2 John/Synoptical contradictions

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Hello Christian!

At 01:33 AM 6/18/99 PDT, you wrote:

>1) John the Baptist is already in prison before Jesus gains disciple Andrew, 

>(Mark 1:14-16)

>but

>2)   John the Baptist is standing with Andrew when Jesus calls Andrew, (John 

>1:35-40)

>

>You can't say Andrew was standing next to John the Baptist, visiting him in 

>prison, at the time that Jesus called Andrew because John 3:22-24 says Jesus 

>already had disciples at the same time that John was baptizing people, even 

>specifying that Jesus had disciples BEFORE the Baptist entered prison.  

>Since Andrew was the FIRST disciple, he is clearly part of Jesus group in 

>John 3:22-24, thus John's Gospel doesn't seperate Andrew from the Baptist 

>with the latter's prison stay.

>

>Because Andrew was the first disciple called, how can Mark 1:14-16 place 

>Andrew's calling during John the Baptist's imprisonment, but John 1:35-40 

>has Andrew literally walking away from John the Baptist at the Jordan River 

>in response to Jesus' calling him?

>

>Did John's imprisonment by Herod consist of being banished to the Jordan 

>River?



CREA
    An excellent bit of research (as they say, the devil is in the
details)!  The only problem with using it polemically lies in the small
matter of Papius' statements about Mark as preserved in Eusebius' __Church
History__ (3.39) where we read:


    "Mark, who was the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that
he remembered, whether of the sayings or the doings of Christ, BUT NOT IN
ORDER [my emphasis, JC], for he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the
Lord;  but afterwards, as I have said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted
his instruction as necessity required, not as though he was making a
compilation of the Lord's oracles [logoi: sayings].  So then Mark made no
mistake when he wrote down thus some things as he remembered them;  for he
concentrated on this alone -- not to omit anything that he had heard, nor
to include false statement among them."


CREA
    So the inerrantists have a convenient "out" here, and can claim that it
is an error to cite Mark in matters of chronology.  Sorry, wish I could be
more helpful, but we all have to play the cards we are dealt, and ignoring
some facts in favor of others is never the wisest strategy.


With Mettaa,

Joseph Crea
<Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net>

• Previous message: 2 John/Synoptical contradictions
• Next message: 2 John/Synoptical contradictions
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]