Comments on: Did Jesus heal Bartimaeus on his way into or out of Jericho? http://www.errancy.com/into-or-out-of-jericho/ Does the Bible contain contradictions or errors? Biblical inerrancy examined. Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:23:00 +0200 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: WisdomLover http://www.errancy.com/into-or-out-of-jericho/comment-page-1/#comment-323 WisdomLover Sat, 23 May 2009 23:41:48 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=1046#comment-323 I does occur to me that the "between Jerichos" account is not the best fit with the texts for a somewhat different reason. Crowds don't gather in ruins or small villages. All three blind men were healed near a crowd that was accompanying Jesus. So they must have been near the new city of Jericho in all three accounts. If you think about Luke's account, you'll see that Jesus was not leading that crowd (the leaders of that crowd were the people trying to tell the blind man to be quiet). This is what makes sense if he was approaching the city: the crowd came out from the city to meet him and was preceding him back into it. On the other hand, Matthew describes Jesus as leading a following crowd. This is what makes sense if Jesus was leaving the city. I does occur to me that the “between Jerichos” account is not the best fit with the texts for a somewhat different reason. Crowds don’t gather in ruins or small villages. All three blind men were healed near a crowd that was accompanying Jesus. So they must have been near the new city of Jericho in all three accounts. If you think about Luke’s account, you’ll see that Jesus was not leading that crowd (the leaders of that crowd were the people trying to tell the blind man to be quiet). This is what makes sense if he was approaching the city: the crowd came out from the city to meet him and was preceding him back into it. On the other hand, Matthew describes Jesus as leading a following crowd. This is what makes sense if Jesus was leaving the city.

]]> By: Amtiskaw http://www.errancy.com/into-or-out-of-jericho/comment-page-1/#comment-321 Amtiskaw Sat, 23 May 2009 16:42:20 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=1046#comment-321 In this case my suspicion is that he simply misread it. Mark does start by saying they "came to Jericho". In this case my suspicion is that he simply misread it. Mark does start by saying they “came to Jericho”.

]]> By: WisdomLover http://www.errancy.com/into-or-out-of-jericho/comment-page-1/#comment-320 WisdomLover Sat, 23 May 2009 15:48:51 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=1046#comment-320 On #2: Yes, I suppose you could say that Luke is describing their entrance into the newer city of Herodian Jericho, while Mark and Mathew are describing their departure from the ruins of the Old Testament Jericho (around which there was still a small village). Then I would say that there were 2, rather than 3 blind men healed near Jericho. If you go that way, then a single encounter with 2 blind men probably fits all the texts better. My 3 encounters account assumed that word got about on how the first blind man asked for his healing. The other two beggars asked for the healing in the same way hoping for the same result. But if the healing occurred between the old and the new Jericho, then there would be no time for word to get about. You'd still have Mark only mentioning the blind man that he knew by name and Luke following Mark. On #1: We come back to the old argument here. If Luke is simply cribbing from Mark, why would he add a piece of information that he knew to be inconsistent with the very account he's copying? On #2: Yes, I suppose you could say that Luke is describing their entrance into the newer city of Herodian Jericho, while Mark and Mathew are describing their departure from the ruins of the Old Testament Jericho (around which there was still a small village). Then I would say that there were 2, rather than 3 blind men healed near Jericho.

If you go that way, then a single encounter with 2 blind men probably fits all the texts better. My 3 encounters account assumed that word got about on how the first blind man asked for his healing. The other two beggars asked for the healing in the same way hoping for the same result. But if the healing occurred between the old and the new Jericho, then there would be no time for word to get about. You’d still have Mark only mentioning the blind man that he knew by name and Luke following Mark.

On #1: We come back to the old argument here. If Luke is simply cribbing from Mark, why would he add a piece of information that he knew to be inconsistent with the very account he’s copying?

]]> By: Amtiskaw http://www.errancy.com/into-or-out-of-jericho/comment-page-1/#comment-318 Amtiskaw Sat, 23 May 2009 12:23:48 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=1046#comment-318 I should mention the other possible solution: that there were two different places that could be called Jericho. But if so, one might expect the authors to be clearer... I should mention the other possible solution: that there were two different places that could be called Jericho. But if so, one might expect the authors to be clearer…

]]> By: Amtiskaw http://www.errancy.com/into-or-out-of-jericho/comment-page-1/#comment-317 Amtiskaw Sat, 23 May 2009 10:15:31 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=1046#comment-317 It certainly seems like a mistake to me. I know WL will say that these are separate incidents. But Luke has to be getting his info from somewhere, and it seems certain he's read one or both of the other synoptics. It seems unlikely that he's also got some other source that happens to include the precise same words, but places the blind man before Jericho. It certainly seems like a mistake to me. I know WL will say that these are separate incidents. But Luke has to be getting his info from somewhere, and it seems certain he’s read one or both of the other synoptics. It seems unlikely that he’s also got some other source that happens to include the precise same words, but places the blind man before Jericho.

]]>