Entering or Exiting Jericho: a contradiction in the gospels?

[Timotheos]

Is this a contradiction in the gospel accounts?

Luk 18:35  As he drew near to Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging.
Luk 18:36  And hearing a crowd going by, he inquired what this meant.
Luk 18:37  They told him, "Jesus of Nazareth is passing by."
Luk 18:38  And he cried out, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

vs.

Mar 10:46  And they came to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside.
Mar 10:47  And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
Mar 10:48  And many rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"


This is an example of why ipsissima vox is so important for gospel studies.  Info here: http://www.theopedia.com/Ipsissima_vox

 

[Timotheos]

Take your time, B.

I'm surprised no one else has offered some sort of defense for a harmonization.  The options (none good) are 2 separate healings, 1 elongated healing while entering then exiting, 2 different Jerichoes, "near" doesn't mean "near"...

 

[Castor Muscular]

Most likely, the person Luke interviewed remembered the incident wrong. 

Or it could be a monk's lunch. 

 

[prophet]

Take your time, B.

I'm surprised no one else has offered some sort of defense for a harmonization.  The options (none good) are 2 separate healings, 1 elongated healing while entering then exiting, 2 different Jerichoes, "near" doesn't mean "near"...

There is too much detail given, for any question that these are two separate incidents.  The account of heading into Jericho, heading out of Jericho, and going to Jerusalem are included in both passages.  One unnamed blind man is healed, one named blind man is healed, and many others are healed, who aren't mentioned.
  Dig this:  Bartimeus, being blind, would hear everything.  He heard how this man had been healed entreating the 'Son Of David'  , so he used the same words...haven't we all done that (Jabez)?  Jesus also heals Blind Bart, but tells him, instead of 'thy faith hath saved thee', 'thy faith hath made thee whole.'  Maybe his faith was in the prayer, not the person?
  Food for thought.

Anishinabe

 

[Timotheos]

Take your time, B.

I'm surprised no one else has offered some sort of defense for a harmonization.  The options (none good) are 2 separate healings, 1 elongated healing while entering then exiting, 2 different Jerichoes, "near" doesn't mean "near"...

There is too much detail given, for any question that these are two separate incidents.  The account of heading into Jericho, heading out of Jericho, and going to Jerusalem are included in both passages.  One unnamed blind man is healed, one named blind man is healed, and many others are healed, who aren't mentioned.
  Dig this:  Bartimeus, being blind, would hear everything.  He heard how this man had been healed entreating the 'Son Of David'  , so he used the same words...haven't we all done that (Jabez)?  Jesus also heals Blind Bart, but tells him, instead of 'thy faith hath saved thee', 'thy faith hath made thee whole.'  Maybe his faith was in the prayer, not the person?
  Food for thought.

Anishinabe

So you think it might be 2 different blind men w/ the same exact scenario and statements???  I think that is pushing plausibility.  They were clearly borrowing from the same tradition of the same story.  Your scenario is concocting a story that the text does not validate.  It sounds good, but the text, read individually, sees these as the same thing from different perspectives.

 

[tduncan]

I heard it preached that one incident occurred when Jesus entered the town and the other when He left.  I also remember someone writing that there were two Jerichos...one older and the new one (of Jesus' day).

 

[Ransom]

I'm surprised no one else has offered some sort of defense for a harmonization.  The options (none good) are 2 separate healings, 1 elongated healing while entering then exiting, 2 different Jerichoes, "near" doesn't mean "near"...

What about the possibility that Bartimaeus tries to get Jesus' attention on his way into Jericho, but Jesus stopped to heal him on the way out?

Note that unlike Mark, who merely mentions the fact of Jesus' visit to Jericho, Luke actually records what Jesus did and said there (e.g. visit Zaccheus). From a literary perspective, it makes good sense for Luke to conflate the story, whereas for Mark there's nothing in between Jesus' entry and exit.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I heard there was a guy who said to Luke, "My friend was there, and he said Jesus was leaving Jericho when this happened.  Wow.  I mean, you almost had me believing in this Jesus dude, but this gave it away that you made it all up." 

 

[christundivided]

The similarities are too great to say they are two separate events with two different individuals. Mark has several issues when compared to the other Gospel accounts. I have no problem believing that one is wrong and the other right.

In fact, I am convinced that Luke wrote his account of the life of Jesus just for that reason.

Luk 1:1  Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2  Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3  It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

While some of you will hard time accepting this, you can not ignore the words of Luke. He clearly says that MANY have written their own accounts of the life of Christ.

MANY is more than 3 accounts having been written before Luke took to produce an account of the life of Christ. You must then ask yourself, why would Luke seek to write his own account.... IF, he did not have a good reason to do so? I have very little doubt believing that there were many errors in these MANY accounts. Luke mentions in verse 3 that he has "perfect" understanding of all the things he would write about. I believe exactly what Luke wrote. Luke is the most accurate among all the Gospels and details more of a historical retelling of the life and times of Jesus Christ. He was more interested in details than any of the others and does not carry the weight of trying to present Christ as anything other than what He was a the Godman. Matthew has issues in this regard.

 

[tduncan]

Then, if I follow your argument to its conclusion, you would state that Mark's version of events is wrong and that God allowed an error in His words to us?

 

[christundivided]

Then, if I follow your argument to its conclusion, you would state that Mark's version of events is wrong and that God allowed an error in His words to us?

God allows many things. I assume you don't have a problem believing God allows REALLY bad things to happen to His own? I could wish that when God saved us, he placed us in a vacuum to keep us away from ALL harm or "outside" influence. It doesn't work that way. I pray everyday that our Lord protect my family. I beg Him to hear me and trust Him to show His loving kindness toward them.

Regardless, I do not hold to practical inerrancy nor do I believe in error-less preservation. I do believe there are errors in all final products. Never seen one that didn't have one. Most have no real impact on the final product. I do believe that we must be honest in admitting where there is a problem. Often we look so silly trying to establish a elaborate scenario in-which an obvious error really isn't an error. We must be accurate in our dealings with the texts of the Scriptures. I believe in an "inerrant" giving of the Scriptures of the OT. Yet there are many many ways errors can be introduced in any text. When I say "OT".... I lean toward the LXX well knowing it has errors itself. Errors in translation. Errors in transmittance. Errors in preservation. I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I try to earnestly understand each issue as to make an informed decision. I feel I can hold my own with just about anyone. When someone begins to question all the Scriptures because of a few issues here and there, I am the first one to question such logic. There is a multitude of evidence to support the veracity of most all texts we call Scriptures. Where there isn't..... I don't try to create something that's not already there. We have to admit, the work of canonization was really "dirty". Its wasn't a "cut and dried" case of God's divine intervention. Men made decisions that don't have to be my decision. I'm not a person that believes that because there is one error, we must reject all of what is written. No one does this with anything in their life. If they did, then they wouldn't have any thing. No car, no power, no running water, no wife or husband, no children,.....etc.

 

[Timotheos]

Then, if I follow your argument to its conclusion, you would state that Mark's version of events is wrong and that God allowed an error in His words to us?

I prefer to interpret the text rather than the event.  If that is the case, then Mark, read vertically and not harmonizing horizontally, is completely correct in what he presents.  I think that is the genre and nature of "gospel".

 

[Castor Muscular]

I don't get what the big deal is here.  Mark recalled the event as happening when they were leaving Jericho.  The person Luke interviewed recalled the event as when they were drawing near to Jericho.  (Or it was a copyist error.)  Someone got that little detail wrong, but it has virtually no impact on the overall message. 

Does anyone's faith truly hang on harmonizing every single word in the Bible?  If so, I pity you, because there are far worse contradictions than this. 

 

[Timotheos]

Not a copyist error.  And the only matter of faith that rest on this is people's perception of strict inerrancy. 

 

[Timotheos]

My question for you: As an advocate for IV, what conclusions do you make? Is it unnecessary to answer the contradiction? Are attempts to understand the seeming contradictions without value?

Bump

Conclusions: to interpret the text rather than the event and to interpret them vertically rather than horizontally.
Answer contradictions: contradictions only appear when we harmonize.  Instead, we should be thankful for them since they confirm eye-witness testimony not negate it.
Understand without value: not necessarily, but they also don't make or break a doctrine which is becoming more questionable amongst evangelical.

 

[christundivided]

My question for you: As an advocate for IV, what conclusions do you make? Is it unnecessary to answer the contradiction? Are attempts to understand the seeming contradictions without value?

Bump

Conclusions: to interpret the text rather than the event and to interpret them vertically rather than horizontally.
Answer contradictions: contradictions only appear when we harmonize.  Instead, we should be thankful for them since they confirm eye-witness testimony not negate it.
Understand without value: not necessarily, but they also don't make or break a doctrine which is becoming more questionable amongst evangelical.

Who said Mark based his event on eye witness testimony? If you solely interpret the "text", then you have nothing to form such a determination. "Mark" says nothing about any "witnesses". AS a side note, I think it is rather silly to believe the Mark somehow influenced both Luke and Matthew.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]AS a side note, I think it is rather silly to believe the Mark somehow influenced both Luke and Matthew.[/quote]

Why?

 

[FSSL]

Conclusions: to interpret the text rather than the event and to interpret them vertically rather than horizontally.

This "vertical" and "horizontal" talk is a bit fuzzy to me. The discipline of interpretation is to research the grammatical, cultural and historical aspects of the text. What do "vertical" and "horizontal" actually mean in this context? Doesn't it seem counterproductive for Bock to write commentaries while maintaining an IV approach?

Answer contradictions: contradictions only appear when we harmonize.  Instead, we should be thankful for them since they confirm eye-witness testimony not negate it.

Contradictions exist whether you attempt to harmonize or not. The IV advocate cannot simply hand wave them as if they do not exist. Bock, the IV promoter, does not handwave them in his commentaries.

This assumes that those who take the ipsissima verba approach are not thankful for the seeming contradictions. The goal of understanding the synoptics is to understand the different perspectives of the writers through a researched analysis of their perspective.

Understand without value: not necessarily, but they also don't make or break a doctrine which is becoming more questionable amongst evangelical.

Agreed. I don't want to judge motives, but it seems that the IV approach is attempting to soften skepticism among skeptical evangelicals.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]AS a side note, I think it is rather silly to believe the Mark somehow influenced both Luke and Matthew.

Why?
[/quote]

Just because two writings contain similarities, it does not mean that one is based on the other. There is no doubt the life of Christ would find "overlap" in any two person's accounts. The "subject" would dictate the overlap. Not the "editors" writing itself. We do not have enough evidence to know which preceded which. The verses I mention does indicate that MANY had written accounts of the life of Christ before the writing of Luke. Yet, this does not mean that Mark was one of them. Too often various "scholars" are preoccupied with finding some "nuance" in similarities between accounts so as to further their own "unique" view.

 

[christundivided]

Contradictions exist whether you attempt to harmonize or not. The IV advocate cannot simply hand wave them as if they do not exist. Bock, the IV promoter, does not handwave them in his commentaries.

This assumes that those who take the ipsissima verba approach are not thankful for the seeming contradictions. The goal of understanding the synoptics is to understand the different perspectives of the writers through a researched analysis of their perspective.

Different perspectives can not account for the same man being healed of Blindness at two separate events/time. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter if it was before or after. However, there is no "perspective" to be gained from believing both are accurate.