Attn: harmonizers

[kaufmannphillips]

A query for bible harmonizers...

In Mark 11, Jesus makes the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. On the following day, he curses the fig tree, and his disciples hear it. Then Jesus clears the temple. On the third day, they see the fig tree withered away. Peter remarks on this, and Jesus teaches a lesson on faith.

In Matthew 21, Jesus clears the temple on the same day as the triumphal entry. On the second day, he curses the fig tree, which withers promptly. The disciples remark on this prompt result, and Jesus teaches rather the same lesson on faith.

In Luke 19, Jesus clears the temple on the same day as the triumphal entry. (The fig tree is not mentioned.)

Of course, in John 2, Jesus clears the temple in a different year altogether.

How should a harmonizer sort through the chronology here?

[TK]

very carefully?

TK

[steve]

The chronology often seems muddled for various series of events in the gospels. Despite all of our attempts, some solutions may permanently evade us.

I tend to accept Mark's chronology, in this case, because it is more detailed and has always made sense to me. The time references in Mark 11:11f and 19f appear to reveal Mark's greater interest in giving more-detailed chronological information.

Matthew and Luke do not actually disagree with Mark about the chronology of the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, and the lesson given when the fig tree was found withered. It is true that, where Mark mentions the passage of successive days, Matthew and Luke tend to simply use the less-specific "then" (Matt.21:12/ Luke 19:45) and "when the disciples saw it..." (21:20). Matthew and Luke do not say that these things all happened on the same day, but neither do they tell us otherwise. For this, we need the more detailed account of Mark.

That Matthew compresses the story of the fig tree—that is, he mentions the sequel at the same time as reporting the cursing, though these two things happened on successive days—is not hard to deduce. In doing so, he saves the compressed version to be related as a whole at the time of the disciples' discovery of the dead tree. That is, Matthew does not mention the fig tree on the occasion of Jesus' entry to Jerusalem, though that is when Jesus cursed it. Matthew, wishing to focus on the lesson Jesus taught the disciples when they found it withered, the next day, chooses to tell the compressed pericope in that chronological position.

John, I have always believed, relates a different cleansing of the temple than that which the synoptics mention. The words spoken by Jesus and His critics, on the respective occasions, are not the same. That Jesus would cleanse the temple at the beginning of His ministry (as per John) and again at the end of His ministry (as per the synoptics) does not seem peculiar to me...at least no more peculiar than that He would do it only once.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
Matthew and Luke do not actually disagree with Mark about the chronology of the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, and the lesson given when the fig tree was found withered. It is true that, where Mark mentions the passage of successive days, Matthew and Luke tend to simply use the less-specific "then" (Matt.21:12/ Luke 19:45) and "when the disciples saw it..." (21:20). Matthew and Luke do not say that these things all happened on the same day, but neither do they tell us otherwise. For this, we need the more detailed account of Mark.

Matthew and Luke both just use the ubiquitous "and" for their conjunction; even the presence of "then" is a translator's nicety.

Would a reader, prior to the compilation of the bible, been likely to reconstruct the chronology accurately from Matthew or Luke alone? A straightforward reading of the narrative

steve wrote:
That Matthew compresses the story of the fig tree—that is, he mentions the sequel at the same time as reporting the cursing, though these two things happened on successive days—is not hard to deduce. In doing so, he saves the compressed version to be related as a whole at the time of the disciples' discovery of the dead tree. That is, Matthew does not mention the fig tree on the occasion of Jesus' entry to Jerusalem, though that is when Jesus cursed it. Matthew, wishing to focus on the lesson Jesus taught the disciples when they found it withered, the next day, chooses to tell the compressed pericope in that chronological position.

Am I to understand, then, that you feel Matthew is not strictly accurate in his narrative?

[steve7150]

Would a reader, prior to the compilation of the bible, been likely to reconstruct the chronology accurately from Matthew or Luke alone? A straightforward reading of the narrative








Most likely Mark was written first, possibly well before Matt or Luke and possibly since the chronology was already known through Mark that Matt and Luke did'nt find it necessary to verbatim repeat certain time details which they did'nt consider as important as the message.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Would a reader, prior to the compilation of the bible, been likely to reconstruct the chronology accurately from Matthew or Luke alone? A straightforward reading of the narrative

steve7150 wrote:
Most likely Mark was written first, possibly well before Matt or Luke and possibly since the chronology was already known through Mark that Matt and Luke did'nt find it necessary to verbatim repeat certain time details which they did'nt consider as important as the message.

Possibly. One might wonder, then, what details from other sources might not have been considered "important" - and how their omissions might affect our interpretations.

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:
Most likely Mark was written first, possibly well before Matt or Luke and possibly since the chronology was already known through Mark that Matt and Luke did'nt find it necessary to verbatim repeat certain time details which they did'nt consider as important as the message.

Possibly. One might wonder, then, what details from other sources might not have been considered "important" - and how their omissions might affect our interpretations.





You're right that one might wonder and at some point one gets fully persuaded in the integrity of the NT writers or not.

[steve]

Kaufmannphillips wrote:

Would a reader, prior to the compilation of the bible, been likely to reconstruct the chronology accurately from Matthew or Luke alone? A straightforward reading of the narrative

Steve7150 may be correct in his answer, though, prior to the compilation of the scriptures, there might be many readers of Matthew and/or Luke who had never seen Mark's account. My answer would be that the chronological order of the events was apparently not the highest concern of the gospel writers (they deviate from each other in the arrangement of pericopes on many occasions), nor should it be. That readers of Matthew or Luke alone would not understand the omitted details can hardly be said to put them at any significant spiritual disadvantage.

Am I to understand, then, that you feel Matthew is not strictly accurate in his narrative?

Accurate in chronology? Probably not, unless he wished to relate a chronological account and failed to do so accurately. I have no reason to believe that the writers of the gospels—which no doubt functioned as much as sermons as they functioned as biographies—felt compelled to tell every story in its proper sequence any more than would any other preacher whose sermon is laced with miscellaneous biblical stories. For example, if a preacher used the story of David and Goliath, the story of the exodus, and the story of the crucifixion all in the same sermon, I would not think him obligated to use the stories in their proper sequence, unless he is representing his sermon as a chronological account. In general, however, the broad contours of the story are chronological in all the gospels.

[kaufmannphillips]

Steve (not 7150) -

Shall I understand correctly, then, that you are arguing from genre? That is, the gospel as genre is not a historical composition; therefore it is not necessary for it to be historically accurate?

[mattrose]

The Gospels don't fit neatly into any 1 literary genre.

They contain an account of actual history (and so they can be called historical narrative)
They are crafted and shaped to fit the author's intention (and so are theological works)
They contain a multitude of sub-genres (apocalyptic, prophecy, discourse, proverbs, aphorisms, etc)

Historians seem to be telling us that the 1st century world wasn't as interested in sequence/chronology as we are
For them, telling the story out of its actual order was not considered an 'inaccurate' telling of the story
* For the record, I find myself in rare disagreement with Steve on John, I think the author has simply re-ordered the event