Are the four gospels consistent ?

[polonius]

There are four gospels supposedly named after their authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

They are supposed to have been dictated by God. Do they contain any contradictions? If so, does this show that God contradicts himself?

[JehovahsWitness]

I was of course refering to a contradiction in the above passages; I was not offering a comprehensive definition of the word contradiction. I thought that much was evident since I was commenting on the chart posted just above my comment, but I should perhaps have stipulated that in said comment (See post #32 below).



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Actually, they don't present them in a different order...

Matthew and Luke present the same events in a different order.




A contradiction in the scenerio above, can only be established if it can be proven that both writers were presenting ALL the events in chronological order which cannot be done from the gospel narratives ("then" "next" etc indicates the ordering not chronology).

A specific statement of chronology, ordinal numerology or possibly the specific time of each event occurred, would be needed to be dogmatic on the question of establishing a contradiction in the passages refered to.
Presenting something (or someone first) doesn't impose the thing happened first. In short, unless the writers say the events happened in the precise order written (which they do not) there is no contradiction, just unverifiable assumption.



JW

[Difflugia]

("then" "next" etc indicates the ordering not chronology)

In short, unless the writers say the events happened in the precise order written (which they do not) there is no contradiction, just unverifiable assumption.

These two statements encapsulate the apologist's dilemma. In order to harmonize such disparate accounts, one must pretend that language itself is meaningless. One of the most fundamental doctrinal distinctions to which Jehovah's Witnesses cling hinges on the presence or absence of a definite article in a single verse, but you'll soberly write that "next" doesn't mean "next?"

This whole exercise is like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but instead of position and velocity, the conflict is between truth and meaning. Apologists claim that the Bible is both true and meaningful and that they can know both, but when it comes down to it, they can only know that it's true when they jettison meaning. In order to know what the text means, they must reverse themselves and treat language in the very way that you have just called "unverifiable assumption." It seems that the larger contradiction isn't between any two piddling Bible verses, but between truth on the one hand and understanding on the other.

The Bible's true and we can say that with absolute certainty. What that truth is about, though, is anyone's guess (or "unverifiable assumption," as it were).

[Miles]

I was of course refering to a contradiction in the above passages; I was not offering a comprehensive definition of the word contradiction. I thought that much was evident since I was commenting on the chart posted just above my comment, but I should perhaps have stipulated that in said comment (See post #32 below).

Yes, I know, but it still doesn't absolve the writer(s) of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other, and the chart merely makes the contradiction that much clearer. The "Different order" is where the contradiction lies. They both can't be correct. It's what is said that's at the crux of the issue, not the possibility of something else.

Actually, they don't present them in a different order...

Matthew and Luke present the same events in a different order.




A contradiction in the scenerio above, can only be established if it can be proven that both writers were presenting ALL the events in chronological order which cannot be done from the gospel narratives ("then" "next" etc indicates the ordering not chronology).

And just what do you think "chronlogy" means?

Here:

chro·nol·o·gy
/krəˈnäləjē/
noun
noun: chronology; plural noun: chronologies

the arrangement of events or dates in the order of their occurrence.
"the novel abandons the conventions of normal chronology"
a document displaying an arrangement of events in order of their occurrence.

A specific statement of chronology, ordinal numerology or possibly the specific time of each event occurred, would be needed to be dogmatic on the question of establishing a contradiction in the passages refered to.
Presenting something (or someone first) doesn't impose the thing happened first. In short, unless the writers say the events happened in the precise order written (which they do not) there is no contradiction, just unverifiable assumption.

So, what am I telling a reader If I say, " I put on my shoe and then I tied it"? AND, what can we conclude from it? That I put on my shoe before I tied it OR that maybe I tied my shoe and then put it on? Which is no different than

Matthew 4: 4-5
"3 The devil came to tempt him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these rocks to become bread.”

4 Jesus answered him, “The Scriptures say,

‘It is not just bread that keeps people alive.
Their lives depend on what God says.’”

5 Then the devil led Jesus to the holy city of Jerusalem and put him on a high place at the edge of the Temple area."


Does the reader really require that I say "FIRST I put on my shoe. SECONDLY I tied it" before grasping the order in which I did these two things ?

Of course not, your special pleading here is without foundation, just as Matthew doesn't have to say "FIRST The devil came to tempt him and said . . . AND SECONDLY the devil led Jesus to the holy city of Jerusalem . . . .'

Take Matthew 26: 1-16

1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,

2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,

4 And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.

5 But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

6 ¶ Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,

7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.

8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?

9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.

11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.

13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

14 ¶ Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,

15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.

Would you feel more secure in the chronology (order) of these events if Matthew 26 said

1 FIRST it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,

2 SECONDLY Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

3 THIRDLY Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,

4 FOURTHLY And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.

5 FIFTHLY But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

6 SIXTHLY Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,

7 SEVENTHLY There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.

8 EIGHTLY But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?

9 NINETHLY For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

10 TENTHLY When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.

11 ELEVENTHLY For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

12 TWELVETHLY For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.

13THIRTEENTHLY Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

14 FOURTEENTHLY Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,

15 FIFTEENTHLY And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

16 SIXTEENTHLY And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.


Perhaps you would, but if not why not? It's what you're requiring Mathew 4 and Luke 4 to present before you accept what they say is valid.

.

[JehovahsWitness]

In order to harmonize such disparate accounts, one must pretend that language itself is meaningless.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... tradiction

I'm sure some people do, but I personally do not do so and neither does anything published by the Watchtower Society. If you are accusing me of departing from the accepted meaning of any word you have but to explain what said departure is with the direct quote included if you be so kind . If you claim either writer states his account is presented in chronological order then you have but to point out that affirmation in the text. If you believe that any of the conjunctions in the text imposes the aforementioned conclusion you have but to present a case.

Otherwise your assumptions have been duly noted. Have a most excellent evening,


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[DavidLeon]

The NWT has a footnote at Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:12 that reads: "Or, "On the day before." This rendering of the Gr. word πρῶτος (pro′tos) followed by the genitive case of the next word agrees with the sense and rendering of a like construction in Joh 1:15, 30, namely, "he existed before [pro′tos] me." According to LS, p. 1535, col. 1, "πρῶτος is sts. [sometimes] used where we should expect πρότερος [pro′te·ros].""

See Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (Revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, p. 1535)

This is an extraordinarily weak argument. For the tl;dr crowd, it boils down to two things:

• Matthew uses a form of πρῶτος twenty-four times aside from in 26:17 and it always means "first." When he wants to mean "before," he uses different words.
• The three times that John uses πρῶτος to mean "before" in wordplay. Each time, he specifically refers to Jesus and each time and the wording appears intentionally odd to make the point that Jesus both came before in time and is foremost among others in the sense of primacy.

Anyone that cares enough to look up the references and check my explanation can do so in free resources:
An older edition of Liddel and Scott available at Google Books includes substantially the same observation in the entry for πρότερος.

A Greek concordance or decent Bible software will list uses of Greek words by root or lexeme. Here is every verse in Matthew that uses a form of πρῶτος

• 5:24; 6:33; 7:5; 8:21; 10:2; 12:29; 12:45; 13:30; 17:10; 17:27; 19:30; 19:30; 20:8; 20:10; 20:16; 20:16; 20:27; 21:28; 21:31; 21:36; 22:25; 22:38; 23:26; 26:17; 27:64

Verses in John (bold items are where πρῶτος means before or something similar):

• 1:15; 1:30; 1:41; 2:10; 7:51; 8:7; 10:40; 12:16; 15:18; 18:13; 19:32; 19:39; 20:4; 20:8

Unique Bible App is quirky, but free. If you have a Strong's, πρῶτος is number 4413.

The words involved in the discussion are πρότερος and πρῶτος. Πρότερος means before. Πρῶτος is the superlative of πρότερος (like best is the superlative of good), so it means first in the sense of being "most before" or "foremost." The apologetic argument made by the Watch Tower Society is that since πρῶτος has been used in Greek literature a handful of times to mean "before," it's reasonable to think that that's what Matthew means in 26:17. As I said, Matthew liked the word πρῶτος enough to have used it more than twenty times and always meant first. Whenever he actually meant before, he used πρό (five times) or πρὶν (three times).

John's use of πρῶτος in 1:15, 1:30, and 15:18 to mean "before" are all three in situations comparing Jesus with someone else (either John the Baptist or plural "you") in a sort of word play that is common for John. John apparently enjoyed using linguistic ambiguity for emphasis or irony in his characters' dialogues. John 1:15 and 1:30 have John the Baptist saying that Jesus came "πρῶτος" or "most before" himself. John 15:18 has Jesus telling the disciples (and readers) that if they feel like the world hates them, they must remember that it hated Jesus "most before" it did them.

The Watch Tower Society's argument is essentially that in these three verses, John's use of πρῶτος to mean "before" is common and ordinary enough that Matthew would have used it the same way without expecting to be misunderstood. The biggest problem with that is that John has a habit of intentionally wording dialog in a strange way. The context of John 1 already includes statements of Jesus having existence "in the beginning." He was indeed "most before," as the word means in its most literal sense, John the Baptist. Similar Johannine wordplay appears in dialog in 3:3 (ἄνωθεν can mean either "again" or "from above"), 9:30 (οἴδατε can mean either "you know" or "you see"), and 4:10-11 ("living water" meaning both spring water and water that confers everlasting life).

As a sidenote, several of these Johannine plays on words are a problem for apologists because the ambiguities often affect Greek in ways that they wouldn't an "original" conversation in Aramaic. The apologetic argument is generally that John didn't have to mean the phrases as double entendres, but there are enough of them that the odds of them all being unintentional is vanishingly small.

Excellent work, Difflugia, as always. I'm sorry I don't have time lately to research those particular passages, but I think you are probably right. It seemed odd to me as well. I can't say one way or another if I agree with your reasoning because I don't have time to look into it, but just on the face of it it (the Bible verses in question) just don't seem right.

[Difflugia]

I'm sure some people do, but I personally do not do so and neither does anything published by the Watchtower Society. If you are accusing me of departing from the accepted meaning of any word you have but to explain what said departure is with the direct quote included if you be so kind.

I did in the post you responded to, but here it is again:

("then" "next" etc indicates the ordering not chronology)

Τότε is the word translated as "then" in Matthew 4:1, 5, 10, and 11. It is specifically temporal, always referring to time rather than something like position in a list, as I think you're asserting. Instead of "then," it could be rendered "at this time" or "at that time" whenever it's used. Matthew's use of "then" is, contrary to your assertion, explicitly and unambiguously chronological.

If you claim either writer states his account is presented in chronological order then you have but to point out that affirmation in the text. If you believe that any of the conjunctions in the text imposes the aforementioned conclusion you have but to present a case.

Just so we're all clear, your assertion was made without any sort of support in the first place. You have simply declared that a collection of events that has all appearance of chronological sequence, is nevertheless nonsequential. Despite your assertion being counterintuitive, you haven't even done for yourself what you suggest that I "have but to" do.

I will, anyway.

Aside from Matthew's use of a word that's strictly chronological, the overall convention is a peculiarly Semitic one of connecting a sequence of events with the Hebrew equivalent of "and." Mark does so slavishly, beginning nearly every sentence with καὶ ("and"). As noted, Matthew has a fondness for "then" in place of "and," but if anything, that just makes the chronological aspect of the convention that much more explicit. Luke switches up the conjunctions a bit more than Mark, but it's clear that he was honoring the same convention (especially if you're compare to someone like Josephus, whose Greek is more educated and shows less Semitic influence). Note that in Luke 4:1-13, only three verses don't start with a conjunction (2, 7, and 10; also, the conjunction δὲ can't be the first word in a sentence, so I counted verses where it's the second word as beginning with a conjunction). Compare this with the Old Testament. See if you can find a series of events connected by "and" that isn't sequential. If any of the authors of the Synoptics appears to be following this Semitic convention, but isn't really, then they are writing in a way that their audience would misunderstand. They would be "departing from the accepted meaning" that their audiences would expect.

[JehovahsWitness]

If you are accusing me of departing from the accepted meaning of any word you have but to explain what said departure is with the direct quote included if you be so kind .

("then" "next" etc indicates the ordering not chronology)

Τότε is the word translated as "then" in Matthew 4:1, 5, 10, and 11. It is specifically temporal, always referring to time rather than something like position in a list, as I think you're asserting.

How does any of that equate to me not using words correctly?

In order to harmonize such disparate accounts, one must pretend that language itself is meaningless.

I did not say "then" does not refer to time ( is not "temporal") ? "Next" / "then" / "after" indicate order in relation to an earlier (temporal) event. (A) then -> (B) then -->(C) Obvioulsly (A) happened before in time to (B)

My words were : "then" "next" etc indicates the ordering not chronology

CHRONOLOGICAL
: of, relating to, or arranged in or according to the order OF TIME (crono means time)

CHRONOLOGY
1: the science that deals with measuring time by regular divisions and that assigns to events their proper dates

If I say I got up then" I had a shower, ate my breakfast and left for work ".. do you know what time any of that happened? All you know is that I showered, ate my breakfast and left for work AFTER I got out of bed.



As for what I am asserting regarding the passages in question if you are not sure you have but to ask.




JW

[JehovahsWitness]

... See if you can find a series of events connected by "and" that isn't sequential.

Excellent, you've proved you can count.

"Sequential" refers to order and I pointed out that both Matthew and Luke presented the same events in a different ORDER, (sequence). Your post, if anything proves my point but doesn't really address what I wrote.



I wrote ...

If you believe that any of the conjunctions in the text imposes the aforementioned conclusion [ie that the events in both narratives must have been listed chronologically in order of occurance] you have but to present a case.

Are you suggesting Luke's καὶ (whether copulative (linking) or cumulative (addition)) imposes a particular chronological order? If so why?

DOES "AND" RENDER THESE TWO REPORTS CONTRADICTORY BECAUSE THE ORDER IS DIFFERENT ?

Sarah ate: an apple and a sandwich, and a doughnut and some bacon
Sarah ate: some bacon and an apple and a sandwich and a doughnut

While it is Matthew (tote/Palin) who gives most away (and leads many to believe it is his list which may well be in chronological order), Lukes choice of a conjunction helps us little in the way of the order of occurrence. I like a good WORD STUDY as much as anyone but the bottom line is there is simply not enough in the text to prove a contradiction rather than a simple difference in editorial choices.










JW

[brunumb]

"Sequential" refers to order and I pointed out that both Matthew and Luke presented the same events in a different ORDER, (sequence).

Presenting the individual events in a different order makes them refer to a different occasion.

If I say I got up then" I had a shower, ate my breakfast and left for work ".. do you know what time any of that happened? All you know is that I showered, ate my breakfast and left for work AFTER I got out of bed.

But, when you say "I got up then I left for work, ate my breakfast and had a shower" you are clearly describing a different event from the one above.