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.

[oldbadger]

I am certainly glad you want to deal with the Gospel of Luke because it happens to be my favorite, and the reason why is the fact that this author identifies his audience, and he also gives the reason for the letters he writes. It seems sort of strange how you do not want to quote the whole passage. You know, like beginning in the next verse he goes on to tell Theophilus,

With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

So Luke was NOT a witness, but an investigator. QED.

My friend, this is good stuff. Of course, I am not insisting that what the author says here demonstrates or proves the case, but it certainly is evidence which needs to be explained.....................

Indeed........ depositions are not proof, but simply depositions. Some are accurate, some not.

That would be the Biblical scholars, who like you are desperately attempting to cast any sort of doubt they can. But here is the thing. I have no problem with those who doubt. My problem comes in with those who doubt, and act as if there would be no reason at all for anyone to believe the accounts, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. Because you see, I am not insisting that it can be demonstrated the accounts are indeed true, but I can also assure you that you, nor any of your scholars can demonstrate the claims to be false. All any of us can do is to examine the facts, and evidence we have, and come to our conclusions based upon the evidence.

Don't try and marry me to any scholars of the gospels. I usually stick to what I have discovered from early first century Galilee and Northern provinces and the gospels.

There is NO document 'Q', simply ideas originated among German researchers concerning the speeches of Jesus as shown in both G-Matthew and G-Luke. They may be right, but they never did find any originating document, they just believed that it may have existed.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #28]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #29]

We are talking about variances in the gospel accounts. Which gospel claims Jesus didn’t die? Jesus very clearly dies in these narratives and then rises. No mention of this to prove some other miracle event.

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.

When presenting something in narrative form, you use chronology. But ancient writers would displace events. Even the same author would place the same event in different places in different writings. Check out Mike Licona’s Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? for a study of other ancient writings of the period and their comparison with the gospel writings.

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.

They are consistent with themselves and with their literary culture. They are inconsistent with different literary cultures, which should be expected. Different genres exist and do things differently. It is irrational to think these stories are questionable because you think they should be treated as modern day history.

These are not reasons to credit the story but attempts to explain away reasons why we shouldn't. I'm trying to be polite here, but 'The Gospels don't say Jesus didn't die' is a low down apologetics trick.What scammer or swindler ever says "Oh, by the way, I'm trying to rip you off". The whole point about a trick to make it look like Jesus died is not to tell everyone he's still alive. As to chronologies, some apologetics try to pretend contradictions were similar but different events.

The equally miserable ''they wrote differently back then' fails as we either credit the style enough to rely on the record, or we don't. And if we can't, then appealing to what the Bible says (or wht it doesn't) means nothing

It comes down in the end to which explanation is more probable, not how denialist a believer can be. The two temple cleansings effort isn't heard now ('better not say anything and hope nobody notices' is evidently the preferred effort now) but no reasonable person would put that ahead of the obvious explanation - John shifted it. It is about the most probable explanation for the data (what's in the gospels) not what far fetched excuses can be invented to keep belief going.

We have seen efforts to have Mary Magdalene not go into the tomb, not hear the angelic explanation and not know what had happened to Jesus. The 'It does not say so in the Gospels' pretext for dismissing conclusions is a hoot when the women splitting up is nowhere hinted at and is even contradicted by Luke.

A real and genuine contradiction is the best explanation, not a tall tale that is actually contradicted by the Bible, but then, the Believers will even ignore and deny what's in the Bible to avoid facing the facts - it is wrong, contradictory and not reliable.

The rational will never buy the apologetics excuses - if they hear both sides; the Believer may be happy with bias confirmation through any excuse, like make something up and ignore what the Bible actually says. But there will be some who care about evidence.

It's going to come down to numbers in the end.

[oldbadger]

I wouldn't trust Luke (nor Acts) as far as I could kick them. Of course he puts on a show of addressing his gospel (and fantastic bio - novel of Paul) to a Patron, who would probably not thank him for targeting a Christian document at him. But no, I reckon it's an act tor a pose and that 'Theophilus' is not some Greek freedman made a million out of selling Garam, but mere'y means 'Theo -philus; lover of God. In other words, his spoof patron is the Christian reader.

You've mentioned this before, and indeed you clearly do have a very strong case about the name Theophilus.

I guess that Gamaliel's speech owed much to Josephus, though oddly he seems to get confused about which revolt cane first, Judas or Theudas. I also see evidence of Josephus in the mechanism for Luke's nativity - the census of Quirinus. He wasn't to know it made no sense when applied to Galilee, still under Herodian rule at the time, never mind it was a a decade after Herod's death. I even suspect he had access to a lost history, as he knows about Pilate chopping up Galileans in the Temple. I suspect this is not what Josephus or Philo tells us about Pilate's misdeeds, but that event has been lost, or removed.

Luke did go very wrong with his dates, how he chose an event in 6CE for the constructed journey of Joseph's and Mary's journey South is just very strange.
I don't think that Pilate butchered Galileans in the Temple, but away from it..... they should have been collecting at the TEmple and paying their TEmple taxes.

[TRANSPONDER]

I wouldn't trust Luke (nor Acts) as far as I could kick them. Of course he puts on a show of addressing his gospel (and fantastic bio - novel of Paul) to a Patron, who would probably not thank him for targeting a Christian document at him. But no, I reckon it's an act tor a pose and that 'Theophilus' is not some Greek freedman made a million out of selling Garam, but mere'y means 'Theo -philus; lover of God. In other words, his spoof patron is the Christian reader.

You've mentioned this before, and indeed you clearly do have a very strong case about the name Theophilus.

I guess that Gamaliel's speech owed much to Josephus, though oddly he seems to get confused about which revolt cane first, Judas or Theudas. I also see evidence of Josephus in the mechanism for Luke's nativity - the census of Quirinus. He wasn't to know it made no sense when applied to Galilee, still under Herodian rule at the time, never mind it was a a decade after Herod's death. I even suspect he had access to a lost history, as he knows about Pilate chopping up Galileans in the Temple. I suspect this is not what Josephus or Philo tells us about Pilate's misdeeds, but that event has been lost, or removed.

Luke did go very wrong with his dates, how he chose an event in 6CE for the constructed journey of Joseph's and Mary's journey South is just very strange.
I don't think that Pilate butchered Galileans in the Temple, but away from it..... they should have been collecting at the TEmple and paying their TEmple taxes.

It is not the strongest matter and doersn't make too much difference, but it does seem unlikely that Luke really was addressing his gospel to a patron, and is just aping the style, of Roman scholars. It just occurs to me that that Theo -philus might be not a real person, but a generic term for Christians.

Gamaliel's speech in Acts is handy as it does fix the 'days of the census' at the time the the census revolt, which Josphus associates with the census of Quirinus, even though there is no place for a census of Quirinus in Herod's time, if one takes Josephus as having Verus' term extended while Archelaus was in Rome.

That would put paid to the effort to reconcile Luke and Matthew. Of course Matthew had Joseph a resident of Judea who moves to Nazareth and Luke has them residents of Nazareth who just do this senseless trip to Bethlehem to register for a tax that wouldn't apply to Galilee anyway.

That is why I make the nativity a test case in contradiction. It lakes real ignorance or denial to suppose the story is true, even though it is a charming festival with iconic postcard scenes that have little to do with the Gospel account.

Thing is, once Matthew and Luke have been 'caught out' fiddling and inventing, then the next worst goes - and the next worst is the resurrection. Real contradictions and fabricated tales is the prime explanation, even if the excuses held water, which they don't.

After that, the whole shebang goes down the tube. The apologetics excuses are not the go - to explanation, even if they worked, which often they don't. The excuses are there only as faithbased denial, and will only work on those who want their bias confirmed, or on the uninformed and unwary. I hope to inform them and make them aware.

Like a magic rick, once one knows how a scam works, they won't be fooled by it again.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #59]

Is it, or is not, fair to say that any stated and/or given natural explanation is still less 'extraordinary' than any stated and/or given supernatural explanation?

And as I have said, any way you slice it you are left with the extraordinary, and it does not satisfy my mind to simply go with what would be the least extraordinary since the least extraordinary does not in any way guarantee you have arrived at the truth of the matter.

Shouldn't a supernatural conclusion be the absolute last resort, when gathering data?

I'm not sure how this would follow? If you can demonstrate how there is no supernatural at all, then I would suggest that we could eliminate any supernatural at all. If you cannot demonstrate there is absolutely no supernatural element ever involved, then I cannot understand how, and why this would be the "last resort"?

And IF so, have ANY/ALL plausible natural explanations been logically and/or rationally completely ruled out?

My friend, I have not ruled out any possibility at all. However, the fact that there are those who are attempting to come up with alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have, sort of demonstrates we have facts, and evidence for the reports we have. The problem is the fact that I have not heard any explanation which would eliminate the extraordinary. Again, no matter the explanation of the events involved, we are left with an event, or events which have had the most significant impact upon the history of the world, which means either way we are left with the extraordinary, and somehow you are under the impression that we can eliminate the supernatural, when you have not demonstrated there is no such thing as the supernatural.

Or is investigating all possible natural explanations even possible?

I highly doubt we can investigate all possible natural explanations. All we can do is to investigate the facts and evidence we have and come to the conclusion that we all believe to be the best. I happen to come to one conclusion, while you seem to come to another. I have no problem with this in the least, and am not insisting that you, nor anyone else who comes to different conclusions is unreasonable. I am fine with whatever conclusions others come up with, until, or unless they come to the conclusion I have no reason to believe as I do if they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

True, but the ancient tale told here in the NT relied upon 'eyewitnesses' for part of it's veracity.

I'm sorry, but it does not. The authors in the NT had no idea about a Bible and had no idea what they were writing would end up in the Bible. Rather, they were writing to particular audiences at the time, and since the intended audience would have known as to whether or not the author would have been an eyewitness, the author would have been unconcerned about identifying himself as an eyewitness. Moreover, I have not suggested that any of the authors would have been eyewitnesses, since I could not demonstrate this to be the case. However, we have very strong evidence that one of the Gospel writers would have been a traveling companion of Paul, which would demonstrate that this author would have been alive at the time of the events he records, along with the fact that he would have known, and spent much time with the original apostles, and would have heard the claims they were making from there very lips.

Hence, I ask, since none of us were there, how many validated eyewitnesses makes for a believable tale such as this one?

Again, you do not need eyewitnesses in order to have facts, and evidence in support of an event. When you have facts, and evidence in support of an event, then we can each look at these facts, and evidence and come to a conclusion based upon the facts, and evidence. Some will come to one conclusion while others will come to another conclusion, and we can talk about, discuss and debate our conclusions, learning from each other, but until, or unless one side or the other can demonstrate their case, it is unreasonable to insist the opposing side has no reason to believe as they do.

Noted. Does this mean this claim requires some level of faith/trust? And if so, how much, and why should we apply these attributes here?

It requires no more faith, and trust than those who hold to an opposing view. In fact, I would argue that since we have facts and evidence to examine, then neither side would require any sort of faith, and or trust, since the conclusions we come to are based upon the facts and evidence we have as opposed to faith. As an example, I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure, and I do not need faith in order to believe he was crucified, dead, and buried. In fact, I do not need faith in order to believe the resurrection, because we have facts, and evidence for these things, and one can base their conclusions upon these facts, and evidence. In other words, one can look at, study, weigh, and examine the facts and evidence involved. What I would need faith to believe, is that these events cause the forgiveness of sin. Because you see, I cannot look at, see, weigh, feel, examine, or study forgiveness, rather forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence for the rest.

I'm not sure I'd go this far.

I am certainly glad to see you state this as an opinion, and I have no problem with the opinion you hold. However, it is a fact that we have four accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, along with the fact that one of the authors goes on to write out another long and detailed letter concerning the actions of the apostles after the death of Jesus, along with the letters of Paul, and all of this is evidence of the events which took place some 2000 years ago, and no matter where you land as far as what you believe occurred, whatever it was that occurred is without a doubt the most significant event in the history of the world, which means either way we are dealing with a most extraordinary tale, and I just do not see how attempting to find what we believe to be the least extraordinary will lead us to the truth of the matter.

The bottom line as far as I am concerned is, I have no problem with the conclusions others come to, and I have no problem with how they have arrive to those conclusions. My problem comes in when there are those who want to insist there would be no reasons for those opposed to come to the conclusions they have, when one cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

[Realworldjack]

Yes. And why do you know Jesus was a real person? Because the facts, and evidence is overwhelming.

But you don't have more than claims that he was/is a God.
G-Mark (without the Christian fiddles and edits) seems like a genuine deposition to me.
But there are no FACTS that are certain, only claims.

You seem to have turned a Faith in to a Certitude, or at least tried to.

My friend, we are not talking about whether Jesus was, or is God. We are talking about a resurrection, and I can assure you we have facts, and evidence concerning the resurrection which is exactly why those opposed continue to come up with alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have. Allow me to explain to you what I am certain about. I am certain there are facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection, and I am certain that those opposed understand this to be the case, which is exactly why they understand they must, and have to come up with alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have. These are just a couple of things I am certain about, and I do not need faith in order to be certain about them. You see, faith is what one would need in order to believe something for which there would be no facts, and evidence to examine. When you have facts, and evidence, then one can base their conclusion upon the facts, and evidence with no faith required.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #65]

It's all there is the gospel of Mark. Jesus sent his friends out in pairs to build a following up, and they failed, so he prepared to take his mission to Jerusalem where he failed again.

There is really no need in continuing to debate the number of followers Jesus may have had. The bottom line is, the events surrounding the life of Jesus has had the most significant impact the world has ever known, and you are making the events even more extraordinary by insisting that his small following were responsible for the greatest impact the world has ever known.

No. We have evidence that he lived!
And you don't have any FACTS at all, just a Faith.

You are simply demonstrating that you have no idea what faith is. Faith would be what one would have to employ when there would be no facts, and evidence to examine, and the fact there are those who understand they must and have to come up with alternative explanations of the facts, and evidence we have, demonstrates there are facts, and evidence.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #66]
If you think that Galilean peasants could speak Greek then I can't help you.
They spoke Eastern Aramaic, that's a different dialect to Hebrew, and we know that from the gospels!

Paul was not a Northern Galilean Jewish peasant! He was a Levite Jew!

Correct! But Paul was speaking to a very large crowd, all of whom were expecting him to speak in one language but when they heard him speak in another language they understood what he was saying, which demonstrates most folks back then used more than one language.

If you think that Galilean peasants could speak Greek then I can't help you.
They spoke Eastern Aramaic, that's a different dialect to Hebrew, and we know that from the gospels!

What I am saying is, we have very good evidence the apostles were fluent in more than one language, and the fact that most of them were fishermen in Galilee lends to the fact that they would have had to speak Greek in order to conduct business.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #68]

True. But nowhere is there any record of his including the words and actions of Jesus in his communications. All he needed were the communion, execution and resurrection.

Let's examine some facts. Jesus is the most well-known name in the history of the world. Paul is responsible for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time, and you would have us believe that Paul only talked about Paul, and had very little to say about Jesus? Again, it is a fact that Paul would have spent a number of years with each Church teaching, and preaching to them. Therefore, his letters were not intended to teach what had already been set forth. Why would he need to do such a thing?

Yes........ Paul's way of life! It was all about Paul.

You forgot to add in, "in Christ Jesus". You know, the one you claim Paul never spoke of?

You don't have any facts! You have a faith!

I know this is frustrating to you, but one does not need faith when there are facts, and evidence involved, and the fact that you, and others opposed understand you must, and have to come up with alternative explanations of the facts and evidence we have, demonstrates there is facts, and evidence involved.

The church is what Paul was building. And the church introduced its own dogma to suit its needs.

The Church did not dream up the Gospel accounts, and the Church did not dream up the second letter addressed to Theophilus, and it did not dream up the life and letters of Paul.

The gospels came after Paul! And certainly Mark's gospel was trying to put the true account.
I can only think that it survived because it was connected to/with Cephas, who we know stood up to Paul.

Let's see if I have this correct? You seem to insist that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, which would mean that Mark would have been written first, and then Mark was written in order to set the record straight after others had corrupted it? Am I correct here?

[Realworldjack]

How in the world one is being clever by pointing out the fact that folks can witness the same event and can and do report some things exactly while having variances, and contradictions is beyond my imagination. The fact remains that this is a fact, and you have yet to deal with this fact. Rather, you continue to want to debate the job of a detective which really has nothing to do with it.

You introduced detection and how detectives think!! Don't blame me!
Luke was not a witness......... he never tried to tell Theophilus that he had been!
Matthew was not a witness...... he needed to plagiarize to complete his gospel.
The authors of G-John were not witnesses, even with their wild claims about this.
The author of G-Mark was a partial witness, because he wrote about experiences which on;y the writer could have perceived.

I do not know why you feel the need to continue to make this point when I have already said that I am not insisting that any of the authors were witnesses. But as demonstrated, there is enough facts and evidence involved that you understand that you must and have to come up with alternative explanations of the facts we have.