2 John/Synoptical contradictions
Ed Tyler errancy@infidels.org
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 04:20:07 -0600 (00929719207, 3.0.5.32.19990618042007.007dc810@pop.truman.edu)
At 04:17 AM 6/18/99 -0500, Joseph Crea wrote:
>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.
>
Ed
Guess that shows that Papias was not an inerrantist, at least in the strict
sense of the word.