sort of demonstrates there is reasons to believe the claims, otherwise there would be no need in the alternatives.