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]

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.

Each apparent (or real) contradiction should be looked at. On this one, I don't think it that strange. There is the logical possibility that Jesus did it twice, although I don't think that's probably what happened. 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.

[oldbadger]

Each apparent (or real) contradiction should be looked at.

Well, yes. That's what I would like to do here, on this thread.

On this one, I don't think it that strange. There is the logical possibility that Jesus did it twice, although I don't think that's probably what happened.

If you really think it is a strange variation, yet still a logical possibility, then that very idea is a contadiction in itself, surely?

These writings aren't modern historical texts, as concerned with chronology as we are today.

The gospel of Mark is definitely a clear account about the mission of Jesus, and so it makes very good history, even with the many additions popped in later (such as in verse 1 of chapter 1..... 'son of God', and the last several verses in chapter 16.)

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.

Shifting events around and altering their content is a definite kind of fibbing, don't you think?

For example: In John's gospel Jesus didn't mirror the many things that he did in Mark's gospel. The visit to the Temple on Palm Sunday where Jesus and his friends went 'sightseeing' as we would call it today, or the wrecking of the money exchange and taking down of the sacrificial sellers' stalls and the picketing of the Temple on the Monday, or the great debate with the authorities when he returned on the Tuesday, etc........ Not the same account at all, in any way. I don't think that the authors of G-John wanted to focus upon any of that.

[benchwarmer]

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.

Interesting, I'm not sure I've quite heard this specific apologetic before. What exactly constitutes "a little"?

If ordering of events around has little impact, then perhaps the sightings of Jesus after His death were really just mis-ordered sightings from before His death? You can't have your cake and eat it too. In fact, people seeing Jesus wandering around and getting the date wrong seems more plausible then people supposedly seeing Him wandering around after He died.

I guess thanks are in order. You've just added another tool to the "skeptics guide to the Bible". => Ordering of events may not be in actual order and placed the way they are simply for thematic effect according to Christian apologists.

Cool!

[POI]

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

I would agree. The next question is why?

[The Tanager]

On this one, I don't think it that strange. There is the logical possibility that Jesus did it twice, although I don't think that's probably what happened.

If you really think it is a strange variation, yet still a logical possibility, then that very idea is a contadiction in itself, surely?

Depends on what someone would mean by strange, but I said I don’t think it is a strange variation.

The gospel of Mark is definitely a clear account about the mission of Jesus, and so it makes very good history, even with the many additions popped in later (such as in verse 1 of chapter 1..... 'son of God', and the last several verses in chapter 16.)

Mark’s account is still not modern historical genre.

Shifting events around and altering their content is a definite kind of fibbing, don't you think?

No, it’s not since it was accepted practice and understood by the culture.

For example: In John's gospel Jesus didn't mirror the many things that he did in Mark's gospel. The visit to the Temple on Palm Sunday where Jesus and his friends went 'sightseeing' as we would call it today, or the wrecking of the money exchange and taking down of the sacrificial sellers' stalls and the picketing of the Temple on the Monday, or the great debate with the authorities when he returned on the Tuesday, etc........ Not the same account at all, in any way. I don't think that the authors of G-John wanted to focus upon any of that.

They are the same account in some ways (they share stories, they both paint Jesus as Messiah, etc.), but, yes, they don’t focus on the same things or present them in the same exact way. I don’t see any problem with that.

[oldbadger]

Mark’s account is still not modern historical genre.

Mark's account is a deposition. A written Statement of claimed facts.
So is Luke's, of course, but he really did tell fibs in his!

No, it’s not since it was accepted practice and understood by the culture.

Any deceptions or lies told back then, just as now, are deceptions and lies.

They are the same account in some ways (they share stories, they both paint Jesus as Messiah, etc.), but, yes, they don’t focus on the same things or present them in the same exact way. I don’t see any problem with that.

No, they are not. They tell completely different stories and in the case of G-John the account of that last week can only be described (by me) as a deception, because the actions of Jesus in the first days of that last week have been removed so the the authors could build the pretense that the Temple authorities wanted him killed for something else completely.

And in many cases it worked, because a lot of Christians don't pay much attention to the sacking and picketing that took place in the Temple.

[The Tanager]

Interesting, I'm not sure I've quite heard this specific apologetic before. What exactly constitutes "a little"?

If ordering of events around has little impact, then perhaps the sightings of Jesus after His death were really just mis-ordered sightings from before His death? You can't have your cake and eat it too. In fact, people seeing Jesus wandering around and getting the date wrong seems more plausible then people supposedly seeing Him wandering around after He died.

I guess thanks are in order. You've just added another tool to the "skeptics guide to the Bible". => Ordering of events may not be in actual order and placed the way they are simply for thematic effect according to Christian apologists.

Cool!

Not just according to Christian apologists, but historians who know the genres of the day. Yes, the ancients weren’t concerned with strict chronology like modern historical texts are. It is not rational to then jump to any ordering can be assumed to be off. Obviously, sightings of a resurrected Jesus would have to come after Jesus was resurrected. That’s clear logic. That doesn't mean it happened, but obviously people aren't going to have resurrection sightings before the resurrection happened. The placing of something like the cleansing of the temple isn't as chronologically dependent and so can be moved around to fit a thematic element.

[The Tanager]

Mark's account is a deposition. A written Statement of claimed facts.
So is Luke's, of course, but he really did tell fibs in his!

No scholar views the gospels as a deposition.

Any deceptions or lies told back then, just as now, are deceptions and lies.

They aren’t lies because they aren’t meant to be taken as chronological truths. This was how ancient texts like this worked. No one had a problem with it.

No, they are not. They tell completely different stories and in the case of G-John the account of that last week can only be described (by me) as a deception, because the actions of Jesus in the first days of that last week have been removed so the the authors could build the pretense that the Temple authorities wanted him killed for something else completely.

And in many cases it worked, because a lot of Christians don't pay much attention to the sacking and picketing that took place in the Temple.

You are going to have to present a much stronger case with support. They aren’t “completely” different. They aren’t clear deceptions. Present a case, not just a claim.

[benchwarmer]

Interesting, I'm not sure I've quite heard this specific apologetic before. What exactly constitutes "a little"?

If ordering of events around has little impact, then perhaps the sightings of Jesus after His death were really just mis-ordered sightings from before His death? You can't have your cake and eat it too. In fact, people seeing Jesus wandering around and getting the date wrong seems more plausible then people supposedly seeing Him wandering around after He died.

I guess thanks are in order. You've just added another tool to the "skeptics guide to the Bible". => Ordering of events may not be in actual order and placed the way they are simply for thematic effect according to Christian apologists.

Cool!

Not just according to Christian apologists, but historians who know the genres of the day. Yes, the ancients weren’t concerned with strict chronology like modern historical texts are. It is not rational to then jump to any ordering can be assumed to be off.

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?

Obviously, sightings of a resurrected Jesus would have to come after Jesus was resurrected. That’s clear logic.

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

That doesn't mean it happened, but obviously people aren't going to have resurrection sightings before the resurrection happened.

What exactly is a 'resurrection sighting'?

I'm not saying you are completely wrong here, but it would help if you provided some evidence for your claim. i.e. this scripture is clearly pre/post death because ... Keep in mind that whatever metric you use to support these timeline settings, I may equally use for the contradictory ones. Sounds like we are about to take a detour into the weeds about when someone claims something happened at a given time, it does/doesn't mean what it says.

The placing of something like the cleansing of the temple isn't as chronologically dependent and so can be moved around to fit a thematic element.

What thematic element do you have in mind? Can't we consider the entire concept of a dying and rising god a theme? Are we also about to debate what is thematic and what isn't? I feel it coming on