Gospel inconsistencies

Hi Pattimax.

Merely listing the inconsistencies in the Gospels doesn't do justice to any kind of open minded but respectful debate. There are, on one side, believers, and on the other zealous Bible debunkers. A larger dialog is needed. Here's an interesting link to an article titled Fatigue in the Synoptics which presents a scholarly, yet non polemical point of view: Fatigue in the Synoptics, Mark Goodacre

Sunny
 
Namaste Pattimax, could be tricky here...being the Christian forum. Sunny's move is quite honorable, pointing to some other information for study and contemplation.

Many Christians deem the book without error, without inconsistency. In my frame that means unless it is brought up in conversation here, it really shouldn't be discussed here on the Christian forum...the discussion itself would most probably take a turn which could be viewed as undermining Christian beliefs...

Now on the comparative religion, alternatives, or the liberal Christian board I'd feel more comfortable....our walls of our gardens have come down, but decorem indicates this could best be contemplated elsewhere.

Part of the problem for me is that I can accept the differences, and don't take issue with the inconsistencies...others do.
 
Hi wil.

It's an interesting question pattimax has raised. To be honest, I just posted a link because nothing in my experience leads me to believe that we could actually discuss this without a nuclear exchange that would destroy the thread. I can't see any advantage to a Christian believer in trying to proselytize by debating this stuff. You can't debunk debunkers. Of course if one is interested in engaging in a diplomatic exploration of the subject, and the condition of one's faith is such that she or he can enjoy and allow a bit of spirited conversation without personalizing, then we may yet achieve the impossible: a genuine dialog, pleasantly persued.

Sunny
 
The clearest way to explain the phenomenon is to illustrate it. Though he did not use the term 'fatigue', G. M. Styler, in his famous article on Marcan priority, draws attention to a strong example, the Death of John the Baptist (Mark 6.14-29 // Matt 14.1-12). For Mark, Herod is always 'king', four times in the passage (vv. 22, 25, 26 and 27). Matthew apparently corrects this to 'tetrarch'. This is a good move: Herod Antipas was not a king but a petty dependent prince and he is called 'tetrarch' by Josephus (Ant. 17. 188; 18. 102, 109, 122) More is the shame, then, that Matthew lapses into calling Herod 'the king' halfway through the story (Matt 14.9), in agreement with Mark (6.26).
Okay… a tetrarch is not a king.

In Matthew's version of the story, this element has dropped out: now it is Herod and not Herodias who wants him killed (Matt [47] 14.5). When Mark, then, speaks of Herod's 'grief' at the request for John's head, it is coherent and understandable: Herodias demanded something that Herod did not want. But when Matthew in parallel speaks of the king's grief it makes no sense at all. Matthew had told us, after all, that 'Herod wanted to put him to death' (14.5).

Who wanted John the Baptist dead? Herod or his wife.

One of the most striking is the story of The Cleansing of the Leper (Matt 8.1-4 // Mark 1.40-45 // Luke 5.12-16). Here, just after the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), Matthew is returning to triple tradition material. He resets the scene by introducing, as often, 'many crowds' (8.1). This soon leads Matthew into difficulties since, like Mark, he has Jesus' injunction to the leper, 'Tell no-one, but go, show yourself to the priest . . . ' (Matt [48] 8.4 // Mark 1.44). As it stands in Matthew this is inexplicable: a miracle that has been witnessed by many crowds is to be kept secret. The parallel in Mark makes it clear how Matthew has become involved in the contradiction: Mark does not have crowds; the leper meets Jesus privately and the command to silence is coherent. That Matthew is involved in docile reproduction here is all the more plausible given the little stress in his Gospel on the secrecy theme that is so prominent a feature of Mark.

They both agree on no-tell, but Mark is more secretive.

…but it makes no sense in Matthew in which no house has been entered and the most recent scene change was a departure from the synagogue, with many following Jesus, in 12.15.

…

Interesting link. Thanks Sunny! wil, I don’t want to undermine Christian beliefs.
 
Hi Pattimax.

I'm glad you enjoyed the link. I think it's important to point out that the author is engaged in literary critique in order to demonstrate that Mark precedes Matthew chronologically. He's not trying to destroy anyone's faith, he's engaged in an intellectual analysis of the text. He's showing that Matthew worked from Mark's material, not vice versa. Now, those with a vested interest in sticking a dirty thumb in the eye of believers might well seize on this material to suite their aims, but if we can't believe that somehow, somewhere there are people with genuine scholarly intent from whom we can obtain objective, up to date facts which are worth at least pondering, then we may as well believe in some global conspiracy theory. And some do! That doesn't seem like a reasonable stance to me.

So what do you think?

Sunny
 
Sunny C. said:
I think it's important to point out that the author is engaged in literary critique in order to demonstrate that Mark precedes Matthew chronologically. He's not trying to destroy anyone's faith, he's engaged in an intellectual analysis of the text.
Click to expand...

This is a crucial point. The resulting analysis does not infer that the Gospel was faked, or any number of assumptions often made, in finding inconsistency and thereby assuming that the whole text and its content are somehow invalidated. Too often people assume that an 'inconsistency' means the whole thing is invalidated.

Sunny C. said:
He's showing that Matthew worked from Mark's material, not vice versa. Now, those with a vested interest in sticking a dirty thumb in the eye of believers might well seize on this material to suite their aims, but if we can't believe that somehow, somewhere there are people with genuine scholarly intent from whom we can obtain objective, up to date facts which are worth at least pondering, then we may as well believe in some global conspiracy theory. And some do! That doesn't seem like a reasonable stance to me.
Click to expand...

Bravo! Let us not forget that all the scholarly views are 'hypotheses' and not proofs ... it is somewhat simplistic and knee-jerk to jump on any hypothesis as proof of anything. In Catholicism, for example, there is no right answer to 'the Synoptic Problem'.

Let me give an amateur viewpoint.

The 'orthodox' viewpoint is to ask why Matthew, a disciple, would draw on Mark, who was not, for the content of his testimony. Why would someone who was there base his account on that of someone who was not?

Why do the Fathers always give Matthew priority? It was said because of the infancy narrative, but then Luke, who also gives a narrative, is placed third. Why not Matthew, John (who was a witness, but wrote late) Mark and Luke?

There might be a clue in that Papias (125) alludes to a Gospel of Matthew 'written in the Hebrew language' as being the first. Clement of Rome and others give Matthew priority ... in short nobody ever offered any other priority at the time.

My view is that a proto-Matthew existed 'first' it was an oral tradition among the Jewish Christian converts ... Mark wrote his account in Rome, based on the teachings of Peter ... Luke had access to Matthew and Mark (Luke says as much) when composing his account.

Subsequent copyists 'folded in' other testimonies, so that Matthew, having included elements from the Markan testimony, treats Peter more even-handedly to offset some of the negative aspects of Mark.

'Q' never existed as a document, there is no reference to it whatsoever in antiquity ... but as an oral tradition ... the Sayings of the Lord ... thus the argument for Q is actually an argument for Tradition and Scripture in unity (as opposed to sola scriptura).

What is impossible to trace is the passage from oral tradition to written text, fro Tradition to Scripture; what materials the scribe had to hand, and revisions to the text in light of a fuller understanding of the tradition ... something alluded to in Matthew.

Thomas
 

Chronologically, Mark was the first gospel written. It was written for a Christian audience. Matthew’s was written for a Jewish audience. All four of the gospels had a different perspective on the life of Jesus. Matthews's focus was on the fulfillment of OT prophecy. Mark's was that glory comes through life as a suffering servant. I was only curious about the different take on events.


A global conspiracy theory? No, I am not quite sure what you are what you’re asking... (wil, is this what you were talking about?)
 
I, for one, do not mind discussing issues like this and see no reason to move the thread. If one is truly honest as a Christian, and fully convinced of the inspiration of the scriptures, then one should not fear or be offended when challeneges like this are presented. I take the Gospel for what they are, various accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Of course there will be differences in the witnesses, much like a crime scene or accident will have different accounts of what was seen and heard. Even Luke in the beginning of his gospel points to the fact that "many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us." So whatever information Luke has gleaned from his sources are going to reflect in his gospel.

As far as gospel fatigue, in reading the article objectively, I find some of the explanations, while initially thought provoking, a little too gnat straining. Tetrarch means one of four rulers, such so after the death of Herod the Great (who was called a king in Matthew 2), the provinces were divided up between Herod sons (Herod Antipas being one of them) who ruled over them. I see no descrepancy in calling Herod Antipas a "king" since he was a son of a king who took over after his father's death. This is a technical non-issue, IMO. Matthew may have called Herod Antipas a tetrach by introduction to avoid confusion with his aforementioned father. Then once established, resumed to call him king (or even translated prince, according to Strongs). Mark, on the other hand, perhaps because he didn't include the nativity story sought no distinction in the passing of kingship to the son for continuity purposes. There is no reason not to call Herod Antipas king.

As far as the case with John the Baptist, the author of the article claims that in Matthew's account that Herod wanted the Baptist dead, but in Mark's gospel, had Herodias wanting John dead. But cannot both have wanted him dead? The author seems to think in either/or terms. Even if Herod wanted him dead, because John told him that he was in an unlawful marriage, that doesn't mean that he didn't admire the man. Besides, he didn't wish to kill John because of the multitudes. Herod's sorrow could have been the result of fact that he was in that dilemma between keeping his oath for integrity's sake and having to contend with those who believed John to be a prophet.

I'm not going to exhaust all the points made in the article. But I do think that sometimes we can find alternate explanations for what we read in the gospels that are not necessarily attributed to such things as fatigue. I will address one other other issue to illustrate my point.

In the feeding of the five thousand, the author claims that in Lukes gospel, according to Luke 9:12, the people were in Bethsaida, and thus not in the wilderness, and should have access to provisions. But Luke 9:10 does not say that they were in Bethsaida, but in a desert place belonging to Bethsaida, which suggests that that might have been some distance off from the actual city. I see no inconsistency with the Marcian account.

I'm not suggesting that Matthew and Luke didn't draw from Mark or any other source, but it seems to me that with a little deductive reasoning, some of these claims of fatigue can be better explained.
 
pattimax said:
Chronologically, Mark was the first gospel written. It was written for a Christian audience. Matthew’s was written for a Jewish audience. All four of the gospels had a different perspective on the life of Jesus. Matthews's focus was on the fulfillment of OT prophecy. Mark's was that glory comes through life as a suffering servant. I was only curious about the different take on events.


A global conspiracy theory? No, I am not quite sure what you are what you’re asking... (wil, is this what you were talking about?)
Click to expand...

I don't suppose it would be prudent to point out that the early Christian audience were primarily Jews. There seems to be a recurring theme in Mark in that many of the teachings, parables, and revelations are shrouded in secrecy, which does not suggest that it is open to every Jew, much less Gentiles. Besides tradition has Mark as a disciple of Peter, whom Paul states was sent to the Jews, and therefore Mark's audience would Jewish.
 
Namaste all...and kudos for everyone being willing to explore...my bad for thinking we weren't upto that task!

This one might be considered out of Gospel....how do we reconcile whether Judas hanged himself or his guts spilled out on the land he bought? Gospels vs. Acts.
 
Dondi said:
I don't suppose it would be prudent to point out that the early Christian audience were primarily Jews. There seems to be a recurring theme in Mark in that many of the teachings, parables, and revelations are shrouded in secrecy, which does not suggest that it is open to every Jew, much less Gentiles. Besides tradition has Mark as a disciple of Peter, whom Paul states was sent to the Jews, and therefore Mark's audience would Jewish.
Click to expand...

Please remember that I am fairly new to this, so please cut me slack when I say something out of ignorance. I thought Mark was written for the Greeks.
 
wil said:
Namaste all...and kudos for everyone being willing to explore...my bad for thinking we weren't upto that task!

This one might be considered out of Gospel....how do we reconcile whether Judas hanged himself or his guts spilled out on the land he bought? Gospels vs. Acts.
Click to expand...

I learned that Acts was pretty much Luke part 2.
 
wil said:
...how do we reconcile whether Judas hanged himself or his guts spilled out on the land he bought? Gospels vs. Acts.
Click to expand...

Uh...he hanged himself, then the rope broke and his guts spilled out?
 
pattimax said:
Please remember that I am fairly new to this, so please cut me slack when I say something out of ignorance. I thought Mark was written for the Greeks.
Click to expand...

Hi Pattimax –

No slack required ... as you started this, and the thread is going well, I think, so good for you!

Our 'best bet' with Mark was that he was a disciple of Paul who stayed with Peter in Rome, and wrote down Peter's testimony when Peter was in prison. His audience would therefore be Roman Christians, but we have no idea of the Jewish numbers particularly. We do assume that Peter preached in the Synagogue, as this was the common practice until forbidden by the Jews after the council of Jamnia (c80-100).

Meanwhile ...

Matthew was preaching in Judea, and is placed close to the Syrian border. His audience was primarily Jewish, and the polemic element, Jesus' argument with the Pharisees was later strengthened, as resistance by the Jewish authorities grew.

Meanwhile ...

Luke, like Mark a disciple of Paul, remained with Paul and wrote two accounts, the Gospel as he wished to communicate it to a Greek audience. Luke's Greek is educated and scholarly (tradition holds Luke was a doctor) whereas Mark's was more the common argot.

Tradition, archeology and sociology holds that your average person might well have been conversant in Aramaic, Greek and Latin. This was not education, but the language of the street. Sociologists point to developed writing skills actually hinder the learning of languages (too much attention to detail, I think), whilst in the poorest quarters of Eastern Europe are found ill-educated street kids who are generally multi-lingual when exposed to different languages.

Interestingly, an Arabic scholar has pointed out that the remotest Bedouin tribes speak the purest classical Arabic (and similarly old Yorkshire dialect still utilises 'thee' and 'thou' correctly).

Meanwhile ...

It is believed that Mark's gospel was 'first' and that Matthew is a synthesis of Mark and another source, usually posited 'Q'. I prefer to think of Matthew as a synthesis of Mark and the prior Matthaen Hebrew text, because:
1 Matthew was considered prior in prestige from the very beginning, hence tradition places it first.
2 We have no mention of what Q might be by any traditional commentary.
3 There is a mention of a Hebrew Matthew.

Bearing in mind that:
1 We have no attribution for Q.
2 We can attribute the Q material to Matthew.

and ...

1 "The Gospel according to Mark" was a textual addition a later date, to distinguish between "my son Mark" as spoken of by Peter (1 Peter 5:13) and John Mark mentioned in Acts and the Epistles.
2 Although both Matthew and Luke contain the most part of Mark's gospel, there are striking omissions from the texts that have been copied (striking in the sense that the precise words are missing in both), so scholars assume Matthew and Luke worked from an early version of Mark ('Proto Mark') and not the one we have today.

So

We believe there was a Matthew, but we no longer have it, and
We know there was a Mark which we no longer have, either!
We believe Luke must have had Proto-Mark and perhaps Proto-Matthew, and probably other materials.

Remember that the authors are addressing specific audiences, and later scribes/editors/redactors would have brought out other materials that better reflected the issues of the day. The Christian-Jewish tension probably developed in the transmission of Matthew; Mark focussed on 'the Messianic Secret', Luke talks to the Gentile world and a growing Church.

Meanwhile ...

John, in Ephesus, was bracing up to a rebuttal of one Cerinthus, who was preaching a (proto-gnostic) doctrine of Christian dualism.

Fascinating stuff!

Thomas
 
Four Gospels (as accepted by the counsel), and the six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Same story, seen and heard through different eyes, meant to reach specific groups, but all linked by an inalianable truth. None counter the message and sacrifice of Jesus, they only spell out the details in a slightly different manner.

If the Apocryphal Gospels are studied, we find the same story, with the same message.

To me, the similarities far outway any differences, or inconsitencies.

v/r

Joshua
 
Quahom1 said:
Four Gospels (as accepted by the counsel), and the six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Same story, seen and heard through different eyes, meant to reach specific groups, but all linked by an inalianable truth. None counter the message and sacrifice of Jesus, they only spell out the details in a slightly different manner.

If the Apocryphal Gospels are studied, we find the same story, with the same message.

To me, the similarities far outway any differences, or inconsitencies.

v/r Joshua
Click to expand...



I agree. I don't think that the message is damaged in the process of textual analysis. I do think that a lot of detail and color emerges when careful textual and historical analysis are combined. For example, one can see the evolution of the sociological effects of the destruction of the temple in 70 CE on the emerging Christian sect by comparing the Gospel texts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top